Thursday, November 19th, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Remember all that talk last month about "bipartisanship" and "neutrality" emerging from the lips of House Judiciary Committee ChairmanHenry Hyde? Well, we'd love to ask him how that squares with his comments yesterday to a Washington Post reporter who asked if Starr needed to hit a home run today. His reply: "I'd settle for a line drive over third."

Bipartisan. Neutral. Right, Henry. This looks to be the first sign that the same old "new" House GOP leadership has opted to send their battleship full steam ahead into the Sea of Impeachment. This also shows the "highly respected" Mr. Hyde, a man who has never come clean about questions surrounding his involvement with an Illinois S&L that went bust years ago and has written off his own extramarital dalliances during his 40s as a "youthful indiscretion." for what he is -- another right-wing spin doctor out to 'get" Clinton.

And the early "sound bites" set the stage for Hyde's version of bipartisan neutrality.

Watching the hearing room in which Kenneth Starr would give his "report" to the House Judiciary Committee before the day's hearing began, one would think that both parties were simply putting one over on the American people.

Members from both sides of the aisle laughed, nudged each other in that "insider" way and stood around awaiting the arrival of the Chief Inquisitor and Chairman Henry Hyde, himself an adulterer who lied about to the voters of Illinois by not telling them of his trysts as they elected and reelected him.

If this is the manner by which the President of the United States is "tried in absentia," then God help this nation.

As Hyde sat down, an anticipatory quiet came over the cavernous room. Hyde gave little "howdya do" smiles around the room, and then convened the Committee with an announcement of why they were all there. "The Chair will recognize himself for five minutes and the Ranking Minority Member for five minutes..."

And so it began.

Hyde recapped the ludicrous schedule he had concocted with his GOP colleagues, once again pointing out that the President's counsel would have only thirty minutes to examine Mr. Starr.

Shortly after the hearing opened, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) moved to allow the President's attorneys two hours to question Starr; Hyde, as one would predict, shot it down, claiming that "Starr is not on trial" -- a lame excuse. Hyde then asked the President to respond to the 81 questions -- all accusatory -- that Hyde sent him only two weeks ago. He points out that Abbe Lowell will also get a half hour. Hyde made it looked fair, but was unfair.

Thankfully, Hyde's schedule would not be rigorously followed; both Abbe Lowell and David Kendall would have their opportunities to question Kenneth Starr extended. In Lowell's case, it would be to only partially successful effect; in Kendall's, the damage would be done.

Immediately after Hyde's verbose reply, Delahunt attempted to reply but was not allowed to. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) interjected and spoke up on Hyde's violation of Committee rules of order; hek urged that the Delahunt be heard on his motion. Hyde -- though he had already ruled, denying Delahunt's motion -- had no choice . He let Delahunt speak.

Delahunt made his point about "a grave constitutional moment" and would NOT yield when Hyde attempted to interject.

"We are talking about the impeachment of the President of the United States," he underscored. He reminded everyone that Republicans have written that the President's counsel is at the hearing "as a matter of courtesy." He criticized Starr's delivery of a 60 page report only 15 hours before this hearing began. "The records of the Watergate hearings" showed "no time limits... It is more important that the President be given a full and fair opportunity to respond to the charges... 30 minutes is unfair when Starr has had weeks to prepare his presentation [and] the President has had 16 hours." Delahunt criticized the posting of grand jury testimony to the Internet to reinforce the overwhelming unfairness of the situation. He called for an independent investigation of the facts alleged by Starr. Hyde's response -- that "the purpose of today's hearing is to hear from Judge Starr" -- failed to address Delahunt's comments; Rep. Hyde said "You are disrupting the continuity of these hearings." He said the President would be given all the time he needs.

Rep. Mel Watt interjected, "I am disrupting a railroad."

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) tried to make a point of information -- and Hyde ignored her. Barney Frank said the committee should simply vote on Congressman Delahunt's motion. Ranking minority member John Conyers called for a vote.

And Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) had his say: "Starr is the only witness [to be called so far]... The fact is, Mr.starr is going to sit here for 120 minutes... he is entitled to do that [but] one side is going to have 260 minutes and the other is going to have 135... in the one day of scheduled hearings."

The first Republican to speak up, Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), claims that Democrats were "denigrating the integrity" of the hearing. How he could say that, bloated both physically and mentally as he is, is beyond us. He claimed America should "trust" Hyde to conduct the hearing fairly rather than establish rules at the onset. "Let's hear Starr first," said Sensenbrenner. Conyers again moved for a vote.

Early on, the hearings turned into a fight about fairness -- exposing the lack thereof on the part of Starr and the GOP-controlled committee.

The Clerk called the role. Surprise! All the Republicans vote no! The motion was defeated (21-16) -- and the hearing became firmly established in the minds of Americans as a political lynch mob orchestrated by the Christian-Right-"New Moralist" wing of the GOP.

Hyde recognized himself for another five minutes. He calld his hearing a "constitutional counterbalance," claiming that this is an historical first -- the first time an Independent Counsel brings the charges. Hyde said he has no precedent and that Starr is the most familiar with the material. Ridiculous: it is, of course, The White House, the President and his lawyers that are most familiar with the material and the accusations made by Starr. Hyde contradicted his own intent.

"We will accuse, the Senate will judge." That's the Hyde-Starr message.

Hyde quoted David Broder, a frequent Clinton critic. He asked whether a lie is a triviality in a courtroom and about the rule of law and how it is "trampled" by white lies about sex. He referred to the officers and the enlisted man, attempting to resurrect the invalid double-standard ploy.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX): "Why have we gagged and bound the defense?' She compared the situation of the President's counsel to the bound-and-gagged Chicago Seven -- something which can't go over too well with conservatives!

Hyde then recognized John Conyers, Ranking Minority Member of the committee, not the best or most dynamic speaker as a rule. he did seem to drone at the start but picked up steam as he lit into Starr: "[This is] an unprecedented desperation effort to breathe new life into a dying inquiry... It is fundamental to the integrity of this inquiry to examine whether the independent counsel's evidence is tainted, whether conclusions are colored by improper motive.... The committee must understand whether Mr. Starr improperly threatened witnesses if they did not provide incriminating evidence against the president of the United States, whether Mr. Starr's partisan interest affected the collection and presentation of evidence, and whether Mr. Starr himself violated the law by leaking uncensored grand jury material to humiliate the president.... Even if the alleged facts are proven true, they simply do not amount to impeachable offenses." Conyers went on to describe Starr as "a federally paid sex policeman, spending millions of dollars to trap an unfaithful spouse."

He added "It is not acceptable to force mothers to testify against their daughters; to make lawyers testify against their clients; to require Secret Service agents to testify against the people they protect; or to make book stores tell what books people read. It is not acceptable for rogue attorneys and investigators to trap a young woman in a hotel room, discourage her from calling her lawyer, ridicule her when she asked to call her mother."

Conyers also "wonder[s] why Starr encouraged Linda Tripp to .. continue taping Monica Lewinsky without court approval." He brought up the issue of "[whether it is] just coincidence that even before he was appointed independent counsel Mr. Starr was already in contact with lawyers for Paula Jones? Is it just coincidental that Mr. Starr, until recently, drew $1 million a year salary from his law firm that represents the tobacco industry, which is fighting President Clinton's effort to deter teen smoking? Is it just a coincidence that this independent counsel accepted a prestigious job at a university funded by one of the president's most persistent and vocal critic, Richard Mellon Scaife?"

He asked why Starr practically buried Monica Lewinsky's crucial testimony that "no one asked me to lie." Why, he asked, did Starr decline to provide Democratss on the HJC with documents they had repeatedly requested -- asserting a privilege of his own as he attacked the President's right to protective and attorney-client privilege? "We lack confidence in his referral.... All this committee has done since the referral is dump salacious material before the public." He ended by accusing Starr of creating "a climate for driving from office a president who has been twice elected by the people of this country."

Throughout the comments, Starr was pouting. He sat like a sack of rising dough. looking like the Pillsbury Dough Boy (a shame he didn't pay much attention to the Pillsbury report, which decimated accusations of wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater matter). You could tell he was doing everything to restrain the obvious anger which peeked through the huffy, try-to-look-bored expression on his face.

Hyde then moved to Starr's introduction. He snidely pointed out that Starr was appointed by Democrats to investigate Senator Packwood's elevator rapes. Hyde gave Starr kudos for indicting people that had nothing to do with any wrongdoing by the President.

Starr was sworn in at 10:58AM.

Starr said he welcomed the opportunity to address this committee. His voice was that of an effete homosexual -- although there is no indication that he is gay. He complimented the Committee on the depth and breadth of its consideration. We chuckled. Starr said that the Attorney General petitioned the three judge panel to authorize Starr's investigation of Lewinsky. He claimed they did a swift and thorough investigation in "only" 8 months!

"Let me say at the outset that it is the House, not me. that reserves the sole right to impeach."

He claimed that the President made false statements under oath and to the grand jury, and then lied to the public that night on television. He also claimed that the President obstructed his investigation. He then quoted Democrat Senators Lieberman and Moynihan, and claimed he agrees with them. Starr went on and on about how "criminal" the president is and that his activities were "not a private matter" as the President claimed during his television address to the nation in August.

He then read the same litany of allegations and claimed they are a "pattern" that opposes the President's duty to adhere to the law. He claimed that because the President did not correct Attorney Bennett at his deposition that Bennett was a conspirator! He claimed the President "used" the cabinet to back his false statements. This is a total fabrication on Starr's part. If the President had told then the truth, and then asked them to lie, then that, my friends, would have been an illegal act.

Then Starr launched into additional rubbish about the President's private life. He "used" people at the White House, the Ambassador to the United Nations, Bruce Lindsey -- all to conceal his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.

Starr then turned to the "legal" context, saying that the President's relationship, in and of itself, does not constitute a crime. He said the referral is about lying under oath, obstruction of justice and the abuse of power. "Is a plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit entitled to get truth information..." Starr answered that no citizen can lie under oath and thereby stop the plaintiff from pursuing her case. Starr admitted that we will never know what a jury would have done. Well, no kidding, Malibu, the case got thrown out -- then settled. It's dead. Deader than your career as a Justic of the supreme Court. Starr pointed to the President's settlement of the Jones case last week. He said the President claimed an immunity from Jones lawsuit until he left office. The case went to the Supreme Court (packed now by right-wing Reagan and Bush appointees). We should point out, however, that the vote was 9-0 against the President. "No citizen is above the law," sneers Starr.

