Friday, May 13, 2016

The Chittys!!!

 What is the Print Connection of News Today?? State Off Enter Net, Web_burrs And Call_A_See_IM's?? Should I Exit-Only one word as more than two sent articles saying only that an Instant Message is breaking knew ground for acronyms and Vetted to a conversation that makes People know that they have Eight  IM 'R' Eh's and sicks degrees of separation now severely broken???

For logo click connection here:

For pictures click Hear??

Symbionese Liberation Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Symbionese Liberation Army
Participant in the Black Power movement
Symbionese Liberation Army Naga Symbol color.svg
SLA seven-headed cobra symbol
New Left
Donald DeFreeze, aka "General Field Marshal Cinque"
(Died in police shootout May 17, 1974 aged 30)
William Harris, aka "General Teko" (captured in 1975)
HeadquartersSan Francisco and Los Angeles
Area of operationsCalifornia, United States
StrengthNo more than 22
Battles and warsNovember 6, 1973: Murder of Oakland school superintendent Marcus Foster
February 4, 1974: kidnapping of Patty Hearst
April 15, 1974 Hibernia bank robbery
May 16, 1974: Mel's Sporting Goods shot up
May 17, 1974: LA shoot-out; most members are killed
April 21, 1975: Crocker National Bankrobbery
The United Federated Forces of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) was an American self-styled left-wing revolutionary organization active between 1973 and 1975 that considered itself a vanguard army.

Service-level agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
service-level agreement (SLA) is a part of a standardized service contract where a service is formally defined. Particular aspects of the service – scope, quality, responsibilities – are agreed between the service provider and the service user. A common feature of an SLA is a contracted delivery time (of the service or performance). As an example, Internet service providers and telcos will commonly include service level agreements within the terms of their contracts with customers to define the level(s) of service being sold in plain language terms. In this case the SLA will typically have a technical definition in terms of mean time between failures (MTBF), mean time to repair or mean time to recovery (MTTR); identifying which party is responsible for reporting faults or paying fees; responsibility for various data rates; throughput; jitter; or similar measurable details.


A service-level agreement is an agreement between two or more parties, where one is the customer and the others are service providers. This can be a legally binding formal or an informal "contract" (for example, internal department relationships). The agreement may involve separate organizations, or different teams within one organization. Contracts between the service provider and other third parties are often (incorrectly) called SLAs – because the level of service has been set by the (principal) customer, there can be no "agreement" between third parties; these agreements are simply "contracts." Operational-level agreements or OLAs, however, may be used by internal groups to support SLAs. If some aspect of a service has not been agreed with the customer, it is not an "SLA".
SLAs commonly include segments to address: a definition of services, termination of agreement.[1] To ensure that SLAs are consistently met, these agreements are often designed with specific lines of demarcation and the parties involved are required to meet regularly to create an open forum for communication. Contract enforcement (rewards and penalties) should be rigidly enforced, but most SLAs also leave room for annual revisitation so that it is possible to make changes based on new information.[2]
SLAs have been used since late 1980s by fixed line telecom operators as part of their contracts with their corporate customers. This practice has spread such that now it is common for a customer to engage a service provider by including a service level agreement in a wide range of service contracts in practically all industries and markets. Internal departments (such as IT, HR, and real estate) in larger organizations have adopted the idea of using service-level agreements with their "internal" customers — users in other departments within the same organization. One benefit of this can be to enable the quality of service to be benchmarked with that agreed across multiple locations or between different business units. This internal benchmarking can also be used to market test and provide a value comparison between an in-house department and an external service provider.
SLAs are, by their nature, "output" based – the result of the service as received by the customer is the subject of the "agreement." The (expert) service provider can demonstrate their value by organizing themselves with ingenuity, capability, and knowledge to deliver the service required, perhaps in an innovative way. Organizations can also specify the way the service is to be delivered, through a specification (a service level specification) and using subordinate "objectives" other than those related to the level of service. This type of agreement is known as an "input" SLA. This latter type of requirement is becoming obsolete as organizations become more demanding and shift the delivery methodology risk on to the service provider.
Service level agreements are also defined at different levels:
  • Customer-based SLA: An agreement with an individual customer group, covering all the services they use. For example, an SLA between a supplier (IT service provider) and the finance department of a large organization for the services such as finance system, payroll system, billing system, procurement/purchase system, etc.
  • Service-based SLA: An agreement for all customers using the services being delivered by the service provider. For example:
    • A car service station offers a routine service to all the customers and offers certain maintenance as a part of offer with the universal charging.
    • A mobile service provider offers a routine service to all the customers and offers certain maintenance as a part of offer with the universal charging
    • An email system for the entire organization. There are chances of difficulties arising in this type of SLA as level of the services being offered may vary for different customers (for example, head office staff may use high-speed LAN connections while local offices may have to use a lower speed leased line).
  • Multilevel SLA: The SLA is split into the different levels, each addressing different set of customers for the same services, in the same SLA.
    • Corporate-level SLA: Covering all the generic service level management (often abbreviated as SLM) issues appropriate to every customer throughout the organization. These issues are likely to be less volatile and so updates (SLA reviews) are less frequently required.
    • Customer-level SLA: covering all SLM issues relevant to the particular customer group, regardless of the services being used.
    • Service-level SLA: covering all SLM issue relevant to the specific services, in relation to this specific customer group.

