A case for impeachment

NY Times Editorial:

The classic case of legal audacity is the man who kills his parents and demands sympathy because he is an orphan. A close second is the federal judge who pleads guilty to a crime against the justice system — and then insists on continuing to draw his salary from prison. That is the galling position of Judge Samuel Kent. The House should impeach him if he does not have the good sense to leave office.

Judge Kent, a federal district court judge from Texas, pleaded guilty in February to obstruction of justice for lying to officials who were investigating sexual harassment charges against him. As part of a plea deal, he admitted that he had had nonconsensual sexual contact with two female court employees. He was sentenced to up to 33 months in prison and is scheduled to enter jail next week.

That does not, however, remove him from the bench. Federal judges serve for life, unless they give up their positions or are impeached.

...

I agree that he ought to be impeached, but, then I thought Clinton should be impeached too. He too was guilty of lying in a case of sexual harassment. The parties to a sexual harassment claim are entitled to truthful testimony whether they are a judge or the President.