Chris Huhne Resigns

[Gups]

He was not charged with a driving offence. Not sure why people keep missing this.

I'm pretty sure that if he'd been an ordinary Joe he would have been charged. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

He perverted the course of justice over a petty speeding offence. The pettiness of the original offence highlights his lack of principles.

[Brazen]

Lucky for the coalition Huhne never made Lib Dem leader, though I suspect there may have been rumblings about his dalliances that prevented that.

Irrelevant to the case, but I'm surprised Languish didn't pick up on the fact that Ms Trimingham is bisexual.

[Ed Anger]

Is she now?

Whoops, just saw her pic. Lost interest.

[Razgovory]

Why would you expect that?

Clinton got impeached "for a blow job."

This dude lost his job "for a speeding ticket."

Uh, huh.  Whatever you say.

[Jacob]

Clinton got impeached "for a blow job."

This dude lost his job "for a speeding ticket."

Seems to me the difference is that getting a blow job is not illegal and not anybody else's business (outside the private sphere), whereas driving too fast is in fact illegal and should be dealt with by the authorities according to the law.

Lying about getting a blow job is excusable because you shouldn't be asked about whether you got a blow job to begin with.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, and if the crime in question was, say, armed robbery, and the punishment had been 10 years or so in prison, of course they'd investigate.  But the crime was a traffic offense, and the punishment was 3 point on her driver's license and I assume a small fine.  Would they have bothered if he'd been some unknown everyman, and not a prominent politician?

The crime was perverting the course of justice and, theoretically, can carry a life sentence. They only investigated the speeding offence because that was necessary for the crime they had allegations about. He hasn't received the 3 points on his license, but he could receive prison time (and the judge seemed to hint at that) or a very large fine.

I think they would've bothered if he was unknown.

Seems to me the difference is that getting a blow job is not illegal and not anybody else's business (outside the private sphere), whereas driving too fast is in fact illegal and should be dealt with by the authorities according to the law.

But the issue isn't the speeding. It's getting someone else to take his punishment.

[Admiral Yi]

Seems to me the difference is that getting a blow job is not illegal and not anybody else's business (outside the private sphere), whereas driving too fast is in fact illegal and should be dealt with by the authorities according to the law.

Lying about getting a blow job is excusable because you shouldn't be asked about whether you got a blow job to begin with.

While I disagree with the conclusion that lying under oath is excusable under certain conditions, I do appreciate the fact you engaged with the issue.

[crazy canuck]

Lying about getting a blow job is excusable because you shouldn't be asked about whether you got a blow job to begin with.

Close but no cigar.

If he should not be asked the question then he should have refused to answer on that basis,  rather than lying under oath.

[Sheilbh]

In fairness Huhne didn't lie under oath, it never got that far. Perverting the course of justice (though I've not read up on it) covers things like jury intimidation, fabricating evidence, getting someone to take a charge for you.

I agree with Jacob. I think you could support the impeachment, but it seems reasonable look at the nature of the perjury when considering whether it's a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.

[crazy canuck]

I agree with Jacob. I think you could support the impeachment, but it seems reasonable look at the nature of the perjury when considering whether it's a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.

That is a different test from whether lying under oath is excusable.  It never is.  Your question is different - although inexusable does it rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor or is it something less.

[Sheilbh]

Agreed. But I think the context of the perjury matters in judging whether it's a high crime or misdemeanor.

[crazy canuck]

Agreed. But I think the context of the perjury matters in judging whether it's a high crime or misdemeanor.

You and I are saying the same thing.  My only issue is with the word "excusable".  It is never excusable - the only issue is what penalty should attach.

[Jacob]

I actually agree with you CC and AY that lying under oath is not acceptable excusable. I'm just saying that that's the primary difference between the Clinton affair and Huhne one - what they lied about (a private matter vs breaking the law) and how they came to lie about it (a politically motivated investigation pursuing stuff outside of the public interest vs the facts of law-breaking surfacing without partisan involvement).

I didn't particularly follow American politics at the time of the Clinton impeachment process, nor am I that well versed in the particulars of that process. Should Clinton have been removed from office, but was not due to some sort of corruption or miscarriage of justice? Or was due process followed and Clinton remained in office because lying under oath under these particular circumstances did not warrant removing him?

My impression is that impeachment essentially comes down to "due to these particular transgressions we trigger a vote to remove the president, but whether he should remain in office comes down to the results of that vote"; i.e. the conditions for triggering impeachment, like lying under oath, is not enough to remove a president in and off itself - those conditions also need to change the political enough that the vote in question is lost. Is that accurate, or am I way off?

[Admiral Yi]

Is that accurate, or am I way off?

I'm having trouble figuring out what it means.