Common metrics[edit]

Service level agreements can contain numerous service performance metrics with corresponding service level objectives. A common case in IT service management is a call center or service desk. Metrics commonly agreed to in these cases include:
  • Abandonment Rate: Percentage of calls abandoned while waiting to be answered.
  • ASA (Average Speed to Answer): Average time (usually in seconds) it takes for a call to be answered by the service desk.
  • TSF (Time Service Factor): Percentage of calls answered within a definite timeframe, e.g., 80% in 20 seconds.
  • FCR (First-Call Resolution): Percentage of incoming calls that can be resolved without the use of a callback or without having the caller call back the helpdesk to finish resolving the case.
  • TAT (Turn-Around Time): Time taken to complete a certain task.
  • MTTR (Mean Time To Recover): Time taken to recover after an outage of service.
Uptime is also a common metric, often used for data services such as shared hostingvirtual private servers and dedicated servers. Common agreements include percentage of network uptime, power uptime, number of scheduled maintenance windows, etc.
Many SLAs track to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library specifications when applied to IT services.

Specific example[edit]

Backbone Internet providers[edit]

It is not uncommon for an Internet backbone service provider (or network service provider) to explicitly state its own SLA on its website.[3][4][5] The US Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not expressly mandate that companies have SLAs, but it does provide a framework for firms to do so in Sections 251 and 252.[6] Section 252(c)(1) for example (“Duty to Negotiate”) requires that ILECs negotiate in good faith about matters such as resale and access to rights of way.


web service level agreement (WSLA) is a standard for service level agreement compliance monitoring of web services. It allows authors to specify the performance metrics associated with a web service application, desired performance targets, and actions that should be performed when performance is not met.
WSLA Language Specification, version 1.0 was published by IBM on January 28, 2001.

Cloud computing[edit]

The underlying benefit of cloud computing is shared resources, which is supported by the underlying nature of a shared infrastructure environment. Thus, SLAs span across the cloud and are offered by service providers as a service-based agreement rather than a customer-based agreement. Measuring, monitoring and reporting on cloud performance is based on the end UX or their ability to consume resources. The downside of cloud computing relative to SLAs is the difficulty in determining the root cause of service interruptions due to the complex nature of the environment.
As applications are moved from dedicated hardware into the cloud, they need to achieve the same or even more demanding levels of service than classical installations. SLAs for cloud services focus on characteristics of the data center and more recently include characteristics of the network (see carrier cloud) to support end-to-end SLAs.
Any SLA management strategy considers two well-differentiated phases: negotiating the contract and monitoring its fulfilment in real time. Thus, SLA management encompasses the SLA contract definition: the basic schema with the QoS (quality of service) parameters; SLA negotiation; SLA monitoring; SLA violation detection; and SLA enforcement—according to defined policies.[7]
The main point is to build a new layer upon the grid, cloud, or SOA middleware able to create a negotiation mechanism between the providers and consumers of services. An example is the EU–funded Framework 7 research project, SLA@SOI,[8] which is researching aspects of multi-level, multi-provider SLAs within service-oriented infrastructure and cloud computing, while another EU-funded project, VISION Cloud, has provided results with respect to content-oriented SLAs.[9] FP7 IRMOS also investigated aspects of translating application-level SLA terms to resource-based attributes in an effort to bridge the gap between client-side expectations and cloud-provider resource-management mechanisms.[10][11] [12]
A summary of the results of various research projects in the area of SLAs (ranging from specifications to monitoring, management and enforcement) has been provided by the European Commission.[13]