Starr then began a tedious lecture on sexual harassment cases and their "he-said, she said" components. Starr went on and on about the Jones case, the judge and her writings during the case. Starr then went on to explain why he went after Lewinsky:

1. The President was sued for sexual harassment.

2. The law of sex harassment allowed Jones to inquire into the President's relationship with other women in the workplace.

3. The Judge rejected the President's objections.

4. It is a crime to lie or obstruct justice in a court proceeding.

5. Evidence suggests that the President gave false testimony along with Lewinsky in a conspiracy. Starr does a bunch of "supposes" - like what would happen under the same set of facts? All hogwash. Starr, an ultra-right Republican who has, by right-wing definition, no respect for women due to his political allegiance, now falls upon the altar and severity of sexual harassment.

Starr claimed the President could choose truth or deception, and that in all cases, he chose deception. He then "detailed" each decision in an attempt to create a difference between lying to a spouse and to the court -- as if such a choice was in the offing. The President could not choose to tell the court the truth and hide that truth from his wife -- or anyone else. Absurd.

Starr claimed that the President should have asked Lewinsky to tell the truth. "On the contrary -- according to Lewinsky, Clinton said she could sign an affidavit and use deceptive cover stories." Starr admitted that the President did not instruct Lewinsky to lie. "He did not have to," said Starr.

But is that not the point? He did not. He cannot be accused.

Starr claimed that this is a critical turning point. Remember -- his office has leaked more than two dozen false alarms about "turning points' in his various investigations -- all dead ends. He then said the President was criminal. He said at the moment the President decided to lie, the relationship was transformed into a criminal action and was no longer private.

We stopped listening at that point. Starr listed other points where the president lied about Lewinsky, her gifts to him and her gifts to her. He claimed that even though he has no proof of the President's involvement in the gift exchange, the facts "SUGGEST" that he did!

Remember this: Starr is merely repeating hearsay -- something someone told him -- in fact, he does not know if anyone he has interviewed actually told him the truth. Yet during his entire testimony, Starr speaks as if what he said is proven FACT. This is a travesty of justice and Starr should be disbarred for this conduct.

At one point, Starr began to lose it and showed his hatred for the President. He was talking about the President's deposition in the Jones Gold Digging Law Suit. He began to methodically address every time the President appeared to lie -- but stating the President did lie. His cadence became quickened and the color in his face rosy as he rhythmically counted off and described every alleged lie. However, he did not mention that in some cases, the President -- in fact -- did not lie. He used the wrong tense, or he ignored the question and certain statements made by his counsel - Bill Bennett.

Starr went on and on about the President's use of executive privilege -- as if the President was not legally entitled to attempt to invoke his legal rights. Starr wove an impossible-to-understand, near-incoherent set of complex arguments which masked the false assumptions he makes in his referral. The Committee, during his testimony, seemed to nod off more frequently or engage in side discussions of amusement, while he droned on.

Starr claimed that the President "pretended" that he didn't know the details of executive privilege.

Starr then went on to talk about the President's discourse with his aides and the cabinet. He claimed the President "concocted" alternative scenarios -- which he passed to his aides, and that were repeated to the Grand Jury.

Starr was now one hour into his testimony.

He called the President's actions a conspiracy, then moved to the President's Grand Jury testimony. He, for some reason, pointed out that many warned the President not to lie before the Grand Jury. Then he said the president did not heed either Senator Hatch of Senator Moynihan's warnings. Why? To give a dramatic boost to his otherwise dull presentation.

Starr said: "Indeed the President made false statements to the Grand Jury." He did not elaborate on what they were.

Starr then re-enumerates a laundry list of charges -- including witness tampering to the Committee. Again his voice rises.

Mr. Starr then began to discuss Tripp. He said that on January 8th, 1998 his office was informed that Tripp wanted to share information. Tripp called him on January 12th. Starr adds that he has obtained tips from many sources from "Swiss bank accounts to drug smuggling." He claimed that they investigated their veracity -- as they did with Tripp. Starr then claimed he informed Deputy Attorney General Holder within 48 hours. He said they looked into the Maryland law outlawing telephone taping. He explained that the Attorney General gave the matter to him. The Justice Department listened only to the FBI tape made "consensually."

Starr then turned to rationalization in order to defend his theory that the Presidents actions were high crimes and misdemeanors. He claimed -- res ipsa loquitor -- that these actions would, even though they were not linked to official acts. He went further and said that any other conclusion would be contrary to the Constitution -- yet hundreds of attorneys have concluded the opposite. Starr does not mention this -- nor does he mention 400 historians who after reviewing the historical documents re impeachment also found the reverse.

In short, Starr himself at least appears to be lying to the Committee -- and under oath himself.

Starr attempted to go beyond the Lewinsky matter -- to magically talk about the "atmosphere" surrounding his overzealous pursuit of the President. At the point that began to deal with Madison Guarantee Savings & Loan, Rep. Jackson Lee interrupted: "I believe Mr. Starr's remarks are out of order [and] are not germane... I asked that this committee abide by... the due process rights of the fifth amendment." She was overruled by Chairman Hyde and Starr continued.

Starr started with events of August 1994. He described his 5 investigations. Madison Guarantee, FBI files, Travel Office, Vince Foster and Lewinsky. First he tried to pat himself on the back pointing out his sorry indictments against the McDougals, Web Hubbell, and Governor Jim Guy Tucker. Like a peacock, he struts his stuff. Then he begins to lash out at Susan Thomases -- a friend of the Clinton's -- by saying how proud he is that he did not choose to indict her. Imagine the gall!

He blamed his ineptitude on the Clinton administration. Although he went to court to obtain documents he should not have held -- especially with his political bent -- Starr enumerated his trial victories on appeal and even tells the judge scores. 6-3, 5-4, etc. Like a guilty adolescent, he struggled to present himself as a wise man.

He turned to the Madison Guaranty matter. He claimed it was fraudulently operated. He claimed the First Lady worked for it. Regulators sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department. He then claimed that speculations about the Clintons were not idle and then brought up David Hale - a right-wing-funded moron who cannot be trusted. Yet Starr continues to pretend that Hale is an honest man. David Hale has been consistently and widely called a fraud in leading newspapers and news magazines, and his brother has claimed to friends that Hale tried to suborn perjury from him.

He talked of witnesses that pled guilty "and decided to cooperate." However, he did not explain their "cooperation" was due to heavy-handed negotiations by Starr to lessen their sentences in exchange for dirt on Clinton. Then, unbelievably, he begins to quote Jim McDougal -- now dead -- and his claims that Bill Clinton was at a meeting where Clinton said he was not present.

Jackson Lee once again objected: "This testimony is not germane and is a denial of due process."

Hyde forcefully overruled Jackson Lee, bringing up for the issue of the Republican inquiry bill winning over the Democrat bill, calling for a "thorough" investigation while claiming he wanted to "move along." After talk of taking a vote on Jackson Lee's objection, she withdrew the motion to vote, but added "Is my objection registered?"

Hyde replied "Yes, and we'll register it every half hour if we have to."

And then Starr engaged in the most heinous form of propaganda. He went over "facts" which were hearsay and then retired to an explanation that in 1997 he decided not to bring this information to the House because is was hearsay. Pay attention to this. It's important. Starr is besmirching the President's reputation, making himself look judicious, and simultaneously corrupting the Committee hearing.

It's a classic technique which first came to the fore in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's.

Starr says that the President came to the aid of "a convicted felon" -- Susan McDougal -- and implied that this somehow made the President a criminal. Another Hitlerian propaganda technique called "transfer" by propaganda experts.

Starr then told the most outlandish lie. He claims that he did not know that the House was going to release the Lewinsky deposition and Tripp tapes. This, friends, is the pinnacle of fraud. Why then did he send a set of Black Vans at High Noon to the front door of the Capitol -- and why were the media advised in advance?

Starr himself should be charged with lying under oath for this testimony alone. He represents everything that is NOT American -- and certainly not justice.

The most pathetic portion of Starr's testimony came at the end. He began to enumerate his employment history, lauding prosecutors, and thereby himself, "who toil without fanfare" -- unlike him, who used and continues to use his staff to promote himself to the public unsuccessfully. He even appealed to Jews talking about he fought for servicemen to wear a Yarmulke. He then complimented African-American Justice Thurgood Martial and moved to his time as Solicitor General -- a ridiculous job which forces individuals and businesses to hire private attorneys in order to protect themselves from the Solicitor General -- especially when the Solicitor General is on their side.

Starr nearly flipped out as he enumerated why it was so important to support the judicial process. He began to flail his hands in a thumping out of his points. He quoted Lincoln -- a man who favored slavery although history and Republicans fail to highlight this.

And that was that.

The Committee recessed until 1:45. Hyde then theatrically asked everyone in the room to remain in their seats until "Judge Starr has exited." Ha, ha, haha, ha. A feeble attempt to give him Pope-like respect.

At 1:57 PM Kenneth Starr re-entered the hearing room. The media across the board had given him low marks -- "Nothing New."

"He left out salient points ... like the fact that he wrote briefs for Paula Jones." -- Greta Van Sustern,- CNN

And worse for Starr, even blatant Clinton-bashing MSNBC had nothing good to say about Starr. Many comments cited Starr's failure to address the obvious points of attack that Democrats are ready to make. Starr consulted with moronic "press rep" Charles Bakaly just prior to the restart of the hearings. Bakaly, a graduate of a fly-by-night lawschool, is no match for professionals.

Abbe Lowell took the floor -- "for thirty minutes," as Hyde high-handedly reminded him.

Lowell called Starr "The principal witness" in this affair. He quoted Starr's letter to the Committee. Starr faltered, and said the letter was "only" about allegations made about the Lewinsky "arrest" and then lectured Lowell that this is the "work of the Grand Jury." He claimed that he is not a witness -- except for the conduct of his office.

Lowell pointed again to the letter and then begins his onslaught.

"You stated 'what to do with the evidence' and 'what to do with the referral.'" Lowell said there are substantial differences between the referral by Leon Jaworsky's Watergate referral and Starr's. Starr explained why -- sloppily. Starr blamed the Independent Counsel law which did not exist at the time of Watergate. He stammered and searched for words. He claimed that he was acting in an atmosphere of law -- unlike Jaworsky.

Lowell followed with a comparison of Jaworsky's report and Starr's. Where Leon's report was merely a statement of facts, as it should be, Starr's was accusatory and a referral "with attitude." Starr, holding his temper, said that he approached his referral as a "weighty responsibility" -- and did not answer the question. He claimed that he didn't want to send truckloads of information without organizing it and preparing the views of some of the "most experienced prosecutors" in the nation.

Who share his jaundiced, ultra-moralist view, we would add.

Lowell asked whether Starr chose the words "premeditated, lying under oath, concocted" -- words not found in the Jaworsky report.

Starr answered this is a "different kind of document," and prepared in a different atmosphere. He said that if he is going to inform the House that there may be a substantial reason for impeachment, then we must give our judgement. Again, he begs the question. "I believe, and you may disagree, that I should have given my judgement." In essence he said that his report is merely a tool for the use of the Congress and that it may adopt it or reject it.

Lowell reminded Starr that Jaworsky wrote, "The central key to the entire success was not accusing anyone."

"Umm, we did go through an evaluative process as I described... It is our professional judgement that the President did abuse his authority as guided by Sam Dash."

Lowell turned to "other choices about the evidence." He mentioned Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater -- on none of which Starr is sending a referral. Lowell asked, in essence, if this is just about the Jones case.

Starr hemmed and hawed and said, "Yes, you are quite right."

Lowell said, "... part of your title is Independent." He moved on to January 15th 1998 and Starr's meeting with Eric Holder. He reminded Starr that he "fully informed" Holder about the Jones/Lewinsky matter. He reminded him that Ms. Reno had a choice whether to refer this investigation to Starr.

Lowell then moved in for the kill and said affirmatively that Starr did not inform them of several material matters -- including Starr's own contacts with the Paula Jones team.

Starr claimed that he did not go to the Department to have this matter added to his investigative purview. Of course, Starr must be lying -- he had nothing after spending $40 million. He needed the Lewinsky matter. Without it, he would have been totally ruined.

He's ruined anyway.

Starr answered that he had been contacted by Jones lawyer Gilbert Davis and claimed that was in the public domain. Lowell interupted him and asked again -- "Did you tell Reno that your law firm was contacted to represent Paula Jones and then assisted her in obtaining counsel?" Starr claimed he "has no specific recollection" of that. Hilarious! Talk about calling the kettle black.

This was the first of many embarrassing moments of "no specific recollection" at most inopportune moments.

Starr admitted he had conversations with Jones attornies. Starr seemed to claim that he was contacted on the issue of Presidential Privilege. Starr, of course, was of the opinion that the President could be sued while in office.

Starr claimed "it never occurred to him" that these conversations should have been reported. "Fault me if you will," he said -- his idea of sneaking around the issue. Starr tried to hide behind the fact that his opinion siding with Jones was reported -- four years before.

Lowell followed with the fact that Starr's law firm was also considering helping the Independent Women's Forum to file a friend of the court brief for them. The Independent Women's Forum is a right-wing cover which opposes those issues favored by the majority of women in the United States.

Starr claimed that what he was investigating things that had nothing to do with the constitutional issues he addressed in the Jones conversations.

Starr was actually doing well against Lowell at this point. However, no one will believe that "it did not occur to" Starr to mention these facts to the Attorney General.

Lowell reminded Starr that his firm took a non-public affidavit and then sent it along to the Chicago Tribune. Starr again claimed that it did not occur to him.

Hyde then predictably granted Lowell another 30 minutes. He did it only because Starr was holding up well.

Lowell turned to the issue of Tripp taping Lewinsky. He asked why Starr chose to allow Tripp to continue taping Lewinsky. Starr said, "to the best of my knowledge, we didn't know that Tripp was working with the Jones lawyers." He then went on to say that he told Tripp to stop talking to Jones people.

Lowell reminded Starr that his office told Eric Holder that a reporter "was on to this" -- from Newsweek. At that point, the tables began to turn. Starr has now admitted that his office WAS pressing the Attorney General for quick action -- and quick action could only succeed in throwing the Lewinsky matter to Starr.

Starr claimed that Tripp was being asked to commit perjury -- but this was the excuse. Lowell asked why it took so long to silence Tripp's leaks -- Lucianne Goldberg. Tripp changed her phone number. Starr claimed he had no interest in making this public.

Now the tables were turning against Lowell again.

Lowell then turned to Starr giving Tripp immunity for taping Lewinsky, but her immunity agreement did not contain an agreement to maintain secrecy. In Lewinsky's immunity agreement -- she had to agree not to talk to anyone. Why the difference?

Starr blamed his staff, but did it in a covert manner. He was doing very well. Lowell, in 40 mintues, had been ineffective. He was afraid of insulting Starr.

Starr reminded Lowell that he did not invite Tripp in. He said he needed evidence that Tripp was telling the truth. "What we said to Ms. Tripp was that we... need backup. So, we took the steps [blaming his colleagues] we needed to take. Your suggestion that we wanted her to go public was absolutely wrong."

Lowell said that Starr had the authority to stop Tripp from going to the Jones camp.

Starr said he took prompt remedial action (once it was too late) and asked the judge to stop it.

Starr admitted that he knew that the President was going to give his deposition in the Jones case. This is the entrapment issue. Starr is claiming that he shared the Tripp information with Reno. Is he suggesting that Reno should have warned the President? Yes.

Lowell talked about practices and policies -- that Starr tried to follow the Justice Department's policies as he claimed in his morning testimony. Lowell quoted a press statement that Starr made. Starr made a statement on January 23rd. Lowell asked whether Starr's statement that day gave a very distorted presentation of the facts.

1. "Monica Lewinsky consented to meet with several FBI agents." -- Yet Lewinsky testified that she was surprised by FBI agents and was told not to speak to her lawyers.

Starr flubbed big time here. "Well I think it was consensual. We made it clear that she was not under arrest." Oh, brother.

2."Lewinsky drank juice, strolled around the mall... etc." Yet the truth is that Lewinsky was crying much of the time, and that Starr's people were taunting her with phrases like "You are 24 years old. You don't have to call your Mommy, do you?"

Starr replied "Let me tell you what press statements are designed to do." He claimed they issued this statement because these were facts that the public should know.

Lowell reminded Starr that every time she left the room she was followed by FBI agents and she was in fear that she was going to be arrested.

Here Starr knows he is lying. Can one imagine how horrible this experience must have been for Lewinsky? No. Not unless you have been in the same situation. Starr said Lewinsky was confronted as a felon -- for asking Tripp to lie.

Lowell said, "She wasn't going to committ a felony after spending 10 hours with you in a room, was she?" Starr claimed that he was proceeding in a very professional way. He was elegant in his prevarication. He knows how upset she must have been. Starr and his people purposely and purposefully hijacked Lewinsky, frightened her, scared her to death and then offered her a deal -- all for lying about sex with someone she was adolescently in love with.

Why? Because Starr needed something, anything, to rationalize his $50 million expenditure of taxpayer money on a witch hunt to undo two national elections.

Starr admitted that they threatened Lewinsky with arresting her mother. Now he was appearing evil. Starr said that Lewinsky was not being held "incommunicado."

Yet she was. Lewinsky was petrified. She was not free to make a decision. She was not a criminal. She was a youngster with a crush.

Starr got snide. "Mr. Lowell, surely your can't think that she would thank us for this." Starr then unleashes a secret -- that Lewinsky's mother was going to finance a venture for Tripp in order to get rid of her.

Starr apologized for being "inartful" in his response. However, he has been quite "artful" posing as a priest of justice, when in reality he is as guilty as sin in entrapping both Lewinsky and Bill Clinton in order to save his reputation.

Starr tripped again. He told Lowell snidely , "Why would we encourage her to seek a lawyer? She was involved in a crime. Why would we do it?" This infuriated Lowell: "Because it is the law of the land Mr. Starr."

Starr fell back on the pitiful reasoning that Lewinsky was "not represented" in this particular matter. He gave a false comparison: that if you are being represented by a bankruptcy lawyer, you are not represented as a criminal. Lowell retorted "So you think that it's the prosecutor who tells you whether or not you have the right to call a lawyer."

Starr then said that she did in fact try to call her lawyer -- Frank Carter. He then claimed that Starr's people tried to contact legal aid.

Hyde then gave Lowell five extra minutes. Hyde also added that he "likes Starr's answers," signalling that Starr was doing a good job for Republicans.

Lowell took his five minutes to attack Starr's remarks on Judge Wright's criticisms of Clinton. He reminded Starr that Judge Wright ruled that Jones had no standing to sue Clinton because she could prove no damage, and therefore the Lewinsky matter did not impact. Starr said he thinks that this is not a fair statement of Wright's positon.

But it is exact -- and Starr was frustrated.

Lowell pointed to Lewinsky's own statement under oath that neither the President nor Vernon Jordan asked her to lie and that the Presdient refused to look at her written statement. "You know that the job search for her started way before she was a listed witness in the Jones case... You also know that it was Ms. Tripp that suggested that Vernon Jordan be brought into the mix."

Starr retorted that he had stated that in his report. But he was lying. Starr used the word "explicitly" in his report -- which of course means that she understood that she was to lie. This flys in the face of Lewinsky's testimony.

All the Republicans start growling because Lowell asked for one more question. It was a circus. Barney Frank asked whether the Chairman had "fed them."

Lowell, asked a summary question, which added up all the factors he mentioned. "Doesn't all this undermine the weight and the substance of your report?" Starr retorted well, and Lowell ends.

In short, Starr and totalitariansim won the round.

Jim Sensenbrenner (R) started the round of 5 minute "questions" -- by opening a hole for Starr to preach about telling the truth in court. Starr did just that. "It is all dreadfully serious. Perjury would in fact have been viewed as an impeachable offense [by the founding fathers.]" Sensenbrenner then turned to the "It's okay to lie about sex" feeling nationally. He claimed he is worried about what would happend to sexual harrassment laws -- yet Sensenbrenner's own party consistently opposed sexual harrassment laws for decades. Talk about hypocricy.

Of course, Starr, like a good little boy, agreed.

Starr said he tried to put a stop to the Jones lawyers fooling with his witnesses. Starr said he went to the Judge for a stay on against this.

Next came John Conyers (D). Conyers is not well-spoken, but smart. He asked if Starr would respond to written questions. Sensenbrenner, now sitting for Hyde as Chairman, said okay -- with a deadline. Conyers gets a week with an additional week for responses. Reasonableness ruled and questions must be filed with Hyde or Conyers. Then Bob Barr, married several times himself, and in some sticky circumstances, objected and tries to kill the deal. Conyers said it is clear that some members do not want a fair hearing. Hyde returned and suggested that the time limit will be the same as when the Committee hears from the President. Giggles ensue -- recreating a carnival atmosphere. Jerry Nadler jumped in to say this is unfair.

Conyers gave up. He then turned to Starr. He said he is concerned that Starr represents numerous clients that who are against the President, and that he is particularly worried about tobacco, airlines and others. Conyers also turned to Grand Jury leaks: "It became clear that your people talked to reporters on background in direct opposition to your statements to the Washington Times."

