By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 20 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The House on Friday impeached a federal judge imprisoned for lying about sexual assaults of two women, in the first such vote since impeaching former President Bill Clinton a decade ago. The impeachment of U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of Texas sets up a trial in the Senate. Kent is the first federal judge impeached in 20 years.

The House approved four articles of impeachment against Kent accusing him of sexually assaulting two female employees and lying to judicial investigators and Justice Department officials. All four articles passed unanimously.

"The conduct at issue here is both shocking and shameful," Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said at the start of the debate.

Kent, 59, entered a federal prison in Massachusetts on Monday to serve a 33-month sentence. He pleaded guilty last month to lying to judicial investigators about sexual assaults of two female employees.

Kent is refusing to resign until next year so he can continue to draw his $174,000 a year salary. If he is convicted of the impeachment charges in the Senate, he will be forced off the bench.

When contacted for comment, Kent's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, cited an earlier statement in which he said Kent's troubles might be enough for impeachment in the House but would not produced conviction in the Senate.

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said he was not unsympathetic to Kent, who has said he has suffered depression since his first wife's death and had problems with alcohol abuse. But Smith said Kent does not have the right to continue as a federal judge and collect his salary.

"It is now time for justice: justice for the American people who have been exploited by a judge who violated his oath of office," Smith said.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, sat in the chamber early in the debate. Hastings was acquitted of bribery charges as a federal judge, but later impeached by the House in 1988. The Senate convicted him on similar impeachment charges.

The Senate found Clinton not guilty on his impeachment charges.

As part of his plea bargain, Kent admitted that he tried to force Cathy McBroom, his former case manager, into unwanted sex acts in 2003 and 2007, and did the same with Donna Wilkerson, his secretary, from 2004 through at least 2005.

The Associated Press does not normally name alleged victims of sexual abuse. But McBroom's lawyer and her family have used her name publicly in discussing the case. Wilkerson knew her lawyer gave her name to reporters during Kent's trial. Both women also testified before the House committee.

He must participate alcohol-abuse program while in prison. He also was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $6,550 in restitution to the secretary and case manager whose complaints resulted in the first sex abuse case ever against a sitting federal judge.

Kent was nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush and has served since 1990.

Birds of feather apparently.

How could they not impeach him? I believe a judge should be held to higher standard than commoners.

yep....guess it just shows politicians (or at least an example)

alcoholism strikes again.....

And "we the people" allow such mockeries.... Just goes to show how much of the government actually works for us....

And we say "ENOUGH!" when?

I've lost my job for going to jail and it wasn't even for a real crime, just telling the judge to "kiss my a$$". This guy still wants paid! And he admitted guilt!

I want that kind of job security!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think they might be being a bit lenient on this case. He should be held to a higher standard than every day folks, he is in a position of power.

I don't know how they make the correlation between Clinton and him though. Clinton was not having forced sex with anyone.

Maybe that they both committed perjury by lying about sex?

In Clinton's case lying about it meant almost nothing. It wasn't our business who he was having of age mutual sex with. In the judges case he was committing a crime so his lies were the covering of a crime.

"The House approved four articles of impeachment against Kent accusing him of sexually assaulting two female employees and lying to judicial investigators and Justice Department officials. All four articles passed unanimously."

it says he was accused of sexual assault...not convicted...but he was impeached for lying about it

In a legal sense maybe not, but ethically you have to say that it was wrong for the president to have sex with an intern. The crime didn't occure until he lied about it.

It was still sexual assault, Clinton did not sexually assault anyone. By accusation or conviction.

Lying for Clinton should have never happened because we should have never investigated mutual of age sex.

he was ACCUSED...NOT found guilty. Innocent until proven guilty. he was impeached for not disclosing the accusations

as far as Clinton....it's all in the wording...what if those other women decided to say they were forced? But Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants...and with the intern...it was our business IMO because it was cheating and on tax payers time in the white house

In cheating cases with of age mutual sex it is only the wife/husband's business. It is not the publics business. We need to mind our own business when it comes to of age mutual sex for adults no matter what they do for a living.

In cases of criminal activity, pediphylia, sexual assault, etc... it is the publics business.

again...innocent until proven guilty. there is no proof that he did commit any crime except lying

impeachment for Clinton came about due to a lawsuit brought against him of unwanted, crude sexual advances. not much different than in the case of the OP.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

the lawsuit and other things are the reason he was questioned and he lied

Well that was a nice turn of words on your part. The initial case was not carried through on but settled. And then Kenneth Star started a circus with Tripp to waste our tax dollars to investigate mutual sexual activity with of age parties. They wasted millions of our dollars to find out that there was mutual sex between two adults that was not sexual assault or any criminal activity.

It was a very expensive sham of an investigation and there were a whole slew of Americans who hated that fact they wasted our tax dollars on that sham.

love it....you are missing the point of those were the reasons for the Grand Jury....whether or not they were true. and no one can tell me he didn't know the "definition" with his education and ummmmm experience

same with the OP....they ar accusations...he has NOT been found guilty of them. but because of this...the grand Jury was convened and he lied.


excuse me....the judicial investigators

Yea, well the similarity is really not there.


Starrs sham of an investigation was a waste of our time and money.

At least this one sounds like it is not a witch hunt.