And that's the way it will be.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 1st 1998 -- WASHINGTON -- Sometimes, when monitoring a committee hearing in Congress, one wonders if all the participants are trapped in the Twilight Zone. This afternoon was one such time.

But let this writer educate you to one elusive fact: when the goings-on in a committee hearing seem to backfire on the Chairman of that committee, it's no mistake -- unless that Chairman has just had a stroke or is senile. Henry Hyde is not that man. The backfire in the Judiciary Committee today was exactly the way it was planned by Hyde and other GOP strategists. In fact, today was one of history's greatest examples of the age-old tactic of saving face -- a tactic more important than any in the history of politics and diplomacy.

As I sat watching the three-ring circus of hand-picked Republican witnesses, sprinkled with a couple of Democrat plants, all go against the group of ultra-right conservatives on the Judiciary panel, I thought for just a split second that Henry Hyde had lost his mind. But it was about 2:30PM when I realized the truth:

The fix was in, and Hyde was orchestrating an exit strategy for the Grand Old Party in order to kill this issue quickly.

Look at what happened:

After a morning spent with two miscreants convicted or pleading guilty to lying about sex, the Hyde Committee went off to lunch and interviews with a variety of newsmen spinning their hypocritical purpose.

Hyde then convened a panel of witnesses that he thought, or maybe did not think, would lambaste the President and call for his impeachment. Two judges -- at least one of which violated the canons of judicial ethics time and time again opining about an open legal question -- sat at the table. Neither of them called for impeachment -- and two of them called for a less severe resolution of the Clinton matter : censure.

Also present were three attorneys -- well-known liberal Alan Dershowitz, Elliott Richardson, and Professors Saltzburg (George Washington U) and Rosen (Georgetown). They all warned the Committee that they have gone too far already and to go further would cause great harm to the nation and the judicial system.

The two "canned" military representatives talked "by the book" and sounded so outlandishly ludicrous that they might be responsible for reinstating the draft! To hear them talk, our men and women in the military gird themselves simply to die in war at the whim of the President. They neither lie, cheat, steal, or act in any way that could be called less then integrous. It was a joke, and even the lying Chairman Hyde -- himself an admitted adulterer -- left the hearing room, presumably to vomit out of humiliation.

But there you have it nonetheless -- a group of "experts" who changed topic one from "perjury" to "censure."

Three times, the Democrats actually applauded the statements of retired Appellate Judge Leon Higginbotham, Jr., who compared the president's fib as a man committing perjury about driving 49 MPH in a 50 MPH zone when in fact he was going 55. They also applauded Professor Dershowitz, who called the Republicans and the rest of the Committee hypocrites to so suddenly be "interested" in perjury when in fact perjury is committed a thousand times a day in courtrooms around the nation -- mostly by prosecutors and police in conspiracy with each other. Professor Saltzburg also admonished the Committee that they could solve their problem by censuring the President and allowing the law to take its course once he leaves office.

The Republicans were stunned -- almost speechless for some minutes after the testimony of the panel ended. But then, the most vocal and most illegitimate holder of office on the Committee -- Bill McCollum of Florida -- began going nuts, attacking nearly everyone on the Committee and looking for help from his hand-picked representatives of the military -industrial complex and the one judge who -- violating the ABA canon of judicial ethics -- opined that the President should be impeached directly and by implication.

Alan Dershowitz admonished the Committee that the President will never, in a million years, be indicted for perjury. The problem is that the President is being held hostage by Kenneth Starr's threats to prosecute him. Thus the President could not possibly admit that his misled the nation about his relationship with Lewinsky -- even if he wanted to. The Committee already knows this. However, the hypocrite Republicans and the blackmailer Starr have Bill Clinton over the proverbial barrel.

Professor Saltzburg thinks that Judge Wright would punish the President for his alleged lies under oath. He is wrong, of course, but Judge Wright has the option to penalize or fine the President right now.

Professor Jeffrey Rosen reminded the committee that Oliver North was prosecuted for lying to Congress and was acquitted. He also reminded the committee that their knowledge that the Senate is highly unlikely to convict the President should play a definite role in the decisions they make.

The Republican members kept trying to breath new life into their dying quest to destroy the President. Hick congressman Coble was a prime example. He asked some retired Admiral what would happen to him if he was found to have committed adultery. Of course the Admiral said he would be thrown out. Coble also asked Saltzburg -- who was supposed to be a ringer for the Republicans -- what he thought history would say about this Congress and the President. He said that this would depend on what they did. He said that Clinton would be linked with Lewinsky for all time. However, this is ridiculous: ask the percentage of Americans that can name FDR's mistress. The answer, according to Gallup is less than 1%.

Jerry Nadler questioned the lawyers. First, on fairness: Nadler said that Starr reached conclusions of fact and conclusions of law. Starr was also the only witness who said in essence "I was right, and I wrote this report." Now the Committee is told that we do not have to hear from any real witnesses because they testified under oath already. We are also being told that because we haven't called any witnesses we are, in fact, pleading nolo contendre and admitting the President's guilt. Professor Dershowitz said impeachment is so large a question -- something that cannot be undone -- and therefore you need to hear evidence, make credibility determinations, and that evidence is clear and compelling. This must be in the record. So you can say, with a clear conscience, I am prepared to remove the President of the United States. Professor Saltzburg -- who has been hanging around this committee for months -- told Nadler that he probably would not like his answer: he thought the Independent Counsel's report is a good starting point. But then he corrects and qualifies himself by saying that the committee must call witnesses on certain allegations because he felt the testimony he read was, at the least, confusing. A decision must be made as to whether this is important enough to paralyze the country -- does it warrant putting the country through this?

Professor Rosen talked about the Independent Counsel statute itself. He explained the law and tells us that the IC must simply turn over the evidence -- it is up to the committee to hear the evidence.

Hyde turned to Dershowitz and claimed he is fighting for the rule of law. What does it mean? What does an oath mean? Hyde was reprimanding him, claiming the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the country and that he has cheapened it and disparaged it. The Grand Hypocrite had the nerve to say that we don't have one rule of law for the poor and one rule of law for the privileged. In fact, there are two systems of justice -- one for the rich and one for the poor. Ask any black teen serving 10 years in prison for selling some dope.

Dershowitz should have jumped up and said "What about your oath, Mr. Hyde? How have you lied to this nation?" Dershowitz instead said that Hyde is trivializing the different degrees of perjury and attacks Judge Tzoflat -- who claimed there were no difference. Dershowitz began screaming at Hyde: "All you care about is Democrat perjury, not perjury by Casper Weinberger, not perjury by police officers and prosecutors who send people to prison and even to their deaths. You have provided Hamlet without the Prince! You pretend that the only perjury worth considering is that perjury committed by the President." Hyde then yelled back at Dershowitz for attacking the Committee about their motives. But Dershowitz did not back down: "When has this committee showed any concern for criminal defendants with the exception today of bringing on these two women!"

Hyde was visibly uncomfortable and clearly on the defensive. Conyers then asked Hyde how he could feel so besieged since he already knew how the Committee will vote! Rep. Gallagly then took the floor and thanked Hyde for his outburst. He thanked the panel -- in a obvious ploy to change the subject -- but it was too late.

Dershowitz would be the sound bite winner of the day.

Gallegly attempted in vain to rehabilitate Judge Tjoflat. He asked him a loaded question -- but Tjofalt sounded somewhat geriatric and was clearly stunned by Dershowitz's personal attack on him where he said that Tjoflat hat uttered the most ridiculous summary of the perjury law he had ever heard.

Judge Wiggins also seemed a bit infirm. Elliot Richardson, who must have had a recent stroke, seemed pretty out of it himself and answered no questions -- but he too told the panel where to get off. Judge Wiggins was clearly against impeaching the President for perjury. He said Clinton is vulnerable for impeachment -- but that is another issue -- and as he said "the full House..." Lamar Smith cut him off -- because he was going to reiterate his statement that the House should not impeach President Clinton.