Starr answered that his position is that he does not release that kind of information and that "we" will be discussing rule 6(e) later today. Conyers then goes into a ramble about whether Starr thinks that the hearing is fair. Conyers asked why Starr did not include any exculpatory evidence in his referral yet said the President was off the hook on everything but the Lewinsky fibs today. Starr makes the excuse that he did not view this kind of material as being part of his charge.

Conyers then turned to the potential Presidential pardon for Susan McDougal. He mentioned that Bush pardoned of 6 felons in Iran-Contra. Starr said that he stands by his statements on Clinton's remarks.

Next was Bill McCollum, a Republican from Florida. He brings up bribery and said -- get this -- "Couldn't a reasonable person conclude that offering Lewinsky a job could be bribery?" Starr said he did not examine that -- but wants to think about it before "opining."

What a theater.

Barney Frank (D-MA) reminded Starr that Judge Johnson has found 24 instances of violating rule 6(e) and asked Starr what he thinks and whether anyone on Starr's staff do what Judge Johnson alleges. Starr said there are a couple of instances where he issued press releases. Starr said he is operating under a sealed order -- but Frank parries and explained that it was Starr that got it sealed.

Starr said he followed the law and made his seal arguement again. He was flustered and angry.

Frank asked when Starr determined that the President was not involved in Filegate or Travelgate. Starr answered "months ago". Frank underscored his reply: "Yes, that was before the elections," implying that Starr did not clear the President in order to hurt Democrats in the election.

Starr said, "We have tried to be responsive to Congress." Frank interupted him and asked him why he didn't tell Congress about the President's innocence before now. Starr then claimed that there is still an investigation underway, but then fell back.

Rep. Gekas (R-PA) was next. He made the point that the President was not involved in the Vince Foster matter. Gekas, as always, made a great point in Starr's favor. He asked Starr whether his firm represented all the "presidedntial enemies" that Rep. Conyers mentioned at the time he found the Presidetn innocent of involvement with Foster, Filegate and Travelgate. Starr smiled and answered, "Yes." The message? If Starr was out to get the President, or satisfy his clients, why would he find Clinton innoccent of these things?

Of course, the simple answer is that he had nothing -- and couldn't. But Gekas did well to fool the viewer and listener.

Gekas then made a point for the President. He defended his use of exectuive privilege -- unbelivably intelligent.

Thanks God, Hyde called a break.

After the break, at 4:10PM came Chuck Schumer - the Senator-Elect of New York. Schumer is tough. He told Republicans that they are losing the hearts and minds of the American people. He turned to Starr. Schumer said yes, the President lied -- but not to cover a crime, but to cover his humiliation. He lectured Starr that this will never be found to be an impeachable offense by the Congress. Basically he made a speech -- a brilliant one. He chided Starr for his legalistic arguments which fly in the face of what the Founding Fathers were thinking. He then questioned Starr. But first he reminded Starr that his ridicuous abuse of power charges were rejected nearly unanimously - even by Republicans.

He asked why, in 455 pages of indictment, Starr did not include portions of Lewinsky's testimony, why Starr did not mention that the Lewinsky job search started 18 months before Lewinksy became embroiled in the Jones case, and last on the Betty Currie testimony: "Isn't it true that Currie was not listed on the witness list? Couldn't it be that he did not want her ambushed by the press? Isn't it true that one could assume that the job search was simply to get her out of the White House for obvious reasons?" Schumer was effective.

Starr did answer these questions well. He claimed that the job serach was "stepped up" after Lewinsky was fingered by the Jones team. He claimed that because Betty Currie was "injected" into the President's testimony the President must have known that she would be called as a witness. Starr said, "The President kept saying 'you will have to ask Betty Currie' as evidence of the President's intent."

Ultranut Rep. Coble (R-NC) made a speech in defense of Starr. He said Democrats were targeting Starr and if half of what Democrats claimed about Starr were true -- he should be "keel hauled." Starr got the opportunity to say, on the Currie discussion, that Federal Law on suborning perjury applies to "potential" witnesses as well. He, of course, did not consider that the President was merely trying to get Currie prepared for the press onslaught.

Howard Berman (D-CA) was up next for the Democrats. Berman reserves the balance of his time, surprisingly. Hyde allows him to do this although it is not permitted in the rules.

Lamar Smith (R-TX) was next. Smith lauded Starr as a great husband and father with great personal integrity. Smith basically read a speech about the savaging of Starr by the White House. He was not effective because he speaks monotonally. Starr then told how the President would use privilege arguments at any juncture. Nancy Heinreich, said Starr, is one example. She manages the Oval Office. Star said when he called the President's lawyers, they withdrew the privilege claim. Moreover, said Starr, the President himself said he was not interested in Presidential Privilege during his grand jury testimony. Smith then read from Leon Jaworksy's book. He read it so fast that no one listened. Starr decided to put words in Jaworky's mouth and claimed that he would have agreed that lying to the American people was impeachable.

We contacted Leon Jaworsky through a Spirit Medium in Brooklyn, New York. He told us, in a eerie voice, "Starr is an overzealous, overeducated, pompous moron." Just checking. If you read this, e-mail us back and get a free return surprise!

Rick Boucher (D-VA) asked Starr if the President could be prosecuted once he left office. Boucher points out that Impeachment does not rule out indictment at the end of this term. He asked as well, "The statute of limitation will not have run, will it? Would you not agree that subjecting the President to the rule of law would serve the law well?"

Starr agreed that the President can be prosecuted after his term. He also agreed that impeachment was not to serve as a sanction, and agreed on the statute of limitations. In terms of rule of law, Starr, of course, disagreed -- and added some gibberish on "fundamental fairness... I know what my duty is. Before we ever seek an indictment, we do a very careful assessment, and then we have to satisfy standards that a fair-minded jury would convict. Those are judgement calls that I would not address." Boucher has been on this tack for weeks. It didn't work.

Elton Gallegly (R-CA) was next. Gallegly wanted to know Starr's evaluation of Lewinsky, Jordan and Currie as to truthfulness. Starr, posing, said "It is with some reluctance that I answer, but... I think that Ms. Lewinsky does not want to hurt the President, but her memory is significant..." For some reason Hyde interrupted him and chided Gallegly for his questions, gently. Gallegly holds up a handout that is being passed around in the hall that said the President tried to hide evidence about the gifts. This is a mystery. Gallegly asked Starr if he felt the President lied when he said "I don't recall" in his testimony. Starr, of course, took the bait gleefully and told the panel -- unbelieveably -- that it would be nearly impossible that the President couldn't remember what occurred on Christmas Day, that the President is blessed with one of the most powerful memories -- then changed it to "We are told that the President has a great memory." He slipped.

Jerry Nadler was next. He read portions of the Federal Code dealing with Starr's failure to hasten Lewinsky's access to her lawyer, Frank Carter. He pointed out that Carter was the one who drafted her affidavit for the Jones case -- trumping Starr's ridiculous excuse to Lowell re. bankruptcy. Nadler asked, point blank, why Starr broke the law. Nadler pointed out that Lewinsky was told she would not get immunity if she contacted her lawyer. The transcript of the Grand Jury testimony of Lewinsky shows that Starr's people made it clear to her that she would'nt get a "deal" if she did. This was a bombshell and the most important theory advanced at the hearing thusfar.

Nadler said, "Isn't it a fact that if Lewinsky had contacted Carter, he would have withdrwan her affidavit, and isn't it true that you disuaded her from calling him, for fear that the entire foundation of your case would fall apart?!"

Starr said: "We did not violate the law, and it has been litigated. The Chief Judge concluded that Mr. Carter was not her counsel for this purpose." Nadler then jumped in and said 11 hours later you said that if she kept Carter as her lawyer, she would not get her immunity deal. Starr was lying, clearly. Even if Starr were not aware, Lewinsky's testimony is clear. Starr's people were reckless and acted in total disregard of the law in this instance. Starr rationalized this saying that they followed what prosecutors and investigators "do all the time." He claimed the Justice Department knew exactly what they were going to do. Starr explained that they explained to Lewinsky that "if she cooperated totally and completely" she could get a deal. Starr also said that they were afraid -- although it turned out not to be true -- that Carter knowingly participated in drafting a false affidavit.

It was a good answer. But we are convinced that the primary reason was to make certain that Carter filed Lewinsky's false affidavit in order to make their case. It only makes sense. Why not arrest Carter as well? Starr made a poor case when he argued he was trying to convince Lewinsky not to invoke Carter's help, because supposedly he might have been in collusion with the President. What better trap to set for Carter and the President? Starr must be fibbing in this matter -- or must be totally in the dark.

Charles Canady (R-FL) was next. He went into a tirade about how the Democrats were trying to undermine Starr's credibility. Canady said he was struck by Democrat's concern about due process. Where is this concern with regard to Clinton's "conduct" -- which he outlines in the question. He repeatd that he sees a stunning lack of concern by the President for due process.

Bobby Scott (D-VA) spoke up for the Democrat side. He went to the issue -- the real issue as he sees it -- of whether what the President did rises to an Impeachable offense. He spok to fairness: that the President did not see the referral and could not respond in a timely manner; that the scope was expanded. Scott then went back to the history of impeachment and quoted 1,000 experts that not one of Mr. Starr's referrals amounted to an impeachable offense -- "Treason, bribery AND OTHER high crimes and misdemenors."

This is the language of the constitution . The words AND OTHER move toward offense such as TREASON AND BRIBERY -- not lying under oath. The rule of law, said Scott, restrains us from considering these lies as a basis for presidential impeachable. He quoted a Republican witness as saying that Clinton's actions amounted to "Low crimes and misdemeanors." Another Republican witness said that invoking executive privilege, although frivolous, would never amount to a high crime and misdemeanor.

He called the session "The spectacle of having the prosecutor as a witness."

Hyde responded. He told Starr that he is not a prosecutor, he is an investigator. Well, if that's true, then why did Starr submit a referral that read like an indictment? Hyde pointed to federal judges impeached for perjury as an excuse for going after the President.

Scott responded and points out Hyde's fallacious argument -- because these judges were impeached for committing perjury about their other crimes.

Bob Inglis (R-SC), a big loser in his bid for higher office, thanked Starr for serving and taking all these terrible barbs from Democrats.

Starr, stating this as fact, said that in essence that we don't have to wonder "... if this is an impeachable offense -- it is." This statement is an outrage.

Mel Watt (D-NC) asks whether he could discuss the material that has not been released -- which has become a sore point with the Democrats. They want to unseal it. Watt said he enjoyed Starr's "speech" very much. Huh? He asks about Starr's biographical information. Watt asks whether Starr has personal knowledge of anything contained in this information. Starr answered "in the large main" you are right.

