dayman

Breaking News More: Officials say they don't believe FBI investigation into Broadwell will result in criminal charges - @NBCNewsnbcnews.to/Z0kZlP

Breaking News FBI investigating Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell for improperly trying to access his email, officials tell@NBCNews

CNN just reported there was an "FBI probe" into the affair for some period of time lol...jesus http://www.newsmax.c...11/09/id/463573 Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — The resignation of David H. Petraeus as CIA director followed an FBI investigation of many months, raising the question of why he was not forced out until after the election. In his letter of resignation, Petraeus cited an extra-marital affair he had been having. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Petraeus said in his letter to President Obama. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.” Petraeus, who had a distinguished military career, revealed no additional details. However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011. The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan. The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him. Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk. Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus. At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment. Neither Petraeus nor the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs had any immediate comment. FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11. The CIA ‘s reporting to Congress included a claim that protests over a YouTube video played a role in the attacks, thus allowing Obama to initially discount the possibility that the U.S. had suffered another terrorist attack just before the election. In contrast, based on real time video and reports, the State Department was reporting that the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was terrorist-related. The State Department reported that there were no protests at the consulate. Still, the FBI, Justice Department, and the White House held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election. FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged. “The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.” Michael Kortan, the FBI’s assistant director for public affairs, said he had no comment.

I voted yes just to add a yes. Seriously though, I mean I would find it ridiculous and that the terrorists won and we went too far, but if it was mandatory and I had to fly...wtf else would I do besides bend over?

...nothing...just seems like...I mean to have done something and then decide "I should just resign now"...weird stuff and unexpected is all I'm saying. Could easily be a personal decision he felt he had to resign b/c of.

Maybe someone could have used it as leverage? Maybe there is more to it? http://usnews.nbcnew...tal-affair?lite By Andrea Mitchell and Robert Windrem, NBC News CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday, citing an extramarital affair and "extremely poor judgment." As first reported by NBC News and in a letter released to the CIA work force on Friday afternoon, Petraeus disclosed the affair, and wrote: "Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours." Petraeus told President Obama of his affair and offered his resignation during a meeting on Thursday, a senior official told NBC News. In a phone on Friday, Obama accepted the resignation. In a letter released to the CIA work force on Friday afternoon, Petraeus disclosed the affair, and wrote: "Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours." President Obama "graciously accepted my resignation," he wrote. Petraeus was appointed CIA director in April 2011, replacing Leon Panetta, who moved to the Pentagon to become defense secretary. Petraeus served as commander of the war in Afghanistan in 2010-2011. Because of that role, he was seen as bringing a “customer’s eye” to the intelligence job. Before that, he served as commander of the U.S. Central Command and as the commanding general of U.S. forces in Iraq. Multiple sources tell NBC News that Mike Morrell, the deputy CIA director and a longtime CIA officer, would likely be offered the job as acting director but with the understanding that he may be elevated to the job permanently at some point. That's how George Tenet got the job, first as deputy director in July 1995, then acting director following the resignation of John Deutch in December 1996 and finally as director in July 1997, staying on in the Bush Administration. Morrell is a longtime CIA analyst and was an eyewitness to two of the most momentous events in recent U.S. history. He was traveling with President George W. Bush on Sept. 11, 2001, as the president's briefer, and was in the Situation Room on May 1, 2011, as deputy CIA Director, when Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden. Here is the full text of Petraeus' letter: HEADQUARTERS Central Intelligence Agency 9 November 2012 Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation. As I depart Langley, I want you to know that it has been the greatest of privileges to have served with you, the officers of our Nation's Silent Service, a work force that is truly exceptional in every regard. Indeed, you did extraordinary work on a host of critical missions during my time as director, and I am deeply grateful to you for that. Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life's greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing. I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end. Thank you for your extraordinary service to our country, and best wishes for continued success in the important endeavors that lie ahead for our country and our Agency. With admiration and appreciation, David H. Petraeus

Boehner just spoke, gist of it was "I want to keep my options open," and "tax reform to get new revenue" and never used "revenue neutral" ... As for "coming out of nowhere" it's b/c you had to have the election first...it's that simple... As for letting it kick it...it almost certainly will for a bit...anything that deals with it in late January or early February can be made retroactive as many policy analysts have said...also with the election Obama now as new leverage and if he just lets the the tax cuts expire then all the sudden he has even more leverage b/c now whatever they do will be lowering taxes...the "Obama tax cuts and tax reform" and obviously Boehner won't let it go w/ out the "Obama spending cuts."...at least some guy on POTUS channel was talking about it that way the other day...makes sense he had me convinced it will kick in and Boehner said it won't be dealt with in lame duck (I think) Anyway....this saga will be over covered by the media as if it's the end of the world but the bottom line is there will be something by next February and likely a more comprehensive plan by the end of next year that sets things up for a while... Also I haven't read Woodard's book...I wonder if there is anything better at this point out sort of forward looking as opposed to backwards looking...I would like to get something....

3rd, as kindly as I can from me to you I ask you, please...please just approach Obama as a man who you disagree with politically...but not as the man certain personalities would have you believe he is. He is not trying to intentionally raise prices on us...it is true that he is focused on new energy sources and conservation, however there is not some conspiracy to spike the price of gas at the same time he is desperately trying (however much you may disagree with his methods) to get the economy going. It is probably true he does not see the future of energy the same way a few really pro-oil guys do, but he's not trying to spike our price at the pump. And there really isn't a whole lot any policy of his could do to lower our gas prices.

President isn't the God of oil and gas prices. In late 2008 prices were low and going down b/c world demand was dropping due to crash.

