DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: THE IMPEACHMENT STORY
SUBSECTION: IMPEACHMENT TRIAL – Part 1
CNN 12/19/98 Freeper Impeach98 reports ".In an effort to prevent any chance of conviction in the Senate the White House is lobbying Senate Republicans so that they may obtain enough votes to prevent the trial of President Clinton from even beginning in the Senate.."
FoxNews 12/19/98 by Freeper Conservative Arts ".FOX NEWS CHANNEL reports that many democrats have begun calling for [Clinton] to resign despite White House desperate attempt to stave off speculation of Resignation as a remedy. FOX reports a "few" in the house already have and undisclosed Democrats in the senate are now asking for his resignation! GREAT NEWS! That means they are not positive this will turn out vindicating BJ Clinton..."
Hardball 12/19/98 Tom Squiteri Freeper Report ".Information on Jane Doe #5 will come out before senate trial.He says that he knows what the information is, that it's shocking, and that it will come out.."
Washington Post (via International Herald Tribune) 2/19/98 ".Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus have announced their opposition to the attack on Iraq and denounced President Bill Clinton for making the decision without consulting Congress or working to build a consensus in the United Nations first..''We have to have the U.S. giving leadership in the UN and not deciding unilaterally who we should strike an offensive on,'' said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois, said in a statement: ''The justification of sustainability, the loss of innocent lives and the question of proportionality remain a great concern of mine. President Bill Clinton will have to have the most comprehensive moral, rational and national security defense of his military action against Iraq in order to sustain his presidency.'' ."
Newsletter 12/20/98 Mr. Kim Weissman ".More than two years ago, Jerome Zeifman, the democrat chief counselto the House Judiciary Committee which acted to impeach President Nixon,came to the conclusion that "there is now probable cause to consider ourpresident and first lady as felons", he saw "a pattern or deceit and corruption", he saw his party, the Democratic Party, as "defenders of acorrupt administration", and he concluded that there was "a cancer on the Clinton presidency painfully reminiscent of the cancer that broughtdown Nixon". Two years after Jerome Zeifman made his disillusionmentpublic, the democrat party, in Zeifman's prophetic words spoken twoyears ago, continues "the folly of marching in lockstep in support of acorrupt president in the name of party unity." On a completely partisanvote, virtually every democrat marched in lockstep in defense of BillClinton, voting on the Articles of Impeachment.."
FoxNews Reuters 12/19/98 ".President Clinton Saturday defied Republican calls for him to resign over his impeachment and appealed instead for fair, prompt punishment short of being removed from office. Democrats rallied to the side of the president as he faced the most difficult day of his political life: the one on which the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against him. Clinton put on a brave face for the television cameras as, holding tightly to the arm of his wife, Hillary, he stepped up to the blue podium placed on the White House lawn near the Oval Office to affirm his intention to serve out the remaining two years of his term.."
Chicago Sun-Times 12/17/98 ".The Senate must respond then to the House action by considering a resolution that would issue a summons to the president. By a bare majority vote, the Senate could reject that resolution--in effect a summary judgment throwing the case out of court. That would terminate the procedure, averting a trial guaranteed to fascinate and repel Americans. But it will be an uphill fight to defeat such a resolution, an effort not even assured of full support from the Senate's Democratic minority. Senior administration officials say the Senate trial that would follow the resolution's passage is unthinkable. Instead, Clinton may be ushered out of power before the trial starts.."
The New York Times 12/20/98 R W Apple Jr. ".The President will press hard, despite his much-reduced leverage, for a deal on censure. Indeed, in as fine a piece of political irony as one could ask for, he has already sought to enlist former Senator Bob Dole, the Republican he defeated in 1996, as an emissary to the Senate majority. The numbers are not unpromising: with the help of 6 Republicans, the 45 Democrats could end the trial at any time and pass a censure resolution that the House would surely take up. There are enough Republican moderates and sometime party-buckers to make that a plausible target. But the Republican Senate leader, Trent Lott, who has made his unwillingness to take the President's word evident in recent days, is determined to fight such an arrangement. It is clear that Clinton's reputation has been stained forever, no matter what the Senate does. The spot will not out..."
The New York Times 12/20/98 ".But even if the senators behave responsibly, they and the country face the problem of dealing with a battered President whose calculated strategy of lying over the airways and under oath has prolonged this crisis for a full year. In a twilight gathering of House Democrats in the Rose Garden, Mr. Clinton asked the Senate for a "reasonable, bipartisan and proportionate response" to his misconduct. But if he expects the Senate to accept the fiction that he did not lie under oath, he will feed the Republican efforts to force his resignation. He will also invite a showdown at his Senate trial on the strong evidence behind the impeachment article charging him with grand-jury perjury. Under Senate rules, the 45 Democratic members need only 6 Republicans for the simple majority that can adjourn the trial at any time and open the way to a censure resolution. But these votes cannot be purchased with more lies from Bill Clinton.."
Reuters 12/20/98 ".Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said the House vote "sets in motion a solemn process in the Senate'' and he would begin formal steps that could lead to a trial of Clinton. "There are steps that precede the beginning of an impeachment trial,'' the Mississippi Republican said. "Once the Senate is organized as an impeachment proceeding, there will be pleadings and motions that come before the taking of evidence,'' he said. It was not yet clear when any trial would begin. By its historic action, the House in effect indicted Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for attempting to cover up his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The highest judge in the land, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, would preside over a Senate trial on those charges and swear in senators as jurors.."
The New York Post 12/20/98 ".NEWT GINGRICH didn't have to resign as speaker of the House after the results of the November election disappointed Republicans. He could have stuck it out and bloodied the Republican Party as he went down fighting. But for the good of his party, Gingrich did resign. Yesterday, Robert Livingston didn't have to step down, weeks before his swearing-in as speaker of the House. The Louisiana Republican had received a standing ovation from his fellow GOPers when he came clean to them on Thursday night about his adulteries. But because Livingston wanted a clear conscience as he cast his vote to impeach Bill Clinton - because he put his responsibilities over his own ambitions - Livingston did resign. Today, Bill Clinton doesn't have to resign following his two-pronged impeachment by the House of Representatives - a low moment that will forever put a black mark next to his name in the history books. The president can hide behind polls - polls that are increasingly ambiguous about the public's desire to have an impeached president presiding over the United States. He can send his wife out to defend him and attack his enemies. He can stand above the fray as his putative defenders - and how degraded the presidency has become when Larry Flynt and Abe Hirschfeld are two of his staunchest! - seek to destroy the lives and reputations of the president's enemies. And most disturbing, he can continue to drop bombs in the desert in the hopes that the dust and smoke they produce will continue to obscure the American people's confused view of the president's conduct. Rather than continue to befoul the American political scene with these actions, and for the good of his country, Bill Clinton should resign. He should resign because, for a year, he has devoted his presidency not to the betterment of the country but the salvation of his own hide - and still he has been impeached.."
The New York Post 12/20/98 ".Now President Clinton's future rests in the hands of the United States Senate. For New Yorkers, there is no mystery as to the views of their junior senator-elect, Charles Schumer, regarding the removal of the president from office. Schumer strongly opposes such an outcome, as he has made clear on any number of occasions. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is an entirely different story. A scholar of considerable stature before entering the Senate, and one of the wisest members of the body ever since, Pat Moynihan is also a lame duck - having announced last month that he will not seek another term two years hence. Thus, unrestrained by political considerations and with a fuller understanding than most of the fundamental issues involved, Moynihan is free to approach the coming debate as more of an intellectual exercise than a political fight. We would not presume to offer specific advice to Moynihan on this matter. Obviously he understands the gravity of the practical and moral issues involved, as well as the obligations that the Senate now has to the American people, and to history."
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,2960,17183-101981219,00.html Time Magazine 12/20/98 Frank Pellegrini by Freeper Thanatos ".After months of anguish and partisan cries of doom, President Bill Clinton was finally impeached Saturday. The House approved only the two strongest of the four articles of impeachment; it struck down the second, perjury in the Paula Jones case, and the fourth, abuse of power. Clinton is now the first popularly elected president in the nation's history -- Andrew Johnson was appointed to succeed Lincoln -- to be impeached by the House. The articles were billed as "ultimate censure" but nevertheless were each marked with the same words: "removal from office." And no one is guaranteeing a Senate exoneration now.."