Outsourcing involves the transfer of responsibility from an organization to a supplier. This new arrangement is managed through a contract that may include one or more SLAs. The contract may involve financial penalties and the right to terminate if any of the SLAs metrics are consistently missed. Setting, tracking and managing SLAs is an important part of the outsourcing relationship management (ORM) discipline. Specific SLAs are typically negotiated up front as part of the outsourcing contract and used as one of the primary tools of outsourcing governance.
In software development, specific SLAs can apply to application outsourcing contracts in line with standards in software quality, and recommendations provided by neutral organizations like CISQ, which has published numerous papers on the topic (such as Using Software Measurement in SLAs) that are available to the public at

Dough_Burr Men Pen_Sirs Or The Ring A_Round The Rose_Seed To dig The Dirt While Pro_Visions Muds A Facial With Smoke_Keen Bundt Cake

Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free ...
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of ... A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him .... We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are ... And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, ...

Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate during the trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right.
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one ofperjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. He was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[1] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.
44 Bill Clinton 3x4.jpgThis article is part of a series about
Bill Clinton

  • Governor of Arkansas

President of the United States

First term

Second term

Signature of Bill Clinton.svg
President of the United States
Independent Counsel Ken Starr turned over documentation to the House Judiciary Committee. The Chief Prosecutor, David Schippers, and his team reviewed the material and determined there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president. As a result, four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; two passed, making Clinton the second United States President to be impeached, and only the third for whom the House had considered such proceedings (Nixon's presidency is the only one to be ended in the wake of the impeachment process).
The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republicans began with 55 senators. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no Democrat voted guilty on either charge. Clinton was acquitted, becoming the second sitting United States President to be formally charged with a crime (impeached) and subsequently declared not guilty (acquitted).

Independent counsel investigation[edit]

The charges arose from an investigation by Independent Counsel Ken Starr. Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of United States Attorney General Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Bill Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In the course of the investigation,Linda Tripp provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with Clinton. At the deposition, the judge rejected the plaintiff's lawyer's definition of the term "sexual relations"[2][3]that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse. Judge Wright then told the attorneys they could be as explicit as necessary in asking their questions.
A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is." Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[4] Starr obtained further evidence of inappropriate behavior by seizing the computer hard drive and email records of Monica Lewinsky. Based on the president's conflicting testimony, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury. Starr submitted his findings to Congress in a lengthy document (the so-calledStarr Report), and simultaneously posted the report on the internet, replete with lurid descriptions of encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky.[5] Starr was criticized by Democrats for spending $70 million on an investigation that substantiated only perjury and obstruction of justice.[6] Critics of Starr also contend that his investigation was highly politicized because it regularly leaked tidbits of information to the press, in violation of legal ethics, and because his report included lengthy descriptions which were humiliating yet irrelevant to the legal case.[7][8]

January 1998 press conference[edit]

File:Response to the Lewinsky Allegations (January 26, 1998) Bill Clinton.ogv
Bill Clinton making a presentation that ends with a short commentary on theMonica Lewinsky scandal. The presentation is known for the quote "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (6:22)

Problems playing these files? See media help.
After rumors of the scandal reached the news, Clinton publicly stated, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." In his Paula Jones deposition, he swore, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her."[9] Months later, Clinton admitted that his relationship with Lewinsky was "wrong" and "not appropriate." Lewinsky engaged in oral sex with Clinton several times.[10][11]

Impeachment by House of Representatives[edit]