Would you agree that the credibility of the President, Currie and Lewinsky would be important for us to consider, Watt asked? Starr answered yes. Watt said that Starr failed to include things in his referral such as a Revlon employee who told Starr that Monica had had lunch with Hillary Clinton the previous week (an hallucination) and that "Hillary" had told Monica that she would help Lewinsky find a new apartment. Watt then mentioned Katherine Profitt who told Starr's people about how Lewinsky exagerated about a relationship she had with someone at the Defense Department. Watt opined that this should have a great impact on the credibility of Lewinsky -- and asked why didn't we get this information so we could make a judgement on your judgement.

Starr said he believed that Watt has the information and then, incredibly, said that Monica Lewinsky admits that she is a good liar. Watt said Starr has now admitted she was a liar. Starr answered well - "...one word - corroboration." Starr claims that he could tell when she was lying by comparing her recollections to others involved in each situation.

Starr scores.

Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) was next up. He thought it important to return to the "what is impeachable" argument. He asked for the testimony of a judge to be entered into the record. During that trial, he raised a defense of prosecutorial misconduct including an illegal burglary in his home. Goodlatte quotes Al Gore as saying that nothing the judge alleged will abrogate the impeachment. The judge was impeached for signing a false tax return. What this has to do with the President of the United States is beyond us.

Goodlatte looked silly as he describes Jones as a valid sexual harrassment plaintiff.

Starr goes to question the Lewinsky job search Goodlatte asked about. He said Ambassador Richardson offered her a job at the UN and she refused. After this, Jordan became more active -- according to Starr. Starr talks of Ron Perelman's involvement in finding Lewinsky a job. She got the job at Revlon. Jordan called the President and said "mission accomplished."

So what? Well, Starr said it proves that the President wanted to get the false affidavit done, and he wanted to get Lewinsky a good job in the private sector.

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) spoke on the "what is impeachable" issue, the publishing of Starr's sex referral, the fact that Starr is the only witness, the ethical problems with the hearing. "We have the prosecutor vouching for one witness over the other... We have cafeteria advocacy," she said. Zoe Lofgren had a meeting with Sarah Hawkins, who had been pummeled by the special prosecutor's threats to indict her. She lost her business. She lost her family. She did not have her day in court. Lofgren notes that Starr is under oath and that he claimed in his spoken testimony that he would not appear on talk TV -- yet he appeared on a news show this morning. "Isn't that lying under oath?" Lofgren asked, "When did you hear about the fact that a woman, any woman, alleged having sex with the president and when did you hear there was a tape of her conversation?" Lofgren was trying to prove that Starr was lying when he said he didn't pursue the Lewinsky matter before January of 1998. She claimed it was November of 1997. She asked him whether he would submit to a perjury charge if what he said this morning was untrue.

Starr lost it. He began to lecture Lofgren, claiming he did not recall, but then he refuses to answer. He was flustered. She repeated her question -- when did you first hear? He claimed he had to "search his recollection," whatever that means. Republicans intervened to save Starr -- Sensenbrenner plays to Starr and asks him whether he has "further answered to Lofgren's questions." Starr, unbelivably, declines to answer.

This seemed to be the beginning of the end for him. He now appears to be a liar and a pouting adolscent.

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-BURTONLAND) lauded Starr and went into his "no one is above the law" speech. He claimed that the poor have access to the courts -- which, of course, everyone knows is a lie. So there was Buyer lying, then accusing the President of lying. No wonder he is an unknown.

The time was 5:45 PM and both parties had been saving their best speakers for "sound bite" prime time for the news divisions of the networks. Lofgren was the first. Buyer was the second, but nowhere near as effective as Lofgren.

Starr had the opportunity to say this: "Perjury is as bad as bribery."

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) an African-American, very lucid and outspoken, was at bat next. She said that Democrats were not there to undermine Starr. She talked to the fact that founding fathers and others have said specifically that high crimes and misdemeanors must be against the state and not merely a violation of law. The constitution provides for criminal prosecution.

Lee asked Starr if he believes that the president has fifth amendment rights (not saying that her inquiry was not limited to self-incriminaton). She then moved to the issue of Richard Ellis of Kirkland & Ellis -- Starr's firm -- who prepared briefs for the Independent Women's Forum. The IWF is an arm of the ultra-right-wing and heavily funded by neo-fascist published Richard Mellon Scaife. Lee pointed out that Starr did not include this information in his intervention bid with Reno. Lee asked if Starr was a member of the Virginia Bar and the American Bar Association. He is a member of both. Lee read the Virginia Bar rules which incorporates the ABA rule against a lawyer being a witness in a case where he is an attorney. Lee asked how Starr could move from the prosecutor's chair, to the judge's chair, to the witness chair. No prosecutor should act as a judge and a witness.

Starr said he believes that he has complied with the codes. Period.

But Lee made her point.

Ed Bryant (R-TN) began his five minutes with a portion of David Broder's column on the 400 history professors' submission to the Committee. He dismissed it and looked ignorant doing it. Bryant called an incident with Dick Morris as one of the most "chilling" events in American history. His story: the choice the Presdient made in January. Then, incredibly, he quotes Dick Morris -- the scion of "truth." Morris took a poll and told the President that the American people would forgive adultery, but not perjury. "The president replied 'Well, we'll just have to win, won't we.'" This is chilling? Maybe -- if you're a Republican redneck from Tennessee. But politicians are inbred combatants -- eager to compete and to win. Faulting the President for wanting to be victorious and to protect his family from scandal is weak at best.

Starr said that it is a non-sequitor to say something is a private matter and then to invoke executive privilege. But no one, including Democrats, brought up the fact that the President may have feared that Starr, a Republican operative, was going to use his investigaton to gain information from White House aides and others about policy issues and matters that Clinton may have considered those of national security or developing policy.

We submit that high on this list -- and from the beginning -- was the issue of providing health care to 30 million Americans who are now not covered and at risk. This -- the single most fearful action possible for US big business -- is what began the witch hunt to "get" Clinton.

Follow the money: Starr, whose firm represents a gaggle of these huge corporations, has a vested interest in destroying the President, undeniably, and from any point of view.

Maxine Waters began her five minutes telling Starr she is his most vocal critic -- "and you know it." She said "The moment it was understood that you would remain on the payroll of your law firm where you would be representing tobacco companies who the president was warring against." Starr said he had two representations. Two appeals, one in 1996 and one in 1994. Waters asked whether he ever felt he had a conflict. He answered he never felt like that.

That's too bad, because he was conflicted under any definition.

Waters reminded Starr that he took an oath today and then answered to nearly every specific question "I don't recall, I don't remember... Yet when the President answered like that you called him a liar." Starr said he "considered doing an amicus brief for the Independent Women's Forum" -- this, he thought, was not something he should have revealed to the Attorney General. Starr repeatedly hides behind the "Bob Fish" -- the old independent counsel -- who also asked Starr for help. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

Waters brought up abuse of power -- Starr's! She pointed out how Starr's office abused Ms. Steele as prosecutors asked for tax returns, telephone records, adoption records -- all because she was told something about the case. Starr hid behind testing the credibility of this witness. Starr also went after a 16-year-old boy who was subpoenaed in school in order to get at his father. Starr said that the boy was not served but the agent did go to the school. Starr said this was a misjudgement and that the agent did not serve the boy at school and that if he had it would have been a mistake. Waters then blurted out that Starr also served an 80-year-old grandmother... and then Hyde lost his temper and stopped her.

Steve Chabot (R-OH) was next for the Reeps. He started by saying it was pretty clear to him that the strategy by the President is to demonize Starr, everyone including the Chairman. Chabot asks Starr the silly question: "How difficult is it for you to do your job under these conditions?" Starr says it raises questions and is difficult. " I can only answer that our objective was to follow the rules. We cannot set up a Congressional Liaison Shop - We don't have the resources." What a laff-riot, Ken -- but you had $50 million to spend on nabbing grandmothers and teens. What a remarkably stupid answer.

Starr was beginning to slip -- and in prime time! While he admitted one mistake -- in eight hours -- he was beginning to look "holier-than-thou" and losing his audience. Americans have an inherent distrust for prosecutors that harkens back to Robin Hood days. Starr, ignorant as he is about public perception, was hurting himself badly. He spoke to Chabot about the White House being "totally uncooperative." Yet he knows that the White House has delivered what amounts to literally millions of documents and submitted to hundreds of inquisitions from the Starr Chamber.

The public knows it, too.

We checked in with the networks at 6:30 to see how they were handling the story.

NBC: "Starr calmly debated his case."

ABC and NBC ran exactly the same Starr sound bites. CBS did the same. Starr was the first clipper and thus the media starter. This is a bad sign.

NBC showed slips of Abbe Lowell -- but then followed them with Starr comments. All three networks talked of Starr clearing.

Marty Meehan (D-MA) brought up the deanship that Starr was offered at Pepperdine funded by ultra-right-wing kook Richard Scaife and Starr's own contribution to his firm's PAC which supported only four Republicans. Starr did not talk to this when he gave his unasked-for, self-serving biography. Meehan quoted Sam Dash -- whom Starr relied on for advice -- having said that Starr's position "had an odor about it." Starr kept his cool. His answer was that the credibility should be judged by the "evidence" contained in his 58 page report. Of couse, this is not evidence, this is Starr's opinion. Starr fell into his "professional prosecutors" line. He told Meehan that Dash had advised him not to continue his private law practice. Meehan reminds Starr that he had a professional and ethical responsibility to reveal these conflicts.

Bob Barr, the extreme-right Twilight Zone moron from Georgia who started the entire impeachment thing, was up next. He proposed a total lie of his own -- that there is no such thing as being entrapped into perjury.

Of course there is such a thing.

But Starr, craftily, agreed, adding -- and pay attention -- "Yes, Mr. Barr, there is no excuse for lying." He agreed, but didn't agree. He was again doing exactly what he accuses the President of doing. Barr called the Democrat's questions nonsense. Barr begins a long journey toward the end of his political career -- an end similar to that of Joe McCarthy.

Barr then circulates "a paper" of his own. A planned "surprise" for the "nightly news" crowd, but one which will only merit mention on hate radio tonight and tomorrow. He asked if Mack McClarty has been subpoenaed. He introduced this "document" by an unknown -- Jerome Ziebman -- who raises an interesting question -- BRIBERY. This is the second time this has been brought up: first, that the job search for Lewinsky was bribery, and now that payments to Web Hubbell were bribery through the office of the President.

Barr -- who loves to quote Statute numbers -- does that and quotes the US Code. Starr, instead of saying no, jumps on it again and says he hasn't considered it... "but maybe I should?" What a laugh. Another lie. Of course Starr considered it -- and realized it was ludicrous.

