Monday, November 30, 1998 -- Right-wing Republicans used the Sunday airwaves to let us all know that they're not giving up in their quest to "get Clinton" -- at the expense of the democratic process and the Constitution. Whither impeachment was indeed topic one; we think the only alternative left for those GOPers with any hold on reality is to call in the man who merited disciussion on a few of the "Sabbath gasbag" showcases: Dr. Death himself, Jack Kevorkian.

Impeachment would be settled quickly, painlessly and even a little dignity.

Now, on to the pundits...

Fox News Sunday

The first segment of FNS dealt with the broad issue of "American Morality" (read: slamming Bill Clinton's morality).

Oh, brother. Tony Snow and the Fox News staff should have known better.

The guests were religious right demagogue and Family Research Council President Gary Bauer and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. And Tony Snow gave Bauer plenty of room to both denounce the President's "lack of values" and express typical New Moralist "outrage" at a lack of public outcry. Jackson neither lit directly light into Bauer nor responded to Bauer's preposterous assertions, but instead make him look awfully foolish as he pointed out that most kids these days are savvier than Bauer gives them credit for and are already subject to a barrage of "moral issues" (i.e. adult themes) in the media at a very young age. Bauer replied with mention of kids hearing about "cigars and dresses" in the media. We think Jackson should have jumped down Bauer's throat at this one, telling him that it's either something "above the heads" of most kids, or nothing kids haven't heard in one form or another in songs by Marilyn Manson!

Bauer, without directly playing the race card, fanned racist implications of "immorality" against blacks as he claimed that "there are whole blocks [in DC] where there is not a single father [in the family unit]." Jackson would not bite at Bauer's race-baiting or ridiculous statistics on "whole blocks", instead bringing up his current pet issues -- education and economic development. He knew Bauer had done the damage to himself, demagoguing the black urban poor.

Which begs the question -- are hard-right conservatives out to slit the throat of the current wave of GOP governors' efforts to make their party more inclusive? Look at how two of their most "up-front" advocates acted: Bauer implicitly slammed blacks, and conservative Tony Snow neither responded to this racist pap nor made an effort to "divert" to a related issue.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) was the second guest. Fred "The Slee-zel" Barnes asked the first question about Janet Reno: "What is her motive in not naming a [Gore] independent counsel?" -- a setup question to allow Specter to slam both Al and Janet. Specter replied that "we have a responsibility to pursue the facts and the law" based on Charles LaBella's investigation. Funny how Specter and other GOPers love to mention their political allies in DOJ like LaBella and FBI head Louis Freeh, but will never, ever mention by name the many high-level investigators or officials from both sides of the aisle that oppose this abuse of the IC statute -- except their favorite whippin' girl, Janet Reno.

Specter kept repeating the words "the facts and the law" throughout the interview -- parroting Starr. So let us set it straight for Arlen, who should know better: the fact -- the IC statute was not triggered; the law -- you'll have a chance to overturn it in the next Congress.

Specter continued to press the issue of campaign finance wrongdoing, citing the Sunday New York Times article on soft money and saying "The attorney general has allowed soft money to be open... it's an open scandal." But he again avoided the flip side of the coin -- that restricting soft money would inevitably lead to even more corrupt means of financing Presidential candidates and more abuse of other loopholes in the current laws.

Specter found a moment to slam the President for his answers to Henry Hyde's "81 questions" document, saying he wanted to see the President testify; Karen Tumulty (who was substituting for FNS regular Mara Liasson) asked a follow-up pointing out that such a move would only serve to drag out the process. Specter speculated that Starr may not leave in the spring but may stay on for two more years (which ran counter to reports late Sunday that Starr wants out by early next year) and Clinton could be indicted after his term of office. He said "You cannot indict a sitting President... this business about perjury and obstruction of justice is serious."

It is, Arlen -- especially when partisan extremists try to spin a person defending himself against a likely fraudulent lawsuit into so-called "high crimes."

Tony asked timeworn and ridiculous questions about whether US attacks on Osama bin Laden were a "wag-the-dog" scenario (the first of many attempts to revive this moronic canard this Sunday); Specter said there were still questions about this. Watch this issue -- it may well come up as the week goes on when the hard-right makes a last-ditch attempt to expand the "investigation" and keep the coup alive.

The next guests were Senators John Breaux (D-LA) and Bill Frist (R-TN). Juan Williams asked: "Does the President have a plan to save Social Security?"

Frist: "I don't believe so." As if the GOP has even a sense of any organized plan of their own!

Breaux: "I don't believe Medicare and Social Security are as sexy as a sex scandal, but they are certainly more important... Our Medicare commission is meeting on March 1." Breaux also made indirect mention of "meetings" on Social Security -- but did not point out that the President has convened a summit on the issue the week of December 7th.

Breaux, by the way, is one of the very few Democrats who favors a partial "privatization" of Social Security -- a dangerous scheme which will only enrich investment companies and the Dow Jones corporation in the long run.

Tony asked Breaux about 60% of health costs hitting at the end of life, then, strangely, played the Kevorkian card: "Will [Medicare] reforms lead to euthanasia?" Breaux blew Tony's simplification of the issue out of the water -- pointing out that there is a huge difference between taking a patient off life support and mercy killing.

On health care reform, Frist said "You cannot bring 100 trial lawyers into the room to solve the problem," a right-wing "pap smear" on two counts: aimed at tying Democrats to some kind of trial lawyers' lobby (funny how most trial lawyers lean GOP), and aimed at claiming that the trial lawyers will write the reform legislation. Fact is, Frist and his GOP pals are doing this because the HMOs, who have aggressively lobbied the GOP, want to write the legislation!

Panel time opened with Henry Hyde's game of 81 questions

Fred: "You can just see the President smoking his cigar and beating his tom-tom... this is an insult." What a stupid comment. We usually expect something with a little bit more partisan firepower from Fred "the Slee-zel" Barnes. Of course he wants to bring up an image that will infuriate New Moralist partisans because he himself is enraged to have been proven wrong time after time this year -- on the President's survival of the Monica flap, on Gore's campaign finance "crimes," on the Republican "gains" in Congress. No gain, all pain -- live with it Fred, you've lost.

Karen: "You expected him to contradict his testimony." Of course, this is ridiculous -- nobody expected Clinton to contradict his testimony, and the right was more than ready with their talking points to express "disappointment' and "outrage" over the President's reply, no matter what.

Fred said of the replies, "It hurts him, it makes it harder for Republicans to vote against impeachment." He must not be listening to Peter King and other GOP leaders who are giving up the ghost -- it actually makes it EASIER to say that there are no "high crimes and misdemeanors" and that so-called perjury in a dead civil suit on a non-material issue hardly qualifies to anyone with cerebral activity as a "high crime or misdemeanor."

Karen: "It's a very painful decision for Republicans and it makes it harder." Karen almost gets it right -- the only GOPers feeling real pain are the hard-right evangelical boys' club still smarting from the very public rebuke they got slapped with at the polls.

Juan discussed endgame scenarios, and leaned toward "the Clintons" accepting censure. The Clintons? Are you implying that Chelsea or Hillary might be impeached? Outrageous.

Fred continued to push impeachment. "People aren't going to march on Washington in opposition to impeachment."

Don't count on it, Fred. Remember how accurate your election predictions were.

Juan said even concerned Democrats see the wind blowing the other way; Karen wants it moved along so that Clinton can get on with business and the State of the Union address.

Tony pointed out one particular question (on the oath of office) and the President's "evasive" answer; Tumulty got it half-right when she said "the answers were as ridiculous as the questions."

The questions were a joke -- an indictment disguised as a questionnaire, engineered to be used against the President no matter what the answers, and a document whose legitimacy itself is open to legal debate.

