Witch Trials Day 2Wednesday, December 9, 1998 -- 8:30 AM, WASHINGTON -- Henry Hyde opened the hearings this morning with a discussion of how he will ramrod an impeachment vote later in the week.
Our guess is that he might, but prior to the committee being called to order, APJ received information that after Hyde shows a video clip of President Clinton "evading" members of the lynch mob under oath, Hyde may be planning a big surprise: to vote NO on the impeachment referral.
Our sources say that Hyde is building the suspense and focusing American voters on the potential impeachment to do as much damage to the President as possible.
However, at the 11th hour, the plan is to have GOP members of the Committee who MUST vote yes for impeachment do so. Then Hyde will vote NO, signaling his wisdom and compassion and, by doing that, signal the "compassion" of the Republican Party itself.
This is a great plan -- if true. But we also know that Hyde is being pressured enormously by "The Unseen Hands" involved in the five-year-long assault on the Clintons. They have literally hundreds of millions at stake, as well as a large investment in this impeachment. If Clinton pulls through, they stand to lose face -- and money.
Our prediction? We have none. This event is being manipulated at the highest levels and included the resignation of Newt Gingrich who happily left Congress for Florida in preparation to cash in on his "service" to these outside the Beltway managing this process.
Hyde swore in the witnesses at 8:24 AM this morning: Thomas Sullivan of Loyola, and former Governor William Weld of Massachusetts (a Republican) -- along with a few other lawyers. Except for Weld, they were not terribly impressive from the start. The best thing about the panel was that there were two African-American attorneys which highlights the fact that everyone appearing for Republicans is, of course, white.
Sullivan led. But he was so boring that nearly the entire panel began to snooze. He spoke about how prosecutors decide when to seek indictments for perjury. He said that the test is not probable cause, but rather a higher standard -- almost assured conviction is the rule.
"They do not run perjury indictments up the flagpole to see how the jury will react."
Sullivan recounted that George Bush asked him to assist in an IC indictment of a Reagan official. He refused because there was no good evidence for conviction. He added that he would refuse to serve Starr as well after viewing his "evidence."
This case, he said, wouldn't even get in the door. The threshold question is whether the President is "below" the law, not above it. He should be treated as any other US citizen. He would not be prosecuted by a responsible US Attorney.
Sullivan was getting better and attracted the attention of the GOP rats with that statement.
Sullivan then turned to the definition of sexual relations as dictated by the Jones team. He said it is difficult to parse. He feels that the President's interpretation was the right one. The judge struck the words "oral sex" from the definition -- and therefore Mr. Clinton told the truth, as he had never had intercourse with Lewinsky.
He then turned to the Currie gifts. Starr, he said, ignored evidence that would be exculpatory -- the evidence is unclear. Neither Currie nor Lewinsky said the President asked them to get, hide or otherwise dispose of the gifts. In fact, Lewinsky was the instigator -- she called Currie (probably under instruction from Tripp, we add).
In Sullivan's opinion, none of the Starr allegations would be prosecuted by a responsible federal prosecutor.
Hyde paused to introduce Elsie Frank, Barney Frank's mother, who looks like someone we'd like to have coffee with.
Rep. Coble (R), an idiot, asks the Chairman to give the other members of the panel three or four additional minutes. What a nice guy!
Richard Davis was next, and started out by saying the exact same thing that Sullivan did. "A sense of outrage is not enough to bring a prosecution." He is a droner and boring beyond belief.
Edward Dennis opened with his statement that he is opposed to President Clinton's impeachment. He is convinced that a jury would never convict under these circumstances. He adds that an impeachment will inflame the nation and appear to be an attempted coup on the Administration.
We hate to tell him, but it already is perceived like that -- and the perception is getting stronger.
Imprecise, ambiguous and evasive responses do not raise perjury charges, he said, but do raise credibility questions. Courts are rigorously liberal about ambiguity and give the accused the benefit of the doubt -- not the prosecutor.
In short, Mr. Dennis and those before him are saying -- clearly -- that Ken Starr is either a liar or a puppet in the hands of some force other than reliable members of Congress.
We agree. Why would Starr, a gifted lawyer, put his own head in a noose, deny himself a possible future Supreme Court appointment, and make himself a national laughing stock had it not been for some other group, thus far unseen, in the mix?
Richard Noble was next. He reiterated the others testimony.
We were disappointed that he didn't tell the panel and the American people that during 99.9% of trials, civil or criminal, perjury is committed -- indictable perjury -- and that the primary function of the jurors and the judge is to decide who is lying less!
Noble tells us that DOJ prosecutors are told not to prosecute based on probable cause alone. They are told they must be reasonably able to prove their case and have a good chance to win. If everyone was indicted on probable cause, the Justice Department would be larger than the Pentagon.
We at the Justice Department prosecutors, he added, are also admonished not to get involved in people's private sexual lives. Could we trust our government to investigate our private sexual lives, he asked? No! Aggressive prosecutors would use bugs, wire people and use cameras to conduct their investigations -- much as J. Edgar Hoover did.
Noble went through ten rules of when not to prosecute for perjury. The case of President Clinton seemed to come under all of them.
Bill Weld, a great guy, took the field. He laid out his qualifications, which included a stint as an investigator for the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment hearings.
He believes that under the Reagan Administration, the Justice Department did not seek indictments based solely on the fact that someone committed adultery and lied about that. He adds that he has prosecuted a lot of perjury cases, but they are always going to something other than sex lies.
He prosecuted one man, an arsonist, for lying about the fact that he was in Florida -- when he had actually been in Lynn, Massachusetts, burning it down. Perjury prosecution to bring pressure on suspects is another way prosecutors get felons to talk. This might be a dangerous tack, because we expect someone like Rep. Canady to say that's what Starr is trying to do here.
Denials, false denials, are not impeachable, Weld added. Impeachment is not a punishment, it is a remedy. The President is already besmirched for his sexual conduct -- but this President was re-elected twice while all the time the voters knew of his sexual peccadilloes!
Weld suggested a written report or a written acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the President. There could be a fine. This is more tangible, and it would mark the moment and the solemnity of the occasion, he adds, citing the Gingrich model. He misstated the reasons the Newt paid up, however.
You don't have to make a deal on censure, he concluded, the president has no power there.
Jim Sensenbrenner (R) started off by asking if the House made a mistake making perjury an impeachable offense nine years ago in the case of Judge Nixon. Davis said it depended upon proof. Sensenbrenner talked about the case -- Judge Nixon got a sweetheart deal on an oil and gas venture; he was acquitted on that, but convicted of making a false statement. Sensenbrenner wrongly calls this a private misconduct -- implying that lying about kickbacks is the same as lying about sex.
Davis said the standard for impeachment is higher for Presidents than for judges.
Conyers was next. He started so slowly that we fell asleep. He then that "you all have put on the record all of these pestering questions that we have attempted to deal with for so many weeks." We were snoring. "Unless I missed something, none of you contradicted the other." It seemed to Conyers that the five's testimony ought to be bound up and sent to "Pat Buchanan, Tim Russert, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts because they are the ones who continue to debate about obvious legal questions that a first year law student could dispose of."
GREAT ONE, JOHN!!!!! Boy, did THAT wake us up! He must be reading Pundit Pap!
He asks if there is any case on record based on a civil case which was dismissed containing immaterial statements and a settlement. "We need the citation right away if there is." Mr. Sullivan said he doubts it -- the federal criminal process is simply not used in a case like this, especially when the testimony is peripheral to the case involved. The federal law is not used to enforce morality. No one on the panel knew of such a case.
