Monday, January 11, 1999 -- New York/Washington -- Well, the Senate has been sworn in -- which means it's time for the Washington Insiders, appalled that Bill Clinton is not one of them and actually cares more about American citizens than inside-the-Beltway games, to put Clinton on trial in the media. And what better place to present opening arguments than the Sunday "public affairs" shows, with Tim Russert leading the persecution case by tampering with six senate jurors.

Here's how it played...

Fox News Sunday

FNS opened with the image of the House Manager "Crips" marching into the well of the Senate. Thanks for the reminder, Tony.

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was the first guest, and together with the FNS panel (Mara Liasson and Brit Hume, with Mort Kondracke subbing for Juan Williams), he spent most of the time spinning the "Jane Does" -- probably because Roger Ailes and Brit Hume were upset that the "Clinton Paternity" scandal being flogged by The Star and the more-cautious-than usual Matt Drudge had turned out to be a hoax (even the hysterical Drudge pointed out in all but one of his screaming-headlines email alerts that the rumors might turn out to be false), and they absolutely had to nail something sleazy and sexual to Clinton, so they might as well stick to the "Jane Doe" spin.

Big mistake.

Mort asked Graham about the Senate deal to go forward with 24 hours of hearings for each side then to vote on whether witnesses would be called; Graham said "The jury is out... The history of impeachment trials is that there have always been witnesses [this week's newest spin point from the right]... I believe they [the White House] went ballistic over [the possibility of witnesses]." Naturally Graham blames the White House at the outset when, in fact, he should blame Senators in his own party that know that the House Judiciary Committee Republicans are forcing their own party to commit suicide and the case the House Managers have is full of holes and the sort of "evidence" which is bound to boomerang back badly on them.

Which witnesses do you intend to call, asked Mort insistently? Graham didn't answer, and instead explained the need for witnesses -- "People are more attentive when witnesses are present" -- which sounded awfully similar to Bob Barr's "Senators don't have a large attention span" comment of a couple weeks back.

Slick move, Lindsey insult the jury.

Graham continued to spew: "Let's talk about Monica Lewinsky. She has some intricate details to tell... I think it would be interesting for her to tell about the job search."

We do, too -- especially since it began waaaay before any "quid pro quo" situation involving anything approaching abuse of power may have occurred.

Mara asked about making the case about the perjury charger -- "What was the perjury?" Graham didn't point to specifics -- Lord knows, none of the House Managers have spelled out exactly what the President said -- and instead claimed that "Clinton said his answers were legally accurate, and that was a lie."

But Graham knows this will be nearly impossible to prove -- and that in fact Clinton was using perfectly legal tactics to defend himself from a politically motivated lawsuit.

"The Judiciary report was never meant to be a trial document," said Graham. Which was sort of right -- it's a political tool being used to defame Clinton.

In response to a question from Brit, Graham said, "Sexual harassment suits always involve uncomfortable behavior." Especially those five instances in which Paula Jones lied in her sworn complaint against Clinton, something Bob Bennett proved rather deftly under cross-examination.

And you've got to love Graham and others like Bill McCollum continuing to characterize the Jones political harassment suit as a "sexual harassment" case -- but refusing to acknowledge that Judge Susan Webber Wright tossed the joke of a lawsuit out of court.

Tony then turned to his top agenda point: spinning the Doe-ettes. "Will you be talking about Jane Doe No. 5?" he asked in hopeful tones. Graham's reply: "They're looking for whether the President has a disposition to sexually harass in the workplace.... There are other Jane Doe witnesses that may have denied having sexual relationships who may have lied [in affidavits and testimony]."

Maybe they should look for a pattern of Clinton having his bones jumped by women all too eager to have a first-hand taste of cavorting with good-looking, powerful guys -- something tells me they'd have far more success. You almost think that the nerdy-looking Graham is calling the tarted-up and likely fraudulent Jones lawsuit part of a "sexual harassment" pattern out of jealousy.

Will Kathleen Willey be called? "I'm not gonna give you my witness list." Oh, so it's HIS witness list! We're sure Henry Hyde is gonna be reeeal happy to hear that, Lindsey. "...She fought like the devil not to be in this [as people generally do when they're caught in a lie]... Whether this matures in the area of the Jane Does [I don't know]."

Kathleen Willey a "Jane Doe?" We know the name already. What a dunce.

Mort asked, "Why didn't you develop this in the House?" Graham wouldn't answer, rambling on about reluctant witnesses and "this has to mature."

