The Big Yawn
Taliban House Managers Bore Senate Into Submission, Put Their Case Into Reruns

January 15, 1999 --- New York (APJP) -- Judge Rehnquist gaveled day two of the House Taliban presentation to order at 1:03, and after an opening prayer, Trent Lott asked unanimous consent (i.e. announced) a somewhat revised schedule for the impeachment trial. he announced that the presentation would run until 6 PM.

It seemed as if the entire day's testimony was designed to lull the nation to sleep with the same points they made yesterday.

Bill McCollum was the first Congressman to continue the persecutorial snorefest. He began by boring us with what he saw on the way to the lynching of Clinton this morning before he said he would summarize yesterday's presentation and help those Senators "digest" yesterday's spew.

We wonder how many Senators took this as another 'short attention span' slam.

"Did the President commit crimes?" was the theme of McCollum's rapid-fire presentation.

"Every time I look at this , there's so much detail here, I learn something new," he said, referring to the Starr Report and the Managers' brief.

Right Billy-Bob. Like new techniques in spinning half-truths into a thin and politically motivated "case" against the President.

The first point he turned to was the "Paula Jones sexual harassment civil rights suit."

McCollum joined his colleagues in using the Goebbels "Big Lie" technique -- say it often enough and people will believe it. All they are do are tempting Clinton's attorneys to tear apart this "civil rights" nonsense -- it was nothing more than a facade behind which a bunch of anti-Clinton zealots could hide in their effort to extort Clinton.

After McCollum rehashed more vague points, he joined all of the previous Taliban managers in calling for witnesses, specifically Monica Lewinsky.

He then whipped out a chart of sentencing guidelines, including perjury, and witness tampering. He also made reference to "bribing a witness."

So what? This is a political Senate trial, not a court, Bill.

"When he lied in the Jones deposition... and he lied a lot in that deposition...." Really, Bill? Your Crip buddies haven't even come close to proving it.

"He [Clinton] resented Paula Jones' lawsuit." You'd resent a phony lawsuit, too, Bill, if some greedhead decided to fabricate a tale of woe and sue you. Jones took back big chunks of her sworn complaint under questioning from Bob Bennett. Can you say "perjury," Bill -- unless it's with respect to allegations against Clinton?

McCollum also spent a good deal of time discussing why he found Lewinsky's testimony "so compelling" -- just so long as it could be used to impugn Clinton, of course. He made much of a line from her testimony: "No one asked me to lie, but no one discouraged me either" -- as if the latter words were more important than the former.

Bottom line: no one asked her to lie. Get over it, Bill.

He then focused on paragraph 8 of Lewinsky's affidavit -- and what McCollum characterized as a "full falsehood, and he [Clinton] knew it." The claim: Clinton sat silent during the Jones depo and did not correct this wording, and that constitutes obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice? Nonsense. An attempt to cover up an improper relationship? Maybe. We'd love to see McCollum prosecute this case in DC -- he'd be laughed out of court.

He spent an inordinate amount of time developing a pseudo-conspiracy involving Lewinsky, Currie and Clinton that still stretches credulity. Clinton's team will have a field day with this point.

The big points; "Clinton committed the crimes of witness tampering and obstruction of justice." McCollum's "facts", however, never demonstrated an airtight case, and never addressed the real "why" -- namely, why was he trying to conceal an inappropriate relationship?

And this is where the House Managers are most likely to fail in their quest to oust Clinton: this was a response to political attack, not a plot to deprive Paula Jones of "civil rights" that were never violated in a lawsuit that got tossed out of court.

McCollum wound up his rant by listing a litany of "lies" to the Grand Jury. Not very convincing, in that his "proof" of the lies was all circumstantial evidence, hearsay and one-sided interpretation.

The second manager to speak -- to unfortunate effect for the Managers -- was George Gekas, a man unable to construct cogent sentences without stammering or stumbling into clumsy grammatical construction. He had his own set of mantras:

"The rights of Paula Jones, a fellow American citizen" -- hey George, what about the right of the President, a fellow citizen, not to be harassed by nuisance suits smacking of fraud and political attack?

"...his effort to obliterate the civil suit... the nuclear explosion of falsehoods" -- gee, George, it was the ultra-right who fired the first tactical volleys of the politics of personal destruction!

"No matter what she was called by pundits, talking heads, et cetera..." -- she's still a money-grubbing opportunist of the worst kind. And that's a polite term, George. I could tell you what I really think Paula Jones is, George, but I'll leave that to your imagination.

Gekas claimed that the president's first "lies" were given in written interrogatories issued by the Jones lawyers -- which only served to remind us of how the House Judiciary Committee attempted to abuse the President with their 81 superfluous interrogatories.

Steve Chabot gave a presentation concerning the four elements of perjury, and immediately put himself in hot water.

He said there has been "no challenge to the oaths given to Clinton" -- which is a lie. A lie told by Steve Chabot, under oath, who played Clinton being sworn in before the Grand Jury by the WRONG OFFICER OF THE COURT.

This point has been demonstrated by a number of legal scholars. Yes, it's a technical point, but one which plays into Starr's greater concern with abusing women than playing by the rules.

Chabot then attempted to launch a preemptive strike against Clinton's legal team by declaring two quite relevant issues "legal smokescreens": The Bronston case and the "two-witness" rule.

His arguments were steeped in legal language which we will not repeat other than to say that his characterizations of the laws were pretty one-sided.

Chris Cannon spoke so fast -- almost mumbling some of his testimony -- that we hardly understood any of the words outside of "civil rights." We almost thought he was mounting a case to save Affirmative Action for nuisance suits!

Bob Barr -- the nutcase who has been whining for impeachment practically from the moment he was elected to Congress -- finally had his moment in the sun. His mission -- to summarize the case yet again.

His presentation was nothing we have not heard before -- he was practically going through the motions of a technical summation before a jury. In fact, he was treating the Senate like a jury -- which would become a major blunder on Barr's part (more on this later).

At least he wasn't as incoherent as Gekas, boring as Chabot or motor-mealy-mouthed as Cannon. And he wears the best neckties in the entire House Republican caucus -- a little loud and brash. But then that's what you'd expect from a guy who owns a waterbed...

But I digress.

He spoke in lofty terms -- only bolstering our writers' view that he must be from the impeachment Twilight Zone. Interestingly, where most of the other Managers had used posters with yellow-and-blue color schemes (with words they were trying to twist into evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors in red), Barr opted for old-fashioned black and white. It reflected the near Calvinist absolutism of Barr's message of right and wrong.

But Barr's speech went off on so many tangents that had he actually been giving a summation to a jury he would have failed to get a conviction -- jurors would have been left scratching their heads because he failed to tie all the threads together in a very convincing manner.

Remember, this is the man who has been champing at the bit to drive Clinton from office -- it's practically been his singular goal since coming to Congress -- and his day in the limelight turned into a mishmash of innuendo, hearsay, disputed evidence and information overkill.

If he couldn't give a fire-breathing, hell-and-damnation, airtight argument that Clinton must be removed for high crimes and misdemeanors, it does not bode well for his Manager confederates. The best he could do was say that an attempt to cover up a private relationship devolved into criminal obstruction.

Indeed, this practically gives something for Clinton's team to seize onto -- Clinton's single worst enemy has admitted that these were private lies.

Barr spent a huge amount of time on the transfer of Clinton's gifts to Lewinsky from Monica to Betty Currie -- inflating it into a coverup of crisis proportions, telling the Senators, "you as the jury," may "infer" that the president violated a specific statute pertaining to obstruction of justice.

Barr underlined the words "civil rights action" -- we sniggered at how obviously he'd actually done it.

He spent a full fifteen minutes trying to build a head of steam on the case that Clinton had engaged in a "scheme to lie and obstruct justice." He recycled so many points we had heard during the previous ten hours that he could have run on the Green Party ticket!

And at the most dramatic moment of Barr's speech, as he was winding up his summation, he had the rug yanked out from under him. Tom Harkin rose in objection to Barr's repeated use of the word "jurors." He based his argument on: Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution, saying the Senate shall have the right to try, not the courts; Article 3, saying that all trials except impeachment shall be by jury; Federalist 65 in which Hamilton said that the Senate was granted sole impeachment power: "There will be no jury to stand between the judges [who shall decide] and the party [that shall be tried]"; and the 26 rules for impeachment which never mention the word juror. Senators try the impeachment, and do not sit as a jury.

"It may be a small point, but it is a very important point" that the Framers did not mean that they sit as a jury, since the Senate will set a precedent that will be looked back upon in future actions." Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) called a lame point of parliamentary procedure, questioning whether it was appropriate for Harkin to raise such an objection.

If Smith thinks he has even a shot at the GOP nod for the Presidency, he'd best think again. He'd probably come in last in the all-important New Hampshire primary -- his own state. What a stiff.

And Rehnquist ruled for the first time in the trial: "The Senator from Iowa's objection is well-taken, and counsel should not refer to the Senators as jurors."

Harkin, 1. Smith and Barr, 0.

Barr looked as if he were containing a "Scanners"-style brain explosion as he said -- catch this -- "I thank you for your ruling."

We were reminded of that timeless line from Animal House: "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?"

Poor Bob had to change the remainder of his speech so as not to say "juror" but "trier" instead. It threw his pacing way off, yet he ended with a flourish: "strike down these cancers," he said, invoking the Deanian word in the same manner as other Managers had.

A recycled flourish, just as he had recycled his entire speech.

Trent Lott was recognized, and made the necessary parliamentary moves to end the day.

Outside the senate chamber, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) was interviewed by CNN and refused "as a trier" to discuss the merits of the case, but did say that "we are moving toward hearing other witnesses." He said that he did not feel in necessary to call Clinton, who would give "the same tortured legal arguments" again.

Meanwhile, Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) was giving a press conference discussing the fact that the president has in fact less rights than a citizen standing trial in the courts. "you do not under any circumstances say that someone has to come and prove his innocence... This is not a normal court of law as such." he called the House managers case "witness baiting of the highest level... if they feel they're case is overwhelming, they should be satisfied with the case they have."

Minutes later, Tom Harkin was approached by a flock of press geese, and said that Rehnquist's first ruling set a good precedent: "The use of the word 'jurors' by the House Managers set constraints... [they] put us in a box... Rehnquist's ruling means that we can be expansive."

And White House counsel Greg Craig popped out to make a brief press statement: The House Managers returned again and again to the Paula Jones deposition despite the fact that the full House rejected the impeachment article concerning perjury in the Jones deposition; and they again and again asked for witnesses -- because they clearly do not have a case.

Craig made the same points yesterday -- but at length. At least he kept it short and to the point.

Day 2 of trial action: in a word, boring. The continued donnybrook over witnesses, and Harkin's setting impeachment precedent, provided far more excitement than the dull-as-dishwater presentation of the House Managers, who brought nothing new to their case.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo