The New York Times carries a short editorial today titled "A Clear Case for Impeachment." The editorial concerns a federal district judge from Texas, Samuel Kent, whom the Times reports "has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for lying to officials who were investigating sexual harrassment charges against him." The Times goes on to say that he should be impeached immediately by the Congress because, as the editorial states, "He has violated his oath to uphold the law." In the view of the paper's editorial board, a lawyer or judge who undermines the system of justice deserves no sympathy.

That is all well stated, except for one nagging doubt: Isn't this the same crime of which Bill Clinton was accused? President Clinton, as readers will recall, was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath to a grand jury in a sexual harrassment case that had been filed against him. The President, as he even acknowledged, was guilty of perjury. In that case, the Times took the view that it was not Clinton who was in the wrong but rather his accusers who had gone over the line in turning a private matter into a public crisis. President Clinton, the paper said, was standing up to the "right wing" against attempts to politicize the justice system. There was no hand-wringing about "undermining the system of justice" in that case within the precincts of the paper's editorial offices. That was, in their view, a no-holds-barred political struggle between the sainted Democrats and the evil Republicans.

The Times has by this point established such a clear partisan paper trail that their editorialists cannot even stand up for a simple principle without contradicting themselves with the various double standards they have established. Is it any wonder why some Republicans are quietly cheering the countdown to the paper's bankruptcy?