So does compost.

"You're not answering this question," the insistent Kondracke said. "Why did you not investigate this in the House?"

Graham replied, "Because it is not our job to try the case.... you are putting a burden on the House that the Constitution does not envision."

Lindsey, perhaps you should have a talk with, say, Howard Baker or Sam Nunn, both of whom can be reached over at CNN. They would tell you about the burden of calling witnesses that they undertook during this scandal called Watergate. Did the Constitution envision that?

Graham was rapidly running out of feet to stick in his mouth. He should have asked Kondracke to offer one of his own.

Tony quoted a House pol whose name we missed who said, "It is shameful that the Senate has prejudged this case."

At the end of the segment, Graham made his most ridiculous prediction: if they call witnesses, "I have no doubt there are 67 votes to remove him."

Dream on, we say.

The sponsors during the commercial break were Merrill Lynch, then a local spot for 1-800-MATTRESS, then a promo spot for The PJs, the obnoxious-looking claymation series scheduled to premiere that evening on Fox before their prime-time news program, "The X Files."

Segment two featured four senators: Susan Collins (R-ME), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), and Carl Levin (D-MI).

Tony asked Levin "How can you determine anything without witnesses?" Levin's reply: "The Republicans in the House determined that the President should be removed without witnesses," naming members of the House Judiciary Committee who said just that. "We will decide whether or not to call witnesses after the arguments are made [and whether] to reopen these thousands of pages of evidence" in a "bipartisan decision."

He also cited the possibility of a "lurid swamp" that certain witnesses (read: Lewinsky) might present.

Gregg added that "we are sworn to be impartial... it is highly inappropriate to be asked to make a decision [on witnesses] at this point." This was a slap at some GOP members of the House, including certain Managers (are you listening Lindsey), from one of their own party.

Tony asked Harkin, "Should there be public decisions on lurid details?" Harkin called the impeachment itself a "sham decision... a reckless act taken by the House." Tony: "Tell me how it's reckless and partisan." (Wow -- a rare opportunity to allow a Dem to respond -- a show of balance). Harkin: "They called no witnesses... the House is not a Grand Jury... they made a decision that on those two articles the President should be unequivocally removed from office."

Gregg decided to mix it up: "Is the House saying the President should be removed a reckless act?" Harkin: "The way they went about it was reckless... " Gregg was grinning like an idiot, defending the conduct of the House where he had been slapping them down before. Is this guy bipolar?

Harkin: "You could get into a quagmire that would... not be a dignified ending to this sad chapter, and would not add enough evidentiary value to outweigh the negatives that would be produced with a lengthy trial." Interestingly, the GOP would seize on this and other soundbites (out of context) of Harkin later in the day, claiming that he was showing a "partisan bias" in yet another show of hypocrisy.

Is there any way to avoid partisan tempers, Tony asked Collins? She said they were sworn to be impartial. Gee, then why wasn't she speaking up about Gregg's being an advocate for the House having said "remove him!" She then threw her own can of gasoline on the fire, saying that "the President's pressure on the Democratic caucus is reckless." Harkin jumped in, and down the usually moderate Collins' throat: "There has been no pressure from the White House." He looked genuinely angry at Collins.

Tony asked Levin if the President's team going after Starr's conduct was legitimate, and Levin said yes -- especially since Starr had been the only witness called by the House Judiciary Committee. Collins said in her smarmiest manner that she was "glad" that Levin was "open" to calling witnesses. Harkin decried the secrecy of final impeachment deliberations, and hoped that the Senate would waive this rule. Gregg said that it should be debated in secrecy, claiming that the deliberations would be a legal proceeding -- but ignoring the fact that impeachment is a political process, not a trial in the judiciary branch.

We're sure Gregg lost more than a few Brownie Points with Brian Lamb at C-SPAN over that one.

Harkin went so far as to say that the Senate is NOT in fact a jury, even though they would be acting in a juristic capacity. Collins said that while she is reluctant about open debate, it may restore public confidence in the legislature.

Levin wants to hear arguments both ways -- but added that the House deliberations were "shamfully partisan" and the Senate "must be careful to have a dignified end to the rancor."

Tony's parting question (one designed to elicit a "no' from Clinton-haters): should the President go ahead with his State of the Union Address? Levin said yes if he were comfortable. Gregg said it should be submitted in writing. Harkin got it right by saying "denizens of the Right should not make him back off." Collins said it depends: "If we're toward the end (of the trial), he should postpone; if it will be prolonged, he should give it."

Finally, Tony brought up the Clinton Paternity rumor that had been (sniff!) shot down when Clinton's DNA was compared with that of the alleged Clinton Jr.-Not. Why were no Republicans objecting? Gregg replied, "I didn't hear the rumor."

Right. And pigs are sprouting wings and learning to fly.

Hey -- did it occur to anyone that one of the reasons that Starr wanted a DNA test of Clinton is so that one of his "buds" could leak it to a magazine like the Star to prove Clinton is a "deadbeat dad?" If so, chalk up another slick move for Ken in his quest to destroy your privacy rights.

Advertisers during the second commercial break: IBM, a local ad for the Contour Pillow, and a spot for Fox shows The Simpsons and that claymation disaster. Now that was two ads during FNS that had something to do with bed! You don't suppose it's playing into what one of the ladies at the APJ offices calls Tony's "bedroom eyes" or something?

"How long will the spirit of sweet harmony continue in the Senate?" was Tony's first question to the roundtable. Brit said he thinks it's dead already; Mara said "they kicked the can down the road" and it would end with the vote on whether to call witnesses. She also said that she feels the Senate was thinking "Let's let them ram impeachment through and look partisan." Mort said that the Senate wants to avoid witnesses and that the only way to get a vote for conviction would be for witnesses to be so compelling and convincing that conviction would be inevitable.

No wonder Mort was giving Graham such a hard time -- but that should be no surprise. Kondracke has more friends in the Senate representing states with the letter "A" alone than Graham will have total Senator buddies in his lifetime.

Mara said that "it's not a real trial." Brit repeated the spin point that "every impeachment trial has had witnesses.... [to Mort and Mara] If you two billies had let him off the hook we might have avoided this!"

Mort: "I'd like to se this operated with dignity." Mara: "[The Senate] could have voted to ram this through, but they didn't."

And Mort was the first to fire at Tom Harkin: "Harkin is the evidence that partisanship is licking at this thing."

Brit on a no-witness trial: "This is the kind of argument you'd hear in Baghdad!" Of course, Brit has already found Clinton guilty of everything -- without a single witness save Ken "Mr. Rodgers" Starr.

Mort added another delicious comment: he said that Graham has complained on- and off-camera that there are Republican senators who do not want witnesses -- and Mort feels that the Senate trial would be more bipartisan than some predicted. Brit and Mara predicted there will be witnesses, and Tony asked if "this train" would careen out of control.

More commercials: Merrill Lynch, a local spot for The Wiz, and more of those wonderful Fox programs...

After the break there was talk of GOPers throwing hats into the ring -- and the prognosticating for 2000 began in earnest. Mort said that Liddy Dole was the number one candidate for the VP slot. Brit, ever Mr. Sunshine, claimed he cannot remember a time when there was less interest in the Presidential race.

We think it's because no fascists have thrown their hat into the ring yet. Have heart, Brit -- maybe David Duke will run for President.

Mara brought up the number of people who are not running: Wellstone, Kerrey, and she predicted Gephardt would not run.

Brit said people are comfortable with a good economy -- "with a relatively weak Presidency structurally."

But this is a lie: the President remains the most powerful figure in government both in reality and symbolically. The "weak Presidency" is a major spin point of conservatives who are out to weaken the office at any cost -- and certainly to the detriment of Constitutional government and our nation.

Brit almost sounded like he was going to say, a la Martha Stewart, "A weak Presidency is a good thing."

There was some discussion of the revelation that UNSCOM inspectors had been involved in espionage on behalf of the US -- Brit claimed jokingly that it facilitated yet another opportunity for Tariq Aziz to appear for an hour on CNN.

Right, Brit -- you'll never see any of those awful camel jockeys on Fox News! Talk about ethnic cleansing...

The show concluded with a spot for "Isoflavones from ADM -- Supermarket to Slanted Public Affairs Shows," yet another plug for that claymation atrocity, and a final plug from Tony himself for Fox Files (not to be confused with "The X Files").

So the number one sponsor of FNS turns out to be... the Fox Network itself! Our editors were left scratching their heads -- what the heck kind of demographic overlap is there between a customer for IBM corporate solutions and The PJs?

Boggles the mind.

"Decorum may rule inside the Senate" but it's chaos outside -- as Tony practically cheered Starr's indictment of Julie Hiatt Steele and dissed James Carville, among other things. "Who says nothing gets done in this town?"

