They finally did it, voted for impeachment.
On page 12 of section A, in a one paragraph "article, the NY Times reports that the US house of representatives has voted to impeach.
Sorry. We're not talking about Bush or Cheney or anyone else related to them -- not John Yoo, not Donald Rumsfeld or Scooter Libby or Karl Rove...
No. They unanimously voted to impeach a Texas judge who was convicted of sexual abuse of two women. The Times very briefly explained,
"The House unanimously approved four impeachment articles to remove the judge, Samuel B. Kent, from the bench in Federal District Court in Galveston, Tex."
Okay. It's bad to engage in sexual abuse. But it's a bit ironic that this august body could unanimously deal with a sex crime but not with massive war crimes against humanity.
And how about that NY Times, boldly reporting an impeachment on page 12 of section A, in one paragraph. How noble of them. I guess impeachment is such an everyday occurrence they feel it is not worth mentioning.
Now the senate will prosecute the case against this judge, who uses his bi-polar and depressive illness as his defense.
Ironic that sexual misbehavior is treated worth than torture, murder, lies that lead to war, illegal spying... no, not ironic, insane.
What defense do the unanimous members of the house have? Feh!
crossposted from OpEdNews.com