Oakleaf Mirror has a point. Clinton lied under oath - a time when he promised, on penalty of law, to tell the truth. The lie was in answer to a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place, but it was, technically, a violation of the law.
Bush seems to have lied about far more important things. But he didn't break the law in doing so. And presidential impeachment is about dealing with violations of the law.
On top of this, they're doing their best to get the laws changed, so they won't be in violation of them.
Now, Ashcroft REFUSING TO ANSWER a Congressional hearing, that I don't understand. He should be held in contempt of Congress, either fined the $100 or held for a month in jail (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/192.html).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Bush seems to have lied about far more important things. But he didn't break the law in doing so. And presidential impeachment is about dealing with violations of the law.
no subject
Now, Ashcroft REFUSING TO ANSWER a Congressional hearing, that I don't understand. He should be held in contempt of Congress, either fined the $100 or held for a month in jail (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/192.html).