I guess when you get 5 House Seats for a Billion dollars people raise some eyebrows. http://www.bloomberg...e-of-money.html The Republican strategist created the model for outside money groups that raised and spent more than $1 billion on the Nov. 6 elections -- many of which saw almost no return for their money. Rove, through his two political outfits, American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, backed unsuccessful Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney with $127 million on more than 82,000 television spots, according to Kantar Media’s CMAG, an ad tracker based in New York. Down the ballot, 10 of the 12 Senate candidates and four of the nine House candidates the Rove groups supported also lost their races. The results have angered some Republicans who blame Rove for “sidelining conservatives” and diverting money from them. “Right now there is stunned disbelief that Republicans fared so poorly after all the money they invested,” said Brent Bozell, president of For America, an Alexandria-based nonprofit that advocates for Christian values in politics. “If I had 1/100th of Karl Rove’s money, I would have been more productive than he was.” Donald Trump posted a message on Twitter saying: “Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.”

Haha, look I'm not going to argue with you about this you can think whatever you want. For the most part, it's pretty obvious that VP picks are attempts to round out a ticket in some way. Cheney was in charge of finding Bush a VP, and ended up being the VP. So you can look at that however you want.

Of course it's political that's what I thought we were discussing here. That's his value, VP on a ticket, pray to God Huntsman lives. We can go on and pretend VPs are picked solely as the second most qualified person be President from the party...but we would just be pretending.

I think Bachman found out he spoke Mandarin and had him blacklisted. Agree though, Huntsman good GOP candidate IMO. It makes the laugh when people talk about "we need Rubio"...Rubio is terrible and when people learn more about him they'll realize that. Maybe he could work as a VP pick. He's no President.

Mitt should have played it like this: https://www.youtube....h?v=n3OBCzVTYkM

do you need traditional manual trans or will a automatic w/ the hybrid manual feature work?

because babies man, babies We really don't need abortion debate in this topic so please edit your post

free love man, not judging

you asked...

don't leave out the part where you proceeded to engage w/ no condom ...

While I like Rob's list this should be on it. This is important. There are "very" right wing people, and "very" left wing people...but the attitude of the tea party and the "we're always right and we won't compromise and the other side are moochers, parasites, and idiots" won't woo any new followers. Republicans will have to understand that there are a lot of non-moochers who have been voting Democratic lately...and they don't like being called idiots and moochers by what has become a group of angry finger pointers. The tone of the discourse and approach to government generally needs to wind down a bit.

Without nationalizing it it just won't do much. Alaska produces more gas than they can ever use and the price at the pump is about $4...

Well I wouldn't call it "changing" or "living" it's just clear that there are some vague concepts that are ideas...or values...embodied in the constitution. These values do not change or evolve necessarily. But you must apply them to new situations as they come up. The question then is what approach do you take to do this. If you think that at the time of the framing there was wide consensus among all who signed/contributed to it as to what exactly the establishment clause, the freedom of speech, "liberty," ...what all that meant and that you can know this through an extensive historical view...then you can be my guest. I just think that all things considered the people who sit on the Supreme Court are appointed and hold that position for a reason...they have an understanding of what those values are and how the document works and they apply that understanding to the cases before them. They are not IMO appointed b/c they know what the "correct history" was as too the exact meaning of various things as of the 18th century to a group of people who disagreed on many issues and compromised a working document. edit: And that isn't to say that sometimes history is not one of the tools that should be used along with others

Worthy of debate but not absurd. Regulating things substantially affecting interstate commerce and the things necessary to prevent that authority from being undercut...as modern society grows closer this naturally means that the federal government will become more expansive. But it's inherent in our constitution that this is the case. They did not try to conceive all the wild possibilities of future commerce. They recognized a principle that there will be issues, and state protectionism was certainly one of them (probably thought by many at the time to be an "unreasonable" prohibition on state sovereignty itself). But there it is, in the constitution. Obviously the history of the development of this clause was a bit crazy...but that's OUR history. It doesn't mean that each policy is wise, or that oppressive policies cannot be enacted under this power. But the Constitution isn't a shield against oppressive federal policy. It's a shield against unconstitutional overreach. It's a fuzzy line and we struggle with it. I wouldn't be shocked if something happens where we swing a little more conservative with it in the next 10 years...and I wouldn't mind. But my point stands, to say that we have constructively abolished state sovereignty is I think overly dramatic. As for the divisive politics question. The short answer is yes. Our politics are more superficially divisive right now than anything else and largely for political reasons IMO. There have been much worst substantive differences in the past. Obviously there are some real differences but the commerce clause is not the reason Congress is gridlocked.

Well now that you mention the 10th amendment it got some love w/ that Medicaid holding (for whatever weight it carries). So it is still popping up in meaningful ways that some governors find helpful. And there are commerce cases, while rare, that reverse the trend. So IDK about "all but abolished." And in any event, even Scalia will concede that interstate commerce is quite a different matter today that it was then. The founders had no interstate highway system w/ trucks, or fed-ex plains, and certainly no internet. The idea that federalism, in modern times is inherently weakened as the course of history connects us more, isn't something I see as abolishing the basic bargain in the constitution. To be sure I think there are some issues, most notably in regulatory law and the deference agencies get interpreting their statutes and promulgating more rules that apply to very new areas of concern (relative to the founders day)..and it's always easy to find someone battling with the EPA, or even a more straightforward commerce clause issue like what most people thought the ACA would have originally been. But to say that it is not perfect and we are struggling with it, does not IMO mean we have abolished federalism. That's a bit dramatic for my taste.

Well that's good enough for me to vote you in Congress as a conservative re: tax negotiation. My basic point was just that I don't like the idea that any growth not occurring was a result only of the time limit. But ultimately the reason I feel that way is basically b/c I agree tax policy is over emphasized by some conservatives as to the economy and growth specifically.