Monday, December 14, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Do we have to tell you what the big topic this weekend really was?

Suffice it to say that with four articles of impeachment having been excreted by the House Witch Hunt Starr Chamber, the stakes on trying to influence public opinion this weekend were much higher for the usual gasbags and their guests alike.

Of course, their mere words will have little or no effect -- other than clues into how each side is spinning the out-of-control charade that is nothing more than a high-tech impeachment lynching.

Fox News Sunday

FNS went easy on the number of guests -- and we were surprised that Dick Armey (R-TX), who has been pretty much off the political radar since the election despite surviving as House Majority Leader (could it be something stupid he said on Election Night?), was guest one. Ostensibly, he was there to "discuss the ground rules" for the House vote on impeachment articles coming up on Thursday -- in fact, he was there to give the appearance of the upcoming House vote on impeachment some sort of legitimacy in the fact of popular anti-impeachment sentiments and zero fairness in the now-concluded House Judiciary Committee witch trial "deliberations." Armey was the surrogate Tom DeLay -- who was obviously too occupied with trying to overthrow the President to appear on Sundat politi-chat TV.

On the issue of the President's alleged perjury, Armey said "You have to look at the evidence... I disagree... Mr. Schippers presented the evidence very clearly... I will vote to impeach. On all four articles."

What he was really saying: "We will treat all uncorroborated hearsay as evidence... We will have us a high-tech lynching."

Armey tried changing tack, claiming that the White House is mounting a massive lobbying effort, but Tony persisted in asking his line of "you don't think he's been truthful" questions.

Armey claimed that the lobbying effort was "unseemly." This is pure hypocrisy on Armey's part -- members of the executive branch have every right to lobby Congress on this issue. In a truly sophomoric stunt, Armey whipped out his House ID card and said that the card means he is "entrusted to represent my constituents."

Of course, he is not talking about the voters in his district -- he refers to the business and right-wing interests who want to "get Clinton" at any cost to our nation.

Tony asked about the issue of the "30-minute debate" time limit for Thursday -- and Armey said it was assured that the full House would vote to use normal debate rules. And on this issue Armey is correct -- expect at least one day of strident debate.

Armey was steered toward a "nation governed by the rule of law" answer by Tony, citing a hypothetical perjury example. It's not about disciplining the President, he said, "it's about protecting the Constitution."

But if the House Judiciary Committee and House Republicans were really interested in the "rule of law," they would have undertaken their own investigation. They would have investigated evidence that the Jones lawsuit was a fraud -- a political perversion of the "rule of law." They would have investigated allegations of 6(e) violations by the Starr Chamber -- felony violation of "rule of law."

Armey has a pretty bizarre notion of the "rule of law" that represents neither the mainstream nor the spirit of the meaning of the Constitution.

If it were about "protecting the Constitution," Armey would be railing about the assault on the Constitution by a cadre of right-wing activists out to "set up" the President and abuse the civil courts, the IC statute and the legal process to bring down Clinton. In fact, Armey does not give a damn about protecting the Constitution -- in light of the inter-Speaker power "vacuum" he's nothing but DeLay's butt-boy.

Tony asked Armey if Clinton saying "I lied, I'm sorry" would be enough to forestall impeachment -- a scenario he'd love to see because it would be used to attack Clinton further -- and Armey gave a ridiculous "it's not about you, Mr. President, it's about the Constitution." Mr. Armey, if it's about the Constitution, see above.

Tony, briefly turning New Moralist, echoed the sentiments of hypocritical scold Bill Bennett and asked about America "not giving a damn." Armey said "people have fought and died for these principles." What principles, Dick? A set-up impeachment? Extorted perjury? Witness manipulation by a right-wing book agent? Abuse of office by an independent counsel? Ken Starr's pornographic tome? A refusal by the Judiciary Committee to call witnesses and pursue facts? Why don't Americans give a damn, Tony? Because the above "principles" have been rejected by America, who surely have more honorable morals than the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.

Following the break, Tony was joined by Brit Hume and Mara Liasson as they welcomed Reps. Lindsey Graham (R-Peyton Place), Peter King (R-NY) and Jim Moran (D-VA). Hume asked the first question of Moran, concerning why the Democrats' censure proposal came to be "only" four days ago. Hume asked if the Democrat resolution citing the President "made false statements" (as opposed to stronger language) was appropriate. Hume's question was worded to elicit the assumption that Clinton lied or, worse yet, perjured.