The New York Post 12/20/98 ".Suddenly it seems perfectly possible that President Clinton could become the first president to get kicked out of office by the U.S. Senate.."The president should not take the Senate for granted," warned Sen.-elect Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), adding Clinton made a megamistake by taking the House for granted. "I think predictions are unwise. Given what happened over the last month or two, anyone who says the president will definitely stay either has a crystal ball or is being a little bit rash." Adds Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), one of the most respected Democrats: "I don't think any of us can say now" what will happen in the Senate. Particularly after House Speaker-elect Bob Livingston's stunning decision to "set an example" and resign over private hanky-panky that didn't involve lying under oath - and call on Clinton to follow suit. The White House's awareness of the danger posed by Livingston's example was clear in its desperate plea for Livingston to reconsider and hang on - as Clinton is trying to do. Already, Senate staffers warn that - contrary to some reports - Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle has spread the word that he won't copy House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt and try to force Democrats into line behind Clinton..."
The New York Post 12/20/98 ".So Clinton now faces three awful alternatives: *Resign in disgrace like Richard Nixon (aides and wife Hillary insist he'll never do it). *Go to trial, put all his dirty laundry on display, get humiliated - and risk being kicked out of office by a Senate conviction. *Find some way toward a bipartisan censure resolution in the Senate - but it will have to be very, very toughly worded and flatly state that he lied under oath. "You know things are really bad when we're talking about a censure resolution that costs him a lot of money and leaves him vulnerable to prosecution as the best outcome," says a Democratic strategist. ."
Washington Post 12/20/98 Mary McGrory ".On Wednesday, the day before the originally scheduled impeachment debate, Democrats dragged around the Capitol "waiting," as Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D- Calif.) put it, "for grown-ups to walk into this chamber and stop this madness." Two adults showed up in the ensuing 48 hours, but neither of them did Bill Clinton any good. ."
Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 12/20/98 on FoxNews Tony Snow ".Tony Snow just asked Greg Craig, White House lawyer if they had fired Terry Lenzer and other private investigaters yet. Snow asked twice. Craig's answer was there are no investigaters on the impeachment defense team..."
Washington Post 12/20/98 David Broder "Leadership by example..That simple phrase evokes the most basic of values -- responsibility, trust, honor and courage. It came into view in dramatic fashion yesterday morning when Bob Livingston, the Louisiana Republican, said he would step aside as the speaker- designate of the House of Representatives. "I cannot do that job or be the kind of leader that I would like to be under current circumstances," he said, referring to the charges of marital infidelity that he had acknowledged two days earlier. "So I must set the example that I hope President Clinton will follow." His words brought a note of sobriety and solemnity to what had been an increasingly harsh and partisan debate... But Livingston's challenge hung in the air. The White House and House Democratic leaders responded by urging him to reconsider and not give in to what Minority Leader Dick Gephardt called "tactics of fear and smear." Those tactics are indeed obnoxious, whether they emanate from the publisher of Hustler or from a political "war room." But the charges facing the president stemmed from a sexual harassment suit that a unanimous Supreme Court -- unwisely, in my view, but nonetheless unanimously -- allowed to proceed during his tenure in office. They stemmed from the investigation of an independent counsel, whose work was authorized by the attorney general, an appointee of the president. Some of the tactics used by that independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, offended my civil libertarian instincts, but they were permitted by the authorities who appointed him..."
Knight Ridder Newspapers (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) 12/20/98 Dick Polman ".If character is destiny, Bill Clinton is Exhibit A. On the day that the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, he phoned his ex- pollster, Dick Morris. As Morris later told the grand jury, Clinton said, "You know, I didn't do what they said I did, but I did do something, and maybe I did so much that I can't prove my innocence." "I did do something." . . . Right there, it was clear that Clinton had to make a choice: come clean with the public, or repeat the denial that he had voiced under oath in the Paula Jones deposition a few days earlier. But Clinton didn't want to make that choice on his own; he wanted Morris to conduct a poll first...At so many critical junctures, Clinton, whether by instinct or calculation, chose deception and recklessness over candor and restraint - in his deposition and grand jury testimony; in his semantic legalese; in his frontal attacks on independent counsel Kenneth Starr; in his early refusal to settle the Jones case; and in his willingness to conduct secret trysts with Lewinsky while a sexual harassment suit was hanging over his head, and while Starr and other hostile players were watching his every move. As a result, his presidency is in peril..Brian Lunde, a Democratic strategist who worked for Clinton in Arkansas, during the gubernatorial years, said: "It's all coming home to roost now, his whole way of life and his way of dealing deceptively with people. Before, he got away with his character flaws because he didn't have any legal eagles (prosecutors) watching him. He has finally met his match, and all his old formulas - denying, hoping things will go away - don't apply anymore." .."