This town? Hold it, Tony... didn't Starr's Virginia grand jury indict Hiatt Steele??

The Mc-Laugh-In Group

Issue One: Rules of engagement! "For the first time... an elected President has been put on trial in the Senate." John reviewed the "bipartisan deal." Pat Buchanan cast his lot with those practically screaming for witnesses, saying that the Republicans "are handing out hostages... I think the Republican interest here is in a full, open trial... they should give none of this away.... You think all those jurors are impartial? Chuck Schumer?" Eleanor fired back: "Mr. Schumer is as impartial as Mr. Nickles, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gramm." Tony Blankley claimed that the process "separates Clinton for his Democrat supporters.... it is relatively bad news for the President." If Tony, who hates Clinton, calls it "relatively bad news," then the White House should start chilling the champagne. Michael Barone claimed that Dems "have given up the partisan card." But isn't the same true of the GOP, Mike?

"Would witnesses help or hurt Clinton?" asked John. Pat said Clinton "would have nothing to gain... [no witnesses would mean] he would be acquitted." But Pat is assuming guilt -- and assuming that witnesses like Kathleen Willey would not be torn apart in cross-examination. Eleanor discussed private deposition and was cut off by John's question that "this process could be so delayed that no witnesses could be called?" Eleanor instead said that " Monica Lewinsky is a wash" [and] Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie would be strong witnesses for the President. Michael talked about the Hastings impeachment in England (big deal).

Two minutes of GE commercials followed.

Issue two: Clinton Agonistes! Foremost among the players: "William Jefferson Clinton... The Clinton Rorschach Test," he said, is to be found in an LA Times Interview with Elizabeth Sjogren in which, when Clinton had been asked how he felt about being impeached, he replied, "Not bad." John then played sound-bites of Clinton-bashing Democrat Senator Robert Byrd: "I was sorry that he gave that response. One cannot be flippant in this situation, and there is a certain arrogance about it that, if I may say, does not reflect well on the President."

Byrd, who is regarded as a blowhard and stick in the mud by more of his fellow Senators than the media is comfortable mentioning (especially since Byrd provides such great anti-Clinton sound bites), is one to talk.

John then said, "Clinton feel that he is a victim" and compares himself to Nelson Mandela -- and further claimed that Clinton himself "staged" the "pep rally" less than an hour after the House impeachment.

REALLY? Stand and deliver, John -- what's your source?

Again, Byrd: "An egregious display of shameless arrogance." Byrd could have well been talking about himself.

Tell you what, Senator Byrd -- why not just get it over with and change parties now?

Eleanor cut John down to size: "You've taken a lot of disparate threads and woven them together in a most unfair way. The pep rally was designed to head off calls for his resignation. It was entirely appropriate, to show that his party is 100% behind him."

Tony: "I think this man has a political tin ear... everyone knows he is a liar." Remember, this comes from the ex-mouthpiece and senior aide for Newt Gingrich.

Michael: "I think we are seeing an adolescent in need of adult supervision." This was hilarious -- Michael resorting to name-calling. What an intellectual light of the Old "New Right."

Pat: "He's right about the tin ear, the pep rally was nonsense... [but] I am astonished how he stands up under this fire, in fact I think he should go up and deliver his State of the Union address!" Wow.

John: Will he go before the Senate trial as a witness?
Pat: No way!
Eleanor: The real question is separation of powers.
Michael: No, he's best staying away from the facts [Well, DUUUUH, he doesn't even need to appear if the facts exculpate him].
John: He will go.

Issue three: The House Managers -- all white, male, Christian, and lawyers, John mentioned. Will they try to introduce new evidence?
Tony: "They have some instinct that they want to push beyond."
Eleanor: "Graham is already waving the bloody shirt."
Pat: "There are plenty of protections for the President against anything outrageous."

Issue Four: The Jurors. Again Byrd: "One should forget the personalities... and worry about his duty under the Constitution." John then reviewed eight GOP Senate seats vulnerable to challenge in 2000, and dangled the possibility of a 51-to-49 adjournment vote. What is the possibility of this, John asked?
Michael said it was not likely; John asked if he could see 6 Republicans defecting, and Michael said he could see 6 going for acquittal.
Tony thought a few Dems would defect.
Eleanor said she thinks that the President is going for acquittal without censure, and that the House managers "put a right-wing face on the GOP, they are all tied to the Christian Coalition."
Michael: They persevered through the process.
Pat: They are heroes.
Eleanor: To the right wing.

We then got two more minutes of GE commercials.

Prediction: Will the trial be over by March 1st?
Pat: Yes
Eleanor: Yes
Tony: Probably
Michael: Yes
John: Yes

Next week: Opening Argument -- Electrifying or a snooze?

It's worth noting that GE gets a total of 4 minutes and 15 seconds to plug their products in expensively produced but generic and boring commercials. We're on the verge of boycotting GE completely -- not because they sponsor John's hard-right-leaning, predictable game of pundit charades every week, but because their commercials are so dull. At least they make John & Co. look interesting by comparison.

And when will Mc-Laugh-In get back to their real strength -- global and economic issues, where John is provocative and at his best? Enough impeachment saturation coverage, John -- please!

This Weak...

"The Senate takes center stage amid pomp and ceremony." Over the dulcet (not) tones of Cokie's voice, we saw the same footage that Fox News opened their show with. A little of Hyde's reading of the impeachment articles followed, with emphasis on the words "he has brought disrepute on the office." The question: can bipartisanship last?

"The deal is now set," said Cokie -- the arguments, then the questions, then the decision on calling witnesses. "Neither side got what they wanted... it is not clear if the President got hurt."

That's Cokie-speak for "the Impeach-ometer dropped about 50% this week, and we may not be able to bask in the glory of telling you, the sheep of America, that you should have heeded out prognostications that Clinton is a bad man!"

Rep. James Rogan (R-CA), one of the House "Crips" Managers, was guest one, and Sam asked him at the top of the segment if the Managers were unhappy about the Senate procedure agreement. "If this were a case where everyone could stipulate the facts" it would not be a problem "but that is not the case here." There is "clearly" a factual dispute between Monica Lewinsky and the President, said Rogan, and he wants them both called "because it does not serve the President or the House Managers to have him convicted unfairly."

Our translation: "Those damned Senate cowards -- spoiling our chance to drag Clinton's name through the mud yet again, and claim that he lied and Monica 'I've lied all my life' Lewinsky was telling the truth. Lindsey Graham's practically inconsolable, and Barr keeps screaming 'Heads! I want heads!!!'"

Will mentioned Sid Blumenthal as a possible witness -- which did not surprise us, since Will is obviously jealous of Blumenthal for being so close to a President -- and Rogan said that he thinks the President should welcome these witnesses if he were innocent -- and should himself call for them. "When I was a DA I was taught that a trial... is a search for the truth.... Lindsey Graham said that these shows would not work if you submitted your questions in writing."

We're also sure that when Rogan was a law-and-order DA he knew a few tricks about getting people to testify in carefully tailored words and selected testimony. And as for that whiner Graham? Well, a State of the Union message would not work if it were submitted in writing.

Will and Rogan speculated about what might happen if Monica Lewinsky were called as a witness, and Rogan said that there is in fact no predicting what might happen -- essentially an admission that her presence presents a strong possibility of trashing the Christian Confederate Neofascist case against Clinton.

"What would you be doing differently if you didn't have this deal?" asked Cokie "I would want a more traditional trial." Rogan, we're sure, meant a 19th-century trial in the South -- sentence first, evidence later, followed by lynching -- and all before it gets to the courtroom. The only reason Cokie asked this question was to give Rogan a chance to say "we're not being given a fair shake."

And in yet another parallel to Fox News Sunday, questioning turned to the "Jane Does." "If I were in control, I would want to call them" to prove "a pattern and practice of encouraging the filing of false affidavits."

Right. Start with Kathleen Willey -- and watch the President's lawyers call Harolyn Cardozo, Julie Hiatt Steele and, yes, Linda Tripp to bolster their evidence that Willey threw herself at Clinton. And watch Juanita Broaddrick and Dolly Kyle Browning similarly fold.

The only use these "Jane Does" serve is as Sabbath Gasbag gossip points to further defame Clinton and make the salacious claim that he is a "serial harasser." Such claims would be destroyed if witnesses are called. So, sadly, would the reputations of the Jane Does. We predict that they will not appear as witnesses.

The break featured commercials for Merrill Lynch, Dow and the local ABC affiliate's news.

Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) were the guests following the break. Hatch complimented Snowe on helping to work a bipartisan accord on procedures. Snowe said that censure was not part of the process and said that while it is a future possibility, it is not being considered at this time.

Cokie asked Hatch if he could picture a trial without witnesses. Hatch reluctantly said yes, but that Rogan had presented a good case for witnesses (a good case? Hatch must not have been listening closely). He also compared the function of the House to a grand jury.

Will quoted Tom Harkin from Fox News Sunday as calling the case a "sham and a pile of dung" -- taking Harkin's comments far out of context. Hatch said "I don't know another Senator who would use that language."

Consider the source, Orrin.

Snowe said she embraced the current procedure because she has not determined whether there is a need for witnesses. Sam: "But you heard Senator Hatch." Snowe said she might or might not see a need for witnesses -- gently slapping down Sam's huffiness.

Hatch was asked about the possibility of deposing witnesses; he said he believes it will be hard to turn down witnesses and just read depositions. We think Hatch is posturing a bit, and that he knows the long-term damage calling witnesses will do to the GOP.

If the Senate votes on partisan lines to call witnesses, are you prepared to take the heat? Hatch said yes -- and Snowe showed him up by saying that they had taken an oath of impartiality. Hatch looked genuinely caught off guard by Snowe's rejoinder, and claimed "nobody is going to deny the President witnesses if he feels the need for them."

Cokie asked one of her questions about "poll numbers," again betraying her disdain for the opinion of the greater public, but Snowe would not be baited, turning instead to the issue of the fairness of the process; Hatch added that "polls are polls are polls... we would not have had civil rights legislation if we relied on the polls."

Right, Orrin -- because blacks would never have been polled!

Orrin flogged a number of Dems and Republicans on their bipartisan comments, especially Byrd -- a republican in all but party affiliation..

Commercials for Microsoft, GE, and ABC prime time shows followed the segment.

Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) was the next guest. Sam asked about Tom Daschle's comment, "Am I the only one who wants to go to war?" -- a completely out of-context mischaracterization of Daschle's comment. And Breaux took the time to correct Sam's attempt to make Daschle look partisan -- and played up the bipartisanship which Daschle promoted.

Cokie asked an equally loaded question about Dems not adopting tactics that would make the GOP partisan, and followed up with the dismissal vote -- "Is that where this falls apart?"

Sam and Cokie's gambit, to characterize the Democrats as the partisan troublemakers, only made them look foolish.

And Breaux told all parties, in response to a question by George Will, that they were all missing an important detail -- after opening arguments, the Senators would be able to question both sides.

Sam claimed that "White House officials don't want witnesses" -- a ridiculous assertion. Has Sam actually asked the President or Charles Ruff? We don't think so -- unless he could find a way to slip the word "Lewinsky" into the question. Sam asked about the prosecution argument that you need to look them in they eyes to judge if they're credible -- and Breaux fired back that if the prosecution was so confident of that, why did they not call witnesses during House hearings?

More commercials: Merrill Lynch (again), GE (again), and local spots.

Cokie began the roundtable by talking once again about the "pomp and ceremony" of the trial's opening -- and the "summons" sent to the White House. George Stephanopoulos said that the White House won somewhat of a victory over the witness issue. Sam said "I believe at the end of the day the case will be tried on facts.... did he commit perjury? Did he obstruct justice?" He was practically pleading for a "yes" answer. Bill Kristol claimed that the vote was bad, because a 55-45 vote would have "preordained" the outcome -- a ridiculous assertion.

Will said that we will learn which Senators "consider that premeditated serial perjury is not impeachable," once again declaring Clinton guilty before the evidence is presented. Sam said that the "evidence" was "pretty clear" that the President committed perjury.

This exchange is typical of how these scoundrels, hiding behind the guise of "journalism," continue the assault on Clinton -- and step up the rhetoric of "guilty until proven innocent" out of sheer frustration that they have no power to throw Clinton out of the White House -- let alone any power to influence a public that knows better.

Steph said that while Monica Lewinsky said that nobody asked her to lie, that she may present additional facts which might imply a strategy to avoid entanglement with the Paula Jones lawsuit. But this assertion makes no sense -- since the job search began waaaaay before the Jones thugs started sniffing her bedsheets. A little later he said that the White House will not follow a "scorched earth" strategy in the "new" definition -- procedural delays, perhaps even involving the Supreme Court.

More commercials from Texaco, John Hancock Insurance, GE (yet again) and ABC programs.

After the break -- and again following the sequence of Fox News Sunday -- talk turned to Presidential and New York Senate races 2000. Kristol talked about Lamar Alexander "saying 'what does compassionate conservatism' mean? Those are weasel words!"

Takes one to know one, Bill.

Sam talked about Wellstone's decision not to run -- and his saying he apologized to all the people he promised Cabinet posts to. This is about the only genuine laugh This weak has had in the last month.

George Will speculated about Liddy Dole being in the same league as George Bush -- and her need to "run to the right." We feel the former is a stretch at best -- and serious questions concerning her management of the American Red Cross will "run her right" out of the race.

Sam and Kristol began speculating in the most obnoxious way about Hillary Clinton running for the New York Senate seat -- implying it was a great reason for her to "split" with her husband. Kristol said that Giuliani would be a formidable candidate for higher office.

Right, Bill -- Reichschancellor, maybe.

And another stream of commercials -- for Pfizer (who keep Liddy Dole's husband the man he is today with those little blue pills), Merrill Lynch (yet again!!), Ford and ABC News, Sam and Cokie closed the show with a plug for 20-20.

The program left us with the looming question -- are the producers of This Weak cribbing from the FNS playbook? If so, they need to do a lot better -- because FNS gets better guests, and This Weak asks the dumbest questions.

Meet the Press

Should Tim Russert be Indicted for Jury Tampering?

Tim Russert spent the greater part of his hour of "glory" this Sunday tampering with six senators who will sit in judgment of Bill Clinton beginning next week.

We think his conduct as a journalist is more than questionable, and that his own zeal to lynch the President was perhaps more obvious this week than ever before.

He started with Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), egging him on about the President's so-called perjury. Graham said that the President committed perjury in the grand jury and that he lied in his deposition about Betty Currie. He said the words about sexual relations are also a lie. Russert reminded him that the President did admit that he had an inappropriate relationship.

Graham sounded very weak -- he claimed that "just because [Clinton] avoided a land mine in the Jones case doesn't mean he presented the whole truth." He then went on to allege that Clinton lied about Lewinsky -- obstructing Paula Jones' "civil rights case."

Ta-daaaaa! Now we see why Republicans were urging Bill Clinton to "tell the truth to the grand jury" -- merely so they could charge him with perjury and obstruction in the Jones case. But the truth is that Clinton did not lie in either the Jones deposition nor during his grand jury testimony. He did do a great job, however, of stopping the Jones allies' quest to extort millions of dollars from him.

Russert asked Graham about presenting "lie witnesses." Graham said "How would you like to present this show without guests?" -- a coordinated spin point which we're sure Graham planned to slip into MTP so that other House Managers, including James Rogan, could pick up on for other Sunday poli-talk shows.

The only thing Graham proved was just how weak the ultra-right-wing case against Clinton is. He said that Monica Lewinsky had a "great obstruction case" to tell about getting a job, signing a false affidavit, and so on. But the facts show that both Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan testified to just the opposite. Graham mentioned a 2 AM conversation that the President had with Lewinsky -- yet he doesn't know what they said. This, he claims, is "proof" of obstruction.

In short, it's actually proof that Graham and his pals are through.

Of course, Tim Russert didn't challenge a single thing Graham said. He simply sat there like the lump he is and spurred Graham on. He asked, with zeal, whether Graham will try to call the Jane Does, Dolly Kyle Brownings, etc. It was sick.

The more Senators listen to mayonnaise-heads like Graham, the more they will dig in to not call witnesses.

And Graham admitted that the best he could do would be to "attempt" to prove some "pattern" of obstruction of justice by pulling one from column A and two from column B.

It was a thankfully sad performance by Graham.

At the break, the GE corporation pushed refrigerators and insurance. ADM was there saving the world.

Russert then welcomed six senators who have no right to be on television discussing a case in which they are sitting in judgment. It was a disgusting scene.

Senator John Chafee (R-RI) was the first to say that he believed that some witnesses would be called because the Senate are "legitimately required" to find the truth. Russert asked about the upcoming motion to dismiss, which would take 6 Republicans. Chafee said would not vote yes.

Here is a Senator telling us what he will do in a trial where he is supposed to form no opinions prior to hearing the opening statements of both sides. He took an oath to remain impartial -- and has therefore, using the standards that the hard-right apply to Clinton, committed perjury by violating his oath.

Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said Democrats were willing to accept the record of the House, but she didn't think witnesses are needed. Rick Santorum (R-PA), an avid Republican, said that he would give the White House witnesses as well as the House a pose at being fair.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that you have to look at the House side where the case was presented with no witnesses. She felt that the central question is whether, if all is true, it rises to a high crime and misdemeanor. She sees no reason to "sully" the floor of the Senate. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH), who hasn't been heard from generally, said that he thinks most Senators would think we need some witnesses -- but the focus of their testimony would be limited.

Charles Schumer (D-NY) said he does not think witnesses are needed. He sat on the Judiciary Committee before being elected to the Senate and explained that the Senate will hear both sides first and then a list would be presented -- a list of witnesses which will be approved up or down. "The House Managers only get to submit one list." If they pepper it with Jane Does and other irrelevant witnesses, the Senate might throw the whole list out.

Santorum rose up and objected and said that the "one list" theory was not agreed to last Friday. Here we find at least one problem which will visit the Senate later.

Russert then made a speech: If you believe that the President lied under oath, what kind of standard does this set for the rest of the nation?

Unbelievable. Russert for the prosecution!

Schumer said censure -- but that was the wrong answer. What he should have said was that the President only decided not to volunteer to tell the entire Lewinsky story because he was being extorted.

Boxer said the House preordained this outcome. "We shouldn't be here in the first place. This is wrong." We were hoping she'd add, to Russert, "And you shouldn't be on Meet the Press, either."

Russert went back to his question about lying under oath. Boxer does not defend the President as not lying, but talks about the fact the crime must be one against the United States.

Senator Chafee is also "deeply concerned about lying under oath."

Is this not an undermining of the impeachment trial? Here are six senators basically saying that they've already decided that the President lied under oath when, in fact, there has not even been an attempt to prove this claim in a court of law or in the Senate.

All six should be denied the opportunity to sit as jurors.

And Russert should be indicted for jury tampering.

Russert continued: we're getting down to lying under oath. He reminded the Senators that Clinton was warned about lying under oath, then he rolls the tape of the President's testimony. "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." You could see the glee on Russert's face -- he loves playing video bites to defame Clinton.

Yet the President's "friend" Schumer said that we should not allow this kind of action and that the American people would say what he did on the tape was wrong.

DeWine said it would be wrong for him to comment on the tape - well, bravo for DeWine.

"If the President was lying under oath, which is the case," said Russert, incredibly, "should he be removed from office?"

Enough!

The editors of American Politics Journal find Tim Russert's conduct completely inexcusable. He has been on a non-stop course to convict Bill Clinton in the court of media coverage on something, anything, for more than a year now.

If the American people and, more importantly, the executives of NBC can't see it, then we hope our readers will bombard the network and the sponsors of Meet the Press with letters of protest.

GE again talked about their new imaging technology in the break.

Russert then brought up the State of the Union message. Diane Feinstein thought he should postpone the speech, but went on to say that one of the reasons that she thinks this trial is not what it is purported to be is that after four years of investigation she is convinced that there are people who are simply "out to get this president."

Russert rushed to the Republican's defense. "Are there Senators who are simply out to get the President, Senator DeWine?" Of course he said no.

Russert backtracked to the State of the Union question. All Republicans agree he should postpone as well as Diane Feinstein. But Barbara Boxer said no. "This proves my point -- we are not doing the people's business. Yes, it might be uncomfortable -- but the people deserve to hear from their President." Schumer agrees.

Russert then tried to spur them again quoting the President's remark that he felt "not bad" about being impeached. No one bit.

Russert reminded the group that Chafee, DeWine and Santorum are all up for election in 2000. That's right -- and we will work to defeat them, Tim. All three said that the trial won't impact on their races. If they say it long enough, maybe they will begin to believe it -- Tom DeLay sure does!

Russert wound up by asking whether the Senators would enjoy sitting with Senator Hillary Rodham -- he purposely said her last name without adding Clinton.

What a putz. Of course they would all be thrilled -- according to them.

Next up were commercials for Schwab.com, General Electric light bulbs and FedEx -- followed by Bayer aspirin, claiming that it might stop you from dying from a heart attack.

Russert wrapped it up with a clip of Bill Clinton in 1992. He was defending himself against charges that he avoided the military and was a philanderer. The clip was important, because even then Bill Clinton alerted us to the fact that he was being attacked by the politics of personal destruction as long as six years ago.

Of course Russert comments "a most familiar defense" in a snide way of course.

ADM followed with one last commercial.

Tim Russert, as usual, spent his entire hour castigating Bill Clinton. Perhaps more than any single human being, Russert can assume the blame for twisting the American psyche -- or at least trying to -- with all his heart.

In the end, we hope Russert will get his just due.

In order for this to happen, people should start to write to NBC in New York and the sponsors of Meet the Press and protest Russert's conduct. Russert should be warned by his bosses to keep his viewpoints out of his presentations.

-- The Editors