Tony asked King a question -- and instead of answering, King gave a rapid-fire answer saying that he opposed impeachment and favored censure -- and that he was a true conservative in favoring this issue!

Peter King is the fastest-talking "motormouth" we've seen on the Sunday morning circuit in a very long time! It took everything for Tony, Brit, Mara and, we think, most of the viewers, to keep up.

King gets our quote of the week in his assertion that DeLay is pressuring House Republicans: "Tom DeLay is the whip but he's no Mother Teresa!"

Amen, brother King!

Tony then played a clip of the President denying that he committed perjury in a news conference early Sunday morning, and asked King about the issue of perjury. King actually characterized the perjury allegations as "crazy liberal"!!

America needs more Republicans like King -- the look of smiling disbelief on Tony's face was a joy to behold. Both were obviously enjoying the exchange.

And none of the three congressmen were answering Tony's questions directly -- everyone was getting in their spin. Graham said "I understand Mr. King's concern for the party." King broke in: "I'm concerned for the Constitution."

Graham said something about Congress "inventing a way out of this crisis" -- a slam at censure.

But he lies -- Congress has used censure before, and there is nothing in the Constitution stopping them to do so.

Moran called the President's Jones testimony "contemptible, low-level illegal activity -- and not impeachable!" To which Graham, getting a hair defensive, said that in his deposition people were "begging" Clinton to tell the truth.

What a laugh -- does Graham think we are idiots? Even a moron knows the difference between begging and entrapment. "Oh, Mr. President, we're BEGGING for you to hang yourself!"

Moran and Hume got into a furball over a possible censure resolution, with Hume trying to put words in Moran's mouth about "saying the President should not sign a censure resolution accusing him of perjury."

Of course he shouldn't -- he didn't commit perjury in the first place. Brit was acting as a surrogate for Donovan Campbell, Bob Barr and Jerry Falwell.

Hume asked King accusatorily why he supported censure then did not do or say a thing about it until now. A lie -- King has been talking censure for weeks.

Tony asked King if he thought Tom DeLay was lying when he said that he was not pressuring -- and here King did some of the best spinning of the week, praising DeLay's "power of persuasion." Brilliant -- saying he was pressuring while complimenting "The hammer!" Talk about having it both ways! We loved it. Graham interjected "I don't believe Tom DeLay is... if so he does not deserve to be Whip." Great weasel words -- "I don't believe..." Is that as in philosophy or the facts, Lindsey?

Tony asked an inflammatory question of Moran: "Can you name one woman the President has not been involved with who has not been hurt?" We'd ask the same question, substituting the word Ken Starr. Moran spun his way back to the core issue -- impeachment -- "a national mistake."

Our hats off to FNS for actually taking time to turn attention to diplomatic events in the Middle East. Following a break, Tony and Mara welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Tony's first question -- Netanyahu's welcoming comments to the President about "deeds, not words." Does the President agree?

Netanyahu said yes, and recited a litany of his qualms with Palestinians. He added that at this point it would be hard to pull more forces out of the West Bank, and he hopes for action from the Palestinians on Monday [in the form of a repeal of PLO charter points calling for the destruction of Israel], yet when the President leaves "they could turn on the violence again."

Mara mentioned the Wye accord point calling for the Palestinians to revoke charter points -- what more is needed to move on the accords? Netanyahu said he insists on full compliance, and the President agrees. Mara then asked about Netanyahu's comments that he did not want the President to come -- falsely implying that the President's troubles were the reason. Netanyahu: "I refuse to accept that, we are kindred spirits [in] democracy... I am still prepared to move forward [and] return part of our ancestral homeland... if they keep the agreement."

Tony asked Netanyahu about news reports that illegal arms coming into Israel are coming from Iraq. Netanyahu: "We want to see Palestinian leaders do something... unmistakably stand up and... forcefully act against enemies of Israel" and teach kids that it's right to make peace because the two peoples have to live side by side.

The break before panel time was preceded by clips from the impeachment hearings with nearly a dozen witnesses and congressmen saying versions of "With all due respect" -- who says FNS does not have a sense of humor (or irony)?

First order of panel business: trash Clinton for making another statement of contrition Friday. Juan Williams said he thinks that the President lied; Mara pointed out that not one fence-sitting GOPer is going to open their mouth and "get thousands of phone calls" -- but many of them don't want to go out on a limb.

Hume pointed out quite rightly that if the President admitted he lied GOPers would be all the more willing to go ahead and impeach -- but acted as a spokesman for the ultra-right and sounding ridiculous in claiming that a censure resolution is "ridiculous."

Not much later, we saw the first strong statement that any of the panel members opposed impeachment -- from Juan Williams, who said in so many words that impeachment was grossly out of proportion to the wrongdoing. Hume's rambling reply that much of the outcome would be determined by how the media handled it sounded goofy -- he overestimates the influence of the media on a skeptical public. You'd think he would have learned on Election Day. The pundit elite is still in denial.

Predictions on the impeachment vote: Mara: Don't know. Juan: Impeachment passes. Tony: I don't know.

Two "I don't know"s! Still feeling burned after your bungled November forecasts?

Tony called the impeachment process "a good thing... all's fair... the fighting guarantees two things: that the President will get withering scrutiny, but also that he gets the best defense possible."

Wow -- he's completely wrong, but parts of his remarks almost sounds fair. He really DOESN'T know which way the Thursday vote may go!

This Weak

Sam and Cokie got "the big one" this week -- none other than Henry Hyde! A shame that Sam was out of town -- in Israel, stalking the President with rude questions. Sam reported on the President's news conference -- at least the sections dealing with the impeachment flap. Sam claimed "It's almost as if the President is resigned to impeachment by the full house."

The first question from Cokie to Hyde: is he opposed to censure because it would pass? No, he said, he opposes the censure because it is not in the Constitution and it is a bill of attainder -- two outright lies.

Hyde was asked about the near-total partisan division on all of the committee's votes: "It isn't helpful at all if it's strictly a partisan count of noses."

You bet it isn't: it reveals the entire impeachment coup effort as a political and partisan abuse of constitutional government.

Hyde went on to say "Doesn't the rule of law mean anything?" We need honest judges and lawyers, he added.

We say it would be nice if we had honest legislators willing to undertake a real inquiry of impeachment instead of a fast-and-loose witch trial.

"This is a comfortable way to put it behind us and everyone is chafing under the irritation of this burden," but censure is unconstitutional. He claimed that America is a government of "enumerated powers" -- not accurate, as many powers, privileges and even day-to-day procedures are not enumerated but assumed or implicitly derived from Constitutional structure.

"There are those who would be moved by a more complete admission of responsibility." Right, Henry -- they'd be moved to become more partisan and divisive, especially if they are already shrieking "impeachment" like banshees. He also dismissed public sentiment against impeachment, saying it was wrong to "take the temperature" and not protect the constitution, adding the idiotic spin-bite that "if Jesus had taken a poll, he would not have preached the Gospel."

"Now the lame duck question is not our fault... now that the Democrats have picked up five seats, the words 'lame duck' have cropped up."

Will: "Is the President duty-bound to resign?" Hyde: it would save the nation from "a horror."

This would be the sound-bite broadcast on all of the major networks on Sunday night.

"The fate of the President is now in the hands of a few Republicans who are undecided," said Cokie as she introduced the second segment. Jay Dickey (R-AR) and Bob Ney (R-OH) were the guests -- not exactly A-list congressmen, but "undecideds" who are now finding themselves under national scrutiny.

Ney said "The President hurt himself this morning" in denying he committed perjury, and Dickey agreed: "I'm worrying about it affecting my decision on a shallow level... I'm not getting anything I can sink my teeth into." Dickey read a letter saying a vote for impeachment would be "political suicide." Ney also said he's getting it from both sides and "it's a very polarized situation." He says censure would pass "depending on its context" (i.e. censure plus). Dickey does not want censure as an alternative. His excuse: "We are called to lead and that is not leading."

Will preceded his question by saying Dickey said that the House vote on impeachment is "low-threshold" as with a grand jury, and Dickey and Ney agreed -- incorrectly. Here Will is exerting what little influence he still has to get out a right-wing spin point that has no basis in fact or precedent.

In response to Cokie's question about the President not being able to say anything that could help him -- another comment we heard from the punditariat elite this weekend, that "nothing he can say will help" -- Ney said he would decide on the threshold and Dickey "lament"-ed the fact that he did not admit lying under oath.

If impeachment goes down should there be a censure vote, asked Cokie? Ney said no, it was a cheapening, and Dickey made a "King of the Hill" metaphor that made little sense (if it doesn't meet one threshold, drop to the next).

Dickey "thanked" the GOP leadership for leaving it a vote of conscience (no doubt a message to DeLay that "I won't blow your cover"), and Ney -- a deputy whip -- said he had received "absolutely no pressure" from DeLay.

Dickey then made the stupidest comment of the entire weekend: that the President should be "less dictatorial and more submissive."

We almost got a hernia laughing at this one.

Cokie welcomed Lloyd Cutler and Richard Ben-Veniste. Cokie asked "You heard the President this morning -- have they given up [on getting the House to vote against impeachment]?"

Cutler dismissed Cokie's dismissive characterization -- then lit into the fight against allowing a censure motion. Ben-Veniste lit into both the HJC and the Rules Committee for blocking it -- censure is appropriate, he asserted.

Will asked if Clinton's "repeated contrition" was hurting him, and Ben-Veniste said it wasn't working in the Beltway (he was not just referring to Congress, but the pundit class). "The problem is this President is a pretty good lawyer" who should leave the legal fighting to his own lawyers.

Cokie then asked a ridiculous question -- saying the President should admit to perjury if there were no danger of being prosecuted, which Ben-Veniste found ridiculous. Cokie (sounding shrill): "But he lied under oath."

Ben-Veniste: "About what?"

And Will did his argument of "lying repeatedly to the public" and an "implicit clause" of full honesty no help after Ben-Veniste had so forcefully slapped Cokie down. Ben-Veniste brought in the Watergate comparison, pointing out that misusing federal agencies is a subversion of government, implying "where's the subversion of state here?"

Cutler lamented what he sees as "lowering of the bar on impeachment" and "emasculating the President." But he also said there may be a motion in the Senate for summary dismissal if it goes to trial because the four articles of impeachment are too vague.

And Ben-Veniste was the first talking head of the week to say that if the House votes impeachment, the House and Senate revert to the Democrats in 2000 -- a point every "public affairs" show has consciously avoided.

Before the cheap-shot roundtable, Sam reported in his most slanted manner that "the President is not fighting" -- spinning the facts to make it look as if the President is avoiding the fight: why is he "sightseeing?"

Sam, this so-called "sightseeing" is part of an ongoing process known as diplomacy. Your hairpiece glue must be fogging your mental faculties.

Cokie showed the covers of this week's Time and Newsweek. "Has he given up the fight?" she asked.

Predictably, the two Georges were at odds -- Stephanopoulos said no, and Will made a snotty comment about "the old saying that 'if you can fake sincerity....' "

Will's a living, breathing example of that old chestnut...which brought to our mind George "No new taxes!" Bush ands Ronald "We did not trade arms for hostages" Reagan. Like you said, George...

Bill Kristol recycled the same old "he violated his oath of office" point. Right, Bill -- and "not" trading arms for hostages wasn't.

Will: "The public has spoken loud and clear, and what we are seeing is a significant amount of politicians not listening to the polls." He also claimed that the arguments against a Senate trial are in fact a means of removing impeachment from the Constitution -- a ridiculous stretch. Will also implied that the White House is raising the issue of an impact on the Dow Jones -- completely ignoring the fact that it is CEOs and senior management in big business that started raising this issue with their owned-and-operated legislators weeks ago.

After the break, the predictions started -- with Kristol predicting impeachment. He hypocritically said that the Democratic Party "believes he has abused his office and dishonored the presidency."

Cokie whined that if the House votes impeachment and the Senate votes to adjourn the trial "it would diminish the House... I worry about what it does to lower confidence in government." Our heart bleeds for you, Cokie, but the claim that the House would be "diminished" is pure puffery and stupidity. First, the only "diminishment" in the House would be in the number of Republicans -- a deserved outcome for pushing what the public sees as an abuse of the impeachment process. Second, impeachments remain so rare that it would not impact on the balance of power between the two Houses.

What Cokie really worries about -- rightly so -- is the diminished effect Beltway gasbag insiders have on our national discourse.

CNN Late Edition

Late Edition, live from Jerusalem, started on the late side, delayed by CNN International's coverage of Clinton's speech in Jerusalem. We caught the first hour of the program.

Jerrold Kessel reported on the sense of perplexed incredulity on the part of Israelis, and Bob Franken reported on choice sound bites from the other Sunday shows -- including Henry Hyde's call on "Face the Nation" for the President to resign. Franken said CNN had learned of discussions in the White House of a plea bargain in the Senate if the House votes impeachment.

Dick Armey was the first guest. His first spin bite: he didn't see how the President can govern under rule of law if he has broken the law, then went into a litany of "he deceived his country, he deceived his family..." which led us to ask ourselves if Armey deceived his family when tales about his hitting on coeds under his tutelage became public.

Armey, a partisan hatchet man acting as Tom DeLay's surrogate spokesman this weekend, was magnificent in his hypocrisy.

Wolf then replayed Gephardt's comments on "Meet the Press" saying that GOPers would have to face a censure resolution whether they like it or not. Armey's claims that censure "is not given to us in the Constitution" was ridiculous -- just where, Dick, is it prohibited?

Wolf then replayed part of Rep. King's comments on FNS: "Tom DeLay is the whip but he's no Mother Teresa" -- his comment that DeLay is bringing pressure to bear on Republicans in the House. Armey denied it, covering for DeLay -- but what else could he do?

His next two guests, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Senator-Elect Chuck Schumer from New York, had some surprises. Specter said that calls for the President's resignation only further politicize the process -- a severe slap at not just Hyde but a large number of House Reeps! Schumer predicted an impeachment trial on at least one and possibly more articles -- and a huge increase in Americans telling their representatives how they really feel.

Wolf asked Specter about whether it would be constitutional for the 106th Senate to try the President based on a vote from the 105th House? Specter said that it was. Schumer was asked about possible alternative strategies, and Schumer gave lie to Republicans calling for an admission, saying that they want him to admit to perjury when he believes that he did not.

Schumer continued with one of the most telling comments of the entire weekend: "To almost everyone's incredulity, the Republicans in the House are pushing forward... in Watergate, a bipartisan effort [was] backed by the people... This action is so different, [it] was almost a surreal experience... It's just an awful thing, I think, for the Republic."

Following the break, Specter gave his assessment of the situation of the current situation in the Senate -- split about 50-50, whit "some people on our side open-minded" and some on the Democrat side the same way. We think he was using the definition of "open-minded" a little loosely -- many Republicans have not come out with their views, as is true of Dems, but the Republicans have more to lose by simply voting for impeachment.

A few other points were made: Schumer said that lying about an extramarital affair does not rise to the framers' definition of an impeachable offense. And when Wolf asked Specter about an article in which he said that Clinton should be held accountable in the courts for his misconduct after leaving office, Specter made sure to include the words "lying under oath" and "obstruction of justice" in his best fake-gravely-earnest manner -- so much so that for a moment he sounded like the wily Tricky Dicky himself -- but added that he wants to see the issue dealt with in a manner that is "nonpartisan, factual, as rapidly as possible."

In other words, Specter gets it: the longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the Republican party. Is anyone among the undecideds in the House listening?

And after a second break Wolf asked Schumer "Should he admit he lied?" -- a continuation of Blitzer's uncritical, biased assumption of Presidential guilt and assault on Clinton. Schumer's lengthy answer spelled out two big points: he does not believe he committed perjury, and he should not resign. And he concluded by firing a broadside against Hyde for calling for Clinton's resignation, calling it irresponsible.

It's worth noting that Specter was about the only GOP Senator on the pundit circuit this weekend -- and he was sending clear signals to the House GOPers that they are out of hand and had best put the brakes on impeachment. He may be a vocal political opponent of Clinton, but he knows what Republican Governors know -- that keeping the struggle in the arena of issues, and not impeachment, is the GOP's salvation.

Unmentioned or Ignored

Practically everything outside of impeachment, although it was refreshing to see Fox and CNN turning attention to pivotal events in the Middle East.

-- The Editors