Bill McCollum (R-FL) was up next; he asked one panelist about a DC court ruling on the issue of materiality (in fact, a spurious decision claiming that if the President did commit perjury it would be material -- a bad decision sure to be overturned). McCollum recalled Barbara Battalino's testimony of last week -- which demonstrated nothing. McCollum, motormouthing his points, tried to make a point about "prosecutors prosecuting in sexual harassment cases" and in perjury cases. He then focused on minutia in the Grand Jury testimony -- Clinton claiming that he did not have sex, the definition of sex, and Lewinsky testifying that Clinton had "touched" her. He claims her story is "corroborated" -- "The jury would be hard-pressed not to convict," McCollum claimed, which in fact could not be further from the truth -- and succeeded in running out the clock without giving the panel a chance to respond.
Barney Frank was recognized, and asked "Anyone want to answer that?" Davis said that Lewinsky had plenty of reason to lie -- and the prosecutors would have the burden to prove that Lewinsky was being honest; "This would be an impossible case." Frank added that all the corroborating witnesses would be able to corroborate would be what Monica "I lie all the time" Lewinsky said.
Frank then turned to the Judge Nixon issue, pointing out that Nixon had attempted to influence a state prosecutor to "disappear" the underlying case. "When you are deciding how to deal with allegations of perjury... how do you take into account the underlying issue? Is it wrong... when there is a perjury allegation?"
Weld agreed that the underlying conduct is important, and while grand jury perjury could be impeachable, in the Nixon case there was an "underlying cloud of [government] corruption."
frank took time to compliment Weld and to concur with his view that Clinton is tarnished already.
Gekas went to bat -- he claimed that an "ordinary citizen" would plead the fifth, but that if the President pleaded the fifth, there would have been "headlines" and a "shaken government" -- a meaningless assertion since the President did no such thing. "It is possible, I believe, that Congress would begin impeachment proceedings immediately."
And ?? made Gekas look like a fool: "Are you saying that pleading the fifth is a high crime or misdemeanor?" Gekas made the mistake of standing his ground, saying that the President would be attacking the system of government. He claims lying under oath attacks the government in two ways -- by attacking the person seeking justice and attacking the judicial branch.
Chuck Schumer began by complimenting the "strong and erudite" presentation, then addressed three levels of argument. First, assume all of Starr's facts true -- it does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Second and third, if you assume the opposite, that impeachment is warranted, than obstruction and abuse charges must be weighed. Do those charges hold any merit?
The entire panel signaled no.
Schumer then recounted challenging Starr on how his allegations of abuse and obstruction indicated that there was an attack on affairs of state -- Starr said nothing. Tom Sullivan replied that in regard to his conversation with Currie, Currie could well have said "No, you're wrong" to the President.
Howard Coble (R-NC) asked Weld about an appearance on the Today show during which weld said that he wouldn't resign if Clinton were confronted by students "carrying signs saying 'Liar, liar, pants on fire!'"
Coble wishes.
Weld replied that the events have indeed overtaken the issue -- that he had thought that the President may have been weakened, but what happened? Standing ovation at the UN. Budget victory, Wye accords.
Coble asked Sullivan about his conclusion that an average citizen would not be prosecuted for perjury, then recalled Parsons and Battalino, and claimed that we would see more and more citizens prosecuted for perjury -- which Sullivan had two seconds to reply and dismiss Coble's view.
Berman pointed out that "we are not a courtroom... we are a political body and this is a political process." He said that the question of a perjury prosecution is less relevant than the question of impeachable offenses. He then mentioned the notion that if he were a prosecutor, felt the defendant were guilty, but could not get a guilty verdict, he would not bring the case.
Sullivan would have told a prosecutor under such circumstances to "get out of my office;" Weld said there were specific federal guidelines that pretty much spell that out.
Berman and Noble discussed the guidelines with regard to civil rights prosecutions, which failed to address anything terrible germane.
Lamar Smith, looking dashing in his hairpiece, tried in vain to make the point that the President is not a "regular" citizen. He's right -- thanks to Ken Starr and his reactionary pals in the judicial branch, he now has LESS rights than an average citizens.
If a CEO acted as the President had, "their career would be over" -- a total lie, in that it's been well documented that CEOs are generally able to get away with all sorts of sexual shenanigans, deceptions in depositions, and overall unethical behavior -- and their stockholders stick with them all the way because these officers are protecting the bottom line, and who cares about sex?
Smith then turned to Weld and had the nerve to read him writings by students at the Boston Latin School which (shock!) castigated the President's conduct.
Weld said that he found those writings depressing, but if those sentiments had been sustained in the citizenry at large -- at which point he was cut off.
Boucher (D-VA) went to bat. His point: the present panel indicates that perjury prosecutions in civil cases are in fact rarely undertaken. He added that there is a second route toward sanctions -- that Judge Wright retains jurisdiction even though the Jones case is dismissed and could bring sanctions against Clinton. Does she have jurisdiction, he asked? And is there a probability that if misconduct occurred she might bring sanctions?
Sullivan said that Wright could do it based on an earlier court ruling but "I did not bring my crystal ball... [and] I don't know if dismissal terminates that power."
Boucher then brought up the issues of diversion of the government and lowering of impeachment standards -- essentially saying that the present panel is lowering the standards in acting as a grand jury. Noble replied that the President cannot be treated like an ordinary citizen in an ordinary case.
Gallegly started by blurting a question to Sullivan: Does willful misleading of a judge or grand jury is a thwarting of the judiciary? Sullivan said yes -- what else could he say? Gallegly asked Weld if he believed that Clinton could have forgotten certain conversations, adding "you know the President pretty well." Weld said he did not know. Gallegly then made the mistake of asking Sullivan about a "beyond the reasonable doubt" to convict of perjury, and went into a spiel about getting a call from a constituent asking "how do we know that the President is telling the truth" -- pure pap that said nothing.
Nadler was up, and called for a point of order regarding a once-sealed ruling that McCollum had mentioned -- and asked permission to state his view on the once-sealed case he claimed that McCollum had mischaracterized. Hyde said he had no problem, and the clock started -- with Nadler saying he had written a letter to Janet Reno complaining about Starr breaking the confidentiality on the sealed case!
Nadler then brought up the question of friends of Lewinsky "corroborating" Lewinsky as being both inadmissible as hearsay and that Lewinsky had motive to embellish her tales -- the panel concurred.
Nadler also brought up the point with Davis that Starr would not be able to successfully prosecute false statements under oath for a number of reasons. Noble pointed out that a good prosecutor would have to work from the defense theory -- in a case of false statements under oath OR perjury.
Nadler asked one last question about Smaltz's comment that an indictment was as good a deterrent as a conviction, but was cut off.
Canady smarmily complimented the panel -- adding his guilty until proven innocent view. he claimed the HJC has an independent decision to make on the impeachability and that the panel had "no business counting noses" in the Senate -- "that's not provided for in the Constitution."
There's nothing in the Constitution preventing it either, Canady. You must think the public are fools. You're wrong.
Canady then brought up the hypothetical that a Fortune 500 CEO committed sexual harassment then lied under oath in the early stages of the case. He claimed that it would be a "serious" situation.
But any idiot will tell you that such a suit never gets that far -- money talks and the plaintiff, usually having told lies herself, walks.
Dennis fired back that the issue of materiality is relevant -- and it's not unlikely that such a suit could be brought for conduct before the CEO became a CEO simply because the hypothetical exec had become a CEO.
Bobby Scott asked about the reliability of FBI interview sheets, to which Noble explained that the core of the justice system is cross-examination and that essentially sheets are hearsay. "Only an inexperienced prosecutor would attempt to convict someone based on grand jury testimony."
And, as we now know, Starr was never a prosecutor prior to being named IC -- he got "on the job" training from some of the most well-known thugs in the business.
Scott asked Davis about Currie and the retrieval of the gifts -- and Davis pointed to the fact that despite differences between the two testimonies, both tend to exculpate Clinton.
At 10:45 PM, Bob Inglis, who'll be nothing in about two weeks but a big Senate campaign loser, went into his crap about "no facts" again. He asked whether this panel has brought any facts before the Committee.
Of course, he is such a moron that he doesn't realize that there ARE NO FACTS ALREADY -- including Starr's caca de toro.
And Mr. Sullivan said just that: "It's similar to the Starr report in that way." Inglis was hard-pressed trying to make a case that Starr did anything much more and, as a matter of fact, allowed Mr. Sullivan to demonstrate that the White House presented the "non-evidence" in a much more detailed manner than Starr and that Starr had left out so-called "facts" that simply do not exist. But Starr's no-fact referral was a terrible indictment based on nothing but hearsay.
Mel Watt took up the cause. He must have awakened. He asked if Starr's 445 page report contained any evidence that would be admitted in a criminal case. No, said one panelist, "the score then remains 0-0." Another attorney added that if this was a trial the defense would present no defense -- and win -- because there is no case.
Watt asked if this panel is a group of responsible federal prosecutors and thus ought not to be moving this case along to the Senate. They all agree to some extent.
Hyde asked if, when Lewinsky was granted immunity, would she have to tell the truth or forfeit that immunity? The answer is no. If she gets transactional immunity, she could lie. In use immunity she cannot.
GoodBleat was next. He asked what happens to the Governor of Massachusetts if he commits a felony. He claimed that they are removed from office if that happens.
Yes, GoodBleat, but so what? Has Bill Clinton been convicted of a felony?
Then he bleated that the President cannot be indicted for a felony, as most governors can be. Of course, most governors do not generally control the world as do modern day presidents, do they? GoodBleat said that a President can pardon himself!!!
What a knee-slapper -- that is the most ridiculous thing we have ever heard from GoodBleat. He was just outright lying in a claim that the constitution gives the president the power to pardon himself -- unless he is impeached! What a moron.
Thank God Zoe Lofgren took the field for the Democrats next. She was concerned about whether Mr. Clinton's conduct is so horrible as to threaten the nation. She reminds the panel that each and every element of a crime must be proven. "The law IS technical," she reminded all. For instance, the President was not under oath when he testified before the grand jury -- and there is case law that upholds that technicality.
She asked Mr. Sullivan to explain how someone could lie and not be convicted of a crime. In perjury cases, said Sullivan, you must prove that the person made a knowingly false statement. The weakness here is to establish that the President KNEW his statement was false. The President, in the grand jury, explained that -- THE JUDGE HERSELF REMOVED ORAL SEX from the Jones definition of sexual relations. So the President did no think he was lying under the court's own definition.
Boo Yer was up next. He knows that the fact that Mr. Clinton was not sworn properly is a really BIG problem with his Grand Jury testimony. Then he reads a document that said that under the law of the district a notary public is allowed to administer the oath.
But this is not true. Another boo-boo by Boo Yer.
Buyer also ought to have enough respect for his constituents and colleagues to shave once in a while -- he looks like a hobo.
Buyer tried to make a case that in prosecution you don't have the luxury of going by the polls, do you? Cue the laugh track! We hate to tell you something, Buyer, but this is not a prosecution.
Ms. Jackson-Lee took on pinhead Inglis. She said she sees nothing in the Constitution that says immoral or inappropriate conduct. The impeachment process is not a spiritual process. We must deal with the framer's intent. Please present information relevant to the impeachment.
Starr said that the President engaged in obstruction of justice on the gift issue. Yet the evidence, said Jackson Lee, shows that President did not discuss it.
Now there is a fact for Inglis.
Ed Bryant said the President "almost" did all these things, but did not -- so he shouldn't be impeached, or so Clinton's defenders say. He made a mockery of the law and justice in simply one sentence. He tried to label the President's defense as "good wordsmanship" -- of course "good wordsmithing" is the term. But Bryant is a first-term moron swept into office by greedy constituents looking to his false promises of tax cuts.
He won't be re-elected.
The Republicans were getting desperate now. Bryant said, on the President's testimony, "I think it's sickening!" Then he puts up the flag of Civil Rights -- when this stooge fought against civil rights for his entire political life, short as it is. He claimed that Poor Paula Jones had brought a "CIVIL RIGHTS CASE!" Could anyone be a bigger hypocrite?
Maxine Waters talked about the gifts and Starr's ridiculous charge of obstruction of justice. The panel said the President had no role in that process, so where is the obstruction? The gifts were retrieved by Starr, so what the heck is he talking about? Waters then brought up the Lewinsky job search. The facts are that the job search for her began long before she was considered as a witness in any forum -- more evidence that Starr did not include in his so-called "referral." Waters discussed the Currie meeting with the President. The panel tells her that there is no evidence that the President intended to obstruct justice by counseling her to perjure herself -- and in fact she did not do so.
Chabot -- the man with three-foot long hair (on one side of his head) said there are many citizens who think that the President should be impeached. Then he moves to prosecutors assessing an "I don't recall" answer for veracity. He asked snidely if it is common for people to forget whether they had sex with someone or were alone with them.
This writer can tell you that he has had intercourse with women he doesn't remember and has been alone with countless people that he doesn't remember either.
The panel said that Yes, Mr. Clinton was engaging in word games, but he did not lie.
Chabot deluded himself that he had scored one. He asked whether a president should run a poll to see if he should tell the truth or lie.
Hey, Mr. Combover: this poll was the one DICK MORRIS suggested, not the President. And, after all, the President did tell the truth -- just not in the way that would be helpful to Republicans and their backers in industry.
Chabot called Clinton the Chief Law Enforcement Officer -- which is untrue -- and then is pressed to fall back on the weak statement "I think the President should be held to the highest standard for the children...." Hypocrisy.
Marty Meehan was next for the Democrats. He said the GOPers are prepared to vote for impeachment of the President and they are talking about some high bar that Mr. Craig has to meet. Is this a circus or what? is the implication.
Meehan said this committee has called no one to try and determine who is telling the truth. There are several instances here where conflicting testimony. Even in the Lewinsky testimony on the gifts, you wouldn't have an obstruction because she said he told her "I don't know what you should do... I don't care."
Hyde suggests that 60,000 pages of testimony must be taken in and digested -- and then doesn't the President have an obligation to invalidate what Starr developed?
The witness began to correct Hyde's ridiculous statement and Bob Barr tries to rescue him from the answer like the little prig he is. But Hyde let him answer.
Davis told the panel that it is not the number of pages, but what they say is what is important. The credibility of the witnesses must be tested unless there is no conflict.
Bob Barr, King of Divorcees and Expert Non-Payer of Child Support, was next.
This third-string ex-backwater-prosecutor thought he could take on the genius lawyers in front of him He called what they were saying "absurd." Now, the Prince of Parsers, Mr. Barr, said that these lawyers are leaning on technicalities.
Which is what the law is all about, Bob.
Mr. Sullivan had told the Committee that going over his testimony was not unlike an attorney going over testimony with his client. But Barr twisted this into Mr. Sullivan saying that the President was not likely to have been hired as Ms. Currie's lawyer.
What a stupid comment.
Then he brings up his famous "DEA" line: a memo by the deputy administrator to his agents that evasive answers in any context will not be tolerated. Uproarious -- what does that have to do with this case? The reason that memo was issued is because the few DEA agents that do lie in court in order to gain a conviction of guilty drug pushers had caused some problems with the prosecutions thereof.
Some morons in the audience -- Cro-Magnon Barr staffers, we must assume -- applauded him after he said, "Shame on you, Mr. Craig, for promising us a panel not engaged in technicalities!!"
Wow, so heavy. What a "clear thinker" Barr is.
Just like his idol, Joe McCarthy.
After Barr's fumbling diatribe, Delahunt began his line of questioning by asking Davis about the issue of cleverly crafted evasive answers. Davis's response -- that anyone who hired him as a lawyer would not have to worry about such an issue becoming germane -- was a slam-dunk slap at Barr.
Delahunt discussed credibility with Hunt at further length -- especially that of Monica Lewinsky, who "has on numerous occasions lied if you accept the transmittal of Mr. Starr... she told different stories to different people." Davis concurred, again pointing out that Lewinsky had motive and cause to lie.
Jenkins took his turn, rambling on about advocates in the arena and "getting away from lawyer talk and talking about things the American public would understand."
Which American public -- Bob Barr's "Real Americans?"
Jenkins asked Sullivan if he felt Clinton's definition of sex was reasonable -- a mistake, as Sullivan said it was reasonable. Jenkins declared the "solemn"-ness of the proceedings as "we shuck back the corn" -- then tried to put words in Sullivan's mouth about Clinton weaseling. Sullivan pointed out that it was the judge's definition, not Clinton's, and it would be impossible to bring a criminal case against Clinton.
Jenkins then asked Sullivan if he were familiar with the Battalino case; Sullivan said he was not fully familiar but went over the essentials of the case.
Wexler spoke of how struck he was by ??'s assessment of the IC case against the President on allegations of perjury -- and that Starr's team has to engage in legal hair-splitting themselves in order to prove it by parsing definitions of "physical" and "intimate." take the GOP position -- throw away the "legalisms" -- where is the false statement?
Sullivan pointed to two areas where it comes down to "he said, she said" -- breast-touching is one, sexual relations the other -- and said that it was simply not a winnable case by the prosecution. Wexler followed up, saying that it comes down to where Clinton touched Lewinsky, and Sullivan asked if this really justifies impeachment.
Wexler reiterated that it was all about sexual relations and touching -- no reason to impeach.
Hutchinson immediately replied that the question was one of obstruction of abuse through misleading statements. Hutchinson challenged Davis' view by pointing out there were more perjury prosecutions than kidnapping charges.
So what? How about more than murder? Bank robbery? Assault? Carjacking? Kidnapping is not a common crime!
Hutchinson then asked if any of the attorneys had represented a woman in a sex harassment case. None of the panel had; Hutchinson said he had, and argued that the President denying he had ever harassed a woman was a material issue. Davis said Hutchinson was wrong -- if Clinton had given a positive answer, it would not necessarily be material.
Rothman stepped up to the plate, saying it does not "aid the search for the truth by demonizing the White House Counsel" -- a slam at Barr. He then specified areas in the White House Counsel's 168-page rebuttal that directly challenges Starr's "facts." "No fact witnesses have been called to aid us in findings the truth," he said, an unfair situation that must be remedied. he also addressed the rule of law, the settlement in the Jones case, and Clinton's vulnerability to prosecution and incarceration. the real question, he said, is that if no prosecutor would prosecute these acts, how could they be high crimes?
Pease said he has questions and observations. In assessing prosecution of a high-profile defendant, what are the standards, he asked Noble. Noble replied that question one is whether his investigation would be unbiased, or should he sent it to Washington? If so, might a potential prosecutor have a bias? What happens if a witness brings information that night be used in a perjury trap?
Hmmm... you don't think Noble might be talking about Ken Starr, do you?
Pease pointed out Boucher's comment concerning whether dismissal of a case terminates a judge's purview; Noble believes that said judge does not lose purview.
Pease finally expressed concern that the HJC not necessarily assume that they should use the same standards as a prosecutor because their function is different.
Tom Barrett returned to the point that the President might face possible prosecution when he leaves office. Sullivan commented that justice is not perfect in an imperfect world; if a prosecutor wants to bring a perjury case against the President, he can -- but should only if he feels he is within bounds. In the Jones civil case, after Clinton and Lewinsky made their disclosures, the case was settled and "washed away." It had been thrown out anyway because she could not prove her case. Jones accepted a settlement in light of all the facts.
Barrett said that talk of a "plea bargain" makes him bristle because he feels that he wants to vote his conscience, then asked about censure-plus-bucks as an alternative. Weld said that there must be a resolution that respects the solemnity of the occasion and the dignity of the House.
It was Cannon's turn. He went to one of Lofgren's point that the wrong person had sworn in Clinton, "rebutted pretty effectively by Boo Yer," and the definition of sex -- "minds can disagree," meaning he is basically showing he has already made up his mind: sentence first, evidence later. After recounting some of Craig's comments, Cannon went so far as to say that this issue goes to maintaining individual rights -- an hysterical stretch.
Rogan and his weird haircut were next -- he noted a "recurring theme" that perjury is a crime generally not prosecuted (the panel is right) and that Clinton's "lies under oath" were not material (also true -- the case is dead). He took umbrage, pointing out 16000 prosecutions since Clinton took office.
What a fool -- imaging the literally tens of millions of perjuries that have occurred since January 20, 1990. How many guilty verdicts in perjury cases out of those 16000 prosecutions? Rogan would never tell -- because he would be revealed for the fool he is.
Rogan droned on about Battalino and Clinton's allies declaring it "much ado about nothing." He should look in the mirror -- he made much ado, and had nothing to ask of the panelists.
He then added that "saying this is about sex might play well on the talk show circuit" -- which explains why this is about the only thing Rush, Ollie and Liddy have discussed for the last near-year: sex disguised a perjury, obstruction or abuse.
Graham started droning about how a news organization canvassed his district and found that the "scandal" did not resonate -- and claimed it was a "minority" view in his community -- a lie. "If he continues to flout the law I don't think he should be the President into the next century."
Graham asked Weld what his fate should be if he used the resources of his office to cover up a sexual relationship. Weld said "I should be outahere."
Mary Bono made some goofy comments about military actions being a "wag the dog" scenario. What's with this woman? Is she trying to become the next Helen Chenoweth, courting the militia and Free Republic constituency?
She asked Weld about whether a President should resign if America were compromised due to his conduct? Weld said it shouldn't follow public opinion polls -- and he was surprised at how seriously the President was taken seriously while the scandal was going on.
Bono followed up with an airhead comment about Furbies and whether the "public trust" will still be there tomorrow with the "threat of Osama bin Laden."
She'll be the new Freeper darling by the end of the day, we say.
Hyde announced a break, but yielded to Conyers who had time coming to him. he first yielded to Jackson Lee, who commented on Parsons and Battalino's perjury cases: Battalino was an insurance fraud case, Parsons was a libel case, and their perjuries went to the heart of their cases.
Conyers, in his slowest tempo, bored us while saying that the hearings were at a critical phase and that there is a contrast between the impeachment process and what would happen to an average citizen: "If no normal citizen would face a criminal prosecution based on these allegations," why bring articles of impeachment and tie up all branches of the government?
Conyers droned on. We had to grab the NoDoz as Conyers brought up the specter of the Senate being clogged half a year with an impeachment trial.
And Hyde allowed Jackson Lee to introduce the Constitution into the record -- pointing out that nothing prevents Congress from censure. Hyde accepted it, while pointing out that the Constitution "delegates" duties.
Hyde was being cagey here -- he knows that the Constitution lays out what branches of government may NOT do. And it allows Hyde an out -- to introduce an article of censure!
We don't think it will have any effect on the House -- but it makes Hyde look more "fair."
Adulterer Hyde introduced White House Counsel Charles Ruff to the Judiciary Lynch Mob at 1:27 PM on Wednesday.
Ruff had two hours, but said that he probably would not use all that time, and said it seemed to him that the most productive thing he can do wass respond to questions from this committee.
Would he begin with a mea culpa?
Yes!
"...The president knows that what he has done is wrong, and he has paid a significant price for it, both at home and with the American public."
Ruff went on to admonish the Committee that this conduct, no matter how reprehensible, does not rise to impeachable conduct. He was soft spoken and commanding.
"No one can claim the ability to reach the absolute right answer... When you look within yourselves and ask... I have no doubt you will reach your decision on the merits and not on partisanship... "
Ruff did not bother us with a rehash of what the founding slaveholders thought, except to say that nothing in the Constitution says that what the President did is impeachable. "In order to commit an impeachable offense the President must have acted to subvert our government -- and that did not happen."
Ruff went on about the extraordinary responsibility the lynch mob has. "Impeachment must be the LAST resort."
He went on about Bob "Pinhead" Inglis' rants about "Fact Witnesses." But Ruff found that criticism ludicrous. You have determined to accept at face value, he said, all the conclusions of Ken Starr. With that determination you must look into the record, he continued, and ask what these witnesses really said. It seems off that you accept this pre-digested testimony and then say -- "You, come here and prove we are wrong."
As an aside, we want to remind the reader that the nation is not under the French Criminal Law which mandates that the accused is guilty until proved innocent. No wonder France wallows in truffles and overconsumption of pleasure!
Ruff asked about the attitude of Starr and his henchmen. Has the Committee asked about this? No. Did any of Starr's people criticize the submission aside from Mr. Sam Dash who resigned in disgust with his friend Starr?
No.
We attempted to set out a point by point rebuttal of the 11 grounds cited by Starr, he said. "Myth appears to replace fact in you debate..."
Ruff took on the president's grand jury testimony first saying this -- "There could be no basis for impeachment on constitutional standards."
He stopped there and addressed another issue, and it falls under the heading of legalisms. What are they, he asked? Well, whatever they are, they have caused a great deal of pain for those of us who represent the president over the last several months. We have been accused by you and the media for engaging in legalisms. "I plead guilty. But what I am worried about: it is not legalistic to suggest that the President did not say what some he said..." However proper these arguments are, there is a risk that the legal answers will get in the way of answering the question: did the President do something so wrong as to be impeached? Even if we won in a courtroom that would not suffice. You could still decide to impeach him. But even then our legalisms are relevant to you. They were not dreamed up. They reflect judgments made by the founders, lawyers, judges and you the legislators. Like the elements to prove perjury, for instance (we won't go through them here.)
"It cannot be the rule that close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and perjury." We must take great care, he continued, when we consider whether a witness has perjured himself. These legalisms are the law.
He went over the perjury allegations -- and tore them apart.
1. That the President said he began his relationship with Lewinsky three months later than she said.
You have said, Ruff pointed out, that it was because he wanted the Grand Jury to believe that Ms. Lewinsky was a 22 year old employee rather than a 22-year-old intern. There is no proof of this -- including Lewinsky. The only proof offered by Starr is a mischaracterization of the record. (Lewinsky's concern about her badge not allowing her to move freely about the White House.) This was trumped and ludicrous.
2. Starr would have you believe that the President testified falsely because his own belief as to what sexual relations is to his mind. Starr himself says he has no basis for this conclusion save his own twisted logic. All prosecutors find credible, a witnesses statement about his personal beliefs.
3. Starr then would have you believe that the President lied about the type of physical contact he had with Ms. Lewinsky. We will not drag you into the muck that Starr did. Simply ask yourself, having admitted his conduct and assuming he did what Ms. Lewinsky said, rather than what he said, and then ask whether you are prepared to impeach the President for that? The answer must be no, Ruff concluded.
Does it boggle the lynch mob's mind that under 4 hours of cross-examination -- this is all Mr. Starr could find? He could have cross-examined the President for hours, but he did not do this. He could have pinned him down -- but he chose not to.
American Politics believes that he didn't want to -- because he feared the President -- when pressed -- WOULD tell the entire story truthfully and thus leave Starr with NOTHING. Thus, Starr left it open to make up allegations to frame him using his unfollowed questions as the framework. The President's lawyer asked Starr and his henchmen to follow up with more detailed questions. Yes, his answers were misleading, but they were not lies.
The President did not obstruct Justice, tamper with witnesses or abuse power.
If the committee relies on this testimony, said Ruff, you take it all -- not just Starr's picking and choosing. And you cannot accept Starr's picking and choosing witnesses.
First: Starr's charge that Mr. Clinton and Lewinsky conspired to conceal gifts from Starr. Starr says they discussed the facts and the subpoena. The President right then gave her more gifts! She went back to her apartment and sometime that day, Betty Currie called (according to liar Starr), then Curries drove to Lewinsky's apartment, took the gifts and hid them under her bed. That is what Starr says.
Starr testified that the President and Lewinsky met and discussed what should be done with the gifts. If you look at the record, you will find little or nothing to support that conclusion. How could this be an obstruction of Justice, Ruff asked? Nothing in anyone's testimony -- anyone's -- says that the President asked her to conceal the gifts. Nor is their any mention of Betty Currie on the record with relation to these gifts. Ms. Lewinsky gave ten different accounts of this meeting. Starr chose ONE of TEN -- they don't tell you about the other nine. They don't mention that the President told her he would think about it, or simply said Hmmmmm.
Ruff then moved to how the gifts were picked up. Starr said that Betty called Monica and said "I understand that you have something for me to pick up." So Starr says -- it must have happened under the President's direction. Both Currie and the President testified that they had no such conversation and Curries says Lewinsky called HER!
This makes sense, because Tripp wanted the White House to engage in what appears to be a cover up -- even if it wasn't. APJ believes that Tripp set this up with counsel from Lucianne Goldberg to entrap the President.
Starr uses a reporter's version of the "facts" -- Goldberg pal Michael Isikoff's -- as his "proof" of the allegation.
Ruff talked about the actual events that occurred on December 28th. On that day, the President gave Lewinsky more gifts, said Ruff, and Starr wants you to believe that the "conspirators" trying to cover up the gifts -- gave more gifts to her and then say -- on the same day -- give them to Betty to hide them.
It makes no sense.
Ruff turned to the subject of the Job Search, saying Starr would have you believe that there was an inextricable link between Lewinsky's job search and the Jones case. Starr admits that he has no evidence save some circumstantial mumbo jumbo. Starr talks about January 5th -- Monica declines the UN job. January 7th -- she turns down the job and Jordan tells the President. January 8th -- she interviews in NY, and on January 9th Jordan calls Ron Perelman to get her another interview. But the record does not hold up. She wanted to work at the White House. The one person who could have gotten this job was the President. He didn't do it. Strange. Why? Indeed, the President gave her only limited assistance and the record shows he pressured no one. Vernon Jordan has helped a lot of people in this town -- but he didn't help Monica so she would testify one way or the other. She had been trying to get into the White House seven months before the story broke.
Starr's description of these events are dishonest -- and those are FACTS -- not new facts, underscored Ruff, because they have been with you for months!!!!
But the lunch mob ignored them -- so in that way, they are new.
Ruff continued: Starr also suggested that there was some link between the job search and her filing her false affidavit in the Jones case. She said -- to the FBI -- THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT IN RETURN FOR A JOB.
Ms. Lewinsky's friend Linda Tripp was the one who recommended she not sign the affidavit until she had the job. Ruff did not come out and say it, but the implication was clear: another setup between Tripp and Goldberg in conspiracy.
And Ruff ended with the well-known Starr report "footnote": Lewinsky said "I would just like to say that no one asked me to lie. I was never promised a job for my silence."
The Committee sat stunned -- for the moment. They had visions of what the news would say tonight.
It's all over for their pals Tim Russert, Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts, Tony Snow and that little prick Brit Hume. It was all over for the Christian Coalition, Bob Barr, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Canady, Ms. Bono, Mr. Chabot and Mr. Graham -- the little twit without a mind -- and the rest of the ultra right. Adulterer Hyde is lucky -- he'll just retire and spend whatever he has left from his alleged bank fraud participation -- one that cost taxpayers over $10 million dollars.
And at last, Geraldo Rivera had found something in that safe!
Ruff talked about why the President asserted executive privilege. It was because Starr refused to accommodate them on relatively trifling issues. Why? Because Starr, we think, was directed to stand firm in order to force the White House to claim executive privilege. Starr never mentioned that the White House was trying to accommodate him in any way possible. We litigated the issue because it all arose out of the personal conduct of the President and how it affected the official duties of the President in a circus-like atmosphere -- and guess what? The Judge agreed with us. Then, and only then, Starr agreed that the assertion was okay, but only for the two non-lawyers involved.
You need to understand, said Ruff, what REALLY happened. This was his lawyers' advice that the interest of the presidency dictated -- protecting NOT the facts, but the day to day advice he was getting on his official duties.
If you had any doubt, emphasized Ruff, that Starr was attempting to paint the blackest picture possible of this insidious attack, look at pages 207 and 208 of the referral. "The tactics employed have not been only legal, he was asked about executive privilege -- he said, I don't know, ask the lawyers. But this was not true. Charles Ruff informed the Chief Judge that the president had been informed." Starr then appeared before this committee and engaged in a dialogue with Rep. Cannon. Cannon asked Starr if the President was lying about Mr. Ruff's declaration to the court. Starr lied to Rep. Cannon and said he was not aware of Ruffs court appearance. "What really happened was I did consult with the President of the United States and he did authorize me to file executive privilege motions... and (at PP 174 and 175) what really happened in March in Africa was not what Starr says and purposely took his answer out of context."
What actually happened, said Ruff, was that the President was asked and the President said he didn't believe he should be answering this here, and then the reporter followed up with "would you at least tell us why you think the privilege extends to the First Lady?" --AND THAT'S WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED IT WITH MR. RUFF!
"This is not routine business. This is not something to pass on to the Senate. This vote is intended to speak the Constitutional will of the people to say that we believe -- BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US -- that there is reason to believe that the President acted in a way so grave that he is no longer fit to serve and that the will of the people should be overturned."
Ruff closed with the question: is the evidence enough to convince all right-thinking men that the President can be impeached.
Sensenbrenner made the snide comment of not complaining about tno fact witnesses because Ruff was the president's "clean-up hitter." He insisted -- wrongly -- that perjury is impeachable based on Judge Nixon.
Sensenbrenner then asked about Clinton's comment of Januaary 27th; Ruff said that his comments were misleading. And on the Jones Case depo, Sensenbrenner asked if the President lied. Ruff said the President's answers did mislead; Sensembrenner blatted once again, "did he lie?" Ruff said he walked up to the line -- and did not cross it.
And Ruff could see where this was going to go -- Sensenbrenner asked the predicable "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" question.
Ruff: "He surely did."
Sensembrenner followed up with a question about hair-splitting with words like "is,' "alone," and "sex." Ruff said this did not relate to the previous question. Sensenbrenner got hissy -- "Is it the President or is it his lawyers?" Ruff said the issue was the answering to depo questions, and in a follow-up that the President had answered honestly in the Grand Jury.
Conyers asked a redundant question: is there anything impeachable in the referrals? No, said Ruff.
Conyers, speaking s-l-o-w-l-y, then asked about omissions from the Starr referral -- was the executive privilege issue the only omission? No, said ruff, there were other omissions including details concerning gifts and other eculpatory details.
Conyers then asked why the IC videotaped the Grand Jury proceedings? Ruff said there may have been the issue of having the testimony for absent jurors, but cannily said that "there was some collateral interest in fleshing out the package" to be sent to the HJC.
Ruff added that he would not serve as an attorney in any office where his talents would be abused.
McCollum was the next questioner. He mischaracterized a comment by Ruff right at the start -- then made a sweeping assertion that hiding the truth is subverting the government and impeachable. McCollum would not allow Ruff to respond, and started a rapid-fire commentary on Ruff "glossing over" Clinton's written testimony and "tampering with" Betty Currie. The issue, said McCollum, boils down to whether or not you believe Monica Lewinsky -- a blunder on his oart, because Monica has been caught on tape lying!
McCollum kept up his assault concerning the word "alone' and Clinton questioning Currie. He claimed -- falsely -- that Clinton knew that Currie would be a witness. Ruff replied that discovery in the Jones case was closing down, the Jones lawyers had known darn well for some time who Currie was, and had no plans to call her.
Barney Frank contrasted Judge Nixon to Clinton, saying the accusers are using this to say that a one-sided legal standard of "perjury" had been cooked up by Clinton's accusers -- a hair-splitting, technical argument if there ever was one. He did fault Clinton for "waffling" on the meaning of "alone." He also mentioned that even Schippers dropped two of the so-called "perjury" charges against Clinton.
He also pointed out that if they were indeed "alone," it was just Clinton and Lewinsky -- how do you prove perjury? In so many words, Ruff burst the McCollum bubble saying it would be a "nightmare for the country' if such charges were pursued.
Gekas played his own word games, focusing on "bribery" -- whether or not it is an assault on our government, it is so heinous that it is treated by the founders as impeachable, and if Gekas concludes that perjury is a "low" misdemeanor that does not subvert government he can therefore conclude it is heinous enough to impeach -- brilliant illogic.
Ruff: "May I conclude?"
Gekas: "Yes, I'm exhausted."
Ruff said that Gekas was correct about treason or bribery -- two crimes presumptively corruptive of government. gekas interrupted to say he feels that perjury is more corruptive.
Schumer recounted Sensenbrenner's "clean-up hitter" comment, and added "you've hit it out of the park... [Clinton's conduct] does not rise to high crimes and misdemeanors." Schumer skewered the OIC for a "surmise" of obstruction and abuse, "[it] strikes me almost as Kafkaesque." Schumer said Gekas and Sensenbrenner are making the same mistake -- equating all perjury.
Schumer should have added "that is, if perjury was even close to committeed." Instead, he lit into the GOP telling them that their conduct does not appear fair, asking the rhetorical question "Do we have other motivations?"
Schumer then went to what was admittedly a pretty lame example of deceptive "blue sky" testimony -- but it
Coble said he was getting tired of people saying that the GOP is being unreasonable because they favor impeachment, then complained that there were no fact witnesses -- then said there are five volumes of sworn testimony, and others have said that starr omitted exculpatory testimony. Ruff said he had said that -- and he had, earlier today.
Coble them asked if the President "still believes" that the Lewinsky affadavit is true. And Ruff said yes -- because of the definition of sex as Clinton believed it.
So why, Coble asked, did the President not intervene when Lewinsky said that there was no sex in any way shape or form -- "please steer me away from those shoals." Ruff replied that the President was in fact not concentrating on what his counsel said -- "and it seems reasonable..." Coble cut him off.
Berman mentioned that both sides "slip and slide" between acting like a grand jury and a legislative committee. Berman said he was most bothered in the context of the Grand Jury testimony was "what was touched." it's down to he said, she said -- implying the issue is dead as perjury even though he said he believes the President lied. What does it tell us regarding our constitutional standard -- what to do about passing an article of impeachment?
Ruff said that "none of us condones perjury;let us assume as you assume that it did."
Berman: "No, I said he lied under oath." Berman should have made the semantic difference clearer.
Ruff said we have to draw a line between saying "lying is a bad thing" and throwing a President out of office.
Lamar Smith started by saying "you have testified that the President misled the nation... don't you think those statements were made to impede the investigation of teh Independent Counsel?" When Ruff said no, Smith expressed "astonishment" that Ruff had said so. Then Smith changed his question -- that it had to do with multiple statements by the President under oath. Smith then asked whether he didn't consider the appendix as part of the referral -- a stupid question that opened up Starr to criticism from Ruff for not putting facts in the main body. Smith turned around and accused Ruff of "splitting hairs" -- which gave Ruff a chance to again ask why exculpatory points were not in the main body. Smith made a snotty comment, then said that Americans didn't know the full truth in 1992 and 1996 when they voted for clinton.
What an idiot -- now that they know more, they've given seats in the House back to the democrats in a year when Republicans should have gained. Smith's logic sounds Gingrichian -- and goes about as far as Gingrich's future as speaker!
Boucher ade light of GOP claims that the standards for impeaching a President should be the same as those for a federal judge. Ruff said that the difference in the House ought to be an assessment of the impact on government -- lifetime appointee judges or a man who can be elected only twice and removed by popular vote after one term.
Gallagly was next. He spoke of Craig's appearance and testimony that Clinton was "deceptive, evasive, misleading, even maddening" -- Ruff corrected him to say that Craig was speaking of the Jones depo testimony -- and asked if he agrees more with Craig or Owens. He said, "not surprisingly I associate myself with Craig" -- the president had the right not to be helpful to the Jones lawyers.
Gallagly said Ruff calimed the President did not help Lewinsky in a job search but Jordan did -- and again Ruff had to correct him on the fact, saying he did not say it. Gallagly looked stupid. He then asked Ruff if it was common for Jordan to call Clinton and say "mission accomplished." Ruff said there was nothing sinister in Jordan saying that.
After the break, Charles Canady took his turn -- to claim at length that he did not believe the President.
Pinhead Inglis is trying to be intelligent again One wonders why he bothers. He's a lame duck and a loser in a Senate Race that Donald Duck could have won.
Now, Inglis is trying to push the fact that the President lied when he used the word sexual relations. Ruff tells Inglis that he is lying. Inglis, snidely tells him that he likes the word "misleading" instead of "lying." Inglis lies again and said the President apologized to the American people for "misleading" them - not "lying" to them.
Now it is getting rough. Inglis and his cohorts are now resorting to lying about the facts.
Mel Watt says that the GOPers keep saying that this is not about sex, but none of them even mention any charges Starr claims - other than sex - have been mentioned. He asked about Whitewater. Ruff tells him that nothing has ever been referred on Whitewater. Yet Starr waited until only a month ago to notify. Starr also had nothing on the FBI files. Starr had nothing on the White House travel ofice either. Starr also told us that key was the so-called Talkin gPoinbts - but it turned out that lying little Monica wrote those, but didn't bother to tell the press.
Campaign finance was also dropped. Then Kathleen Willey was dropped. Then the John Hunag issue was dropped. Then the Secret Service was asked about information with other Arkansas women and they dropped that too. So now we are back to allegations about the Presdient's sex life.
GoodBleat was at bat. But Adulterer Hyde claims that these things have not been dropped just to ad some drama to the scene.
GoodBleat cited Starr's legalisms. He talked about the relationshiip with Lewinsky. If we assumed that Starr and Lewinsky are telling the truth, as Ruff suggested,
Ruff makes a fool of him. He can't conceive that a case would go forward. You also have Lewinsky saying one thing and the President saying another. GoodBleat has no answer and just goes somewhere else. Then he says Isn't it true that the President went before the American People and lied for the purpose of covering up his previous lie to the Jones team? GoodBleat says The Presdient was afraid of being indicted. GoodBleat is really upset because he knows his side is going down the toilet. Ruff answers that the weight of scholarly evidence says just the opposite - but even if we believe you, he did not commit perjury.
Zoe Lofgren took up the mantle saying that impeachment is to protect the loyalty of the President to the then New United States.
Ed Bryant was next and accomplished nothing.
Jackson Lee took the floor. "Perjury comes down to what the person said and what they understood the question to be. "Let me change the score - 5 for the defense and ZERO for the other side. She points out that Starr said that by the President lying to the First Lady and others, he abused power. Lee was livid about the First Lady being included. But how can this be an abuse of power. He would have had to first tell them the truth and then plot with them to cover it up, and even then it might not be an abuse of power.
Steve Chabot, the hair porblem man talks about how Ruff claimed that the Presdient did not lie under oath. He says he will agree with Judas Schumer that the President did lie under oath. Ruff says he is there to represent the President of the United States. My goal is an advocate to reach the people whose minds I want to change. Chabot adds, lets not forget it was the President's conduct that caused Mr. Starr to publish the salacious material. He did not give Ruff a chance to respond. He then asks why the President called Ms. Lewinsky "that woman" Ruff did not venture a guess.
Chabot asks Ruff to assure the panel that he will not pardon himself or accept a pardon from anyone else. Surprisingly Ruff replied - "Absolutely yes." This is odd. It means that the President has discussed this with his lawyers and has deciced, come what may, that he would be wiling to stand trial on these matters in 2000 shoulod Starr be foolish enough to indict him.
Maxine Waters, who is getting on our nerves came next. "I don't know what else can be done." was her theme. The Republicans cannot overcome the factual information that you have presented to us. These allegations are lightweight. They claim they don't understandwhy the Democrats are not joining them. She focuses on the tactics of Ken Starr. "It is central to the civil rights movement that we pay attention to the justice system and focus on abuse by prosecutors. We don't trust an investigation where these kind of tactics are used. She adds that Mr. Starr came with a bias, that his partner was working on the Paula Jones team, and then he lied about it clearly to us here at APJ. She goes on about the bias and asks Ruff about it. Ruff says he knows what is in the submission. It suggests that there were contacts with Jones and Starr's law firm and Starr failed to alert the Federal Courts nor did he alert General Reno to these facts.
Our faith in her returns.
Bozo Bob Barr jumped to the field. He reads the Federal Sentencing Guidlines. He probably spent all night comparing them to other sentences for what seem like heinous crimes. He then reads the US Attorney's manual which he probably keeps under his pillow as do all neonaazis in good standing. Barr, unlike any other lawyer says he believes the elements of perjury are here. He keeps quoting sections of the law, which bores the hell out of everyone. Most of the Committee is now talking to each other and ignoring Barr - most likely because he is so embarrased by them. All the members are now figthing to get on national television as it is 4:41 PM and the close of the 6:00 news cycle is at hand.
Barr says it is inescapable that the president tampered with Betty Currie even though Currie herself said he did not. Barr then goes into the part he likes - sex. He says that Lewinsky claimed he fondled her breasts and masssaged her private parts......so Barr thinks that these are facts rather than lies told by a woman that not only allowed herself to be used as a "right hand" - but did so without any normally requisite gratification save another notch on her bedpost.
Marty Meehan tells the Committee that the failure to provide exculpatory evidence is prima facie evidence of prosecutorial abuse - it is required that Starr do this and he didn't. Starr's referral did not include the full text of the Presdient's testimony on when he knew about the Lewinksy subpoena - he conveniently left out the fact that the President did say that Bruce Lindsey may have told him about it. Meehan shows the same thing about the gifts. Starr claimed that because Currie made the extra effort to pick up the gifts it proved SHE was lying - "The person making the extra effort is ordinarily the person requesting the favor." - that's what Starr said, if you can believe it. So Starr knowingly lied.
Asa Hutchinson, smiling but tense, said the Presdient apologized for his personal misconduct but deined any legal wrongdoing. Ruff said that was right. Ruff told Asa Boy that if he did his homework he would be struck by the absolute mess...
So Asa moves on to the civil deposition. Mr. Clinton was asked in his depostion whether Monica Lewinsky told him she was served. He knew she had been served - but he answered the question truthfully. She did not tell him, others did. Ruff points out there was a long series of questions before that question arose - and his point was when he knew. The critical issue was when he knew.
Asa ignore this and says it appears that Ruff set up a false charge in order not to respond to the charge that Starr made.
No one could have understand Hutchinson.
Delahunt was next and gave Ruff a chance to respond. Ruff said he did not skew the record as he accuses Starr. Delahunt said that he hopes the American people are listening to this.
But it isn't whether or not the public are listening - because they are not. They are busy working, and picking up their kids at school. It is up to the media to cover this witch hunt fairly and they won't. That is the crux. That is the travesty, lead by people like Russert and Donaldson who have appointed themselves guardians of the moral gate.
Following Delahunt, Pease started a line of questioning into Clinton's "underlying behavior" concerning the executive privilege claim. Ruff explained that their position was that Clinton was advised that his counsel was only dealing with issues of state -- in those official areas of conduct that the OIC could not inquire.
Canady asked to put a letter into the record -- then lit into Ruff, saying that Ruff was misrepresenting the facts and quoting witnesses out of context on the issue of tax fraud. Ruff replied that he would clarify all of his statements and respond in detail -- there are 3 or 4 congressmen who said tax evasion rises to an impeachable offense.
McCollum asked that a report from the GOP-controlled CRS on privilege claims from the Kennedy era through Reagan and Bush be placed into the record.
Wexler took time to question Starr's position on specific claims of executive privilege; he yielded his time to Ruff, who began by saying that he believes he does not ask for "frivolous' privilege claims. Ruff said he understands that gravity of the Starr investigations -- and subtly undersold his vigorous defense of privilege claims, which we at APJ would point out would be the right and responsibility of any administration under politico-legal attack.
Chris Cannon asked a rapid-fire question concerning the nature of impeachment as a "punishment" for a President -- adding in an equally rapid-fire manner following Ruff's answer that he asked because the White House was playing up the "extraconstitutional" issue of censure -- a lie, because the Constitution does NOT exclude censure. He jocularly referred to Ruff's earlier comments on Cannon and Starr and, in his one-too-many-cups-of-joe manner, went through details of court documents and news reports regarding the privilege falp.
Cannon was confusing -- he even seemed confused in making his point that he implied that the President was invoking privilege for the First Lady!
Ruff tried to answer the complicated question simply, and even Hyde gently criticized Cannon's complexity. We think most of the Congressmen on the committee -- even the lawyers -- were lost too!
Rothman focused on the words "against the state" in relation to "high crimes and misdemenaors" -- and GOP looking the other way regarding these key words. "What they want to do is add a new standard to the Constitution" governing personal conduct. He added that the referrals themselves -- from Starr and the White House -- are not truly admissible. "The framers would have recoiled in horror and shock [that] we would have to take the word of an official" without fact witnesses. Impeachable offenses were being "expanded and amended" without the consent of the people.
Rogan was next, starting with "I'm going to surprise you" -- he agreed that words do matter in a technical way. Of course, he was doing it to his own end -- to suggest that the President's misleading statements constitute a massive crime as he asked about Clinton's various statements and testimonies "if he was lying" -- including Clinton's interview with Jim Lehrer.
The GOP is starting to reach -- dragging in every incidence of the President "lying" that they can. And the more they do it, the more it reinforces the key fact -- it was all about personal conduct, not some high crime of state.
Barrett began by reiterating the disappointment of Democrats about the fairness of the hearings -- then attempted to read the four articles of impeachment which had arrived "hot off the press." When Conyers interjected that it would not be fair, Barrett pointed out he is the last Democrat to speak.
Ruff replied that it is fair to say that the "he said, she said" would not reach the level of prosecutability. "I want to pass over all of that and go to the heart of the issue [assuming you] take the Lewinsky testimony as truthful." The President has been critical of himself. You ought to censure him, but you should not overturn the will of the people.
Graham began by saying his quarrel was not with him, but "his client." Reading from what looked to be a prepared statement, he said he did not believe the President of buy his defense. "If we follow Clintonspeak, we will destory the rule of law... I'm not through yet... I believe your client lied" about the Lewinsky affadavit. "The most disturbing thing goes like this: you know Sidney Blumenthal?" Graham recounted Blumenthal's conversation with Clinton where Clinton claimed that he had "rebuffed" Lewinsky and that she was known as a stalker.
The problem with Graham's "most disturbing thing" is that Lewinsky did pursue Clinton with alacrity. She did the chasing, and seducing. She admits it!
Graham came out and asked Ruff if he believed Lewinsky was pursuing him -- a bad question! Ruff said that there was no attempt to "trash" Lewinsky -- without refuting the story.
Graham continued: Is Lewinsky a stalker? Ruff said there was not an authorized effort to trash Lewinsky. Graham then started to rattle off a news story in which Charles Rangel said he believed she was disturbed, continuing with a litany of news story which characterize Lewinsky as "a flirt... troubled... a stalker."
Did it ever occur to Graham that the stories may be true?
Graham accused Clinton of having Blumenthal plant anti-Lewinsky stories, going into an obnoqious tirade.
Gee -- now Graham can join Bono as a Freeper hero.
Conyers broke in to defend Rangel, and Graham had the nerve to say that "I have no higher regard for anyone than Charlei Rangel" amidst a verbal donnybrook.
Ruff: "Other than your speculation... you have no basis for making that allegation.... To the extent that I have personal knowledge I would say to the contrary... that no such effort [at a personal attack on Lewinsky] was made."
Graham accused Clinton running "stalker" characterizations by Currie, and accused Clinton of "using the trappings of office to go after a witness."
Conspira-wackos will love this. But any man or woman who has had an emotionally unstable girlfriend/boyfriend
"If she didn't have that blue dress they would have cut her up.... Clinton was using the full force of the White House to go after her... It was more like Watergate than Peyton Place."
Well, now we know why he was using that "Watergate or Peyton Place" like two months ago -- he was planning to do this all along.
We predict Graham's public career will end in ignominy in the year 2000 when his own constituents turn on him -- when they realize that it is he, not the President, who has sought to victimize Lewinsky.
Frank: "After that loaded filibustered question [to] use up those five minutes i move to let the witness respond for five minutes."
Waters: "My point of privilege is... I have a point of poersonal privilege... he made a reference to what every woman on this panel should feel... i feel that every woman should be given a chance to respond." Hyde: "You've expressed your disagreement." Waters: "No, I haven't... I think every member should express their anger at this spin" by Graham to set up Lewinsky as a hostile witnes
Ruff categorically rejected that the President was behind any attack you describe. To be greeted at the end of a long day by a speaker with a long litany of accusation which we have never heard before is unfair. We want an opportunity to receive a clear and explicit statement from the Congresssman and sufficient opportunity to respond.
Hyde, in a last-ditch attempt to look imapartial, reiterated that he would have Graham prepare a package for Ruff.
Boo Yer was recognized for five minutes -- and decided to follow on the theme of who really wants to anger Monica Lewinsky! Bold, stupid move! He "complimented' Ruff with sticking with "the game plan" of "not say[ing] the President lied." Gosh -- can anyone guess how he'll vote on the four articles of impeachment?
"I hate to go back to the gifts," said Boo Yer, as he tried to impugn the President's forgetfulness about details of the gifts to Lewinsky -- and his testimony that he didn't recall a hatpin.
Ruff replied that the core of Clinton's reply was "I don't recall -- which gift?"
Goodlatte called for a letter signed by 60 "scholars" calling for the President's impeachment to be entered into the record -- "so ordered without objection."
Hyde gavelled the hearings to a close at 5:57.