On campaign finance, Juan asserted "The loophole is the law."

Talk turned to Jack Kevorkian -- which bored us for the most part, although Juan pointed out that aging baby boomers may look at going to a doctor such as Kevorkian for a dignified death. Tony looked truly aghast: "Are you saying that Doctor Kevorkian is an agent of dignity?"

Guess we know where Tony stands on assisted suicide now!

Tony's parting thoughts -- on Clinton's survival of the Lewinsky flap -- contained one line which has turned up in variations elsewhere: "The President lied, he prefers to say misled."

We prefer to say he tried to protect the privacy of his family and the Lewinskys in the face of a smear campaign. Better a gentleman that lies than a one who would hang companions out to dry, as liar and investigatee Linda Tripp did to Lewinsky.

The McLaughlin Group

The McLaughlin Group

John McLaughlin, the General Electric-supported loud mouthed and semi-intelligent host of The Group, began today's half-hour of bluster with the ritual proclamation "Issue One!!!:"

"Rush to Judgment!... Remembering the great figures of America's past, how sad to see the besmirchment of Thomas Jefferson!"

This is what McLaughlin is worried about? He challenges DNA studies which showed Jefferson slept with Sally Hemmings and fathered a child -- as has been known for quite some time. McLaughlin tried to "pin" the Hemmings child on every Jefferson but Tom. What a waste of time. We were roaring with laughter -- talk about John doing a Gary Bauer! McLaughlin droned on and on about the subject. Does he have a portrait of Jefferson -- that once-proud slaveholder -- in his bedroom? McLaughlin attempted to pretend that the Jefferson story was released to make it more difficult for people to pester Bill Clinton.

Pat Buchanan said the most remarkable thing: "Small people trying to bring down great men." He was trying to attack Clinton, but all we could think about were the Clinton witch hunters. They are the small people, Pat.

Eleanor Clift properly pointed out that Sally Hemmings was classified as white in the 1830 census, and that this research was begun when Ronald Reagan was president, not in an attempt to get Clinton off the hook.

Tony Blankley said, "You might be on the edge of making a case" against Clinton -- but releasing this to help Clinton won't work.

Well, of course it won't work -- that was not the reason it was released. Does Blankley think we're morons? McLaughlin continued to press Blankley about whether this would stand in a criminal trial against Jefferson because "other Jeffersons" could have impregnated Hemmings.

McLaughlin, here, was showing his racist tendencies. Why bother with this non-issue? Nobody cares who Jefferson slept with some two hundred years ago. But McLaughlin went on. He attacked Tina Brown, then claimed Jefferson denied it -- so that must make it untrue.

Jeez -- isn't there more than this to consider?

Clift did McLaughlin in: "This story has been handed down for generation upon generation of Blacks descended from Hemmings -- why are you putting them down?"

"Because it is a besmirchment of Jefferson." Hilarious, John... and pathetic. No, it isn't. But to McLaughlin it is, because he is inherently a racist who spends nearly half his program defending a man who held hundreds of slaves -- slaves who allowed him to amass a fortune which he squandered. Those slaves were the men and women who put him in the position to frame the Constitution and other important American documents -- many of which have virtually screamed "Hypocricy!" for the entire breadth of our nation's history. One need only look at voting rights our "hallowed" founding fathers originally bestowed: white men who held property were the only people who could vote. No women. No poor. And blacks? You must be kidding! This is where the Republican party would live for us to revert to today.

McLaughlin then moved on to attack JFK and Arthur Schlessinger's biography of him -- which is, admittedly, eminently attackable. But the point is that McLaughlin wants to blame Clinton for the Jefferson "disrobement."

He didn't make the argument.

Next up was the McLaughlin attack on the Kyoto treaty as "ruining America's pocketbook?" How refreshing -- at least someone is paying attention to policy considerations -- for at least half the time.