Rep. Bobby Scott then said that the President was not properly sworn when he testified before the grand jury. Take note of that comment -- this was not a trivial assertion. It is in fact a serious bungle on the part of the Independent Counsel, and it will come up again. Scott then asked what exactly the charges are that the Committee was pursuing. He challenged that Hyde said today that one of the charges was not serious perjury. So, then, how do we ask the President to defend against the charges when he doesn't know what they are? Scott reminded Hyde that neither the Committee nor the Congress can impeach the President in order to punish him. He turned to Judge Wiggins and asked him for a citation from either US or English history where someone was impeached for committing perjury on a personal matter that did not include an abuse of power. Scott told him that the congressional research service found no such case back 700 years. Wiggins said he wanted to respond to "outrageous" statements made about President Nixon. What a laugh!

Judge Higginbotham pointed out perhaps the best evidence that there are different grades of perjury -- and that the kind alleged to have been committed by President Clinton would be considered the lowest form or perjury, if it was even perjury at all.

THE GOP PLAN IS REVEALED!

Ed Bryant, GOPer of Tennessee, asked to go out of order to "catch an important plane" -- probably a fundraiser. He asks Professors Saltzburg and Rosen about the separation of powers and making the fence between them be tall and wide. He is against censure for this reason. He also points out that impeachment is the ceiling -- not the only choice. But he believes that the House can only charge -- not punish. Thus, we have to charge in order to get the censure.

Ah-HA!! Now we see the direction: the GOPers are going to try to get the best of both worlds. They want to vote articles of impeachment and then let the Senate take the heat -- because they can take it better. Rarely, except in the case of such thugs as Al D'Amato and Lauch Faircloth, are incumbent Senators defeated. But House members enjoy no such protection -- especially the ultra right.

Saltzburg disagreed in part: he believes that the Constitution requires removal once the House votes the articles. But he made no sense. Then he said if you say we don't like this conduct, you can then pass a resolution to condemn -- and the President, by signing it will have to eat crow.

It's a neat package that saves everyone's face -- or so they think. The American people will not forget what the Republicans tried to do. Not for a long time. The GOP should heed the legacy of Joe McCarthy and what he did to the Republican party and in a sense to Richard Nixon -- who in the end was himself a victim to his service of McCarthy for the rest of his life. Scholars have written that Nixon would not have been impeached had he not laid the foundation of evil during the McCarthy era.

Bill Delahunt pointed out the Judge Wiggins was a member of the House during Watergate and served on that Judiciary Committee. He also reminds him that they heard testimony. Wiggins claims the difference here is that the President has admitted stating a falsehood -- but of course this isn't true. However, Wiggins is a respected jurist - and VERY old. Wiggins recommended that the President be censured by resolution of both houses and pay a $1 million fine.

And another plank of the GOP plan is revealed.

Charles Canady rebuked Alan Dershowitz as well. But Canady is a mere troublemaker. The absence up to this point of Bob Barr was hysterical. His career is over.

Pinhead Bob Inglis tried to put words in the military mouth: he claimed that morale is dangerously low in the military by what they perceive as a clear lie by the Commander In Chief. It's statements like this that will keep Inglis in the House -- never to hold higher office. He added that "his little eight year old daughter" is also traumatized. What a joke. Then Inglis agreed with Dershowitz that Clinton would not be prosecuted upon leaving office. Inglis asked Saltzburg whether the President will be handcuffed after he helps swear in the new President in 2000. What a jerk! Saltzburg thinks that even a Republican president would pardon Clinton. But he also said that Judge Wright should punish Clinton more than she would anyone else. Of course, he and Judge Tjoflat are shills.

Sheila Jackson Lee excludes Judge Tjoflat and the two military dudes in saying that it looks like we have some form of consensus on "censor" -- someone on her staff should teach her the word is "cenSURE." She said she feels that the GOP are attempting to have their cake and eat it too -- they remind constantly of the rule of law, but the President had no due process in this proceeding.

Then Lee turned to the military shills. She took issue with them on the matter of supposed demoralizing aspects to the men in service, no more than President Reagan's lies about Iran contra; or Secretary of Defense Casper "The Capo" Weinberger's pardon on several felony charges by George Bush to hide the truth of his own culpability. She turned to Elliott Richardson, who told us that the distinction is sharp and wide between the abusive actions taken by Richard Nixon and the activities of Bill Clinton: "Deliberate undercutting of government departments, the condoning of a second burglary of Daniel Ellsberg's office, the use of the IRS to punish private citizens." If you put the two side by side, "the contrast is marked and dramatic."