Since Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 mid-term elections. Nevertheless, impeachment was one of the major issues in the election.
In November 1998, the Democrats picked up five seats in the House, while the Republicans still maintained majority control.[12]The results were a particular embarrassment for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who, prior to the election, had been reassured by private polling that Clinton's scandal would result in the GOP gaining as many as thirty House seats.[12] Shortly after the elections, Gingrich, who had been one of the leading advocates for impeachment,[13] announced he would resign from Congress as soon as he was able to find somebody to fill his vacant seat;[12] Gingrich fulfilled this pledge and officially resigned from Congress on January 3, 1999.[14]
Impeachment proceedings were initiated during the post-election, "lame duck" session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress. The committee hearings were perfunctory, but the floor debate in the whole House was spirited on both sides. TheSpeaker-designate, Representative Bob Livingston, chosen by the Republican Party Conference to replace Gingrich as House Speaker, announced the end of his candidacy for Speaker and his resignation from Congress from the floor of the House after his own marital infidelity came to light.[15] In the same speech, Livingston also encouraged Clinton to resign. Clinton chose to remain in office and urged Livingston to reconsider his resignation.[16] Many other prominent Republican members of Congress (including Dan Burton[15]of Indiana; Helen Chenoweth[15] of Idaho; and Henry Hyde[15] of Illinois, the chief House manager of Clinton's trial in the Senate) had infidelities exposed around this time, all of whom voted for impeachment. Publisher Larry Flynt offered a reward for such information and many supporters of Clinton accused Republicans of hypocrisy.[15]
Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[17] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).[18] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[19] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).[20] Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. (Clinton was the third sitting president against whom the House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings since 1789. Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixonwere passed by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 and reported to the full House, but Nixon resigned the Presidency before the impeachment resolutions could be considered.)
Five Democrats (Virgil Goode of Virginia, Ralph Hall of Texas, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, Charles Stenholm of Texas, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge. Five Republicans (Amo Houghton of New York, Peter King of New York, Connie Morella of Maryland, Chris Shays of Connecticut, and Mark Souder of Indiana) voted against the first perjury charge. Eight more Republicans (Sherwood Boehlert of New York, Michael Castle of Delaware, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, Jay Kim of California, Jim Leach of Iowa, John McHugh of New York, and Ralph Regula of Ohio), but not Souder, voted against the obstruction charge. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against the second perjury charge, sending it to defeat, and eighty-one voted against the abuse of power charge.

Acquittal by the Senate[edit]

Congressional Recordfrom February 12, 1999 showing end of President Clinton's impeachment trial
Two tickets for Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, January 14–15, 1999
The Senate trial began on January 7, 1999, with Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist presiding. The first day consisted of formal presentation of the charges against President Clinton, and of Chief Justice Rehnquist swearing in all arguants in the trial.
Thirteen House Republicans from the Judiciary Committee served as "managers," the equivalent of prosecutors:
Clinton was defended by Cheryl Mills. Clinton's counsel staff included Charles RuffDavid E. KendallDale BumpersBruce LindseyNicole SeligmanLanny A. Breuer and Gregory B. Craig.[21]
A resolution on rules and procedure for the trial was adopted unanimously on the following day; however, senators tabled the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial. The trial remained in recess while briefs were filed by the House (Jan. 11) and Clinton (Jan. 13).
The managers presented their case over three days, from January 14 to 16, with discussion of the facts and background of the case; detailed cases for both articles of impeachment (including excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony that Clinton had made the previous August); matters of interpretation and application of the laws governing perjury and obstruction of justice; and argument that the evidence and precedents justified removal of the President from office by virtue of "willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice."[22] The defense presentation took place from January 19–21. Clinton's defense counsel argued that Clinton's grand jury testimony had too many inconsistencies to be a clear case of perjury, that the investigation and impeachment had been tainted by partisan political bias, that the President's approval rating of more than 70 percent indicated that his ability to govern had not been impaired by the scandal, and that the managers had ultimately presented "an unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the President from office."[22] January 22 and 23 were devoted to questions from members of the Senate to the House managers and Clinton's defense counsel. Under the rules, all questions (over 150) were to be written down and given to Rehnquist to read to the party being questioned.
On January 25, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia moved for dismissals of both articles of impeachment for lack of merit. On the following day, Rep. Bryant moved to call witnesses to the trial, a question that the Senate had scrupulously avoided to that point. In both cases, the Senate voted to deliberate on the question in private session, rather than public, televised procedure. On January 27, the Senate voted on both motions in public session; the motion to dismiss failed on a nearly party line vote of 56–44, while the motion to depose witnesses passed by the same margin. (In both cases, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the sole Democratic vote in the majority.) A day later, the Senate voted down motions to move directly to a vote on the articles of impeachment and to suppress videotaped depositions of the witnesses from public release, Feingold again voting with the Republicans.
Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On Feb. 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky.
On February 8, closing arguments were presented with each side allotted a three-hour time slot. On the President's behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared: "There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit."[22]
Chief Prosecutor Henry Hyde countered: "A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."[22]
On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds majority, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against.[23] (Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted "not proven,"[24] which was considered by the Chief Justice Rehnquist as a vote of "not guilty.") The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[25]