After a series of three or four trite GE commercials (GE owns NBC and McLaughlin can't find other sponsors, but is reputed to be buddies with its Chairman) John returned.

Issue two "Kyoto Chaos!" John droned on about global warming. He called Al Gore "The arch global-warmer." Carbon dioxide is the culprit, said McLaughlin. He claimed it is absorbed by plants -- but some acts as a blanket to retain heat in the atmosphere. The US wants a 33% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions within ten years. He predicted soaring gas and electricity prices -- incomes down, poor treaty enforcement, and exemptions for India and China. "Did Clinton make a mistake when he signed the treaty when he knew that the Senate was against it?" he asked.

The fact is that the country will not be in this treaty because the Senate won't approve it. Why? Because Congress is owned by big coal and other giant polluting industries. McLaughlin called this duplicity. We call it building a base for a new look at pollution. Blankley said that Clinton and Gore see it as politically useful and that the science that supports the global warming concept it "poor." McLaughlin commends this statement as "penetrating."

Clift said we need to set targets and get technology working. She's right.

Buchanan calls science "bogus," and that there is no evidence of global warming. Clift showed what a moron Buchanan is: she quoted more than 100 Nobel laureates agreeing that global warming is a problem.

Buchanan then predicted that Kyoto will bring Gore down like an albatross. Clift said this will help Gore and Blankley agreed. He claimed that we are confusing weather with climate. O'Donnell said that Gore is not an environmental candidate -- a ludicrous statement.

After another gaggle of GE commercials (GE and its suppliers, by the way, are a major polluter on 5 continents -- by the way, did GE buy Culligan?), McLaughlin turned to predictions by his intellectually challenged panel.

Since they are almost always wrong, we paid no attention to that pap.

This Weak

"A defiant Bill Clinton answers 81 questions... Is Reno protecting the Administration or upholding the law?" Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts slammed the Administration at the top of show as they welcomed the man to answer the questions: one of Reno's harshest Congressional critics, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

Cokie welcomed Orrin Hatch, asking "Do you expect impeachment to come to the Senate?"

Orrin replied, "Actually, I'd put it at about 50-50... that Articles of Impeachment will reach the Senate." Hatch would not answer Cokie's question on the possibility of censure; Hatch instead chose to stick to impeachment and his expectation that the House Judiciary Committee would vote up articles of impeachment. Hatch managed to manoeuver the word "lie" or "lies" into his answer close to one dozen times.

So he lied. About personal conduct. Get over it, Orrin.

He did add that if impeachment reaches the Senate, they would have to face the issue of censure or letting him off scot-free

Sam, assuming Clinton's guilt of something, anything, raised the possibility that Clinton could be indicted once he's out of office -- and during his answer, Hatch asserted "there are charges of bribery here."

This is one of the latest hard-right spin points: trying to inflate some of the most specious and tortured allegations against Clinton to charges that he tried to "bribe" Monica Lewinsky

Sam "Do you think he committed perjury?'

Orrin replied with, for better or worse, the line of the week: "I don't think he committed perjury, I know he committed perjury."

Right, Orrin. Prove it. He was evading politically-motivated questions in a politically-driven civil lawsuit. The line of questioning was not material. He reiterated his answers before a Grand Jury where his testimony probably cannot be entered into the record of a trial as evidence on grounds both legal (separation of powers) and technical (the prosecutor agreed to limits; and worse, the wrong officer of the court swore Clinton in that day, making the testimony useless in court).

George Will was ridiculous as usual, asking Hatch if he was not worried that if Congress censured Clinton and a judge struck it down, Congress would censure the judge in question? Hatch kept his bead on Clinton: "It is astounding to me that there are some in Congress who feel [Clinton's] done nothing wrong."

George: "Do you believe that there is clear and credible evidence that Al Gore lied?"

Hatch claimed there were "felonious violations of the campaign finance law -- the person who ought to uphold it is the attorney general of the United States and she's not upholding it."

Says who? A huge number of DOJ staffers, not all of them friendly to the Administration, sided with Reno, saying the IC statute did NOT kick in.

But that didn't stop Hatch, who was on a roll, wallowing in his finest righteous anger shtick. Hatch claimed that Reno was listening to "political appointees' rather than Charles LaBella and Louis Freeh" -- an outright lie if there ever was one. Hatch then said perhaps his single most absurd line this year, concerning an IC to investigate campaign finance wrongdoing: "I'd even let the President choose the independent counsel?" George's reply: "What happens to the separation of powers?"

And while we were still doubled over laughing at that exchange, Hatch put in a plug for his Christmas album!

The second segment opened with Sam talking about "Doctor Death," Jack Kevorkian, and a clip of his guest-to-be, Michigan Prosecutor David Gorcyka, who charged Kevorkian with murder following the 60 Minutes broadcast of a videotape showing Kevorkian helping an ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) patient named Youk end his life. Sam first welcomed Kevorkian lawyer Michael Schwartz, who claimed that the jury would have to weigh the suffering of Kevorkian patient Mr. Youk as part of their verdict and that "Dr. Kevorkian uses very good screening techniques" before he assists patients.

Cokie said that there were "all sorts" of therapies and things that could have been done for Youk; Schwartz pointed out "you cannot cure and heal Lou Gehrig's disease... there is that 1% where you cannot [help]." Schwartz objected to the notion that one must suffer if one cannot be cured or helped and also pointed out that Kevorkian's efforts have led to better standards in pain management for gravely ill and terminal patients nationwide -- a fact the "mainstream" press seems to have overlooked in their efforts to sensationalize the current Kevorkian situation.

George, ever the Constitutional fetishist, asked if Schwartz was in fact raising a 14th Amendment issue in his plans to defend Kevorkian; Schwartz said that it was a valid issue, given the cruelty and pain of some diseases. Will followed up by saying that the patient could have killed himself -- then asked "Is Dr. Kevorkian stable?" And actually, we have to agree that Will was right to ask this question in light of the debate over Kevorkian's latest move to publicize his views. Schwartz had "no question" that he was.

Cokie rebutted that Youk "could have been in a hospice situation with loving friends." Schwartz pointed out that Youk was essentially "choking to death" as a result of Lou Gehrig's Disease -- something no hospice could help.

Schwartz surprised us with his plain-language, down-to-earth defense of Kevorkian. Sunday talk shows love to play right-leaning "moot court," and this was the most impressive appearance of any lawyer on a Beltway circuit show since John Nields "defended" Webster Hubbell some months back.

After the break, Gorcyka was the guest; he sounded oddly like Kenneth Starr in saying that he had to review "the facts and the law" without regard to public sentiment. How about that -- indirectly comparing Jack Kevorkian to Bill Clinton! "They'll have to apply facts to the law" -- his argument being that if you provide the means to assist a person's death, you have committed a crime.

The other strange parallel language that came up was "jury nullification" -- the jury could find Kevorkian innocent despite evidence that he technically broke the law. Many of the elitist "New Moralists" have denounced that drubbing that the GOP took last month as a "jury nullification" of the impeachment coup, as they turned their scolding from a "felonious" President to as "public that doesn't care" -- an indirect admission by these pundits, including Sam, Cokie and George, that they think they "know better" than the public and are frustrated that nobody will listen.

This Weak's roundtable is the longest and most monotonous on Sunday, but this Sunday had a few moments of levity. Topic one was the continuing impeachment coup, and the father of "New Moralism," unctuous Murdoch hand-puppet Bill Kristol, was up first. He predicted that the House Judiciary Committee would issue articles of impeachment because "Republicans are disturbed" at Clinton's answers. "He didn't answer the 81 questions. He really showed contempt."

If he meant contempt for money-grubbing right wing lawyers and fanatics out to humiliate his family, Bill was right. But we don't think that was who Bill was talking about.

In the most ridiculous exchange of the week, Will expressed frustration over the feeling that Clinton's behavior "was none of the public's business," to which Cokie responded "But the people do feel that it is their business."

We now ask you the reader: could this woman be any more out of touch with public sentiment? If anyone needs evidence that Cokie Roberts is completely deluded about the reality of public sentiment, there it is; Roberts, a pampered head-in-the-sand Georgetown insider, must feel that her "society" neighbors, a mob of incestuous leeches "appalled" by six years of Clinton's refusal to kowtow to their insider club mentality and play their petty hanger-on games, are representative of America.

These Beltway insiders are about the only people who feel the President's personal conduct is their business, as they vainly attempt to assert influence on both matters political and social.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

We therefore propose to the executives at ABC News that they rename this program "Clueless, Starring Cokie Roberts and Her Codependent Insiders."

But before we go, here's one more from George Will: "The headline [on campaign finance] says 'Unregulated Cash.' It's unregulated speech -- I'm for it... I want to see the headline 'Unregulated Cash Flowing into Newspapers.' "

The irony is, the big newspapers have been trying -- and failing -- in their own "issue advocacy" effort to "Get Clinton."

CNN Late Edition

A quick look at CNN's third-string attempt at a public affairs program, hosted by Wolf Blitzer.

It's usually a bore, but former bug exterminator Tom DeLay was one of Wolf's guests. The gist of his comments: "I'm really looking forward to the memorandum being prepared by David Kendall... I think Democrats would either like to defend the President or admit he broke the law.... It looks like he has committed perjury, it looks like he has lied under oath."

Looks like DeLay is still in denial, though not as much as Hatch was. The big mantra word for DeLay, as with Hatch, was "lie."

Is lying to Congress another charge that could be lodged against the President, asked Wolf? "If the president continues to lie.. it is a serious issue.... The President is trying to redefine what sex is... this is not a court of law."

On rep. Peter King's assertion that there are not enough votes to send impeachment to the Senate: "I respect his opinions, but I don't respect his ability to count votes."

We'll be watching the vote count to see how much respect you still command as whip, Tom.

Meet the Press

Meet the Press

Tim Russert spent the last week re-running his pathetic 'other' show -- watched by practically no one outside his circle of Georgetown buddies -- during which he spent a full hour kissing the posterior of none other than Rush Limbaugh -- the undereducated spokesmoron for trailer park denizens whose sole pastime is guzzling beer while watching re-runs of Family Feud.

He decides to spend the entire Meet The Press hour attacking Clinton.

Why? Because Russert looks like the right-wing kiss-ass for Bob Wright of GE, and now has to try to salvage his career.

Russert began with Rep. Ed Bryant (R-TN), who said there is "no smoking gun" with Clinton and that the 81 questions were to give the President "an opportunity to respond" -- which is a lie. He then claimed he would vote for impeachment and that the President is guilty of what Starr alleges.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) -- not the greatest spokesperson for the President or the Democrats -- defends that President and said there are no bases for articles of impeachment. She moves to "treason and bribery" as the test -- and lying about sex does not meet this test. "We simply are not there."

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said that this is not impeachable. King has been outspoken against impeachment and is one of only a few Republicans -- and a conservative yo boot -- who has openly said this. Paul McHale (D-PA) was the first Democrat to call for the President's resignation. He is retiring, of course, so what he said is meaningless. King felt that he could be impeached, but it is not in the nation's best interest to impeach him. "With friends like him..."

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-AK) said he now would vote for impeachment.

Russert then went on the attack. He shows his very favorite video clip -- the President saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." He then showed the transcript where the President said that he defines sexual relations as "intercourse." Russert pretended that this is not true. He didn't say it -- he just asked snide questions which infer it. Jackson Lee said that she has spoken to many physicians who say sexual relations does mean intercourse to them.

Russert then claimed to move "beyond" sex -- but of course this is all that this matter is about. He wants to "lay sex aside" -- as a ploy -- and talk merely about "perjury" out of context. This is inexcusable -- perjury cannot be found unless there is intent to lie about a material fact, and the Lewinsky flap was not material. He then said the President apologized for any inappropriate "sexual relationship" he had with Monica Lewinsky. That, to Russert, means the President lied.

But the President fooled the hired blackmailers and extortionist thugs who called themselves the Paula Jones Legal Team -- by focusing on the word "IS" as in that depends on what the definition of "is" is. Yes, he misled those despicable money-grabbing disgraces to the bar -- and we applaud him for it. Why haven't any Democrat leaders dared to say this straight out? Because they are trying to protect themselves -- a fundamental rule of hunter/killer politics.

Graham had the audacity to say that everybody save Jackson Lee agrees that the President committed a crime -- perjury in front of a grand jury. But the fact that this grand jury was impaneled simply and solely to humiliate and disgrace Clinton and his family seems to mean nothing to these people. This is what is most frightening about this situation: the people, hearing it long enough, might begin to believe it. However, we think the people -- not devoid of sin themselves -- will hold to their faith that Clinton may be a sex maniac, but loves his country and has been otherwise one of the best Presidents to serve in our history.

We think it is sad that the President was forced to recognize his actions as being poor. It was nobody's business. He should never have opened the door to criticism on any of these Lewinsky-involving matters, including Paula Jones. We fault the President on this and on the settlement with Jones. Both were huge mistakes.

Russert claimed many people ask him this: "If someone came to you to be hired and then gave answers similar to the ones Clinton gave on the infamous 81 questions [which were an indictment , not true probing questions ] would you hire them?"

Of course, Russert's question is rhetorical -- and foolish. Who would ask such questions of a job applicant or anyone else for that matter? No one, except a Party run by such base individuals that would stop at nothing to get the Clintons. We nevr hear Russert railing at that same group for accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of murdering their best friend, Vince Foster. We don't hear Russert raving against all the false allegations that Ken Starr himself -- despite spending $50 million dollars to do so -- failed to prove at all, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tim Russert is the most vile, most dishonest, and most misleading anchor on any television talk show save perhaps his junior cohort -- John "The Ghoul" Gibson of MSNBC. He is to be distrusted by any American who cares about this democracy/republic.

Russert then went on to count heads for impeachment. Russert found that the Republicans need 5 Democrats to vote for impeachable in the House -- just by relying on King's analysis. We laughed long and hard -- what morons Russert must really think we are.

Russert then asked if King knows for certain that 15 Republicans will vote no on impeachment. Tim sounded crestfallen and of course he was. He knows that impeachment will fail. But what he is more worried about is that his career will fail along with it. Russert has staked his full credibility on this single issue. He has craftily, perhaps even venally, pushed for this -- and he has lost.

He then showed some whacked out resolution of censure penned by Democrat traitor McHale and asked for comment Lindsey Graham, who has been acting as "the soul of wisdom" all along -- and it WAS an act so that when he turned on the Clintons, which he did today, he will appear wise.

Well, he appears just as he is -- a posing, prissy Southern liar: he wants the President to admit that he broke the law and put himself in legal jeopardy, even though he knows that the President did not lie legally or otherwise. The entire matter rests on what sexual relationship means. If a whore delivers oral sex to a man is he having a "sexual relationship" with her? Was Graham having a sexual relationship with every high school girl he fondled in the back seat of his car in his youth? Graham is all that people have told us he is -- "a snide little prig who would stop at nothing for his own personal political and monetary gain."

This is what Russert should have been pushing all these months. But, of course, that doesn't sell air time to ADM -- does it, Tim?