Truer words were never spoken by this poor gentleman, still at the top of his form, stricken but still clear-thinking. In few words he exposed those outlandish Republicans attempting to link Clinton's conduct to Nixon's for the morons that they are.

Richardson let them know they have three choices: removal, acquittal or censure. He concluded by saying, "Assume the worst. Ask yourselves the question, 'do we believe the President of the United States should be removed?' Why not address it? If the answer if yes, then vote the articles. If the answer is no, then censure."

Judge Higginbotham said, "I won't be long. There's a Brahmin expression: 'If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there.' You should be the models of fairness from an analytical way in terms of how you probe evidence."

Rep. Goodlatte's turn to speak came. He proved unequivocally that he doesn't get it. He attacked Dershowitz as a "diatriber." He rejects the Dershowitz premise that this committee is hypocritical and that Clinton was simply lying to cover up personal indiscretions. He tried to turn Dershowitz's words against him -- "The reason he lied is because he wanted to evade criminal prosecution for his previous actions in the Paula Jones lawsuit" -- to no avail. He then went on to say that Clinton lied in the Jones case for the purpose of defeating that lawsuit. Goodlatte proved the point, all right -- that he is not known as the most incisive mind in Congress, if you catch our drift! "What about lying under oath by the Chief Law Enforcement officer of the country? That is what is at the heart of this Committee."

Dershowitz replied that he sticks by what he said. "The issue you put out is a very good one. The problem began with a personal interest and then perhaps evolved into more and I do not pretend to trivialize his behavior." Dershowitz trounced him, but not without showing a lot of emotion -- too much.

Marty Meehan talked about the news cycle. "I guess the news cycle will be that we're now going into campaign finance" and advanced the "ham sandwich theory of impeachment... We'll send it over to the Senate and let them decide." Elliott Richardson did not like what he saw. He calls for the "sentence to be adjusted to the seriousness of the offense." In short -- censure.

Steve Buyer (pronounced boo-yur), a Hoosier Republican, brings up Admiral Moore's trumped up testimony. He wants the President to resign or be removed: "When troops know a leader is not being held accountable for dishonorable conduct the effect is devastating." He asked a load of stupid, leading questions -- an especially ridiculous line of inquiry since polls show without a doubt that more than 75% of men and women in the armed forces support President Clinton -- even more so than the general population. Why? Because he doesn't send them to die without thinking long and hard about it -- unlike George Bush.

The hearing dragged on and on. Steve Rothman asked how we decide who is telling the truth? He asked Dershowitz why he thinks the President did not commit perjury before the grand jury. Dershowitz said the answers were carefully crafted -- not totally forthcoming, but not totally false and therefore not perjury. Rothman reminded the committee that they have not one solitary fact witness. Dershowitz said the proponents of impeachment bear a very heavy burden of proof. He said he hears people on this committee say that the President has admitted that he has lied -- yet he has never admitted such. There has been no admission and Mr. Kendall, the president's lawyer, has refuted each and every allegation in Starr's report.

Then Hyde interjected: "Think -- how you can not lie but still not tell the truth" to Rep. Chabot.

Chabot (R-OH) droned on about the length of time it might take in the Senate. He thinks they could wrap it up in a short period of time.

Sure. Dream on.

Chabot is worried that certain members are "looking for a way out" through censure. He falls back on the right wing line that he doesn't look at the polls. He is lying. He simply wants, and so states, that he wants the mark of impeachment on the President whether or not the Senate convicts him.

But Chabot is part of the GOP faction that big business now wants to get rid of. They have put the Republican leadership on notice: either get rid of this impeachment mess or we will support Democrats against the ultra-right and religious right members. That means Chabot, Barr, Inglis (who's already dumped) -- and now even Lindsey Graham.

Neo-Nazi Bob Barr's turn came up. Barr said he was "depressed" by what he heard from the panel of witnesses -- then proceeded to totally mischaracterize the testimony of the panel. "The real America understands that there ought to be a very high standard for public officials." He said he is proud to have prosecuted a fellow Republican for the same thing that he claims Clinton did. He said, "We in Georgia understand that there are no gradations of perjury, no gradations of the crime... My constituents know the Constitution, unlike some of the law professors here today... Real Americans understand that the Constitution means something." It was another command performance by the Congressional clown prince of fascism. We were rolling on the floor -- here's a hick moron telling some of the greatest professors of law in the country what "Real Americans" think.

And Dershowitz seized on Barr's own words: "'Real Americans' [is] a code word for racism, a code word for bigotry - shame on you, I would no more impugn your Americanism than you should mine!" Barr muttered something about the righteously outraged attorney being "silly" -- a dismissive swipe which did nothing more than demonstrate Barr's contempt for anyone who doesn't share his RightThink.

Judge Higginbotham jumped down Barr's throat: "I see that Congressman Barr has some profound knowledge about what a 'Real American' is. I am willing to match you any hour, any day in terms of what is a 'Real American.' Apparently nothing I cited is relevant to the 'Real American.' I cited that President Clinton got 379 electoral votes and [ballots from] 49 million Americans, Mr. Barr -- and you are pernicious. Let me tell you that from the day Reagan got in through Bush, not one single Black American was appointed to the bench! That is what the 'Real America' is, Mr. Barr: there are people that still think that the black man has no rights. There is still a profound division in terms of pluralism and I think there is a Real America which President Clinton represents!"

Barr snapped back that "all of that is irrelevant." He is visibly shaken -- and should be. Yet he continued to carry on like the little Mussolini that he is, simply ignoring the hurt of the Jewish professor and patriotic American Alan Dershowtiz and the African-American Judge and highly accomplished American Leon Higginbotham.

We were outraged by Barr -- but we were also pleased that he revealed with clarity and lucidity what he is and what those around him are.

We pledge to do everything possible to see this little Fascist defeated and thrown out of government in 2000. That pledge carries the weight of our 8 million readers and the support we will throw to Barr's opponent.

Barr must be defeated. He is a disgrace to this nation. He is a disgrace to Americans of good will.

Asa Hutchinson attacked Dershowitz next. He asked how the professor concluded that the President did not commit perjury to the grand jury. Hutchinson tried to hang Dershowtiz with his own words as Chabot had attempted to. Of course, the words are totally out of context and do not apply to what the President actually said under oath -- Asa blew it again, because the President did not lie about his relationship with Lewinsky before the grand jury. Asa then moved on to Professor Rosen, asking whether Rosen thinks that prosecution of the President is realistic. Rosen said yes -- but because Starr never listened to public opinion before! So Asa tried to pit Dershowitz against Rosen -- in a openly silly ploy that didn't work. Asa worried that the country will think the Judiciary Committee "punted" on this issue. So what, Asa? Isn't that better than thinking you're a bunch of skinhead Neo-Nazis out to pull off a presidential coup?

Buyer went at it again. He whined on and on about "military morale" -- but of course no one cared and no one listened. Ever since Vietnam people have been nervous and antsy about the military and feel more sorry for them then proud of them -- and this is truly unfortunate. The worst aspect of Buyer's completely specious reasoning was his putting the military in the position of defending themselves against charges that they are joining the ultra-right in a sort of fascist conspiracy to besmirch the President -- even though they are in fact not doing this.

Buyer was hurting the military rather than helping them by lying about their attitudes toward Bill Clinton. He was using them, and by using them he disgraces them. Admiral Moore -- who Buyer loves to quote so widely and out of context -- has no right to sit on his taxpayer-paid pension and criticize his Commander In Chief in such a way. As far as we're concerned, he should be stripped of his pension and work like most people have to... until they die! Buyer went as far as to put up a stupid chart about "virtue, honor and patriotism." Watch the entire baby boom tune out this turkey -- we certainly did.

Utah nutcase Cannon was next. Looking like a walking (well, in this case, sitting) hamburger ad, Cannon talked about "gradations" of perjury as gradations of "proof" -- whatever that meant. "Let me point out that all perjurers say that they were not intentionally lying." he whined. Then he turned to Judge Wiggins' suggestion of the million dollar penalty for Clinton, saying it might be unconstitutional -- and that, he claims, is why he is against censure, censure plus or censure with pain. He claims he has great fear and concern for our military.

Our military. Do you believe it? Not again!

"By his behavior, does this president pose a danger to our country?" asked the Salt Lake cretin. And both military shills answered NO! At this point, the hearing could have used a laugh track -- Cannon had the same sort of crestfallen look on his face you would see on the face of Seinfeld's George Costanza when he is made to look stupid. The old fart Admiral said that morale is not as high as it should be -- one cause of which is the "Clinton conflict." Yes, accounting for about .00005% of the morale problem. The real reason morale is down is the ridiculous rules with which the military burdens its men and women, the unfair treatment they give them, the intolerably low pay they receive to put their lives on the line, and their anger at watching the Seinfeld Congress debate what they consider a hypocritical issue. Cannon is the Pagliacci of Congress -- a tragic political clown so out of touch with reality that you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Admiral Edney, also living off a fat pension, added fuel to the fire -- but with a high degree of caution. His pension should go as well.

Next was James Rogan's turn -- he apologized to Alan Dershowitz, saying that they had no problems because until now the only excuse he had for not attending Harvard was his grade point average -- another snide and puerile comment. Rogan addresses the Weinberger issue, claiming that Bush has the prerogative to pardon anyone he wished but did not have the prerogative to commit perjury. He quoted Clinton as remarking that the Weinberger pardon might mean that some people are above the law. Yeah, right. However, what does that have to do with lying about sex, Mr. Rogan? Now we know why you didn't attend Harvard -- you couldn't have passed the community service interview!

Lindsey Graham was next, talking about the Admiral and the General. He then recites the Air Force Academy honor code (he was in the Air Force). "This idea of not tolerating any of us who do" -- is that part of your code too? Do you agree with that concept? he asked. "Now I feel guilty about asking (no spelling error) him to tell the truth." He said Nixon should have lost his job, but he is trying to make sure that he doesn't hold him to a higher standard. He claimed that an officer who was going 55 and said he was going 45 would lose his job. Sure, and pumpkins have eyes.

Graham said he believes that Clinton "planted" stories in Betty Currie's mind. He loves the law, he said. But now "I gotta judge whether the President should lose his job for things like that. I know in my heart that it is not right for me not to subject him to a trial in the Senate. I can't live with me and that's the standard for all of us at the end of the day. But if the President would admit what I think is clear from the record, I would think differently." And pigs would sprout wings. He was again trying to lure Clinton into an indictment trap.

Mary Bono was the last -- and thankfully the least -- questioner. "I am particularly interested in the statements of the Admiral and the Lt. General. I thought about my parents -- my father was a gunner over Germany. You know, he has a great sense of commitment and he dutifully followed his oath. Sometimes I worry about the mixed message my children are receiving from this President..." She too quotes Admiral Tom Moore -- chief of Clinton-bashing military traitors who wish Clinton would launch some more wars that they wouldn't have to die in, just control. Admiral Edney claimed there is not question that the young people coming into the military are being taught to avoid obfuscation and litigious answers. "It is the troops who know right from wrong." Sure -- so did Gomer Pyle.

We invite all the Congresspeople trying so hypocritically to hang this issue on our men and women in the military to poll each and every one of them. They would get an answer far different than they claim.

These men are mythmongers out to tar the President. There is no movement among troops to "punish" the President. There is no outcry among military personnel, nor are our men and women in uniform lying because the President admitted his frailties.

These demagogues should be ashamed.

And not even Hyde's closing gavel brought an end to the blather from hard-right hypocrites. The Judiciary Committee's most rabid rightsters were on various news networks within less than half an hour talking up the President's "crimes." Bob Barr made a particularly nausea-inducing appearance on Rivera Live, lying about the exchange with Dershowitz that exposed him for the racist scum he is. Of course, fascists, Freepers, and his own reactionary constituents ate up Barr's diatribe against the "silly" Dershowitz.

But it was too late. The damage had been done. And even though the mainstream media seems to have again missed a key turning point in this sad charade still being flogged as a presidential "scandal," the message from today's hearing is clear:

Perjury is deader than Joe McCarthy. Censure's the word. And Hyde has managed to pull a Jack Kevorkian on what was the already comatose impeachment -- it's just a matter of time 'til the coroner arrives.

-- Mac MacArthur