Senate votes[edit]

Robe worn by Chief Justice William Rehnquist during the proceedings
The perjury charge failed with 45 senators voting "guilty" and 55 senators (45 Democrats and 10 Republicans) voting "not guilty". The obstruction of justice charge failed with 50 senators voting "guilty" and 50 senators (45 Democrats and 5 Republicans) voting "not guilty". In both cases, a two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required for conviction.
The five Republican senators who voted against conviction on both charges were John Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine,Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The additional five Republican senators who voted "not guilty" only on the perjury charge were Slade Gorton of Washington, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Fred Thompson of Tennessee, and John Warner of Virginia.
StateSenatorPartyPerjury charge vote
of Pres. Clinton
Obstruction of justice
charge vote of Pres. Clinton
MichiganSpencer AbrahamRGuiltyGuilty
HawaiiDaniel AkakaDNot guiltyNot guilty
ColoradoWayne AllardRGuiltyGuilty
MissouriJohn AshcroftRGuiltyGuilty
MontanaMax BaucusDNot guiltyNot guilty
IndianaEvan BayhDNot guiltyNot guilty
UtahRobert BennettRGuiltyGuilty
DelawareJoe BidenDNot guiltyNot guilty
New MexicoJeff BingamanDNot guiltyNot guilty
MissouriKit BondRGuiltyGuilty
CaliforniaBarbara BoxerDNot guiltyNot guilty
LouisianaJohn BreauxDNot guiltyNot guilty
KansasSam BrownbackRGuiltyGuilty
NevadaRichard BryanDNot guiltyNot guilty
KentuckyJim BunningRGuiltyGuilty
MontanaConrad BurnsRGuiltyGuilty
West VirginiaRobert ByrdDNot guiltyNot guilty
ColoradoBen Nighthorse CampbellRGuiltyGuilty
Rhode IslandJohn ChafeeRNot guiltyNot guilty
GeorgiaMax ClelandDNot guiltyNot guilty
MississippiThad CochranRGuiltyGuilty
MaineSusan CollinsRNot guiltyNot guilty
North DakotaKent ConradDNot guiltyNot guilty
GeorgiaPaul CoverdellRGuiltyGuilty
IdahoLarry CraigRGuiltyGuilty
IdahoMike CrapoRGuiltyGuilty
South DakotaTom DaschleDNot guiltyNot guilty
OhioMike DeWineRGuiltyGuilty
ConnecticutChris DoddDNot guiltyNot guilty
North DakotaByron DorganDNot guiltyNot guilty
New MexicoPete DomeniciRGuiltyGuilty
IllinoisDick DurbinDNot guiltyNot guilty
North CarolinaJohn EdwardsDNot guiltyNot guilty
WyomingMike EnziRGuiltyGuilty
WisconsinRuss FeingoldDNot guiltyNot guilty
CaliforniaDianne FeinsteinDNot guiltyNot guilty
IllinoisPeter FitzgeraldRGuiltyGuilty
TennesseeBill FristRGuiltyGuilty
WashingtonSlade GortonRNot guiltyGuilty
FloridaBob GrahamDNot guiltyNot guilty
TexasPhil GrammRGuiltyGuilty
MinnesotaRod GramsRGuiltyGuilty
IowaChuck GrassleyRGuiltyGuilty
New HampshireJudd GreggRGuiltyGuilty
NebraskaChuck HagelRGuiltyGuilty
IowaTom HarkinDNot guiltyNot guilty
UtahOrrin HatchRGuiltyGuilty
North CarolinaJesse HelmsRGuiltyGuilty
South CarolinaErnest HollingsDNot guiltyNot guilty
ArkansasTim HutchinsonRGuiltyGuilty
TexasKay Bailey HutchisonRGuiltyGuilty
OklahomaJim InhofeRGuiltyGuilty
HawaiiDaniel InouyeDNot guiltyNot guilty
VermontJim JeffordsRNot guiltyNot guilty
South DakotaTim JohnsonDNot guiltyNot guilty
MassachusettsTed KennedyDNot guiltyNot guilty
NebraskaBob KerreyDNot guiltyNot guilty
MassachusettsJohn KerryDNot guiltyNot guilty
WisconsinHerb KohlDNot guiltyNot guilty
ArizonaJon KylRGuiltyGuilty
LouisianaMary LandrieuDNot guiltyNot guilty
New JerseyFrank LautenbergDNot guiltyNot guilty
VermontPatrick LeahyDNot guiltyNot guilty
MichiganCarl LevinDNot guiltyNot guilty
ConnecticutJoe LiebermanDNot guiltyNot guilty
ArkansasBlanche LincolnDNot guiltyNot guilty
MississippiTrent LottRGuiltyGuilty
IndianaRichard LugarRGuiltyGuilty
FloridaConnie Mack IIIRGuiltyGuilty
ArizonaJohn McCainRGuiltyGuilty
KentuckyMitch McConnellRGuiltyGuilty
MarylandBarbara MikulskiDNot guiltyNot guilty
New YorkDaniel Patrick MoynihanDNot guiltyNot guilty
AlaskaFrank MurkowskiRGuiltyGuilty
WashingtonPatty MurrayDNot guiltyNot guilty
OklahomaDon NicklesRGuiltyGuilty
Rhode IslandJack ReedDNot guiltyNot guilty
NevadaHarry ReidDNot guiltyNot guilty
VirginiaCharles RobbDNot guiltyNot guilty
KansasPat RobertsRGuiltyGuilty
West VirginiaJay RockefellerDNot guiltyNot guilty
DelawareWilliam V. Roth, Jr.RGuiltyGuilty
PennsylvaniaRick SantorumRGuiltyGuilty
MarylandPaul SarbanesDNot guiltyNot guilty
New YorkChuck SchumerDNot guiltyNot guilty
AlabamaJeff SessionsRGuiltyGuilty
AlabamaRichard ShelbyRNot guiltyGuilty
New HampshireRobert C. SmithRGuiltyGuilty
OregonGordon SmithRGuiltyGuilty
MaineOlympia SnoweRNot guiltyNot guilty
PennsylvaniaArlen SpecterRNot proven*Not proven*
AlaskaTed StevensRNot guiltyGuilty
WyomingCraig L. ThomasRGuiltyGuilty
TennesseeFred ThompsonRNot guiltyGuilty
South CarolinaStrom ThurmondRGuiltyGuilty
New JerseyRobert TorricelliDNot guiltyNot guilty
VirginiaJohn WarnerRNot guiltyGuilty
OhioGeorge VoinovichRGuiltyGuilty
MinnesotaPaul WellstoneDNot guiltyNot guilty
OregonRon WydenDNot guiltyNot guilty
Notes: D = Democrat; R = Republican * = Senator Specter announced his vote as "Not proven," a verdict of Scots Law. As this was not an option, his vote was recorded as "not guilty."


Contempt of court citation[edit]

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[26]
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false....[26]
In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel[clarification needed] to end the investigation.[27] Based on this state bar suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar and allowed 40 days to appeal an otherwise-automatic disbarment; Clinton chose to resign during the appeals period.[28]

Civil settlement with Paula Jones[edit]

Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000.[29][30]

Political ramifications[edit]

