Democrats in 1999: It's just Sex; Democrats in 2012: It's just Dead People

In 1999, not one House Democrat voted to impeach Bill Clinton; not one Senate Democrat voted to convict him. None of them, however, could deny that Clinton committed the felony of lying under oath to a grand jury. They had to create a new argument. What did they do? They shifted the argument away from perjury and over to what the lie was about - sex.

The narrative took hold among Democratic voters and a liberal media. Suddenly, holding a president accountable for lying under oath was something to be derided if the lie was about what could be portrayed as minor. Lawlessness was acceptable if you were a Democrat and if the substance of your crime could be diminished. Democrats couldn't deny Clinton committed a felony so they decided to impugn the motives of those who prosecuted it. The problem with the liberal logic applied to Clinton's situation is that there are not degrees of perjury. When you're under oath, it doesn't matter if you lie about sex or murder; the lie itself is the offense and it is a felony.

Speaking of murder, the Democrats find themselves in another battle over Democratic leaders - in this case, Attorney General Eric Holder and his underlings - committing perjury about an operation in which hundreds of Mexican nationals and one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry) were murdered. Holder perjured himself on May 3, 2011 when he told the House Judiciary Committee that he had only learned about Fast and Furious a 'few weeks' earlier; his Department lied in a February 4, 2011 letter to Congress and had to retract it; and just this week, Holder had to retract a statement he made to the Senate Judiciary last week.

These lies demand accountability.

If Bill Clinton was let off the hook for perjury because of the substance (sex) at the heart of the charge, why isn't Eric Holder being held accountable for perjury by the Democrats when the substance of his perjury involves murder? Are we to excuse Holder because his lies are just about an operation that led to hundreds of dead people?

Such a notion should send chills down your spine because it would make such Democrats nothing short of wicked.

It would seem that the technique used by the Democrats with Clinton would be dangerous territory today but that's only if the Republicans are willing to fight tooth and nail without worrying about political considerations. Lying about a murderous program cannot be as easily diminished as can lying about sex, can it? Nonetheless, Democrats appear to be lining up in much the same way that they did with Clinton. In the House Oversight Committee, the vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress passed but, like with Clinton's impeachment, not one Democrat voted for it, despite having in their possession the demonstrably false February 4th letter signed by then Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.

The contempt hearing only tangentially involved perjury; it was about the Justice Department handing over documents related to that demonstrably false letter. What led to its crafting and what led to its retraction? Democrats don't want you to know what's in them. The reason is simple. They have a good idea about what they reveal - a coverup and blood on the hands of high ranking Obama administration officials.

Those documents are also quite likely to reveal multiple instances of perjury from Holder, as well as other officials who have testified in front of Congressional Committees about Fast and Furious.

The inability of the Democrats to hold the Attorney General accountable for lying to Congress about a murderous operation indicates that the reasons given for not voting to impeach and convict Clinton are rendered invalid, using liberal logic. If lying under oath is ok as long as what you lie about is trivial, aren't they necessarily saying that what Holder is lying about is trivial by not holding him in contempt?

That would make lying about murder... trivial.