After the second ADM commercial which clamed to make you "feel younger longer," Russert returned with Steven Brill and the most insipid creep that has ever claimed to be a journalist -- Christopher Hitchens -- a roly-poly, marhmallow-like sexless male who has tried and failed to make a name for himself on the backs of Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton. Lisa Meyers said that members of the House want the President to help them to resolve this issue by admitting he lied. We say why should he? If he is right, then he should defend himself to the death. That's what he is doing. And frankly, we think he has already moved back from his position too far. Clinton should stand up and call a spade a spade -- go on the attack and slay these monsters including Russert, Donaldson, McLaughlin, Drudge, Broder and the rest of them.

Steven Brill had a simple solution. Starr should try to get an indictment from his grand jury -- if he can. But we all know he can't. Brill suggested that Starr and his 98 staff lawyers could then go on vacation for two years -- exactly where they should be.

Russert tried to say that you can't indict a sitting president. But Brill checks him -- "you can if you do not intercede legally."

Russert puts up a Hitchens quote: that the Clinton's are Jim and Tammy-Faye Bakker in liberal clothing. Hitchens -- in his insipid British accent -- points to Clintons' liberal failures: "An extraordinary record of hypocrisy." Perhaps -- but fomented by the GOP, which is the basis for all American hypocrisy. Hitchens, who could have dropped his pathetic English school-boy accent in drama school, maintains his ludicrous portrayal of Clinton snorting all the way. He claimed that Clinton engaged in seven solid months of abuse of power. How? By telling other people lies. Hitchens said "I think he should cuffed, and taken down town." He even brought Sudan and Afghanistan into the fray -- joining a number of other commentators claiming this was a "wag the dog" strategy. Of course, Hitchens knows nothing about the inside workings of anything, let alone the White House.

Russert brought up the fact that Judge Johnson agrees with Brill on leaks. Russert asked why Brill thinks the press has not been aggressive enough against Starr. Brill pointed out that tomorrow (today) is the day Johnson's Special Master will give his report on the 24 Starr leaks that Judge Johnson sees as prima facie violations of federal court rules. Starr would then be guilty of lying under oath. Starr said, "It depends upon what the definition of 'leak' is." Yes, that's what he said -- and Brill is correct.

Lisa Myers tried to pretend that the mainstream media covered the Starr leaks story -- but this is untrue. The TV press spent less than 30 seconds on the story on all five networks. Meyers found herself defending herself against Brill -- and doing badly. Meyers messed up when she said Starr did nothing more than Archibald Cox. Again, Meyers is wrong: Cox briefed the press -- he did not leak what was going on in the grand jury.

Russert asked how concerned Starr and his henchmen are. She said very concerned. We hope so.

Russert asked Hitchens if Starr's tactics have helped liberals rally around the president. Look at that question! "Helped liberals" -- when there is proof that more moderates and even conservatives defend the president -- nearly 70% of all living people in this nation!

Brill said there is no evidence that Vernon Jordan did anything wrong. He also said that there is evidence that Clinton did commit perjury. And we were surprised at this revelation. So much for the Brill boosters -- from who we get so much e-mail lauding his writings.

Hitchens wanted to mention General Pinochet. Pinochet murdered five Americans. "Not a squeak from the President, neither from the Justice Department. This President likes the idea of sovereign immunity." So? Hitchens is a fool in a group of fools. Should we indict the founding fathers in absentia for murdering tens of thousands of Africans in their pursuit of big tobacco, King Cotton and slavery?

And that was it -- save for Russert's money-making references to other NBC shows.

Ignored

Strangely, there was little mention of economic issues as the Dow Jones, S&P and NASDAQ fly high again and retail gears up for the "make-or-break" season.

There was also far too little said about events surrounding efforts to extradite Chilean ex-dictator Pinochet from his hospital bed in London to Spain to face murder charges, nor the continuing political unrest in Indonesia and other Asian nations.

Line of the Week

We mentioned it already: Orrin's "I don't think he committed perjury, I know he committed perjury."

Stick to plugging CDs, Senator -- you'll have a lot more credibility!

-- The Editors.