Polls conducted during 1998 and early 1999 showed that only about one-third of Americans supported Clinton's impeachment or conviction. However, one year later, when it was clear that House impeachment would not lead to the ousting of the President, half of Americans said in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that they supported impeachment but 57% approved of the Senate's decision to keep him in office and two thirds of those polled said the impeachment was harmful to the country.[31]
While Clinton's job approval rating rose during the Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment, his poll numbers with regard to questions of honesty, integrity and moral character declined.[32] As a result, "moral character" and "honesty" weighed heavily in the next presidential election. According to The Daily Princetonian, after the 2000 presidential election, "post-election polls found that, in the wake of Clinton-era scandals, the single most significant reason people voted for Bush was for his moral character."[33][34][35] According to an analysis of the election by Stanford University:
A more political explanation is the belief in Gore campaign circles that disapproval of President Clinton's personal behavior was a serious threat to the vice president's prospects. Going into the election the one negative element in the public's perception of the state of the nation was the belief that the country was morally on the wrong track, whatever the state of the economy or world affairs. According to some insiders, anything done to raise the association between Gore and Clinton would have produced a net loss of support—the impact of Clinton's personal negatives would outweigh the positive impact of his job performance on support for Gore. Thus, hypothesis four suggests that a previously unexamined variable played a major role in 2000—the retiring president's personal approval.[36]
The Stanford analysis, however, presented different theories and mainly argued that Gore had lost because he decided to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign. The writers of it concluded:[36]
We find that Gore’s oft-criticized personality was not a cause of his under-performance. Rather, the major cause was his failure to receive a historically normal amount of credit for the performance of the Clinton administration...[and] failure to get normal credit reflected Gore’s peculiar campaign which in turn reflected fear of association with Clinton's behavior.[36]
According to the America's Future Foundation:
In the wake of the Clinton scandals, independents warmed to Bush's promise to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House.' According to Voter News Service, the personal quality that mattered most to voters was 'honesty.' Voters who chose 'honesty' preferred Bush over Gore by over a margin of five to one. Forty Four percent of Americans said the Clinton scandals were important to their vote. Of these, Bush reeled in three out of every four.[37]
Political commentators, however, have argued that Gore's refusal to have Clinton campaign with him was a bigger liability to Gore than Clinton's scandals.[36][38][39][40][41] The 2000 US Congressional election also saw the Democrats gain more seats in Congress.[42] As a result of this gain, control of the US Senate was split 50-50 between both parties,[43] and Democrats would regain control over the US Senate after Republican Senator Jim Jeffords defected from his party in the spring of 2001 and agreed to caucus with the Democrats.[44]
Al Gore reportedly confronted Clinton after the election, and "tried to explain that keeping Clinton under wraps [during the campaign] was a rational response to polls showing swing voters were still mad as hell over the Year of Monica." According to the AP, "during the one-on-one meeting at the White House, which lasted more than an hour, Gore used uncommonly blunt language to tell Clinton that his sex scandal and low personal approval ratings were a hurdle he could not surmount in his campaign...[with] the core of the dispute was Clinton's lies to Gore and the nation about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky."[45][46][47] Clinton, however, was unconvinced by Gore's argument and insisted to Gore that he would have won the election if he had embraced the administration and its good economic record.[45][46][47]

Ensuing events for 13 House managers[edit]

Of the 13 members of the House who managed Clinton's trial in the Senate, only one lost to a Democrat in his 2000 bid for re-election (James E. Rogan, to Adam Schiff). Charles Canady retired from Congress in 2000, following through on a previous term limits pledge to voters, and Bill McCollum ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate. Asa Hutchinson, after being re-elected in 2000, left Congress after being appointed head of the Drug Enforcement Administration by President George W. Bush. In 2014 Hutchinson was elected governor of Arkansas. In 2002, two former House managers lost their seats after redistricting placed them in the same district as another incumbent (Bob Barr lost to John Linderin a Republican primary, and George Gekas lost to Democrat Tim Holden), while two more ran for the U.S. Senate (Lindsey Graham successfully, Ed Bryant unsuccessfully). The other five remained in the House well into the 2000s (decade), and two (Jim Sensenbrenner and Steve Chabot) are still members (although Chabot lost his seat to Steve Driehaus in the 2008 elections; Chabot defeated Driehaus in a 2010 rematch). In 2009, Sensenbrenner served again as a manager for the impeachment of Judge Samuel B. Kent of Texas[48] as well as serving in 2010 as Republican lead manager in the impeachment of Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. of Louisiana.[49]