House Democrats Agree, Lying to investigators about sex an impeachable offense

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/06/house_impeaches_imprisoned_fed.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Sound familiar?

Yes there is a difference between consensual and assault, but one of the charges is solely about lying to investigators. Hmmm.

I would think being jailed is an automatic impeachment, but I digress.

Also, you think that lying about a private affairs is equal to covering up a crime?

The sexual assaults might have played some small role as well....

Hence the first and second articles, but not the third and fourth.

I'm not saying it, the House did though.

If they're going to do it at all, they may as well be thorough.

I don't know how "private" it was, since it happened in a workplace, between a subordinate and her superior...


If the same story played out at a McDonalds, at least one of them would have been fired.

Perjury is perjury whether it is about private affairs, crimes or whether you shave your who-who while under oath.

Getting impeached is not the same as getting removed, as I'm sure Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton will both tell you.

Actually, it's probably better not to shave it while under oath...

​

You don't think the man's office is "private"? There is a door and one has to get the door open to see inside what goes on. If the door isn't open, no one is going to see what goes on in that office unless one or both parties say something.
And if A says it didn't happen and B says it did, how are you going to know who is telling the truth?
That would be true at McDonald's or the White House.

I agree. However, I do believe there are questions that should not have to be answered, very personal and private questions like "how often do you have sex" and "with whom do you have sex?" unless the charge is that one of those people was underage at the time. I know all this alludes to the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing, but I thought it then and I think it now (and I was a hardcore Republican then!), in a case like that, what Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did was between them, Hillary, and God, and it is not the business of the United States to know the rest.

J.

When the private conduct is Germain to a trial, yes.

when you lie under oath while being deposed for said trial...that's a crime.

And what Jones was accusing Clinton of WAS sexual assault under the law.

Normally I would agree, but didn't Monica open her mouth and brag about it to someone other than Bill or Hillary or God?
And wasn't that the person who told the prosecutor and thus get the incident introduced into evidence?
Which was when Bill LIED about it happening?

I think it was the old hag friend of Monica's that wore the glasses that spilled the beans.

Yeah, most people would see some difference there. Just a tiny little difference, but still, eh?

Hmmm indeed.