Bill Delahunt (D-MA) took up the Democrat case. "You consider yourself a prosecutor, don't you?" Starr finally admitted it. He pointed out that all of Starr's "information has never been subject to cross-examination." Starr admitted that, and that this is a foundation of American justice. Delahunt brought to Starr's attention that this same committee passed up issuing an article of impeachment against Nixon for also submitting a false tax return.

Delahunt then moved to the letter Starr submitted to Brill's Content. Brill had taken Starr to task for his leaks -- to him and others. Starr, besieged, answered the Brill article saying that "this office never asked Lewinsky to wire herself for a conversation for the president or Mr. Jordan..." Starr answered, with Hyde and other Republicans interrupting trying to save Starr from what Hyde said was a complex question. What was complex about it? Starr -- cornered -- had to admit that Lewinsky was "told" that her cooperation might include being wired during conversations with Jordan and the President. Starr again lied -- a la Bill Clinton -- claiming that his statement to Brill was not a lie (but of course it was) and Lewinsky testified to same. Starr rested on the "generality" of the question -- but to a frightened nut like Lewinsky, her terrified perception must have been that this was a solicitation.

Bill Jenkins (R-TN), another Tennessee goober, drawled his questions about the President's "false" statements. He read a statute -- Title 18 of the US Code -- on taking an oath. The president, however, did not lie under oath.

Starr and Jones lawyers were too stupid to corner the President and not allow him to squirm out of the violation by focusing follow-up questions that would force either an outright lie or the truth from him. WE believe that the President was willing to tell the truth, if he had to. But he didn't. Therefore, Starr and his people were derelict in duty. Jenkins proved that with his teentime avenue of questioning.

Bob Wexler (D-FL), the most outspoken representative of the White House, spoke next at nearly 7 PM -- nine hours into the Starr Chamber. He led with the fact that the founding fathers made it clear that impeachment was a political action. He accused Starr of leading a political witch hunt. "The American people know it in their gut." He did not subvert the government. The Committee yet contiunues, he charged, because they are concerned with the rule of law. Wexler did not hear their concern for Linda Tripp's illegal taping. he did not hear about concern with the rule of law with regard to your denial of basic. Wexler made a speech and then asked four questions.

Do you admit or deny that your agents threatened Lewinsky with 27 years of prision if she contacted her attorney?

Do you admit or deny that your agents threatened to indict her mother?

Do you admit or deny that your agents threatened Ms. Steele to challenge the adoption of her four year old daughter?

A bitter fight ensued. Hyde tries to blame the Democrats for conducting an unfair hearing.

Starr -- seemingly unruffled -- and frighteningly calm like a mafia Capo -- simply said that he thought he and his staff acted properly and that he would answer the questions in writing.

During this time Republicans tittered nervously and tried to cover this very damaging speech. Wexler asked the question about the 27 years again. Starr appeared to have lied again, saying that he would have to question his agents. Well, Starr knows full well what happened, as this issue has been on the surface for quite a long time. In fact, rumor has it that heads rolled over the handling of Lewinsky.

Asa Hutchinson (R-AK) is a good old boy with a Yale temperament. He asked Starr a question he didn't want to answer. Hutchinson is a moderate. He is uncomfortable with the entire affair and has said so publicly. Of course, that's because his District is divided and he has no clear support to vote the party line when it comes down to it. So Hutchinson focuses on James Riady, John Huang, and Webster Hubbell and their relationship to the President -- in a pattern of abuse rationale that Starr loves to use. Starr says he would like to more formally address this.

Is Starr reluctant because he has been told that the fix is in, and that the President will not be impeached? Or is Starr calculating ?

Steve Rothman of New Jersey took the floor for the Democrats. He talked about the rule of law. Whether the President engaged in deceptive conduct or not is not the reason they were here, he said, but instead to decide whether the President of the United States committed treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Rothman quotes "Charles Bakaly the Turd (Third) saying to The NewYork Times that [Starr] does not engage in judgement -- only the facts." Rothman said this is untrue -- Starr's report is based on innuendo. As an example, Starr did not include anything beneficial to the President such as Lewinsky's statements, under oath and after gaining immunity, that no one asked her to lie. Starr did not include the fact the Betty Currie testified that it was her idea to take back the gifts and hide them. "Mr. Starr, you are an eyewitness to nothing first hand. You have no knowledge. You have simply provdied us with a 455 page report which sole purpose is to damage and humiliate the President of the United States. This is not a competition between you and Bill Clinton."

Starr responds. "Let me say this. I believe that this is widely corroborrated and the vast majority of facts are not disputed."

But the truth is that the key facts are strongly disputed, and Starr knows it.

Ed Pease (R-IN), another lightweight, was next. He asked Starr about the assertion of privilege and the delays that ensued therefrom. Starr naturally jumped on this opportunity and repeated that this was a very weak claim looking to the Common Law. However, the President had standing to assert the privlege. If his contention was spurious his case would never had been heard in the first place. He would have been demurred out. So Starr lies again by omission. Just because the President lost in the Supreme Court does not mean he did not have a triable position -- and so said the Supreme Court in its unanimous decision.

Pease went on to address the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky. Why should we believe the statements upon which you rely and yet disbeleive others that the other side relies on. Starr again says corroboration.

Tom Barrett (D-WI) asked several yes or no questions.

Barrett: Is it correct that several times you publicly said that Paula Jones lawsuit should be allowed to go on?

Starr: Yes.

Something on Tripp's immunity letter. She didn't get a gag order.

Yes

You sent Tripp wired for sound to the hotel to tape Lewinsky.

Yes

Right at that hour you took a call from Newsweek.

Yes.

Nothing stopped Tripp from cooperating and talking to Jones lawyers.

Yes

At that time, she was an agent for your office, and that same day she met with Paula Jones lawyers.

Starr fumbled, parsing the word agent, but basically admitted that this is true..

Barrett: The next day, the President was asked whether he tried to bribe Lewinsky and James Fisher (Jones attorney) said "I think this will come to light later on." Barrett said this is the reason that the nation does not trust Starr -- a Jones lawyer knew exactly what you were doing.

Checkmate?

Perhaps. That depends on what happens on the 11 O'Clock News.

Starr admitted that this happened. He talked gibberish, about vindication by the Supreme Court. But the underlying unfairness of Starr talking for Jones, his office preparing briefs for Jones allies, his allowing Tripp to talk to the press and to Jones lawyers all point to what a rat Starr is.

Chris Cannon (R-UT) talked about the President's "pro-defamation league" and claimed that the Democrats have scored nothing today. He talked about the President's pit bulls and says that every pundit in America will side with Starr against the. Of course, Cannon, a notably stupid but friendly man, misses the mark. Barrett was devastating to Starr. Starr was exposed as a poseur, a frequent liar or perhaps escapee from truth. And of course these pundits will not side with Starr -- although we do agree that several members of the Democrat bloc fumbled the ball, including John Conyers who should have remained silent, even as ranking minority member.

James Rogan (D-CA) was also concerned by the initial Monica Lewinsky assault by Starr's office. He noted that Lewinsky has legal remedies and Starr speaks up to agree. Starr said that not one thing in his referral is affected by what happened at the Ritz Carlton. Of course, this is absurd. The fear that Starr instilled in her ultimately forced her to turn on the man she loved. The fear that her mother might be indicted forced her to tell Starr what she knew. Starr told Rogan that Lewinsky might go to jail for up to five years for the perjury alone. He also agreed that Lewinsky would lose her voting rights. Then Rogan said he was absolutely dumbfounded by the threats to her very liberty and her contitutional rights over this matter.

Rogan then turns to the President's statements that included "I don't recall, or I have no recollection." Rogan asks about the legal ramifications of this if the President was lying. Starr claims that this could be "proved up" to be perjury. He admitted this would be difficult.

Difficult? It's nearly impossible.

Howard Berman (D-CA), who has been uncharacteristically quiet, asked whether the Grand Jury reviewed the referral. Starr said no.

A huge mistake on Starr's part.

Then Berman asked if they reviewed the allegations or the inferences that the referral draws.

Starr said no, another massive mistake.

Just what was the Grand Jury there for? Window dressing?

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) -- the only other moderate Republican on the Committee -- said to Starr that public outrage is an essential component of impeachment, "yet the public is outraged at you." Why? Graham said he finds it difficult that $550,000 going to Hubbell was money to get Hubbell to shut up. He then turned to issues surrounding Kathleen Willey and other serious matters. But he then tells Starr "But you can't prove any of it." Lindsey Graham follows with "We're gonna play it straight, we're gonna play it straight folks -- and we will."

What did this mean?

Graham went on to say that "the law allows you to treat people differently depending upon what they lied about. We may never get the truth from the President about this or the more serious problems which you have no proof of. I believe that the President went before the Grand Jury and lied again."

We can't understand what the heck he meant.

Mary Bono (R-CA), heir to the House seat of her late husband, has-been rock star Sonny Bono, and a woman with no standing to be much more than a nice lady, starts lauding Starr. She says she has watched lawyers attacking lawyers for what they do. "You have proven yourself to me today to be fair, competent and meticulous person that Janet Reno knew you to be."

Oh brother.

She began every sentence with "I do wanna say..." "I do wanna ask you what keeps you going and whether you have a persoal vendetta against the President."

Starr answered, "I would love to be back in private life. I even looked at a house in Malibu Country Estates (ha, haha). I love the Justice Department... I tried to create the Justice Department in my office. Unfortunately some of my prosecutors have been criticized and calumnied... I tried to retire. I was importuned, by my own staff, and I let down my own staff. They basically said, 'Ken, you let us down.'" Of course, this isn't the whole truth. Other, much more powerful Republican leaders also told Starr he was letting them down -- and you know what we mean... "...You cannot leave. I was frankly a little bit down in the dumps about it. My duty is to do my duty. I did not ask for this investigation to come walking in the door. What do we do? How do we collaborate? And, it came to me. My family is bearing up well."

Glad to hear it, Ken. And with that, we received a half-hour respite from Starr's pernicious pap.

After the dinner break, David Kendall took the floor and told the Committee he was there to speak for the President and examine, for the White House, the $45 million investigation that Ken Starr did over the last four year. "Nothing in this overkill of an investigation amounts to an impeachable offense by the President of the United States," said Kendall.

Kendall got right to business and directed Starr's attention to a press release that Starr issued on February 5th, 1998 -- before he had had an opportunity to talk to Monica Lewinsky.

Kendall fired a litany of no-shows at Starr: It's true you were not present when Lewinsky testified before the grand jury nor at her deposition. You were not there when she was examined by FBI agents. You have never spoken to her or her mother. The same is true for Betty Currie, the same if true for Vernon Jordan. The same is true for Mr. Podesta. Indeed, there are 115 individual jury transcripts and with the exception of the President of the United States you were present at none of those.

Starr agreed with all these statements and appears nervous.

"You are not a fact witness -- is that a fact?" asked Kendall.

Starr said "there are a number of facts that I can testify to" from the abuse of power perspective. Starr tried to cover himself by saying that it isn't normal for the Independent Counsel to accompany FBI agents. However, he looked ridiculous in making this assertion -- and out of control of his investigation. He wanted to reserve his testimony about his problems with Judge Norma Holloway Johnson -- because he is in a heckuva lot of trouble in that courtroom for violation of the law.

"You are here as an advocate for this referral, isn't that right?" asked Kendall.

Starr replied, "No, that is not right. I should not be advocating because it is this Committee's responsibility to decide this matter ..." Starr lies again. How can the man say this with a straight face? He goes on to say he "believe[s] in the referral" -- as if it were a deity.

Kendall then asked whether Starr vindicated the President on Filegate from 1996 and Travelgate from 1993.

Starr said that is correct.

Kendall asked when Starr came to that conclusion. Starr lied again when he said he has to examine that question.

Kendall asked if he came to those conclusions before November 1st of 1998.

Starr tried to squeal through this one, saying that as to the President, it was resolved but the Travel office issue is still ongoing aimed at some other person. "It's the first time," said Starr, "that we have viewed it as appropriate to speak to issues that are still, David, under investigation" because both have life elements to them. But they were not included in the referral. He spoke to the President's vindication.

Kendall asked Starr about Julie Hiatt Steele: "Have your investigators looked into her adoption of an 8 year old girl?"

Starr started to lose it again, nearly yelling that he doesn't go with the FBI agents, as Kendall established. He claimed he would go to lengths to establish the fairness of his investigation beyond ANY reasonable doubt. Starr was very upset -- and he was blowing it.

Kendall pressed the issue. Starr replied that "some of her claims, and I am going to say this, even though there is an active part of our investigation under way, utterly without merit and utterly without foundation, utterly without factual foundation."

Kendall asked "Is this [the adoption] one of those claims?"

Starr was caught in a trap of his own making. He said "I did not say that" and everyone starts to laugh -- at him and his awkward lie. He again said that if there is an issue about the treatment of a witness lets take it court and resolve it that way.

Kendall quoted Starr's remarks "we go to court, we don't go on the court show circuit" -- then reminded Starr that Charles Bakaly has been on 11 talk shows and will be on Nightline tonight. Starr said Bakaly has the right and, moreover, the duty to inform the public. Kendall should have asked "Well, where were YOU for the past 4 years?" He didn't.

Kendall asked Starr if he is under a legal obligation to protect grand jury testimony. Yes, said Starr, there is not argument with that.

Kendall showed him a letter that any leaks are a "firing offense" and that leaks are utterly intolerable.

Has anyone from your office been fired, asked Kendall?

Starr: No, because I don't believe that anyone has leaked grand jury testimony.

We almost got a hernia laughing so hard!

Kendall pointed to a press release of Starr's about his information policy. "In your testimony this morning you described the litigation that your office has been involved in [re privilege.] You didn't mention leak litigation, did you. In fact, we have litigated against you on five different occasions, didn't we?"

Ouch.

Starr replied yes, he thought we could say this, that the DC circuit ruled that the method you proposed was inappropriate. That is part of our litigation record, and Starr thinks that judgment should be withheld until there is a judgment in this case because "I am confident that we have upheld our responsibilities. "

Kendall asked whether he agreed with Judge Johnson's statement on the confidentially of grand jury testimony -- and now Starr is under investigation on 24 matters of leaking.

Starr said that he thinks that "fundamental fairness" requires him to say that Kendall was allowed to list these matters and to ask the circuit to try Starr on each matter. Starr tried to make the point that Kendall can start an investigation like this merely with a letter.

How many times did Judge Johnson find that there was prima facie evidence that Starr's office made these leaks, asked Kendall. Starr did not answer -- that it was all 24.

"Does the media make up the quotes that sources in your office, sources close to Starr told us?" asked Kendall.

Starr got visibly jumpy jumpy. He said he is not there to attack the media. And that's true -- he was there to manipulate the media. He reminded Kendall that Starr has to prove that his office did not leak. Starr then went medieval, accusing Kendall of making an irresponsible accusation. Starr was boiling.

So Kendall moved on to another press release from the first day after the Lewinsky story broke. "It's a press release on the letterhead of the independent counsel's office," said Kendall. "We secured it from your office through a Freedom of Information Act request. It's under your name. It says 'Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr issued the following statement today from his office in Washington, D.C.' And then it says 'Because of confidentiality requirements, we are unable to comment on any aspect of our work.' Is that what you announced to the world on Jan. 21?"

Starr said it is his duty to combat releases of misinformation.

Kendall asked whether Starr issued a press release that he was talking about the case with the press. Starr pretended not to hear this -- then he tried to confuse the issue: "We do not go out and hold press conferences and the like" -- another lie. Does the name Charles Bakaly ring a bell, Ken?.

Starr said his office was being accused concerning events at the Ritz Carlton and that he felt duty-bound to present "the truth."

Hyde offered Kendall another 30 minutes and Kendall asked for an hour. Hyde stuck to 30 minutes after idiot Republicans begin to grumble.

"You also spoke frequently on background to the press," said Kendall. "And my question to you is, you and those around you, your subordinates."

"Yes," said Starr, "be careful when you say the 'you' because I do not speak frequently or otherwise to the press." Starr changed the subject to the things that were never talked about -- the dress, the DNA, etc. Starr turned around and accused Kendall of leaking.

Kendall retorted, "Why would you speak on background? Why not be accountable? Why be transparent? I have never protested a press release which you have issued. Have I?"

Starr stammered a bit -- "It depends on the circumstances. Whether the prosecutor wants to make himself a part of the story... "

Kendall then asked Starr about an affidavit and Starr turned for help to the Chairman and begs him to intervene because the matter is in litigation.

Starr was again trapped.

"That is unfair," he protested. "It's unfair to my career prosecutors. It's unfair to investigators. It's wrong, and just to finish the point, when we had highly sensitive information that Mr. Kendall did not have, the DNA on the dress that was held within our office and the FBI, there was no dissemination of that information."

Starr was trying to pass the buck. It was so transparent we were shocked that Starr had let it happen.

Kendall directed Starr to yet another document: "Miss Carol Bruce was appointed independent counsel to investigate the Indian gambling casino matter, was she not?"

Starr: "Yes, the Secretary Babbitt matter, yes."

Kendall: "Are you aware of her press policy?"

Starr: "No, I am not."

Kendall: "It's indicated there at tab 15 that she held a press conference when she was appointed -- and then said she did not anticipate making any further public comments until the investigation is completed."

Kendall quite suddenly shifted gears and said "One of your agents held Ms. Lewinsky."

Starr practically exploded: "That is false! She was not held. You said she was held. You didn't say how she felt! You know that."

"During her sojourn with your agents," said Kendall, one of the aims of Starr's agents was to get Lewinsky to wear a wire and tape Vernon Jordan or the President.

"No," replied Starr, still steaming. "We said that one of the things a witness could do was to do this -- but we said it with a high sense of generality" -- whatever that means! Talk about Newspeak.

Kendall pointed to Attorney Ginsburg's comments about this matter -- and managed to elicit more anger from Starr, who attacked Ginsburg: "Mr. Ginsburg is wrong, and he must know that he is wrong. He was wrong then, and it is a [practically spitting the word] calumny to repeat that now. Mr. Ginsburg was not known for his consistency of articulating positions.'' The attendees cracked up at this last line -- even Starr looked a little defused.

Kendall asked, "What is an FBI 302 Form?... At the time of the Ginsberg article you categorically denied asking Lewinsky to wear a wire and tape Jordan or the President?"

Starr again became flustered.

Kendall then pointed to Starr's denial to Brill's Content in which he claimed that at no time did he ask Lewinsky to wear a wire. Kendall then asked him if he reviewed what happened at the Ritz Carlton with Mr. Emmick of his staff.

Starr tried to obfuscate the issue, at which time Kendall directed Starr to "Tab 13," which -- abracadabra -- is the FBI Form 302 "describing, and that's not Mr. Ginsburg or Mr. Speights is it? That's one of your own agents. We don't know who, because the name is blacked out. But if you look at page 5 of that exhibit, it says at 11:22 p.m. [of January 16], it says AIC Emmick talked to Bernard Lewinsky, that is Ms. Lewinsky's father, cooperation and interview, telephone calls, body wires and testimony were mentioned. You see that?"

Starr began to sweat. "Yes I do." Busted.

Kendall: "And then do you see down below, below the 11:37 entry, Ms. Lewis has arrived on the scene, Ms. Lewinsky's mother. And she expresses, Ms. Lewinsky expressed concern about what's being requested of her. She says according to the FBI 302, what if I partially cooperate? That's as recorded by the FBI agent. Marsha Lewis asked, what would happen if Monica Lewinsky gave everything, but did not take anything? Do you see that?"

Starr, looking even clammier: "Yes I do."

Kendall: "It was in the grand jury that the events of Friday, January the 16th, were presented through the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, was it not? Was that her second appearance?"

Starr, still sweating: "Yes, I believe that's right." He was dumbstruck. Kendall reminded Starr that the Grand Jurors became very interested in that day. Lewinsky "asked Mr. Emmick to leave the room, did she not?"

Starr: "Yes, that's my recollection."

Kendall then said Lewinsky testified that she was asked to wear a wire and cried. And then he went for the throat: "Isn't it true that her attorney, Mr. Carter, did not mail her false affidavit until late on the 16th? "

Starr stuttered and claimed he had to check. He lied, caught like the rat he is.

The Ginsburg chuckle aside, there hadn't been a sound in the room for the previous half hour.

Because everyone following the testimony realized Starr is a goner. Hoist on his own petard. The damage had been done, Starr's reputation lay smashed before him, and we suspect it was at this moment that he realized he had blown his four-year crusade to drive Clinton from office due in major part to his own zeal and a serious misstep in detaining Lewinsky before her affidavit had been legally filed.

Starr tried to regain his composure. He retreated to his weak explanation that Tripp was a victim -- that she was being asked to commit perjury.

Yet Starr clearly knew that Tripp was setting up Lewinsky and the President all along.

The man seems either a liar or a moron -- and he certainly is not a moron.

Kendall asked when Starr first learned about the tape recording of "a" young woman.

Starr replied that to best of his knowledge, the first time he knew about Monica Lewinsky was in January. Wow! Now, all of a sudden, he seems to (gasp!) remember -- or might remember some tapes "shrouded in mystery" in November --- a fact that would kill him.

Kendall asked him how Tripp came to go to his office.

For the first time, Starr admitted that he was at some meeting, but that Tripp's name was not mentioned. Then he said he was called on January 12th by Tripp -- and that was when he was made aware of Tripp.

Were you aware that your partner was the one who steered Linda Tripp to your office?

Again, for the first time Starr admitted he knows, that he hasn't "started an investigation," and that maybe he should.

Too little too late. He's finished.

Kendall talked about Starr's continuing employment with Kirkland & Ellis -- but the law said that now Independent Counsel cannot have his firm involved in any way with the investigation.

Starr: "Yes, I believe you are correct."

Kendall then turned to an exhibit regarding an interview with Lucianne Goldberg.

Starr said he hasn't read that particular Form 302 yet. We bet.

Goldberg told the agent that Goldberg called around to Starr's firm and was very nervous about his contact with Linda Tripp. "Were you aware of this?"

Starr stammered uncontrollably and sounded like an idiot for the first time. He was again cornered.

Kendall then turned to his firm's involvement with the Paula Jones case.

Starr then said the 302 talks about calling a friend -- trying to escape the inevitable. Starr begins to complement Kendall in a vain attempt to save himself.

Still -- there is not even a peep from the audience.

Kendall then directed Starr to one more document -- that is a Washington Post article indicating that his office had been investigating rumors about the president, and indicating that State Troopers were being interviewed about rumors that the President was having affairs while he was Governor. "Did you ask whether your investigators were asking around about 12 women by name including Paula Corbin Jones?"

Starr was freaking out and sighing -- he claimed that he was getting frantic calls from the Washington Post about the matter. He said he asked the FBI about it carefully. His office wanted to make sure that they reached out to anyone who knew anything.

Kendall asked whether Starr went to the Attorney General to expand his investigation to this extent. Starr lied again, perhaps. He frantically but controlledly tried to say that he was looking for "the women with relation to the Whitewater loan." Of course, what would women have to do with this loan?

Starr is now totally without recourse.

Hyde intervened -- just in the nick of time, we'd say.

But Starr was destroyed.

The last to speak is the pro-Starr majority counsel, Mr. Schippers. Republicans had made much of the fact that Schippers is a "Democrat." What they don't want you to know is that Schippers has benn a close friend of Hyde for decades, and that he's an old-school Cro-Magnon Democrat of the Chicago Daley (that's the late Richard "Kill the Hippies" Daley Sr.) variety -- in other words, slightly to the right of even Kenneth Starr.

Maxine Waters spoke up: "When will we have the opportunity to examine these issues -- this may be perjury."

Hyde asked her if she is charging Starr with perjury. She replied that she may depending on what Starr said. We think she and other Democrats on the committee may be gearing up to take action against Starr.

Schippers, the Kendall whipper, began his line of questioning.

He began with Starr's hair-trigger leak story. And Schippers underscores Starr's lamentable claim that Kendall is simply trying to cause trouble and it's easy to do so. To accuse an attorney of Kendall's reputation of doing this just to hurt Starr is a terrible move on Starr's part. Starr then went as far as saying that Tim Russert -- of all people -- is so responsible, that he came out and said that his information did not come from Starr. Of course Starr doesn't mention that Russert has been Starr's willing accomplice -- perhaps without being asked.

Kendall asked if Starr has any information that anyone in his office has leaked in violation of the law.

Starr snaked out of it by saying -- not under "my definition of 6(e)" -- which if course doesn't mean a thing.

It's a matter for a judge. And it may have been Starr's single most revealing answer of the night -- he thinks he's the law.

We think he is in for a rude awakening.

Now Schippers tried to rehabilitate Starr by saying that Starr relied on the professionals, and highly trained investigators. Starr said, "And very proudly, yes."

Of course, Starr underestimates the American voter. While the FBI is one of the best and most ethical police units in the world, many agents have been caught stepping over the line -- perhaps for good reasons -- but in violation of the law. It is also certain that Starr's constant use of the term "professional prosecutors" is a big mistake. Contrary to public opinion, Starr acts if people love prosecutors and police. Unfortunately they don't. People, world over, do not trust police. They are a threatening arm of the state -- and all too often police and prosecutors send the wrong people to jail. If the people believe that Starr's investigation was merely a political witch hunt -- and polls say they do -- then they will not believe that Starr's henchmen conducted and aboveboard investigation. Starr's flak -- Charles Bakaly -- should have warned Starr about this had he been able. Obviously he did not. In the end, it is Ken Starr's zealous adoration of police that hangs him.

Schippers sounds like a truck driver and seems very unsophisticated. He is putting the audience and the Committee to sleep. One can see it even in the rows of men behind Starr who are fidgeting and looking at the ceiling. Schippers tried to make fun of Kendall's submissions saying that "there is not one word of evidence."

He too is lying: the FBI form 302s are nothing but pure, unadulterated evidence that either Starr is lying or that his people were lying to him.

Schippers "pointed out" that the Attorney General could fire him for cause. Of course, this is ludicrous. Of course the Attorney General could not fire him. The Republicans made sure of this by continually talking about Nixon firing Archibald Cox.

Schippers seems more like a cheer leader than a lawyer -- he simply asked a lot of silly, softball Starr-serving questions and bored even the Republican members who engage in conversation all around him. Even his staff was talking behind him.

Schippers then turned to the Monica Lewinsky matter and said he thinks that Starr's agents treated Monica Lewinsky well -- very well. Laughter engulfed the Democrats and many in the audience. Schippers then chides "The Members" for laughing at Starr -- a real no-no for any lowly staff member like Schippers. He will hear about this tomorrow. Believe us. That is something you never do: insult a member of Congress in public, let alone on international television. Schippers is toast.

He then tried invoking the ploy that days later the White House was frantically paging and calling her, saying this "proves" that they were worried about what she might say -- didn't it? Starr stupidly jumped to agree -- and looked terrible doing it.

Schippers then asked Starr to look at a page (Schippers keeps calling him "Judge" -- Starr is not a judge any longer). He then made the ridiculous statement that Lewinsky testified that nobody asked her to lie -- but then he follows up with "but nobody asked her to tell the truth, did they?" Starr said "Yes!"

Schippers then made a mockery of the President testifying from "his home," the White House. Of course Starr had no choice. Had he made the President go to court, he would have been lynched on "K" Street. Schippers failed to mention this. Schippers went on and on about what special treatment the President got.

Hey, Schippers, guess what? William Jefferson Clinton is, whether or not you like it (probably the latter, we surmise), the President of the United States of America. He's not you, or me, or John Doe -- as you would have the world believe. Where are you when thousands of Blacks are illegally charged, arrested an imprisoned merely because they were unfortunate enough to be born?

Schippers said the president can either (1) lie; (2) tell the truth or (3) take the fifth. Starr agrees.

Of course, this is not true either. As a matter of fact, any person can just sit there and say nothing. They can also start screaming. They can also stand on their heads. But more importantly, as the President did -- they can carefully structure their answers to a dumb attorney that do not constitute a lie as defined by law. Yes, the truth may be misleading -- but the President did not legally lie -- and he didn't tell the complete truth either.

He simply and elegantly made fools of Starr, Paula Jones, and their respective retinues.

But Starr was zooming again. He had forgotten that Kendall made mincemeat of him. Schippers came off like a snake oil salesman or -- slightly better -- a used car salesman. Schippers asked whether anyone laughed at him during his testimony, Starr looked visibly shaken and near moved to tears when he hesitatingly answered yes. The scary thing is that his feelings seemed real -- as if it bothered Starr more than it might Clinton himself that they laughed at the President of the United States. Schippers showed himself for the scum he was, and demonstrated how far he was prepared to go to humiliate Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton for sheer political purpose with little or no regard for the "facts" of Starr's case -- the OIC leaks, the lying, the corruption, the abuse of witnesses.

Schippers than attacked Clinton's statements to Sidney Blumenthal. He claimed that the President told Blumenthal that he had rebuffed Lewinsky. Schippers then said, "He was lying, wasn't he?" Starr said yes.

But Starr was lying and so was Schippers, because if you read Lewinsky's testimony you will find that she too testified that the President had rebuffed her sexually. That's right -- Clinton, Blumenthal and Lewinsky corroborating the same story. How the Democrat members of the HJC missed this is beyond explanation. What small shred of respect we still might have had for Starr disappeared in smoke after the exchange. Schippers, however, is worse, and an embarrassment to the Republican Party and the nation. We suspect the only Republican on the panel who gets this fact is Lindsey Graham.

Schippers then made a terrible statement. He said that some of the Rose Law Firm billing records were found in the attic of Vince Foster's home. Starr said yes. Then Schippers said the most unbelievable thing -- he said "They weren't under the bed were they?" For those of you who don't know what this filthy reference was to, it was to the First Lady. Right-wing operatives have been spreading sleazy rumors that she was having an affair with Foster for the past three months.

What a despicable pig Schippers has revealed himself to be.

Schippers ended his BS "questioning" with an out-and-out Adoration of St. Kenneth Starr. He goes on and on about what a "genius" Starr is -- what a "pillar of the community" he is. How "wonderful" he is. Starr said yes to all this with no humility. This self-serving spectacle did neither Schippers nor Starr any good.

Starr then pretends that he could have sought indictments against the President. Of course, he couldn't -- because no court of law would ever allow any of the so-called evidence that Starr brought in.

Starr would fail.

That's why he didn't bring any indictments.

And that's the truth.

Schippers than ends with "I'm proud to be in the same room with you and your staff."

And that, my friends, was the end of that fairy tale. Then the audience -- made up of Starr's staff and Republican operatives -- broke into applause! We broke into laughter -- what a zoo! Another pose for the cameras and a "tell" about the press. For they too were applauding and thereby indicating their bias to hang the President -- for the money and the fame.

Although we must admit that Starr was doing well early on, the deterioration of his image came quickly toward the afternoon and this evening as he was exposed as a prevaricator of the first degree. And key revelations -- including Starr's having "sat" on clearing the President in a number of matters, and his that admission that "perhaps" he should have made the Attorney General aware of his ties to the Paula Jones case when asking for an expansion of his investigatorial purview -- bolstered his overall evasiveness in the face of questions regarding his and his staff's conduct, prejudicial bias, disregard for the law and established prosecutorial practice, and failure to reveal crimes of state.

But he did a great job -- as a lawyer for the Republican Party and the New Moralism touted by the ultra right reactionaries in this nation.

-- The Editors