Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Report: Admiral's affair included sex at White House(1990)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 02:22 PM
Original message
Report: Admiral's affair included sex at White House(1990)
Source: CNN

A Navy admiral engaged in sexual relations in the White House in 1990 with a federal employee whom he falsely told he was a widower, according to a report released Friday by the Defense Department.

In March, when the report was submitted to Pentagon officials, Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem was demoted and fired from his post as director of the Navy staff.

Stufflebeem told investigators he couldn't remember the name of the woman he had an affair with. He also lied when he told investigators he did not engage in sexual relations with the woman, identified as "Jane Doe," the Defense Department's inspector general's report said.

Jane Doe, who was then unmarried and working for a federal agency, told the investigators the allegations were true, the report said. Her supervisor and Stufflebeem's superiors supported her testimony.

-----

Jane Doe told investigators that she and Stufflebeem began their affair on an overseas trip in 1989, that the married admiral told her he was a widower who was raising his children as a single parent and that they had sexual relations several times, including once in a White House room reserved for "military aides with overnight duties."



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/09/admiral.affair/index.html





So, will we hear the affairs of Jeff Gannon at the WH oh say by 2028?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Laughing Mirror Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Is there a law against having sex at the White House?
What law has Stufflebeem broken?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No law - but it is generally frowned upon to be having sex
inside your workplace. Though we know that taboo is broken in many different types of workplaces. Sure got Bill in to a big mess!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. It was the lying that did him in. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. He wasn't hauled before the court for lying. He was hauled before that court
for the sole purpose of vilifying him in the eyes of the public with their despicable, supercharged MSM "noise-machine" and a credulous public, to which you appear to belong.

When he had not broken any law, why should he have had to reveal information concerning his intimate private life before the whole world - and, if you please, as a national President! He was a serial adulterer. Bad, but it happens, even among Presidents. Almost certainly, especially among Presidents and politicians.

The possessors of the most worldly intelligence and desires tend to gravitate very heavily towards sinfulness in other areas. It is in the nature of sin, when finding a human-being vulnerable in one area, to make them vulnerable in others. And while it is a mistake to believe that adultery is a kind of self-contained matter, which harms no-one but the families concerned, compared to the Mammon-worship, general lust for power and cynical employment of it to affect millions, if not billions of souls across the planet, adultery is relatively insignificant. And certainly no business of anyone's outside the families concerned. Above all the adulterous politician's political opponents and the whole world via their good offices.

Why am I having to exlain this to you? Is it rocket science, or indeed an arcane and abstruse area of theology? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patriot Abroad Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Stufflebeem was President?

Must have missed that one. Probably while I was sitting my "Byzantine Theology and Thermodynamics" course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
othermeans Donating Member (858 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Not exactly. The impeachment may well have been coerced by a hypocritical Congress but
theImpeachment concerned two basic charges. That “the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky,” and, “the president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.” According to the Impeachment document, by doing this, “William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

Clearly, the weight of evidence proves Clinton was guilty. The problem is, was he guilty enough? Did his actions meet the Constitutional obligation that Presidents be removed only for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?" The first two requirements are clear enough, based on the evidence, Clinton is innocent of the treason and bribery aspects. This leaves the last or the “catch all” requirement. The question comes down to the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. While the first two aspects are easy to define and understand, the third is a matter of judgment. It is significant that the Framers put the power to impeach into the hands of the legislative branch, rather than the judicial branch. This allows Congress to exercise its judgement on whether the offense warrants impeachment. While the judicial branch is somewhat constrained in its action by legal precedents, the legislative branch is not so fettered. As Gerald Ford said during the Nixon Watergate hearings, the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is, “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Precisely! Which makes Clinton's lying academic, and condemnation of it
Edited on Sun May-11-08 07:28 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
a case of his enemies (not least, on here) wanting to have their cake and eat it: not having had to meet judicial norms in the matter of charging him, but having wanted to condemn him on that basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. I was talking about Stufflebeem nt
Edited on Sat May-10-08 08:46 PM by hack89
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. The Navy is incredibly strict about adultery
Remember that woman pilot they grounded and demoted because she had an affair while she was still married, even if she later got a divorce?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSinTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. Yes. It's a violation of Article 134, Uniformed Code of Military Justice
Applies only to Commissioned and Warrant Officers who fraternize with enlisted persons. Punishable by up to two years of confinement plus loss of pay and dismissal from service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. the military persecutes adultry up the wazoo. against the general
good of the services having people cheating. morale and crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Director of the naval Staff?
Hmmmm?

Jeff Gannon would be envious indeed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I know my Staff could definitely benefit from a bit of "direction".
When it starts thinking for itself, Trouble will invariably follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Penance Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Paricularly being a Rear Admiral and all
Gannon would have loved to have been a seamen swabbing the deck of his ship. :D

In the Navy, the jokes write themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. Gannon is especially attracted to REAR admirals, from what I've read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. What a name for someone accused of this sort of thing...
Wonder if he ever met up with Gannon/Guckert on those overnight WH trysts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. Geez, What Did This Guy Do to Piss off the Junta?
Edited on Sat May-10-08 03:40 PM by Crisco
Someone tried to get him investigated in 1999, and again last year. Hmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. He fucked around.
Literally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dem2theMax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. "did not engage in sexual relations with the woman"
Now where have we heard THAT phrase before?

The timing of this report is SO GOP.

Now be a good sheep. Think of Bubba and how bad (in their minds) he was. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
Stir the pot how many years later? And don't forget. Bubba is married to Hillary.

There, job done. New report tied to Bubba, tied to Hillary, makes her look bad.

Isn't the GOP great? LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. This took place in 1990...
how can that be tied to the Clintons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vogon_Glory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Don't underestimate r/wing ingenuity & determination. They'll find a way! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinymontgomery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. So really this sex stuff reallly started under
the bush 1 regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Actually I think sex goes back a bit farther than that.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSinTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. Adam & Eve perhaps?
That was funny :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
26. LOL! But every generation thinks they invented it.
They certainly don't like to acknowledge that their PARENTS did such things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. "he couldn't remember the name of the woman he had an affair with"
GOP-CRS disease, or a genuine boorish cad? Of course, he could very easily be both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patriot Abroad Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. Give the guy a break . . .
He grew up with the name Stufflebeem.

On a more serious note, This was a scummy action by a man in a position of authority, but I think it should be investigated and dealt with as a private matter, and not something to take up large amounts of space on the DU front page . . .

Whenever 20 year old scandals break, I wonder just what is being hidden from us in the present on the same day . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
17. Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem
that can't really be anybody's name and title, can it?

heh heh they said REAR admiral STUFFLEBEEM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
25. was this with Jeff Gannon..maybe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC