After surprise losses by Republicans at every level of government last week, The Honorable partisan adulterer Henry Hyde sent the President a list of 81 items to "admit or deny," ostensibly to expidite the lame duck Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings. Hyde said the President could help move the process along by letting the committee focus on which facts were "in dispute." Sounds reasonable enough, right? Get those pesky agreed-upon facts off the table and dig into the ones where there is conflicting testimony or some other reason to keep the kangaroo court in session.

But Captain Kangaroo's pop quiz reads like 81 repetitions of "When did you stop beating your wife?" In question 1, for example, he asks the President to admit or deny whether or not he is the President. Is this fact "in dispute?" I didn't count the votes myself, but I watched him take the oath and all... (That's question 2 -- whether or not he took the oath.) Hey, maybe Bush and Dole really won, but the vote counting machines were all MADE IN CHINA! Somebody get Dan "Melonhead" Burton on this!

Many of the other questions are also about matters which are not "in dispute." Is the President (question 4) a lawyer and member of the Arkansas Bar? $40 million into Ken Starr's investigation, and he couldn't turn up the answer to this question? I know it's Arkansas, but isn't there a list somewhere, maybe somebody at the Arkansas Bar office he could have called? I could probably take this question out of dispute for about 40 cents on the dime-a-minute plan.

Some are eerily specific, but don't relate to anything even Republicans could consider a crime, like question 25:

Do you admit or deny that on or about December 28, 1997, you expressed concern to Monica Lewinsky about a hatpin you had given to her as a gift which had been subpoenaed in the case of Jones v Clinton?

Oh my God! He may or may not have "expressed concern" about a hatpin! That's the clincher, there. I hear Drudge is reporting he also "expressed puzzlement" at the Times crossword puzzle, but that, naturally, is unconfirmed.

How about this one: 72. Do you admit or deny the past or present existence of, or the past or present direct or indirect employment of individuals, other than counsel representing you, whose duties include making contact with or gathering information about, witnesses or potential witnesses in any judicial proceeding related to any matter in which you are or could be involved?

Walk like a logician for a minute, now. How can you deny the "existence" of someone whose duties include those listed here? Wolf Blitzer exists. Tim Russert exists. Ken Starr's jihad fits this description quite nicely, and he exists (though on a different plane than the rest of us). Leave that one blank, Prez.

Not all the questions are as sophomoric as these, but 10 percent or fewer relate to their stated function -- clarifying facts "in dispute" -- and zero relate to conflicting testimony given by the witnesses themselves.

But the insidious core of most questions is that "yes" or "no" answers don't give anyone a scrap of substantial information on which to make any sort of judgment. They suggest things without actually revealing anything. They're the veils, not the stripper. Did the President make a phone call to Vernon Jordan at such and such a time? If the answer is "yes," what do you know? You know he made a phone call to Vernon Jordan at such and such a time, and nothing more. The answer to a question like "What was that call about?" or "Did you ask Vernon Jordan to lie about whatever?" would provide the one thing this committee appears determined to avoid: facts. Innuendo good. Facts bad. Voters dumb as bricks.

This pouty exercise has a distinct Gingrichian stink to it, and may have been his last act before last week's public suicide. Those of you who follow this sort of thing may recognize that pungent odor from one of Newt's first acts as House Speaker, when he asked every member of the House to vote for his screw-the-poor-kids budget or be called on the carpet to "explain why they don't want a balanced budget." Was there any other way to a balanced budget? Could some reasonable person be in favor of balancing the budget without screwing the poor kids (e.g. President Clinton)? No, no, no... Either case would require the use of details, which are invariably inconvenient for people with weak cases (Newt, Ken Starr, Paula Jones, etc.).

In response to the 81 halfwit traps laid out by Dr. Jekyll's alter ego and his reptilian mentor, I've decided not to drop down to their level. It was a struggle, let me tell you. Instead, let me ask this single question 81 times: how many more times are you going to insult our intelligence before you're satisfied?

--Dave Gibbons