Kill the Presidency!
Taliban House Managers' Case: Impeach Early and Often

January 14, 1999 --- New York (APJP) -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dressed in a gold-striped robe which he has said was inspired by a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, gaveled the trial of President Clinton to order at 1:02 PM, and after a prayer, the Sergeant-at-Arms read the proclamation that all be silent "on pain of imprisonment." Following necessary procedural maneuvering by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott -- a series of unanimous consent resolutions -- Rehnquist recognized "Mr. Manager Hyde."

Hyde cited the pledge of impartiality and the words of their oath: "I do."

Do they really, we ask?

Hyde made much of oaths and the words "I do" -- an argument which sounded cynical and hypocritical coming from a man who had broken the "I do" to his wife by carrying on an affair with one Mrs. Cherie Snodgrass and who broke the spirit of his "I do" to his constituents by being party to self-serving moneychanging shenanigans in the matter of the failed Clyde Savings and Loan.

Hyde then named the other managers, told what they would do, and gave their credentials, omitting the important fact that all are white, male, and Christian, and that some will feature prominently in the Flynt Report.

His statement was brief; James Sensenbrenner began his presentation at 1:20 PM saying that "President Clinton put himself above the law not once, not twice, but several times [including] during the civil rights trial of Paula Corbin Jones."

You've got to love this -- characterizing the Jones suit as a "civil rights suit. Given Jones contradicting five crucial points of her sworn complaint against Clinton under questioning from Bob Bennett (can anyone say "perjury") and the failure of the Supreme Court to postpone the phony-looking case being heard until after Clinton leaves office, it looks like Clinton is the one whose civil rights were trampled on.

It was a stupid thing to say -- guaranteed to alienate civil rights advocates in the senate form the word "go." It'll play well with Freepers and Clinton-haters, though.

Sensenbrenner argued that the slaveholding Framers did not foresee that the House and Senate would hold identical processes -- a weak excuse for not having called witnesses, an act which would have likely torpedoed the impeachment juggernaut.

Sensenbrenner's irritating, nasal voice whined on, citing a handful of precedents regarding witnesses which, naturally, supported not calling witnesses during House Judiciary Committee hearings. Of course, a simple reading of points made in President Clinton's trial memorandum gives lie to this argument.

He too got on the "oath... the truth, the whole truth, yadda yadda yadda" bandwagon and argued that "Perjury is the twin brother of bribery" -- without giving an explanation.

Right, Jim. And Jesse helms and Jesse Jackson are brothers.

Senselessbrenner went on to say something about "the President lying under oath" -- as opposed to perjury. It will be interesting to see the Managers try to prove lying -- especially since the President's defense team plan to blast the house Managers on this point. It's tough enough in this case to prove lying, let alone perjury, let alone that the President should be impeached over what is at its core a private matter blown into a constitutional crisis by what now looks like criminal backroom maneuvering and a fake "civil rights" lawsuit.

Sensenbrenner said something about "being harassed at work, denied pay raises and eventually being forced to quit her job." Sounds just like what he and his Manager Crips buddies are trying to do to Clinton. And Sensenbrenner foolishly continued on the issue of the Jones "civil rights case" and "civil rights protections" -- which was almost unbelievable arrogance, given that the case was thrown out on summary judgment, now appears not likely to have been reinstated according to some sources, and was settled.

Sensenbrenner is tempting the President's team to reopen the Jones case -- and not only destroy it but explore the evidence of fraud by the Jones camp and the real purpose of the suit, namely to set up the President for a takedown.

Sensenbrenner then turned to "false testimony by the President before the Grand Jury... [he] made numerous false and perjurious statements before the Grand Jury." Sensenbrenner's argument -- any perjury before a Grand Jury is impeachable, citing the Alcee Hastings case.

The assertion is, of course, not that simple -- first because Hastings was a judge, not a president, and because the argument that "perjury is perjury" -- that is, if it is assumed the President committed perjury -- is false and legally unsupported.

It was about the time that Sensenbrenner started making crazed assumptions and jumping to outrageous conclusions about the gifts to Monica Lewinsky and the so-called "coaching' of Betty Currie.

And that was just with respect to Article One!

Sensenbrenner spent a good deal of wind on Article Two describing "corrupt influence" as obstruction of justice, citing decisions made with respect to articles of impeachment drafted against President Nixon and that certain actions violated federal statutes concerning obstruction of justice.

But all were based on unproved assumptions or intentional misinterpretation of actions or testimony.

Sensenbrenner spun the facts concerning the "usual suspects" -- Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie: "she acknowledged that the President made a series of leading statements.'

This is a favorite Sensenbrenner tactic -- tailoring his words and description of an event in such a way as to presume guilt, when in fact the event could have had any number of reasons.

And this is emblematic of the entire House Managers case -- every one of the points Sensenbrenner brought up is far from cut-and-dried, and if any one of them collapses (to borrow Lars-Erik Nelson's metaphor from earlier this week), the entire house of cards collapses.

After Sensenbrenner had finished reminding us of how flawed the arguments for the second article of impeachment were, he said that the President "could have told the truth" on any number of occasions -- "instead he shook his finger... and told a straight-faced lie to the American people."

Baloney, Sensenbrenner. Ask Gingrich: hummers do not constitute sexual relations. A lot of Republicans use that definition, and you know it.

He also asked "should the President get a pass when others have to testify truthfully under oath... what do we tell to those hundreds in jail for perjury?"

First, should the President have testified at all? Judging from the politics of the Jones case, no. As for those in jail for perjury, they are a minute fraction of those who commit the hundreds of thousands of instances of perjury per year. The real counterbalance for perjury is not jail, but the judge and jury -- they are the b#llsh@t detectors in the judicial system, not perjury statutes.

He then ended on a typically unctuous note -- saying he gets questions from parents about this matter. He said that the President's values were the opposite of what parents want.

Really, Jim-Bob? You mean that when you do something wrong, you shouldn't apologize to everyone that you wronged? He apologized. Where are apologies from your buddies Henry Hyde and Bob Barr?

He talked of what parents might tell their children in generations to come. We know what they'll say -- a man who made a few mistakes fell victim to an attempted political assassination and coup by partisans hell-bent on payback for Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and Dick Nixon, partisans who hate the 1960s and all it stands for -- a better shot for the downtrodden and more civil liberties -- and a return to the values of the 1860s -- a two-class system, American apartheid, money talks.

Sensenbrenner's wordy wind-up ended with a high-minded invocation: "May our deliberations be fair and impartial." Judging from the conclusions to which the House Crips have leapt, Sensenbrenner was lying.

Ed Bryant was the third manager to speak; his task would be to present the "factual" element of the case and a "roadmap" to the evidence.

He cited a "four-way" collision between "William Jefferson Clinton, Paula Corbin Jones, Monica Lewinsky and the US Constitution." He forgot to mention one other branch in the road that he and his bros would rather not discuss: Linda Tripp.

Bryant actually cited the question of the President "taking a poll about telling the truth" -- a poll orchestrated by Dick Morris, Judas pollster. He then ran a clip of Clinton's first oath of office. We were struck by the words "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" -- reminding us that it includes defending the Constitution against the sort of seditious coup against Clinton and the Presidency that a few on the right desperately want to execute.

"President Clinton also serves as the chief law enforcement officer," said Bryant -- another misstatement of facts that the House Crips have used time and time again to express "outrage" at Clinton's "crimes."

Bryant continued by explaining the essence of perjury, using a very one-sided series of arguments which will be challenged by the president's lawyers.

He then went into the argument that Judge Susan Webber Wright had allowed discovery into Clinton's sexual past -- what Stephen Jones called "Clinton's secret history" when he told fascist British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard a bit about their plan to attack Clinton some five years ago.

Bryant failed to mention that Wright tossed out the case not long after that in summary judgment -- due in part to Jones' recanting five key points of her sworn complaint. we'll say it again -- why has Jones not been investigated for her alleged perjury and its consequences?

Bryant then played one of the key points of the House Crips: that key words that may seem exculpatory may have a sinister purpose. This is a linchpin of the House case -- and the most risky. He asked for the "jurors" to look at "the big picture" made up by "the illegal acts... friends are drawn into this web of deceit... the rule of law is defeated and the President is the beneficiary." He cited the Lewinsky affidavit and the intrigue surrounding it -- a dangerous move, in that it brings up charges of illegal collusion between the Jones camp and Starr's staff.

Stupid move, Bryant.

Bryant began going through of the Clinton-Lewinsky time line; he went so far as to say "the absence [at one point] of Miss Lewinsky was appreciated by members of the President's staff who wanted to protect him."

Well, gee, Ed, maybe they knew Monica was stalking Bill. Wonder what Lindsey Graham has to say about it.

"He did not expressly instruct him to lie," said Bryant about the President and Monica.

Stop right there -- that is not what she said. That is your selective interpretation of the facts.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a Constitutional crisis being managed by spinFuehrers. Next time they whine about "White House spinmeisters," consider the source.

Bryant continued with the post-subpoena time-line, continuing to show his consummate skill at spinning each and every bit of evidence embellished with an interpretation as harmful to the president as it could be made. Problem is, it sounded more like the messy breakup of an affair than any high crimes and misdemeanors.

Bryant then went into the issue of "verbal gymnastics" and "what the meaning of the word 'is' is" -- which only served to remind us of what second-raters the Jones attorneys turned out to be. Bryant then had the brass to read part of the White House response to the Managers' case dealing with the definition of sex.

Follow our advice to Jim-Bob, Ed -- ask Newt.

Bryant's argument -- the President was impeding the discovery of evidence in the Jones case. He said what sounded like "Miss Jones had no desire whatsoever to commit a crime" -- we think he meant Miss Lewinsky. Oops!

Bryant's focus on "legal hairsplitting" sounded more like an obsession with the relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton, which was another bad move on the Managers' part -- it is, in the end, about sex. but also subjecting the President to harassment.

Bryant then turned to the issue of witnesses -- and that the calling of witnesses might prevent the guilty verdict which "must come with the evidence as presented" -- wishful thinking if there ever was. He then began whining about the President's allies "appearing on talk shows." Right -- while you and your Manager pals tried the case in the media for months. He again suggested that it was now time for witnesses.

He wrapped up with a rather dull review of the time line.

Bryant, like Sensenbrenner, was monotonous. If this was supposed to be an impassioned case against the President, our guess is that most Americans have been bored into disagreeing -- there is simply nothing for the Managers to hang their hat on.

Bryant concluded his comments a 3:06 PM.

Asa Hutchinson started out by characterizing himself as a small-town lawyer (political-machine Reep is more like it). His mission -- to discuss evidence and witnesses he hopes to call. His actual goal -- to convince a majority of senators that witnesses are mandated.

He pulled up a chart and discussed "the wheels of obstruction... in motion," tying together the Lewinsky job search, gifts and "illegally influencing witnesses" in a "civil rights case."

Losing argument, Asa.

At least Asa had a little more fire in the belly, which he worked into a head of steam as he described the "President's problem [being] compounded on December 11... he had to make sure that Monica Lewinsky was on his team and under control." This would be a key mantra of Asa's testimony.

The problem for Asa -- proving that assertion. He never did; in fact, it was merely used to again accuse the President of a "cover-up." He turned to Webster Hubbell, trying to link him to Lewinsky by "hooking them up with the right people" -- at Revlon. But Asa dare not mention the truth -- he was acting as if he were talking about the Corleones when in fact this is standard operating procedure with politicians and appointees of both parties when a colleague gets in "trouble."

Remembering this put his entire argument -- involving the timing of events in the Jones case and the long-ongoing search for a nice job for Lewinsky -- into a completely different perspective. It is likely that the Clinton team will tear into this argument -- and the serendipitous timing of Judge Wright's ruling coinciding with the job search -- by attacking the Managers' omission of key details from the story.

Asa argued that the President wanted a false affidavit from Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case, and he argued with passion. But we are surprised he argued evidence that was not only flawed, but mishandled by the Starr team in such a way as to both show abusive conduct by Starr's staff and illegal collusion with the Jones team.

The other problem -- Asa's chart starts with November 5. Didn't the actual job search start months before that?

Asa referred to "a flurry of activity" whenever there was a decision in the Jones case -- he kept calling it a "civil rights case" -- that went against the President.

And he reviewed the facts -- his spin on "the facts," -- that is -- to bolster his contention that "the President knew Monica Lewinsky would file a false affidavit." He mentioned that Vernon Jordan had had a hand in the drafting of the affidavit -- implying but never proving that Jordan was facilitating a fraud. In fact, this is another huge risk on the part of the House Managers may blow up in her face, given the entire argument is based on the presumption that there was a conspiracy to file a false affidavit, and evidence that disproves this assertion alone collapses the argument.

"Does anyone believe that if she had not signed that false affidavit that she would have gotten help from high places?"

We do -- most of the White House wanted her out of there.

Currie was Asa's other subject, and he claimed Clinton's questions to Currie in an Oval Office meeting the day following his deposition in the Paula Jones case "a frenzied and concerted effort to plug up the hole in the dike." We thought he was implying Currie was a lesbian for a brief moment. He argued that the Senate had to hear from Betty Currie as to what really happened at that meeting -- and then selectively picked part of the Currie testimony dealing with the questions. "She is the classical reluctant witness," said Hutchinson. "Classical?" You mean like music? We say she was one of dozens of reluctant witnesses, given the Neo-Nazi tactics of the Starr office.

He called the President's argument -- that it was an effort to refresh his memory -- "a novel defense strategy."

Sort of like Starr's frequent need to refresh his memory during the House Judiciary Committee hearings.

Asa went on to claim that "It was witness tampering, pure and simple," and this is based "on the law and the facts." But the facts are not so clear, and Asa knows it. He was trying to claim that Clinton was tampering with a corroborating witness, when it is next to impossible to prove.

His next line of attack -- Betty Currie calling the President and Vernon Jordan after Michael "ex-Post" Isikoff called her about a receipt for gifts sent to her by Monica Lewinsky.

Well, gee, Asa, we're shocked. The President is being harassed over his sex life and is under legal and political attack. Did it ever occur to you that she might have thought the President's enemies were setting HER up?

"This is more than witness tampering, this is witness compulsion... it has to do with keeping his team on board [and] an effort to impede the functioning of our court system."

Please. As if the President and Currie weren't being harassed themselves.

Asa backtracked to the events of December 28th that led to the return of the gifts. He even admitted that there was inconsistency in testimony. The problem is that no matter the conflicting stories, the details seem to indicate more the end of a relationship than a "coverup."

He said that "common sense supports Monica Lewinsky's testimony" -- common sense also says that people give back things when they break up. Asa claimed that Monica's story was supported by cell phone records -- not very well, from our view. And Currie put them under her bed, "a place of concealment." Also a place of storage in most American households.

Circumstantial evidence? You bet -- pretty weak evidence, too, that Clinton was attempting to "keep Monica on the team to obstruct the function of the civil courts.... How can you the jurors figure out who is telling the truth?... Can you dismiss the charges without evaluating the key witnesses?"

Is the Pope Catholic?

He turned to testimony by the President's staffers, which were mounted on a large poster board. He pointed to the words as he read them with what looked like a stiletto, shaking it as he read Sid Blumenthal's words. It almost looked as if Asa was in enough of a frenzy to stab someone.

Asa then said that "a President who has decried the politics of personal destruction... engaged in character assassination." Character assassination of a woman who admitted to having lied all her life and wanting her "Presidential kneepads"? Sounds more like Lewinsky made a few enemies in the White House.

He concluded with his "seven pillars of obstruction" -- none of which Asa had been able to prove.

Asa admitted that this case will have an affect on the Presidency and the Constitution, "but it is important that I believe in you... to make the right decision."

It sure will, Asa -- hopefully to raise the bar on what constitutes impeachable offenses.

A 15-minute recess was called.

James Rogan was the final manager of the day. He said that he would be dealing with the issue of perjury.

He claimed that Clinton perjured himself when he gave a false account of his relations with a "21-year-old intern," perjured in the Paula Jones case, "a federal civil rights suit," and testified falsely when he said that he did not seek to have witnesses testify falsely.

Our judicial system relies on witnesses testifying truthfully, and if witnesses lied, out court system would descend into chaos, Rogan said.

But it is already in chaos. Hundreds of thousands of cases of perjury happen each year. Only a handful get tried -- most of those easy, slam-dunk cases. One has to laugh at Rogan not laying out what constitutes perjury at all at the outset of his testimony.

He again claimed that Clinton had tried to defeat the Jones case by corrupt means, and cut to a tape of Clinton taking the oath in the Jones case.

"Note the solemn nature of the oath," said Rogan, again going into the "truth, whole truth" shtick. "He was not obliging to fudge on the truth -- he pledged to tell the whole truth... in the name of God."

So? Courts have ruled that answering in a concealing or deceptive manner in some circumstances is NOT a violation of this oath.

We could tell at this point that Rogan's case would not hold up in any court.

His claim that the President could claim Fifth Amendment privilege -- absolute pap, as this would be both a bad political move, and hard-righters would have pilloried Clinton and pushed harder for impeachment.

He claimed that Clinton chose the path of 'corrupting' the Jones case -- a case which itself looks to be corrupt from the get-go.

Rogan pulled up his first poster board -- with the first few questions from the Independent Counsel's office asking if he understood his oath and "could" be "prosecuted for perjury" if he gave false or misleading statements.

Nice, dramatic gesture, Jim. He "could" -- if the prosecutors had a slam-dunk case based on all the elements of perjury. Just as they "could" in hundreds of thousands of cases.

But don't. Because they have no case.

Rogan blustered on for about five minutes concerning Clinton's responses to questions about his oaths to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

He then turned to other preliminary questions in the Grand Jury setting the stage for his actual testimony. Rogan said Clinton "had an obligation to tell the truth... let's take a look at how the President met that obligation."

Rogan argued that the President committed perjury when he testified about the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky. At his deposition, the President was shown a definition by Susan Webber Wright, which Rogan read a "sanitized" version of, no doubt for those parents who might be shocked by the language and need a clarification from their children.

Rogan then ran a tape of the notorious "finger-wagging" statement -- just to further embarrass the President.

Eight months after the deposition, said Rogan, the tide had turned against his story. We would remind Rogan that it had also turned against Starr and the GOP -- and they would scream for revenge in December. Rogan then turned to the poll Dick Morris conducted regarding whether the public would forgive him for perjury and Clinton's reaction -- "we'll just have to win."

He then played the President's statement to the grand jury concerning the nature of his affair with Lewinsky. As with the finger-wagging clip, these were not played so much to build a case of perjury as to embarrass the president.

The Managers had again blundered -- and it's certain the so-called "short-attention-span" Senators knew this.

Rogan claimed that this was a "substitute answer... to avoid answering... specific sexual harassment questions." We say the reverse is true -- that the argument was used as an excuse to once again broadcast the President's admission to the world.

Rogan actually went so far as to say that he did it to avoid committing perjury! So much for his case.

"The idea of the President having a relationship with a 21-year-old intern was a public relations disaster." It's also the dream of most bored or workaholic middle-aged men -- don't tell us it hasn't crossed your mind, Jim!

"He brought her back to the Oval Office and initiated a relationship with her." Another misleading claim by Rogan -- SHE initiated the relationship. Rogan also claimed that the President had "more than inappropriate sexual banter" -- this was tailored to paint the President a liar and pervert based on untested testimony. Rogan claimed that this made the President's statement false and misleading -- and failed to prove it.

Rogan started dishing the sleaze, accusing the President of essentially demanding sexual favors or rewarding for same in the workplace. He then turned to the Jones testimony, and asserted that the President "tried to deconstruct the English language" in his answers.

We love this -- the House Managers embracing deconstruction theory, once the territory of liberal-leaning sociologists! And that on top of embracing "civil rights"! How convenient!

Rogan then played another of the most salacious and embarrassing portions of the President's Grand Jury testimony -- concerning who touched whom where -- as Rogan hastily parsed the President's words.

It was uproarious -- Rogan claiming that the President was "giving a new definition" to the meaning of the definition when it was in fact the Jones attorneys who had tried to split definitive hairs -- something the President even pointed out.

"The evidence clearly shows that the President deconstructed the English language." Deconstructing the language is not in and of itself a crime -- it is, in fact, used as a legitimate defense. "[His answers] were designed to defeat Paula Jones in her sexual harassment suit." But Rogan failed to prove yet again that they constitute perjury -- or address court rulings that support Clinton's strategy of justly defeating what now appears at very least a nuisance suit.

Rogan's arguments got tiresome and repetitive -- despite his energized and quite forceful demeanor.

Rogan went on to show a section of the Jones depo video in which Bob Bennett and Donovan Campbell are sparring over a detail concerning the Lewinsky affidavit -- and went on to point out the "the President sat mute" and did not point out that the affidavit was false.

Well, first, he was not asked. Second, he was no cad. Like, say, Henry Hyde. Or Bob Barr. Or Charles Canady.

Rogan then played the "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...", a favorite cudgel of the right. Rogan's point -- that the President said he was not paying much attention to what his lawyer was saying during the sparring.

Rogan then replayed the sparring -- and said Clinton was looking at and "focused" on Bob Bennett and, by God, he has a witness who can PROVE it!

To us, it looked like Clinton was thinking to himself.

Do you believe that Rogan calls this a case for perjury? It is a good case in support of the hard-righters in the House who are destroying the GOP doing anything they can to embarrass the President.

Rogan then replayed the "'is' is" clip, focusing on "I was not paying much attention to what the lawyers were saying."

It was almost as if Rogan were handing Charles Ruff a free pass to destroy the Managers' case. It was an almost unbelievable presentation.

Rogan then turned to "areas" of perjury in the president's Grand Jury testimony.

One: that the President did not want Monica Lewinsky to file a truthful testimony. Gee, Jim -- what about Monica saying "No one ever asked me to lie?"

Two: false testimony concerning Clinton's post-Jones-depo conversation with Lewinsky. Rogan's claim -- he recited false answers to Currie because he wanted he to be a witness and violated Judge Wright's protective order. Do I hear the words "laughed out of court?"

Three: Currie told the Grand Jury that Clinton made some questions that were "more like statements" to Currie to get her reaction -- but once again Rogan draws assumptions from an incomplete slice of Currie's testimony. Clinton testified that he was trying to see if his recollection was right -- Rogan had the President's testimony on a card rather than on tape. Why? Could it be that Clinton's testimony is quite compelling?

Hey Rogan, why is it you seem eager to play some footage and not other footage? Do the words "three-card Monty" mean anything to you?

Four: those troublesome gifts. Rogan reviewed the time line well after almost the entire viewing audience had asked themselves "Have I ever returned stuff to a person I've broken up with?" he then said that "The fact that Clinton gave Lewinsky gifts on December 28 does not exonerate him." No, but it sure does shoot holes in the idea that there was any sort of conspiracy to cover up the relationship. Watch Clinton's lawyers tear Rogan a new hole over this "minor" detail.

Rogan cannot forestall the collapse of this wall in the house of cards -- and the rest of the house with it.

Five: Clinton told his key aides a version of the facts that were not true. Rogan claimed that "his testimony that what he told his staff is true is prejurious" -- a massive stretch at best, over a private matter.

Rogan wrapped up with rhetoric about the judiciary not being undermined.

It was a cover. The House Managers are out to lower the bar on impeachment. They cannot prove perjury -- they dare not to have even defined it lest the public see their "emperor's clothes." They constantly invoked the claim that Clinton was out to "corruptly thwart... Paula Jones' civil rights suit" -- a partisan tarting-up of a tactical assault on Clinton through the misuse of the court system.

Their hard position is a cover for their effort to kill the power and prestige of the Presidency, and to upset the balance of power that has served this country for some 210 years.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo