Witch Trials
The Demonization of Bill Clinton
by Jeff Koopersmith and Gene Gaudette

Tuesday, December 8, 1998 -- WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (APJP) -- House "Injudiciary" Committee Chief Witch Burner Henry Hyde began his attack on Bill Clinton by reminding us that he set a deadline as the end of December for these hearings.

He lied by omission the first time. He set the deadline not because Americans want him to end this matter, but because Democrats will have a five-vote-higher minority in the House by the first week in January -- and the new Congress could very well undo whatever this House does concerning the Impeachment of the President.

Hyde talked about the schedule. During that talk, he actually said when they will begin voting on articles of impeachment.

Now, we ask you: is this a fair hearing?

The Committee hasn't even heard from the President's lawyers, and they are already scheduling votes on articles of impeachment! Hence, lie number two.

John Conyers, the ranking minority member of the Committee, began next. He was so boring and poorly spoken that we were cringing. Couldn't Barney Frank or, even better yet, Zoe Lofgren make the opening statement? When we need fire, we get feathers.

Conyers called the legal evidence against the President a house of cards because it relies on unsubstantiated testimony -- often in conflict.

His point? Well, it should have been that no witness was cross-examined and that nearly all witnesses for the Starr side are admitted or proven liars!

Conyers, pathetic in his comments, said it is time to give the American people a gift -- and early Christmas present to end this madness.

Hyde did not comment, but instead swore in the first panel.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) said that he understood they were going to have a committee meeting before the testimony. He was asking that the charges be defined so that the allegations -- whatever they are -- can be properly rebutted.

Hyde say no.

Gregory Craig, Nicholas Katzenbach, Bruce Eckerman of Yale, Sean Willensk of Princeton, and Samuel H. Beard of Harvard made up the first panel.

Craig was too friendly at his opening. He said it is his honor to defend the President.

"Nothing in this case justifies this Congress to overturn a national election... Open you mind, open your heart and listen to me... There are a lot of 'conventional' wisdom about this case that is just plain wrong... All the world will see that whatever there is in the record, there is nothing in the record that would justify his removal from office."

"His behavior in this matter was wrong. He mislead his wife and family and the country and... is genuinely sorry for the pain and damage which he has caused."

"But draw a difference between moral wrong and criminal acts."

"We will address the factual and evidentiary items that prove the President's innocence and were left out of the Starr report."

"...The Constitution requires proof of misconduct and that his actions harmed the nation ... "

Craig conceded that in the Jones deposition the President's testimony was misleading, but was not, in fact, perjurious. He did not deny it, he admitted it.

Craig said he would show that on the points of obstruction of justice, that the allegations are unjustified and that the testimony actually exonerates Clinton. The testimony of Lewinsky, Currie and Jordan were altered, not reported, and otherwise "massaged" by Starr

Craig told the Committee that if, back in September or October, you didn't think the referral justified impeaching President Clinton, there is no justification to impeach him today. "There can be no more soul-searching vote than considering impeachment. Please do not let the passion of partisan politics on either side to blind you to justice." He was referring to their hackles being raised over the House Judiciary Committees snotty, malicious "81 Questions" documents and Clinton's answers to those questions submitted to the official lynch mob, answered carefully in light of his very real concern that this group of ultra-right Republicans would attempt to use more "candid' words against him.

Nick Katzenbach was next at bat.

He told the Committee that a great deal has been heard about this matter -- so much, in fact that "we are in danger of losing sight of the fundamentals." He runs over the Constitutional provisions for impeachment. What constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors? This phrase is not familiar in modern American jurisprudence. Neither high crime nor misdemeanor have ever been used in the criminal law. "Impeachments are confined to political matter.... It is not to punish the man, but to secure the state."

The Founders faced the problem of separation of powers. In the United States the Founders looked for some means to remove him, but this was a severely limited power. This resolves nothing in a decisive fashion. But it provides parameters which should be useful and not very controversial. This power raising fundamental issues about separation of powers. He added, "Ergo, if you go forward as you seem to be, then any president could be removed from office simply when a significant number of members decided they didn't like him for one reason or another."

Katzenbach outlined the difference between impeaching judges and the President. The standard is far higher for Presidents.

"This Congress is faced with a totally new situation. The public is well aware of the facts, the public is not persuaded."

Finally, he said he could find no constitutional basis for impeachment for relatively small matters. He added that Congress must have no confidence from the public to impeach.

Professor Sean Willensk of Princeton was next.

He said that impeachment is a grave and serious matter. He was not representing the President, he said, although there under his invitation.

He is there to defend the institution of the President.

The attacks on the office, witting or not, have been extremely dangerous, he said -- and it is so important that the fate of our political institutions are at risk. Any representative that votes in favor of impeachment and is not absolutely convinced "will be fairly accused of gross dereliction of duty and will be held accountable by history."

He said there is disagreement as to what constitutes grounds under the Constitution -- but the framers agreed that only crimes committed against the state would actually qualify. The absence of the words, "against the state" opened a Pandora's Box, which we now open 211 years later.

He pointed out that the only other occasions where impeachment was considered were when crimes against the state were proved.

Truly monstrous private crimes, such as murder, could also be reasons for impeachment.

Some people, Willensk pointed out, have crafted academic reasons for characterizing the Presidents alleged activities. They, by there very nature, sound reaching and suspicious.

What you must decide, he said, is whether the actual facts, the actual facts and not the sonorous formal charges truly rise to impeachable offenses. If you choose that they do, and don't believe it -- history will track you down and assault you for your cravenness.

This Committee seems not engaged in a political proceeding, but a politicized proceeding designed to remove a President, he concluded -- and "This is a feeble... degradation of conscience." The argument to "let the President get away with it" is nonsense, logically and historically. The impeachment process itself poses a far greater threat to the rule of law!

Willensk was far better than Katzenbach, but still not quite there.

Professor Beer, a wizened fossil of a man reminiscent of Mr. Chips (sans the accent), had just come from London where he was advising the Parliament on beefing up it's Committees.

This resembles a vote of no confidence in Parliament, he said. Impeachment does not relate to some specific thing, but to his administration as a whole, not on some specific action or actions.

A failure to consider the whole of President Clinton's actions in office would be a travesty he said.

Professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale was the last to speak.

He concentrated on two big mistakes.

Mistake 1: You think that if you vote impeachment this session, there will be a trial in the Senate. "Nothing could be further from the truth!" he said. "Your vote disappears on December 31st as does all proposed legislation in this 105th congress. In order to pass it to the Senate for trial, it must be voted on again by the 106th Congress."

The 20th amendment, he specified, insures this. Lame Duck Congresses have proved faithful to this amendment: "No lame duck house has impeached an errant federal judge much less a sitting president. These proceedings are then absolutely unprecedented." You have the power, he added -- but your bill of impeachment loses it force with the death of the 105th Congress. The committee had ignored it because the GOP thought it would gain seats in the 106th House. But they did not.

Slyly, he used Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL), who was impeached in 100th Congress, was tried by the Senate in the 101st. Hastings was found guilty by the Senate and lost his judgeship in 1988. Thus, their impeachment vote will be the first matter facing Chief Justice Rehnquist where he will rule on the President's motion to quash your referral to the Senate. Justice Rehnquist is a judicial scholar on impeachment. Ackerman thinks the Chief Justice will remand the matter back to the 106th Congress.

"It would be far better if the Chief Justice never rules on this issue," he said. See the hard case on the horizon before precipitating a constitutional crisis, Ackerman advises.

Suppose that the Chief Justice does not remand your impeachment, posed Ackerman. Even then, the new House will have to consider the matter. The House must select a group of impeachment managers, because without them there can be no trial. Thus, there is no way to avoid a test by the new house. It is a big mistake to suppose that you are the final judges of this bill of impeachment.

He added that the Committee had better consider the voters and stop the process now. Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman pro tempore, rudely cut him off in mid-sentence and then let Asa Hutchinson claims that he has a Congressional Research Service (CRS) memo that said an impeachment can be moved forward into the new Congress.

Hilarious. The CRS is largely controlled by Republicans. What else would they advise?

...to be continued...

Tuesday, December 8, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Amidst the impeachment hearings frenzy, there has been a major development in an investigation into criminal wrongdoing by Linda Tripp.

Today, the Maryland state grand jury investigating evidence that Linda Tripp broke Maryland law by taping telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky without Lewinsky's consent has issued a subpoena to her former attorney, conservative activist James Moody, ordering him to turn over recordings containing conversations between Tripp and Lewinsky in his custody.

AP is reporting that Tripp's current attorney, Anthony Zaccagnini, says that Moody intends to fight the subpoena by claiming attorney-client privilege privilege.

Maryland prosecutors have already taken testimony from at least one and possibly more employees of Radio Shack claiming that Tripp was told prior to her purchase of a special voice-activated tape recorder for her telephone that taping conversations without the consent of the other party was illegal in Maryland.

Tripp admitted to violating the law under a grant of immunity from independent counsel Kenneth Starr. But if the team of Maryland prosecutors, headed by Stephen Montanarelli, are able to get the actual tapes, it is widely speculated that they will indict Tripp for violating Maryland's wiretapping statute. Tripp could face a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

Tuesday, December 8, 1998 -- 2 PM -- Jim Sensenbrenner, the always crude and venal congressman who takes the chair when Adulterer Hyde leaves the room to take a nap, snapped a few insulting questions to Greg Craig about why he didn't produce any witnesses.

Craig then proceeded to made "Senseless Bragger" look like the fool he is: he stated as fact that the search for Ms. Lewinsky's job is no different then many other searches that were initiated by the President for others. He also talked about Betty Currie. He said, without saying it, that Starr lied in his referral on obstruction because the President had no thought that Ms. Currie would be called either by Jones or the Grand Jury. Currie stated repeatedly before the Grand Jury that she felt no pressure from the President when he went over his statements -- and he read the testimony.

Sensenbrenner, again rude, tries to cut him off -- but Conyers came to his rescue and he finishes.

Bill McCollum, a man that certainly will not be reelected next time around, started the questioning for the lynch mob. He read a list of so-called "lies" that he thinks the President told by parroting hysteria-based testimony before the Judiciary Committee. It goes on for three minutes. He claimed that the evidence that he read indicates that the President lied about 15 to 20 things.

McCollum asked Craig whether he finds anything from Jordan where Jordan lied.

Craig answered well: he said that we have a problem preparing for your questions because we do not know what you are charging.

Barney Frank was next. "Mr. McCollum obviously did not want you to respond to anything he said," commented Frank.

Craig showed McCollum that he will file a written statement to every one of these statements made by Starr. "You mixed up Grand Jury and Jones testimony, and that is a travesty." Craig says that everything Starr said was in error.

Rep. Frank chastised McCollum for insinuating that Vernon Jordan is a liar and dares him to call Vernon Jordan, who Frank said would make mincemeat of him.

We know -- for a fact -- that Vernon Jordan is far too much of a gentleman than to do that to McCollum.

Frank went over the three alleged perjuries which Starr claimed. What witness could he bring about what he was thinking? With regard to obstruction, everyone involved said there was no obstruction, so what case could be made on this.

Craig reminded the Committee that Mr. Ruff, the President's counsel is coming to address these questions.

McCollum then made a point -- he thought Jordan was telling the truth.

Next was Gekas (R-PA) who said Prof. Wilentz's testimony astounded him. He asked about his word "cravenness." He thinks that is despicable in advance of a vote. Hilarious -- yet he is helping to craft the articles of impeachment as he chastises the professor. Gekas then asked Katzenbach whether, if the Congress proceeded against a president for refusing to respond to its requests, that would be grounds for impeachment. Gekas says that he then has no knowledge of what an impeachable offense is! The Professor said he sure does, but then Gekas cuts him off.

Katzenbach said that perjury, if it undermined public confidence in the government, could be grounds -- but here it did not, and does not.

Senator-Elect Schumer was up next. He talked about the moderate Republicans. He said what pushes them to do the unthinkable are two things: (1) that the President did not apologize enough; and (2) the 81 questions answered to the Committee weren't direct enough. He said we are simply going through the motions. Schumer said the American people may wake up to find the President has been impeached because he was not contrite enough. He asked, "In your legal or political opinion, does the contrition go to whether the president should be impeached?"

Well, of course not. But as he said, it's a sham, going through the motions hearing.

Everyone answers no. One lawyer said his cravenness. remarks were directed at just what he has witnessed surrounding people like McCollum and The Hammer -- "getting moderate Republicans in line."

Mr. Beer said that what the Republicans are asking is not contrition -- but subservience to ask the President to admit something he feels he did not do.

And that is the crux of the matter. With the help of the media -- particularly Sam Donaldson and Tim Russert -- Republicans have somehow convinced 30% of Americans that somehow the President should apologize for things he is innocent of -- merely to bow to the ultra right.

He hasn't. He won't. And he shouldn't.

Rep. Coble, idiot that he is, quotes (of all people) foot fetishist Dick Morris -- who, even after the President reached out yet again for his help, used Bill Clinton and turned on him revealing their private conversations to the likes of lightweight Tony Snow.

Coble is a moron and represents everything wrong with the House.

Coble wanted the group to put on their alternative hats. He talked about censure and an attached financial penalty. He thinks that would amount to a bill of attainder -- and here Coble is correct -- however, Coble didn't think of that himself, he was fed the question by staff.

Howard Berman (D-CA) has been a total disappointment thus far. He asked the panel to take everything that Starr said as true, and that his conclusions are true. Tell us why this does not reach impeachable action. Mr. Katzenbach said he is perfectly able to say that even if all that Starr said is true, the President's actions do not at all convince the people that the President cannot carry out his duties as President. In fact, they believe the opposite.

Mr. Ackerman said that the Committee sits as inquisitor for the people. If you proceed as you plan, history will be littered with one impeachment after another. Mr. Wilentz agrees and addresses the symbolic argument -- that we should impeach because the President violated some general prescripts of American law. Professor Beer agrees. "When you say, even if... they do not begin to reach the enormous responsibility that it is to remove a president."

The vicious Texan, Lamar Smith, was up next. He asked Craig if he has ever counseled the President to tell the American people the entire truth. Craig pauses and said that Mr. Clinton has already acknowledged that he was evasive and went out of his way not to tell the full story. Craig thinks Clinton has gone a long way. Smith wants to know if the President is going to go back and correct the evasive and misleading statements he has made. Craig points out that he has -- then, of course, Smith interrupts him and says, I take it that this means he will not. He then turned to Ackerman. He talked about Nixon coaching Haldeman on how to not commit perjury, but not tell the truth either. He is trying to say Clinton did this by lying to his staff. But the two matters are not comparable. Simply lying to a friend or colleague is not "coaching" him or her to lie.

Smith read Lewinsky's testimony to Katzenbach as if it was fact. He failed again -- and then he said that he thinks that 90% of the American people would say that what the President told Lewinsky about saying she came to see Betty Currie and not him, was impeachable perjury. What a riot -- yet more than 70% of Americans say it isn't, Lamar. Oh -- and get a haircut!

Rick Boucher (D-VA) is another useless Democrat. He just reads speeches. He did this again today, but then asked whether the House should view its standard as probable cause,. He assumption is that preservation of the nation is the test for impeachment. Prof. Ackerman points to the great public interest in preventing this indictment. The standard must be high -- and evaluation of little snippets of testimony is not nearly high enough. Impeachment itself is a terrible precedent to set for the next generation or two. There would be an overwhelming political temptation to exploit a moment of political vulnerability for the president for vengeful purposes. Future presidents could be vulnerable to harassment by Congress, said Wilentz, and he called these hearings a "nauseating spectacle."

Mr. Gallegly, another GOP ultra-low IQer, asked whether telling the truth is important. Then he quoted Tim Russert!!! He asked Craig if he still believed that the President did not commit perjury. Craig said the President tried to answer accurately, but in a very narrow way. It is a matter of interpretation. Gallegly thinks he's got him by asking what "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Craig said the President did not violate the oath when testifying. Gallegly said that any reasonable analysis "shows the president lied over and over again, and this is an insult to our intelligence."

As if he had any.

Jerry Nadler (D-NY) came next. He quoted Independent Persecutor Donald Smaltz -- an idiot from a fly-by-night law school who failed in his years-long attempt to lynch former Agriculture Secretary Espy -- as saying that sometimes Indictment is enough to keep things in check. Professor Ackerman said that to look at this matter as "just passing this thing on to the Senate is all you are doing" would be a violation of their oath -- especially if they think the Senate will not convict. A vote to impeach IS in effect a vote to remove. Another panel member said this is even more true when you know the 106th Congress will not uphold your vote.

Prof. Beer said this is an all-out attack on the separation of powers.

Rep. Canady (R-FL) claimed he has not found any new arguments. Then he snidely thanks Mr. Craig that the committee will soon be receiving an exhaustive defense of the President. He then goes into testimony in which the President said he did not recall being alone with Ms. Lewinsky. Canady asked, "Was he telling the truth?" Craig said yes -- he did say that he could have been alone. Yes, he was evasive -- but he did hold his oath.

Craig should have said "Look, idiot, the President is never alone -- except in the residence. He may be left alone, but can never assume so."

Canady said he understands that not all criminal acts are grounds for impeachment. He said "we need convincing evidence." He said he believes that the Committee has a convincing "pattern" of evidence of obstruction and lying under oath. He quotes Chief Justice Jay: "There is not crime more extensively pernicious to society."

So what? Another quote of context.

Rep. Scott attempted again to enter his motion on specific allegations of this inquiry. Note that he wants to introduce this to set the stage for an extended Supreme Court argument that the Committee abused its power. Craig said it is very important to outline exactly what the perjurious statement is, on every count. Each time one of the Republicans makes such a statement, we are able to refute it. He also pointed out that the President's team is not allowed to take notes on what it sees or to make copies.

Prof. Wilentz said unequivocally that the President's crime MUST be a crime against the state.

Pinhead loser-of-the-year soon-to-be-ex-Congressman Bob Inglis was up next. "You said that the President has insisted and personally instructed his lawyers that no technicality should be used in this proceeding." He then asked Craig whether the President was alone with Monica Lewinsky. The President did not recall whether he was alone with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. "I ask you again, did the president lie?"

But Craig got him: "You forgot to say that the President went on to say that it was possible that he was." But Inglis lies in his own question about lying.

Inglis then asked, "Did the President LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE when he said he did not have sexual relations with 'that woman.'?" Craig said no, not according to his notion of "having sex." Sexual relations is not defined otherwise in any dictionary. Craig added, "Did he deceive? Yes. Did he do wrong, Yes. Did he lie? No."

Mel Watt (D-CA) is another very "slow" congressman. He asked the panel, "Even if you assume that everything they say is correct and that the president lied -- would it be impeachable?" Hasn't that question been asked already -- about three times? Katzenbach said no. Ackerman said impeachment is for a President "out of control." This president is not out of control. Prof. Wilentz says no, they may rise to the level of crimes, but not impeachable that rises to a violation of the constitution! Prof. Beer agrees.

Hyde returned from his nap.

Beer went into the separation of powers argument. In our system, each power is responsible to the people -- directly. Here the legislature is inserting itself between the people and the president. The Congress must put itself in the place of the people and determine how they would act.

Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who was likley beaten up in high school for being an acerbic little prick, asked if the President could be prosecuted for these perjuries. Then he actually asked whether, if the President was indicted and convicted tomorrow of perjury, we could impeach him while he was in jail. Hilarious!! He then began a long, circuitous and absolutely ridiculous explanation that this distinguished panel is arguing that the President is above the law. Why? Because of his power to pardon himself for crimes. We almost lost our lunch laughing! Goodlatte, known even among hids GOP colleagues as one of the top idiots in Congress, proves it every day. He made a further fool of himself by getting out a copy of the 20th amendment and attacking one of the world's great geniuses on the meaning of it. It was a corker.

Zoe Lofgren, a jewel in this pile of garbage, was up next. She urged the nation to measure what a trial about his would mean -- it would tie up the nation for as long as a year. She attested to the fact that business was quite concerned about how this will impact the economy. Mr. Katzenbach agrees that much agony and disruption will occur. This underlines the importance of what you are considering. "The people involved in business and the stock markets want certainty. I can think of nothing much worse that will push them toward uncertainty as much as this will." How, serious, in terms of the public, was the President's conduct? This is the nexus.

Oh, No! Next was Mr. Steve Buyer -- who insists on being called "Boo Yer" -- he thinks he is French. He asked how much notice each had. Each seemed to have about 48 hours. Boo Yer was thwarted. He pointed out that all of you are here to defend the President (his first lie). He claimed that attacks by the President on Starr were not taken well by the American people. Now there's a whopper of a lie. And funny to boot. Americans hate Starr by 80%. Boo Yer claims that Craig has called them zealots and cowards. Yet one more lie -- of course he did not. But it's true nonetheless of the Republicans.

Boo Yer whips out a criminal statute. He attacked Craig -- but in a way that made one shrug. He pointed to John Podesta's testimony that the President told him he had not had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky and that Lewinsky came to see Ms. Currie and on and on. It was laughable. All the president's men said they believed the president. Then Boo Yers time expired and, believe it or not, Hyde cut him off! What a stooge! Even Hyde can't stand him.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (R-TX) was next. She has been a loud supporter of the President. She tried to be lawyerlike, but does better with down-home logic. She acknowledged that the President misled the people. She called the Nixon Committee the row-DEAN-yo Committee over and over.

Sorry, Congresswoman -- its row-DEAN-o.

She asked if Ms. Lewinsky had a diary. Craig said yes, and also answered that the President did not keep such a diary. The congresswoman pointed out that Lewinsky was allowed to refer to her documents in the grand jury and elsewhere. Her point? That the President could not refer to anything but his memory. She moved on to Ms. Tripp and asked if the White House had engaged in a personal vendetta against Tripp. No, answers Craig.

Rep Ed Bryant (R-TX) called the 400 men and women who signed the famous letter against impeachment impostors and that they should be removed from their positions. He is so stupid it is remarkable. One of the men on the panel had said that history would become littered with impeachments. Then Bryant said that he doesn't recall any such history. What a laugh. What a numbnutz. Bryant then began a snide and threatening diatribe on Craig. He asked him if he is an attorney and asked him the differences between willfully lying and willfully misleading in a deposition. Craig pointed out that the elements of crimes are technical in nature. He's right -- that's why we need lawyers. Craig pointed out that an absolute defense to perjury is that what you say can be interpreted as truth.

Rothman pointed out that Craig was again not allowed to finish his answer. Hyde sticks to his guns -- THIS WILL BE A LYNCHING, he implies. An argument ensued. Hyde was losing it. Then he gave in to Scott. Could they finish after the questioning is over? Hyde ignored him and simply thanked him.

Rep. Maxine Waters was up next. "Mr. Hyde, you said about Reagan's lies on Iran Contra, you said that we should look at a more nuanced view of lying. Lying depends on context, you said." She said that Congress needs to get on with the business of the nation. "The American people do not want to impeach the President. This should not spill over into the 106th Congress." She said the President can have "A Motion to Squash!"

We laughed out loud! -- It's QUASH, Maxine. If Jerry Nadler sat on the 106th Congress -- now that would be a squash! [See -- we DO try to be fair.]

AAAAUGH! What are we talking about? She said SQUASH again!! Then she called Ackerman "Acumen" -- not entirely inappropriate, we say. Ackerman underscored how long the impeachment process might take. It is rare. The lame duck congress cannot assume that the Chief Justice will accept this.

Then Waters said Squash a third time. No one whispered in her ear to help her. What a shame. Craig said he hopes that the 105th Congress won't vote on the issue.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) talked to Ackerman's "Gross dereliction of duty" statement and asked whether any congressperson that votes against impeachment when knowing that the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors would also be guilty of gross dereliction. Ackerman said simply yes, of course. So much for that. He then turns to Ms. Currie's testimony when she said that Mr. Clinton's statements to Betty Currie were to influence her testimony, not to tell her what he had testified to. Chabot asked again. Mr. Craig did not believe he was doing that because he had no idea that anyone would be calling her as a witness.

We agree. At most, the President was checking with Currie as to whether he had told the truth in the Jones deposition. He was, we know, bothered by this and searching his soul after that traumatic event.

Craig said that Chabot will be convinced that there could not have been any plot by the president to obstruct justice by tampering with Currie.

Marty Meehan (D-MA) said it is a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will vote impeachment on Saturday, no matter what they do today. There is nothing that any of these witnesses can say that would stop this committee (meaning: DeLay and the Republicans) But it is important to tell the American people and the 20-30 moderate Republicans in congress hear it. He then asked Katzenbach about the will of the American people. "The Republicans have been telling us that the will of the people means nothing."

Katzenbach feels that it is unusual that the people feel as they do. He quotes Berthold Brecht, "Maybe we should elect a new public."

Meehan said he was struck by the cases where we failed to convene impeachment hearings on (1) the Reagan/Bush Contra scandal and; (2) the Lyndon Johnson lies on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Mr. Ackerman wondered if the Congress will show restraint. This cycle of incivility will spin, very shortly -- out of control.

"A lame duck congress should not do this."

Bob "Bozo" Barr was up next. He thinks the White House "tends to break out the champagne and light up the cigars a bit too early... You keep saying that Mr. Starr has cleared the President on Whitewater, but this is not true." This is Barr's lie number one. Since Starr's testi-lying, he has told more than one reporter that some prosecutions -- not aimed at the President -- might follow on Whitewater.

Barr droned on, to our amusement. He wanted to talk about "misleading" conduct an Title 18 of the US Code. He wanted to prove he is a lawyer.

However, we know people in Georgia who are pledged to go after Barr's law license within the year.

He read Sidney Blumenthal's testimony and the fact that the floorperson of the Grand Jury took him to task becasue what Blumenthal told the press about what went on in the Grand Jury was a "lie." Barr asked if the President has fired Mr. Blumenthal.

Craig said of course he has not -- and Mr. Blumenthal has disagreed with the floorlady and other members of the grand jury. Barr interrupted him and claimed that if Craig won't admit that Blumenthal lied, Craig is now trying to mislead the Committee.

Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts was next for the Democrats. He wanted to talk about fines. He said there is historical precedent for censure and that it is constitutional. He pointed out that Canady had a hearing on it and that the majority of scholars agreed that censure was perfectly fine. Ackerman said there is significant precedent for censure, but a fine is a bill of attainder. Mr. Willentz is not crazy about censure, but testifies that there is no constitutional bar to censure or any congressional resolution "under the sun."

Delahunt pointed out every lie told by most presidents just in the past 60 years and that most of them did damage to the country or a least a significant portion of the electorate. Delahunt asked Craig to go to the president and convince him he lied to the American people and he should be censured for it.

Bill Jenkins, Republican of Tennessee, was up next for the lynch mob. Although Mr. Craig told him that Mr. Ruff would defend the president in detail, Jenkins calls all the opinions expressed by the panel were just that -- opinions. Willentz said that Jenkins is absolutely wrong -- there is a difference between scholarship and opinion. Then Jenkins -- proving that most people from Tennessee are morons (except for Al Gore and some of my friends) said that Willentz had called anyone who votes for impeachment derelict. Willentz did not. But Jenkins, suffering under too much Jack Daniels, didn't understand that. Jenkins claims that there is no such thing as degrees of perjury. Willentz made mincemeat out of him.

Bob Wexler (D-FL) was next and pointed out how "out of touch with the American people" this Committee is today. He asked Craig about the things he was asked by Republican members. The American people are saying 'who cares ' -- not because they don't care about lying, but they understand that impeachment should not be based upon whether Lewinsky lied, the President lied or they both lied. He asked the panel to speak to the American people about what the Senate trial will look like. Prof. Ackerman told the Committee that no Senator asked a single question in the Andrew Johnson impeachment. The House Managers asked all the questions. The Senate just sat there. "You have no idea what will happen. It will obstruct the nation's business for a year." Prof. Willentz adds, look what's going on in the media -- that's a vast difference from what went on in 1868!"

Asa Hutchinson, who often seems bright, is a Republican from Arkansas. He alerts Craig to an area in the deposition testimony of the President where he said -- "in my lifetime I have never sexually harassed a woman." Hutchinson claims that this "disturbs" him with reference to perjury -- we laughed. Now he is trying to bring up Jones, and the absolutely insane Kathleen Willey." Asa-boy also claims that the President must have known that Curries would be called, because he answered questions in this deposition : "You'd have to ask Betty Currie." Wouldn't you agree that he was on notice? Craig answers no. "He had no idea that Starr was even investigating the Lewinsky matter at that time." Check mate.

Hutchinson said that the President's answers to the 81 questions the President admitted to an inappropriate "sexual" relationship with Lewinsky, but in his Grand Jury testimony he used the word inappropriate "intimate" relationship. Yes... . so what? The effect is the same Asa-boy. He admitted it, he asked for forgiveness, but he did not commit perjury.

Steve Rothman (D-NJ) was on next. He is always boring because he enters into theoretical discussions and long explanations. He did make his point -- that the President admitted wrongdoing and misleading in his 81 answers many times.

Rothman asked whether the Speaker of the House can appoint the Impeachment Managers for the House without a full vote of the House. Ackerman said this would be an extreme abuse of process. The precedent is the Andrew Johnson case, and there the mangers were selected by the full House.

The next panel began with former Congresswoman Elizbeth Holtzman of New York. She said she is sad to be here today, and that if this committee and the House votes the impeachment of President Clinton its credibility and the credibility of the government will long be injured. She says impeachment will punush the naton, not protect it. It will be disruptive in all ways.

She addressed the abuse of power issue on which she is a noted expert.

Think of presidential abuses of power we saw in 1974, use of the CIA, the IRS, wiretapping, special units in the White Hosue to burglarize the office of a psychiatrist, she said -- these were abuses of power.

She says, without hesitation, that nothing Starr alleges is impeachable and that further Starr overstepped his bounds in delving into this issue and in presenting his referral to the Committee. She made a good case, but added nothing new to the mix.

Father Robert Drinan, now a law professor at Georgtown offered much the same comparison between the Nixon and Clinton situations. He talked about how the two parties worked together, and through the sheer force of the the evidence - a third of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee in 1974 voted for impeachment. The people knew the White House was being run almost as a criminal institution. Drinan talked about the Johnson impeachment and its failure.

Barney Frank asked Holtzman about the discrepancy in Clinton's and Lewinsky's testimony as to when their physical involvement began, and how this could qualify as perjury -- even comparing it to lying about shooting missiles at a country -- citing Starr's report, and the problem with Starr using the words "intimate' and "sexual" interchangeably.

Holtzman agreed that Frank has raised an important point -- impeaching the President over charges of perjury that don't seem to stand up.

Frank then lit into Bozo Barr on his assertion that Clinton had not been exonerated in Whitewater -- by pointing out that three GOP appointees had been investigating it and found NOTHING. This, he said, is abuse of power by the GOP.

McCollum asked a stupid question about the President "going home and shooting two friends" -- would that be impeachable? The question was tailored to play into conspirawackos who still believe Vince Foster was "bumped off" by the Clintons. Wayne owens shot him down, mentioning "gravity" of the charges. McCollum turned to Holtzman and asked how she squares her vote to impeach Nixon on tax charges with her view that :high crimes" are impeachable. Holtzman replied that Nixon had enriched himself at taxpayer expense -- an abuse of power -- and there were other articles. McCollum rattled on about VClinton's conduct as "chief law enforcement officer' -- even though he isn't.

Schumer went to bat -- stating again (as Hyde skulked off, no doubt for a nap) he was perplexed by moderate Republicans who said that if the President were sufficiently contrite they would support a non-impeachment punishment of Clinton. He asked whether a full apology by Nixon would have yed their decision on whether or not to impeach.

Owens said his sense is that the public would have forgiven him, the House would have voted articles, but the Senate would not have convicted -- keeping in mind all of this could have happened before the emergence of the three "smoking guns."

Drinan replied that he felt the conduct was so appalling that impeachment would have been inevitable, and the concept of censure never would have come up -- "He never really said he was sorry."

Holtzman said it was hard to speculate; "few of us sought to sit in judgment... all of us searched oiur conscience [and] a very high standard of evidence had been met."

On to Gekas, who brought up "attacks on the system of government" -- which gave ?? a chance to complete his answer that had been cut off, and undermined the remainder of Gekas' question "postulating" that preventing a civil suit was undermining a citizen's effort to seek justice. Gekas tried to manoeuver Holtzman into an answer on arguments for impeachment -- Holtzman pointed out that Gekas had omitted decision alternatives which the Watergate-era impeachment proceedings

Gekas ended with a slap at Drinan -- "God's messengers should not judge that which God should judge." Gekas defending Nixon -- what a riot!

Berman followed, and in the course of questioning Drinan said that one of his difficulties with the current impeachment process is that the Prsident has not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself -- something that troubles him greatly. Holtzman detailed the articles of impeachment "such a spectrum of abuse and illegality... that the presideny had to be removed." Clinton engaged in sexual misconduct that were not acts of state, and Holtzman

When Hyde asked Drinan if he had complained that Clinton had not had the opportunity to cross-examine his accusers, Drinan objected "to the use of the Grand Jury testimony in toto." Hyde pressed him on the question.

Coble asked another mindless question -- about how many Presidents had lied under oath about certain things. "I see that there is silence.. I wanted to get in that historic point." To no effect, we would add. He began blathering about Nixon crimes and coverups. As for Clinton, people say "Well, my God, it's about consensual sex" -- then tried to compare the current crisis to Watergate by claiming a coverup and other crimes. Ridiculous.

"I resent that some people accuse us of vengeance.... and I think most Americans will resent it." We're glad he resents the fact that people understand the fact that some Republicans want Clinton out -- because that is the truth. What Americans resent is being preached at by sanctimonious morons like Coble.

Boucher began his questions by complimenting the panel on establishing standards for nixon's impeachable offenses in a bipartisan manner. "There has not been a sufficient focus so far on harms... just by this committee voting out articles of impeachemnt" including diversion of attention from other issues, lowering impeachment standards and shutting down the Supreme Court.

Owens replied by decrying the polarization between the people and Congress: "It would have a terrible effect on the public." The Watergate standard in the House was beyond a reasonable doubt of impeachability. Holtzman siad she and her colleagues felt they had to vote as if they were in the Senate because of the gravity of the decision, knowing "the Senate would have to sit there day after day after day." Does America want or need day after day after day of Lewinsky?

Lamar Smith brought up the possibility of presidential resignation -- then quoted Barbara Jordan's comment that House members need not be held to the same standards as the Senate in voting articles of impeachment, and that Nixon's "false assertions" were impeachable. Smith, simple mind that he has, is saying that the House can say anything they want is impeachable -- like any "false" assertion" they want to dredge up. Did the President try to thwart a lawful investigation, he asked?

Holtzman said no, and a comparison with Watergate is a false comparison. Smith tried to interrupt her; mercifully, his time ran out.

Bobby Scott reiterated his previous comments on the shifting focus of the HJC, including an ABC News report citing "new" charges from GOP members of the committee. There is no clear definition of what the allegations are. Who gets called as a witness? Drinan pointed out that as evidence in watergate came out, America applauded the HJC. Now they are questioning the committee -- and Sam Dash's resignation begs more questions.

Gallegly asked Holtzman if tax evasion and perjury on the same level. He asked Owens and drinan if either had taken a position prior to 1998 on whether perjury is impeachable. Gallegly asked Owens if Clinton should pardon thousands of perjurers -- a stupid question which trivialized the issue of perjury, as Owens pointed out. Owens said censure is appropriate. Gallegly insisted it was not about sex but perjury and lying under oath -- practically declaring Clinton guilty without trial.

Owens said he hopes the House will not miss the opportunity to censure, and that the Senate would probably not convict the President -- essentially saying that the House was trivializing impeachment.

Mel Watt asked about the bipartisan relationship of the Watergate HJC; Owens recalled that ten of the seventeen Republicans did not vote for articles of impeachment in Watergate -- but changed their votes six days later when the "smoking guns" emerged.

Watt asked the witnesses how their committee roes above partisanship, citing public skepticism over the current committee. Owens said "you only have to say consequences be damned, you have to do what your conscience says."

Canady was next, bringing up the Watergate tax-evasion matter, asking what the panel thought of Black's "handbook" comment on "a large scale tax cheat is not qualified to be a chief magistrate" -- then tried to make Owens look foolish by quoting his testimony in the Watergate hearings, claiming his current assertions do not square with his current views -- then saying that "a large-scale perjurer is not qualified" to be President.

Zoe Lofgren cited that the Watergate committee dealt with issues of subversion of government, and lamented that the standards seemed to have changed for the committee and would impact on the present system of government in a destabilizing manner -- a president is elected, litigated, then impeached. What does this do to the stature of the presidency and the status of the economy?

Drinan said the effect would be a catastrophe -- for example, if the next president wanted to change Cuba policy, congress could find a reason to impeach him.

Lofgren turned to the scenario of an impeachment "coup d'etat" on party lines.

Drinan replied that he is troubled -- not one Democrat has sided with Republicans. What is their argument., he asked twice.

Inglis decided to lambaste the White House claim and Craig's statement that today's panel would persent evidence and facts that contradict evidence before the committee -- then stupidly asked all three members of the panel if they had new evidence. Holtzman, Owens and Drinan said they have facts -- about historical precedent and perspective.

Inglis whined on like a fool -- "where are your facts?"

Owens replied that "regarding facts, you have taught seven-year-olds what oral sex and cigars mean." Drinan added that Craig had entered over 200 pages into evidence in the morning.

Here's another fact, Inglis -- you have been thrown back into the private sector by your own constituents, who know an idiot when they hear one.

Jackson Lee lit into Inglis -- by pointing out that the Watergate-era panel members had been allowed to bring a large number of fact witnesses! She then asked if the witnesses had had sufficient opportunity

Holtzman: "Our process was not started by a grand inquisitor." Dean's disagreement with Nixon was not sufficient to begin an impeachment inquiry.

Goodlatte said he resented "the White House attempting to raise the bar." resents, indeed -- he knows that the GOP has set the bar far lower than even the Democrat members of the Whitewater committee could have dreamed up. "This effort to suggest that this committee is politically motivated" are contradicted by efforts by the White House. He chose to drone on without asking one question. we'll spare you.

Maxine Waters lit into a "holier-that-thou" attitudes on the part of the GOP on right and wrong -- then attacked Hyde for being "head of the class of the strictest and purest interpretation of perjury." She quoted the LA Times article quoting Hyde's defense of lies coming from the Reagan White House during Iran-Contra. "What are we to think of these contrasts?... What must your colleagues in the republican conference... think" about this juztaposinion? "You have done a 360% turn on your deep philosophical beliefs... History will not be kind to you [in being] remembered for a selective impeachment" on partisan grounds."

And Hyde permitted her to continue after five minutes -- belittling Waters by extending it in a humorous way. After he was through, he replied -- saying he had actually been talking about keeping secret "an attempt to stop Central America from a Castro takeover.... You cannot find one time where I condone Perjury or lying under oath" -- a misrepresentation.

Waters asked time to point out a statement that would contradict Hyde's answer, but Hyde (naturally) would not allow her.

It will come out.

Hyde -- denying he was a member of the Religious Right -- asked Drinan a technical question about "taking an oath to God."

Meehan was up -- he reviewed the chronology of Nixon's breakin at Brookings, harassment of Democrats, and quotes from the Watergate tapes -- a long litany of wrongdoing, followed by the question to Drinan: "Does anything we've seen here approach watergate?"

Buyer started by saying "We don't have a John Dean... someone at the White house that is fed up and comes to us."

What a stupid statement. They do have their John Dean.

the problem is his name is Sam Dash.

Buyer picked up on Hyde's question and asked what putting your hand on a Bible and taking the oath means. Drinan said it was something very sacred, but that's not the question. the question is whether Clinton committed impeachable acts.

Buyer asked another question, about "vengeance," trying to ask about the difference between accountability and vengeance. Drinan chose to spin it back in their face, recounting that not one Democrat on the committee has sided with the majority. Buyer: "Let's be aboveboard here, let's not hide anything" -- then placed a letter from 150 "religious scholars" into the record, adding a slap implying that Drinan was being used "against" God and country -- as Buyer sees it.

Buyer will find himself accountable -- to God, for his own scheming.

Delahunt made a lengthy statement on the standards -- or lack thereof -- being applied by the President by the current committee. The committee has heard no witnesses material to the controversy, but has seen massive one-sided evidence from only two witnesses. Holtzman agreed, saying that standards were crucial to the Watergate panel.

Bryant (R-TN) rambled a bit, before calling the White House hypocritical for asserting privilege over matters not of "public conduct." Ridiculous. When political enemies attack private conduct, it becomes a public issue. He castigated Dems who are saying (his words) "Woe be to this country if we go through this process -- another government shutdown," adding it was the President's private conduct that began the matter.

It was, of course, the president's enemies who engineered an impeachment coup over private conduct.

Wexler asked Drinan to describe the specific abuse of power by Nixon and to compare it to allegations against Clinton.

Drinan recounted sitting and listening to the Nixon tapes -- "an eruption of corruption for which the framers made impeachment... It is impossible to see this Congress going forward. What is the abouse? Where are the documents?" Holtzman echoed the question, adding that Clinton turned over all evidence requested after courts had ruled that certain claims of privilege were not valid -- "How is that abuse of power?... America is not reday for this level of disruption to take place." Owens lighted into the House -- meaning its leaders -- for essentially blocking a censure vote, and that "the [non-censure] choice of casting him out or settion him free is itself an abuse of power."

Chabot opened his questions saying he was "sad" to be there -- a disingenuous comment, to say the least, given no love lost between Chabot and ClintonIn reply to a question from Chabot, Holtzman said even if you feel impeachment is warranted but you can't get bipartisan or popular support, why do you insist on putting the nation through this?

Chabot asked if the President has a constitutional duty to tell the truth when he takes an oath in court -- a stupid and inflammatory question. Owens basically told Chabot that his question was not relevant -- the scope of the alleged wrongdoing is the issue. Clinton faced a dilemma that endangered his family -- and that must be accounted for in any punishment.

Which led to Steve Rothman (D-NJ) "What is the appropriate punishment for the President's wrongful conduct?" he asked twice. He pointed out that someone who violates a court oath can face indictment -- but does it merit impeachment in this case, where it would have an effect on the country and even the entire world? No, he says. And he lit into the President's accusers for failing to bring any witness against the President.

Barr found "disturbing by the defenders of the President... the rewriting of history... for example, how awful it is that there is so little time for the President's lawyers... yet in fact according to many [in the Watergate proceedings such as Ziefman] there was a tremendous battle." he once again -- for about the 10,000th time -- mentioned the involvement of Hillary Rodham in writing a memo claiming that Nixon should not have been allowed counsel.

He failed in his attempt to prove that "all of this sanctimonious reference of how open [Watergate proceedings were]" was nonsense -- by detailing only one similarity to the present panel involving exectutive (closed) session. In fact, Barr seemed proud of the Hyde-Starr chamber procedures.

Shows you how fair he is. Fair -- by Thousand-year reich standards, perhaps.

Owens then made Canady look like a fool by reading a statement he had made some time ago that Canady had quoted out of context.

Barrett tweaked Hyde and DeLay by mocking the notion that members of the GOP would vote their conscience -- and asked the panel members how the panel could work in a bipartisan manner.

Holtzman said she was disturbed by GOPers saying "Well, if they want witnesses, let them call them" as an example. She pointed out that no articles had been drafted in the watergate matter without lengthy bipartisan discussion.

Dirnan said the core question is "What is the wrong?... Something is wrong if this vote comes out 21-16."

Owens encouraged an alternative vote by the committee on censure -- and a full spectrum of possible sanctions must be considered.

Bill Jenkins recounted with nostalgia his Army days cleaning out a grease trap while on KP. He asked a question about whether something qualified as perjury. Owens said yes -- then said he had a question for Jenkins: why won't the committee consider censure? Jenkins asked if there was any indication it was not provided for in the Constitution; Owens said no, it was permissible with Andrew Jackson.

Jenkins asked Drinan why he was so disturbed with the prospect of 21-16 vote. Drinan restated the obvious -- that something is wrong if the GOP cannot convince one person to vote with them. And Holtzman added that the articles were written by a bipartisan team.

Hutchinson said he was "impressed" that while there was not complete bipartisanship they were able to hammer out articles of impeachment -- then asked Drinan about his views against censure, which Drinan concurred.

"So there's division on this panel," gushed Hutchinson.

So what, Asa -- they agree on the core issue that this is a superficial impeachment attempt.

Hutchinson sparred with Owens over his view that the President lied under oath in the Jones deposition; owens clarified his view: "he was not covering up crimes of state, he was covering up a stupid infidelity" -- not a standard for impeachment.

Senselessbrenner then asked a stupid question about "the members of the committee being taken in by a White House stonewall."

Holtzmann pointed out that that is not what happened.

Ed Pease asked a surprisingly lucid question about what standards for voting on impeachment ought to be. Holtzman said that it had to be a very high standard -- not probable cause, but a belief that he should be removed, would be removed, and merited removal. Drinen said the facts were so clear-cut that it was not difficult. And Owens reiterated Holtzman's view.

Pease yielded his time to Canady, who continued his hissy-fit over Owens' earlier comments, claiming he had not taken them out of context. Canady looked like an angry child when he entered Owens' complete comments into the record.

As if it mattered.

Cannon asked Owens about his views on censure as an alternative to impeachment, possibly including fines. Owens said that Clinton's claim of "not having sex' with lewinsky merited punishment, not impeachment. Owens mentioned a $300,000 fine; Cannon said speculation had been $4.5 million.

Cannon ended with a ridiculous comment about "political hygiene, solving the problem of violating the rule of law -- standing in the well of the House is far graver than the inconvenience of impeachment."

Rogan greeted the panel by recalling that they were heroes of his, even though he had become "older and wiser" in his party affiliation. He spun Drinan's point the other way -- that he is disturbed that no Democrats have joined the GOP in supporting impeachment, and that he will vote for "all articles of impeachment' on conscience.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? That he already knows what the articles are? That it does not matter what they are, he's all for impeachment?

Rogan then lit into Democrats who cite polls showing that Americans oppose impeachment -- while citing some unnamed polls claiming that 57% of people say Clinton should be impeached if he lied to a Grand Jury (lemme guess, the slanted Fox Opinion Dymnamics poll).

Hyde asked Drinan "If Jesus had taken a poll, he never would have preached. Would you agree?"

We'd agree -- Hyde has gone over the deep end.

Lindsey Graham was next. He recycled his classic "This isn't Watergate, this is Peyton Place." He claimed that Clinton had a "sinister" motive going to Betty Currie and asking her questions and was out to "cheat" the legal system. "If he does not reconcile himself to the law... if he continues to bring in people to tell us how we should vote... I will vote to impeach him."

Mary Bono took umbrage with Owens' comment about seven-year-old hearing about sex because of the committee's work. Owens replied that he had heard that complaint from a fellow Utahan.

Bono asked Holtzmann what she is basing her views on -- "Have you seen the video? Have you read the transcript?"

Lindsey Graham asked Holtzmann if Clinton committed grand jury perjury -- Holtzmann said Clinton came very close to a lie> Graham's reply: "You're saying close, but no cigar." a cheap joke that got a laugh or two -- and then added "but this is serious, people joke about this all the time now."

People joke about politicians all the time -- especially two-faced hypocites like Graham.

Conyers was last to speak. He pointed to the "attenuated allegations of perjury" in the Starr referral, pointing out that none of these so-called instances of high crime -- "weak, puny perjury allegations" -- are worthy of impeachment and have resulted in public "low ratings" for the panel. He all-too-gently tore into allegations of witness tampering and obstruction of justice, saying that "the charges, when stripped of partisan rhetoric, are a paper tiger... This panel has bone no factual evidentiary inquiry."

The third panel consisted of former prosecutors Richard Ben-Veniste and James Hamilton.

Ben-Veniste, in his opening comments, said that he spent a few sleepless nights "wondering if anything he could say would help extricate us from this mess." He expressed his opinion that censure was a valid way to resolve the current situation, and then recounted his own Watergate experiences, underlying the integrity of the Watergate investigators, citing that "no leaks occurred" -- then brought up Starr's now being under investigation for leaking grand jury materials and violations of DOJ guidelines, leading the public to the view that Starr was conducting "more a crusade than an investigation" for political reasons. Ben-Veniste compared Starr to the Whitewater special prosecutors -- or rather, showed how different they were, contrasting the barrage of leaks to the tight Watergate ship, and the "gratuitously salacious" referral report which went unreviewed in advance of its release by the HJC, to the measured conduct of the Watergate investigation.

He asked Hyde for more time -- revealing that he had had his time cut to ten minutes with little notice -- and Hyde granted him the extension. Ben-Veniste continued to outline abusive and questionable practices within the Starr operation.

Hamilton focused on abuse of power allegations -- contrasting Clinton's attempt to conceal details of an "improper relationship" with Nixon's use of the FBI, CIA and IRS: "great and dangerous offenses [that served] to undermine the Constitution." Impeachment is meant to counter "great and dangerous offenses... if we were to punish all officials who lie [about official or sworn issues]... our halls would be empty." He called charges that Clinton abused power by asserting privilege "extremely thin." Neither Clinton's attempts to avoid Grand Jury testimony nor his declining to answer certain questions is impeachable, Hamilton said. Lying under oath is serious -- but not if it's about personal sexual conduct. If the lies are about treason, bribery and breaking into offices for political reasons, those may be impeachable. Impeachment is intended for extraordinary cases to protect rights and rescue liberties, as expressed in the original British model, Hamilton said -- just before Hyde cut in to offer him five more minutes.

"Three" said Hamilton -- a reply which pleased Hyde -- as Hamilton explained that censure is a more appropriate punishment for Clinton.

Sensenbrenner was the first to speak, shortly after 6 PM -- saying that CNN was reporting already on a 184-page White House defense summary that the network had gotten their hands on! Sensenbrenner actually tried to call it an illegal leak! Hamilton said with a smile "It depends on who your opponent is," which elicited a sour look from Sensenbrenner.

We laughed at Sensenbrenner's charade.

Sensenbrenner said that the White House had complained about leaks, and now they are leaking themselves -- so is releasing it to CNN before the HJC gets to see it inappropriate? Leaking grand jury matters, said Ben-Veniste, is, by many steps, far more dangerous. The events are not comparable.

He should have gone a step further and said that there's no (e) law against it! Sensenbrenner would have had a conniption!

Conyers asked how both the Starr inquiry and the Judiciary Committee themselves have damaged the impeachment process; Ben-Veniste cited the rushed pace of the hearings, which has damaged public confidence. Hamilton recounted strong bipartisanship in Watergate -- despite partisan differences which were settled away from the public spotlight.

McCollum said that Dems were trying to "scare" Americans with the prospect of a prolonged impeachment trial -- and said that the HJC did not see any need to call witnesses, "neither did the President" -- a lie -- and that they had all the facts they need.

Talk about living in Fantasyland.

He then tried to tie "perjury" to bribery and therefore impeachment citing statutes guiding judicial conduct that put bribery and perjury in the same category. He said he looks forward to tomorrow.

Ben-Veniste said that he had many differences with McCollum -- but was not allowed to share them because he was cut off.

Barney Frank turned to the issue of censure -- and the GOP arguments against it. One argument is that it is meaningless and trivial, and the other that it will be used all the time and interfere with the presidency. So it's both too little and too much -- an inconsistent view, Frank said.

Frank asked about the view by right wing-nuts that Lewinsky was bribed as a "spin" on her questioning -- and her stating at the end of her grand jury testimony that nobody had asked her to lie, hence no quid-pro-quo. Ben-Veniste said that assertions of bribery would be met with scatological reactions.

Gekas claimed that Hamilton "expressed a troubled mind" that the President lied under oath in the Jones case -- if so, did it have the effect of destroying her access to justice?

Hamilton said that they could look at this conduct and not consider it impeachable because it was not a threat to the state.

Gekas went on to "compliment" Ben-Veniste on his article "The Case Against Ken Starr" -- "What bothers me is that I have not seen any articles by you about the abuses of Lawrence Walsh."

Ben-Veniste answered Gekas' snotty question by saying that he had defended a subject of a special prosecutor's indictment -- something even better than an article.

We didn't know Gekas could read!

In response to a question by Berman, Hamilton reiterated his view that Clinton should be censured and even fined -- and added that Clinton would still be vulnerable to prosecution after he left office.

Canady expressed "disappointment" with both witnesses in "accusing the independent counsel of misconduct." But he admitted that the present flap does not approach Watergate. Canady, a Gingrich-Barr hanger-on, has turned into a consummate whiner -- especially with all the talk of censure raining on his impeachment parade.

Nadler was up next -- and he gave Ben-Veniste a chance to reply to Canady. He said that all inferences the committee has investigated have been drawn from the referral report by Starr, that the report is one-sided, and that an investigation of parties upon which the Starr referral relies were not examined.

Is there really no obligation for Clinton's accusers to call witnesses, asked Nadler? Nadler also asked about the perjury and obstruction charges -- does he think that calling Clinton was a perjury trap and therefore improper?

Ben-Veniste said allegations of obstruction and perjury do not have the pull if there was nothing to be obstructed.

Hamilton added that the majority is going on Starr's report and that the White House analysis must be taken into account.

Lamar Smith read the Stephanopoulos hit-piece about Clinton's efforts to deny the Lewinsky affair. Smith asked a very narrow question -- if a "reasonable" person would infer that the president was attempting to thwart the investigation. Hamilton said he may have been trying to impede the investigation -- but was cut off by Smith as he tried to continue his answer. Smith then read a bunch of letters from sixth graders -- letters that themselves sounded as if they were written by coaches from the "Independent" Women's Forum.

Bobby Scott asked about the methodology of presenting an impeachment case. Ben-Veniste said that Jaworski was extremely methodical and careful in presenting evidence before the grand jury, going out of his way not to draw conclusions. Scott also addressed the shifting accusations coming from the committee; Ben-Veniste said it was essentially impossible to reply to accusations of wrongdoing when the actual offense has not been specified.

Gallegly asked the same old question about "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and whether Hamilton thought the President had been completely forthcoming. Hamilton said no. Gallegly went into a spiel about the President having been "less than honest" and not presenting rebuttal witnesses.

Mel Watt followed up on Gallagly's question -- is it impeachable? Hamilton said no -- it did not endanger America. Ben-Veniste said that it was not -- and added that the Jones lawyers had dirt from Tripp, the President did not know that, and he answered the questions as artfully as he could.

Watt then made reference that Starr having claimed that Leon Jaworski would have approved of Starr's methods. Ben-Veniste said he had spoken to Jaworski's grandson -- an attorney -- who was appalled by Starr's self-serving comment. Ben-Veniste further said that not leaking and taking cheap shots at the President were hallmarks of Jaworski.

Near 7:15 PM it seemed clear the Committee might be taking a new tack. The tenor of the questions appeared more understanding. Yet Canady, who looked like he was hyped up on one too many cups of coffee, would not give up. He ignored everything that the panel and other Republicans were discussing and continued to make wild accusations that the President "continues to lie to us through his counsel," in his answers to Hyde the Adulterer and in every other way possible.

He claimed the President committed "a sustained course of criminal acts... last December he lies in interrogatories, we see he lies in January..." and continued with a litany of Clinton's so-called lies. "Mr. Ben-Veniste, you have said you have problems with the President's grand jury testimony."

Ben-Veniste: "I have a problem with characterizing it as obstruction of justice."

Canady continued on his wide-eyed tirade... then said "The President wasn't blindsided" -- an utter lie, since transexual Judas Linda Tripp blindsided him.

Canady is attempting to save his political life.

Zoe Lofgren, the true star of this hearing from either perspective, continued to make herself a sure bet for a Senate run sometime soon. She told the panel that she received a copy of a letter from prosecutor Robert Bittman which said that Starr would not answer any questions put to him by the committee.

Ben-Veniste replied that that would make it seem that something was awry to him -- but that he wasn't suggesting that (not much).

Lofgren asked if there were other witnesses that should have been called to give the grand jury a more complete understanding of what happened. Ben-Veniste said he was concerned that Lucianne Goldberg was not called -- even though she had been served with a grand jury subpoena. What happened there, he asked? We know this grand jury was fully capable of asking its own questions. None of the questions that she could have answered are known. In the material concerning when Linda Tripp met with. Starr, there were some unusual circumstances surrounding her which we have not seen discussed by this Committee.

Lofgren opens the discussion to the "unseen hand" possibility. Ben-Veniste thinks that the committee should be investigating whether someone was setting something up to take him down.

THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAVE HEARD ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS IN PUBLIC!

And obviously there was more than one "unseen hand."

Inglis the moron was up next. He was very tired and unable to control himself. He looks drunk and shouts "ZERO for THREE , three panels and no FACTS." He repeats it over and over. Then he asked Jim Hamilton what he does when he knows a client is committing perjury. Hamilton said the lawyer asks him to correct his testimony and if he doesn't he withdraws from the case. The lawyer's obligation to the court supersedes his obligation to the client. Inglis then said : "See! Telling the truth is so important that it trumps the confidentiality of the client." Hamilton angrily blurted out "No, it does not trump the confidentiality!"

Inglis asked Ben-Veniste if he has ever participated in any calls coordinating attacks against Ken Starr!!! What a joke -- now we know who must be hanging out with Bob Barr in the Twilight Zone. Once again he said - ZERO for THREE - THREE PANELS - NO FACTS.

Nadler practically lost his temper, holding up the huge submission of facts issued late in the afternoon by the President's lawyers and basically called Inglis a liar -- which he obviously and repeatedly is.

Sheila Jackson Lee turned attention back to Watergate. She called Ben-Veniste an "implementator" rather than an implementor. Behind her, someone was choking on his water! She read some stuff and asked whether Leon Jaworski took the stand and testified as a witness as Starr did. She was sorry that "Adulterer" Hyde was not in the room.

She then read Starr's testimony snidely -- and pointed out that the President's lawyer questioned the clarity of the question to the President which caused all this trouble! Mr. Hamilton said there is no comparison to this situation and Watergate. Jackson went a little nuts and starting talking over Sensenbrenner (who is constantly eating -- he is to committee chairman what Linda Tripp is to wiretapping).

Goodlatte, who his high school enemies called GoodBleat, starts defending his motives by saying that they are the fault of the White House. He talks about Ben-Veniste's book "Stonewall" about Nixon. "...all and all the committee exposed the extreme politicization of the issue... next time might it not be a potent defense for a President to claim that his actions fell short of Nixon's?" We say "Good one," GoodBleat -- but you read the sentence out of context! GoodBleat asked whether President Clinton tried to stonewall on the issue. Ben-Veniste did not step up to the plate, but he defended the President. GoodBleat whined on but his time expired.

Maxine Waters talked about Adulterer Hyde's discussion about perjury surrounding Iran/Contra once again. She said the Republicans were pretending that there were no gradations of lying: "We are all trying to send a message about our own honesty. We can, however recognize that there are lies, and there are lies. We make these distinctions every day. These hearings are attempting to hold the President to a standard that he should not be held to. The public does not believe that politicians are honest as we can be. They believe that we have affairs, do not keep promises, use public funds to our benefit... Why are we trying to send a message of zero tolerance? Nobody believes us!"

In short, she said they were all liars and everyone knows it.

Then she read questions to the Chairman basically laying out a case that Hyde the Adulterer is a liar himself and that he supported liars like Oliver North. She implied that she understands that Hyde felt that it was okay for Reagan to lie and North to lie and Hyde to excuse it -- because what they did was to fight communism. Sensenbrenner suggests that she puts her questions in the record rather than read them.

"Boo Yer" was up next. He insulted, Waters asking why she didn't ask these questions of the President. He talked about the 11:00 AM phone conferences between the White House and their allies -- as if their were something wrong with that. Boo Yer wants to know what the purpose of a censure would be. The panel felt that a censure would have a profound impact on the President, who values his place in history. Buyer was snide: "Do you think there should be some pronouncement of GUILT in that censure?" Ben-Veniste replied that it is his view that this is not a slap on the wrist -- but is proportional and appropriate to the kind of conduct the President has been accused of. Boo Yer said he brings it up because censure cannot be punitive or it becomes a bill of attainder which is illegal.

But our boy Boo Yer is wrong as usual. Why? Because the President would not sign it as legislation.

Marty Meehan took the plate. He made an aside that the Committee would vote impeachment on Saturday, about 4 PM, to make the Sunday papers. "We hear the Republicans saying they are merely a conduit to send the matter to the Senate. The Republicans are telling their colleagues to vote yes and there won't be any political consequences for them... It is the safe way to go."

Ben-Veniste said that what is before this Committee is severely important and that Peter Rodino was nearly prostrated with the high responsibility he had chairing the Watergate Committee in the House.

Marty Meehan asked whether Starr was intending to seek an indictment against the President; Ben-Veniste said he couldn't even guess what Starr was thinking.

Ed Bryant (D-TX) reminded the viewers in America that today was devoted to people who were for the President. He said that Ben-Veniste was offered the job as the President's lawyer and he turned it down. Ben-Veniste became angry at the implication and said it would have been an honor to serve the President. Then Bryant pointed out snidely that Jim Hamilton was the lawyer for the Clinton/Gore transition team and that he represented Vince Foster's estate. Hamilton was a gentleman.

Bryant said he has read about a third of the 185 page document provided by the White House. But it became clear that what he really did was count the number of times Starr was mentioned in the report and then he kind of threatened the panel and future witnesses for the President that they had better not be merely insulting Mr. Starr.

Delahunt, next, asked that the Republicans produce the draft articles of impeachment to the President. He then turned to "Fact Man" Inglis, saying that the Committee has not heard from a single fact witness -- and that includes Starr. "We are now on the verge of making a decision of extreme gravity without hearing from one fact witness from [either side]. " He reads Schippers' testimony about Lewinsky's credibility and that it might be looked at. Delahunt wondered at what stage this would happen, and reminds everyone that the President is still in legal jeopardy and can be incarcerated after he leaves office. "Starr is not a fact witness. He didn't even participated in anything -- he had never even met Monica Lewinsky.

Well, of course, he was too busy meeting with his friends "The Unseen Hand," getting his instructions.

Steve Chabot was reading the 185 page document of defense. He makes light of the President's explanation that the term alone is vague unless a particular geographic space is identified. "Can our system of justice work if witnesses parse words like this?" Ben-Veniste did not take the bait but instead offered that whether the President was alone, or wasn't alone, is nothing compared to what Chabot was trying to do today. "Don't we want our Presidents to BE honest?" he asked Hamilton. Hamilton said, "Sure, we don't want them to lie, but do we want to initiate impeachment proceedings against every politician who lies?" Chabot kept on slugging. But he sounded hollow.

Bob Wexler said "we've accomplished something important. The Republicans say the President has not presented any exculpatory facts. 130 pages of his rebuttal are specific rebuttals against Starr's trumped-up charges." Wexler wants to talk about perjury. At the grand jury the President admitted to an inappropriate relationship and said it was wrong. The President denied having a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as it was defined by the Jones lawyers -- and did not have sexual relations or intercourse with Lewinsky. Schippers analyzed the President's testimony and said THIS was the basis for the President's perjury.

Wexler continued: the American people know what an affair is. You don't have to tell them. He was nearly screaming: "Is that what the perjury is all about?!?!?" Ben-Veniste said he must say that simply using the word perjury does not allow Republicans to disenfranchise the voters -- it is mind-boggling.

Bob Barr, divorced three times and hated by his colleagues, began his expected diatribe. He said that this is about whether the President lied about a pattern of activity "needed" by Paula Jones to prove her case. But Barr himself is lying here -- establishing an affair with Lewinsky does not establish in any way a pattern of sexual harassment. It was Lewinsky who seduced Clinton -- and the President rebuffed her, as we believe he rebuffed Paula. Jim Hamilton jumped all over Barr for saying that Hamilton thought it was okay to lie. "We have no other way to remove him from office." Barr made a mockery of Hamilton's suggestion that the President could be removed if disabled and tried to make it look like he is suggesting that the GOP should disable him in order to remove him. He thinks that sends a very bad message to the country.

Ben-Veniste asked Barr for evidence about his accusation that the President is hobbled in conducting foreign affairs. Barr says he's never heard such a thing.

Bill Jenkins asked both panelists "You believe the President has violated the law" -- and did not get what he wanted for an answer. Ben-Veniste: "Perhaps." Hamilton said "It is very troubling."

Jenkins, Tennessee drawl, brought up the old , too-much-spun adage that if the law is against you argue the facts, if the facts are against you argue the law, and if both are against you attach the prosecutor -- and added to it that in addition, you point out how awful Watergate was! Ridiculous.

Sheila Jackson Lee asked that two news articles on impeachment articles be entered into the record, and Zoe Lofgren asked that three of her letters -- two to Starr, one to Janet Reno -- be entered into the record.

Barrett focused on Linda Tripp. He mentioned Tripp's ties to the Paula Jones camp along with many of Clinton's enemies, and that they pose a greater threat to democracy than Clinton's mistakes. He also mentioned the public sentiment that Clinton had not committed grave crimes. He also discussed perjury and the fact that there are gradations and gray areas. Barrett then focused on how to deal with it -- censure or impeachment. Barrett favors censure -- and so his time ended.

Asa Hutchinson took some time to respond to questions that Bobby Scott had on the evidentiary record, and said that those wishing to go forward with impeachment have the burden of proof, and it should be to a high degree -- but on perjury, there is not a great need for witnesses.

Hutchinson is wrong -- the charges are based on uncorroborated allegations. more witnesses are needed.

He then said that "blaming" Clinton's "not telling the truth" on Linda Tripp or enemies of the President is no excuse, followed by that old "no politician should be above the law" standard.

Ed Pease, one Republican who is beginning to sound more and more as if he may be moderating his stance, asked some analytical questions about the President's assertion of privilege and the surrounding issues.

Cannon was next -- and made the idiotic assertion that a good economy is all the more reason to pursue impeachment. What a loon. He asked a run-on question to the panel about the President paying $850,000 in the Paula Jones case, fumbling something out about "what this tells our kids," then shifting to Watergate and "how partisan that was" -- and then moving on to censure, and the possibility of dragging the President to the well of the House, "something that would do damage to the Presidency."

He rambled on at high speed and sounded like an addled methamphetamine addict -- we were waiting for him to make claims that he had been abducted by aliens controlled by Bob Barr!

Lindsey Graham preceded his line of questioning by asking Ben-Veniste if a person were abused by a President by, say, being wiretapped, would that be a serious abuse of power? Ben-Veniste said yes. Graham then went into a stupid question concerning Clinton's conversation with Currie following the Jones deposition (Ben-Veniste had no opinion), and said he'd follow up on this tomorrow.

Oh, joy. we can't wait to watch Graham make a fool of himself.

Mary Bono said that after the "great" questions of all the lawyers on the committee, "all I have left is what's in my gut."

Meaning there's nothing left in her head, we guess.

She asked about what Ben-Veniste thought of what the American people would think if they "actually saw" the President lying to them. Clinton's deposition testimony. Ben-Veniste gave a measured and reasonable assessment -- that Clinton did not want to reveal his involvement with Lewinsky, that his deceptions were serious, but that he could not answer her question about what the American people think.

He should have said that the American people don't need to see or read his Jones depo and grand jury testimony to see he's being railroaded.

Sensenbrenner, saying that he was "about to make the most controversial statement of the day," gaveled the proceeding to a close -- and announced an 8 AM reconvening time tomorrow morning.

And with the closing gavel, we see two patterns emerging -- pressure from the Democrats to see to it that the House Judiciary Committee offer censure as a possible punishment as an alternative to impeachment. There were also hints from both sides that a vote on the floor of the House may not be a slam-dunk vote for impeachment.

The one area touched on by only a couple of Democrat representatives on the committee -- concerning the influence of Linda tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, and other "unseen hand" forces -- merited far more exploration. While we are not surprised it came up with Richard Ben-Veniste, we are surprised that more Dems did not choose to delve into this area -- and the very serious allegations that a small group of right-wing activists may have engaged in nothing less that treasonous and seditious subversive conduct.

As the hearings were gaveled to their day's close, wire services and broadcast news organizations reported that a couple of House Republican moderates are now leaning against impeachment and for censure, and none other than Senator Alfonse D'Amato has called for censure instead of impeachment.

There was also news that a new witness had been added to tomorrow's list -- former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, still a highly influential Republican and player on the national scene. Weld is not only being brought in because of his view that the President should not be impeached -- he is no doubt being showcased before some of the most right-leaning members in Congress who sit on the committee as a warning: Republican Governors are going to be calling a lot of the shots in their party, and hard-righters had better moderate their tone or they will tear the party apart -- and practically hand over both houses of Congress to the Democrats in 2000!

Copyright © 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Read our privacy policy. Contact us.
ISSN No. 1523-1690