12/20/98 George Wil ".The times may seem out of joint, but suddenly at least some names fit. Republicans are acting like republicans, Democrats like democrats. Republicans have chosen a steep path strewn with hazards. However, by their choice they have pledged allegiance to the republican principle. They are trying to spike "the silent artillery of time." For democrats, "responsive" is the highest encomium for government. They favor maximum feasible directness in the translation of public opinion into government policy. They want opinion to be only minimally mediated. They believe that in polities larger than city-states, representatives are necessary, but a representative's duty is deference -- faithful, immediate, emphatic replication of opinion into action... Republicans flying in the face of today's political ethic -- its categorical imperative: to thy polls be true -- should take comfort from the fact that their resistance to Clinton's lawlessness has a pedigree that runs back to the Founders' thoughts about the perils that make republics perishable. Clinton's calculated, sustained lying has involved an extraordinarily corrupting assault on language, which is the uniquely human capacity that makes persuasion, and hence popular government, possible. Hence the obtuseness of those who say Clinton's behavior is compatible with constitutional principles, presidential duties and republican ethics..."
ABC Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 12/20/98 ".Sam Donaldson mad the statement: The politics of self destruction comes from Clinton. Every one, friends, supporters, enemies seem to get hurt in his wake. Sam also pointed out that all the sex stuff is comming from Clinton supporters."
Chicago Tribune 12/20/98 Freeper JeanS ". He will not do it, but we once again call on Clinton to resign. Not just to "save" the nation from the "trauma" of a Senate impeachment trial--the nation no doubt will find a way to handle that. No, Clinton ought to resign as a matter of personal honor, as the last step in the process of personal redemption that he has talked about so much in public. Let Gore assume the presidency and pursue the policies they were elected to pursue. Let Bill Clinton take his leave--and let the trauma he has inflicted on the American body politic begin to heal."
FoxNews 12/19/98 Freeper ynotjjr ". Following the Church service this morning the President was stunned when a well dressed fellow church goer, confronted the President and said " DAMN YOU for what you have put our country through ! " " You should RESIGN for what you have done !" .."
Hong Kong Standard 12/21/98 ".In Asia there is less equanimity about Mr Clinton's self- inflicted wounds and the likelihood of a lame-duck in the White House for the rest of his presidency. The Asian states, mired in the regional financial crisis, look to the US for solutions. But Washington has not been as focused on this issue as the situation warrants, hence the lack of solutions and initiatives. It could worsen if individuals from the far-flung Muslim world decide to target US installations around the world to avenge what they see as a barbaric bombardment of Iraq. .."
Reuters FoxNews 12/20/98 ".President Clinton emerged from church services Sunday to applause from supporters while one heckler urged him to resign. "Damn you for what you've done to the nation,'' a man shouted as Clinton left Foundry United Methodist Church in downtown Washington. "Please resign for the good of the world.''.."
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE 12/21/98 ".Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr had, but declined, a chance to trap Bill Clinton in such a stark lie that it could have destroyed the president overnight, Time magazine reports this week. In its annual "Man of the Year" issue -- this year presenting the honor to men of the year Starr and Clinton -- the prosecutor told the magazine he passed up the chance because it seemed like the "right thing to do." Before Clinton testified to the grand jury, Starr had received the results of DNA tests on the infamous stains from Monica Lewinsky's blue dress but was not legally obligated to inform the president he had them. The prosecutors had a choice: "keep secret the results of the DNA analysis until after the president's testimony, or ... tip off the president before he swore his oath," Time said..."
Dick Morris 12/20/98 ".There is no functional difference between initiating bombing and continuing bombing during Ramadan. So why did he bomb before the impeachment vote? Clinton knew that it wouldn't sway any votes, and he knew that delaying the impeachment vote by a few days would have no consequence. But two political reasons now come into focus for his decision to bomb when he did. Clinton knew that after the impeachment vote, demands for his resignation would mount. He likely has been thrown into a panic by polls which showed the sentiment for resignation would rise after impeachment. . By demonstrating his retention of presidential authority and willingness to use it dramatically, he could defuse the case for resignation. In addition, the prolific use of the "don't impeach while the bombs are falling" argument by House Democrats in the impeachment debate raises suspicions that he may have initiated the bombing to give the Democrats a talking point during the debate. That way, they would spend less time talking about sex or perjury and more time talking about patriotism. In general, Bill Clinton has tried to project the image of being very busy..How can you even think about asking him to resign? Don't you see how busy he is? Don't you see how fully engaged he is as president despite the specter of impeachment? Are you a fool? A few weeks ago, Clinton likely decided that impeachment was inevitable, but so was Senate acquittal..."
Reuters 12/20/98 Randall Mikkelsen ".Public support for President Clinton held strong Sunday as the White House began preparing for his likely Senate impeachment trial and vowed to push ``full speed ahead'' with his legislative program. Polls taken after Saturday's vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Clinton showed that the president's job approval rating remained high, and that his determination not to resign was backed by a substantial majority. An NBC poll taken Saturday showed Clinton's approval rating rose after the vote to 72 percent from 68 percent, and 62 percent said he should serve out his term, up 11 percentage points from a poll taken last Tuesday.."
AP Ted Anthony 12/20/98 ".A rainy, gray dawn broke over this western Pennsylvania hillside industrial town Sunday with a weary realization: America had impeached a president, lost a House speaker- to-be and finished bombing Iraq - all in one breathless weekend. Across breakfast tables, on street corners and outside the churches of this self-described ``worshipping community,'' the state of the nation was the topic of the day. Opinions abounded: Impeachment was right. It was wrong. President Clinton is scum. The Republicans are out of control. And most emphatic: It is time, finally time, to move on. But for all the talk of a cynical, jaded public, the verdict - in Butler and across the land amounted to: Yes, it is a bleak day, but the nation, and its ideals, will probably be OK.."
New York Times 12/21/98 Jill Abramson, Lizette Alvarez, Richard Berke, John Broder, Don Van Natta, jr. ".It appeared to be the ultimate comeback in a career marked by seemingly miraculous political resurrections. The night of Tuesday, Nov. 3, was a time of celebration at the White House. Bill Clinton had again defied the odds, embarrassed the experts and vanquished his political enemies. As election results poured in from across the country, it became clear that Clinton, though not on the ballot, had won a smashing victory over the Republicans who had bet their chips on his impeachment. The president gathered with friends and aides in his chief of staff's office to revel in the returns, one of those there recalled, chewing on cigars, drinking wine and delighting in the victory until 2:30 in the morning. The public had spoken. Surely the Republicans must finally heed its voice... Clinton and his allies badly misread the resolve of Hyde and other Republican leaders to sail into the wind of hostile public opinion. To this day, the president's friends say, Clinton, the most poll-driven politician ever to rise to the presidency, is mystified that Republicans in Congress would defy the poll-tested will of the people. But Clinton, through a strategy of denial and attack, had long ago given Republicans the weapons they turned against him in their campaign for impeachment. In the final days before Saturday's vote, many wavering Republicans argued that they could not trust a president who had stood in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in January and angrily denied having sexual relations with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky." That public lie was not among the impeachment charges, but it stiffened the resolve of the president's opponents. "That is something a president should never never do," one senior adviser who also counts himself a friend of Clinton, said of the president's defiance that day. "That's most troubling to me. I am still working through forgiving him for it." ."
New York Times 12/21/98 Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter ". Somehow we must reach a conclusion that most Americans can embrace and that posterity will approve. Make no mistake, the judgment of history does matter. It matters profoundly. And impeachment by the full House has already brought profound disgrace to President Clinton. Whatever happens in the near future will do little to affect history's judgment of him. But he is not alone in standing before the bar of judgment. Our political system, too, is on trial. Can we find within ourselves the will, the vision, the generosity and, yes, the courage to resolve the present crisis in a way that makes Americans proud of their leaders, their institutions and themselves? It is with this in mind that we personally favor a bipartisan resolution of censure by the Senate. Under such a plan, President Clinton would have to accept rebuke while acknowledging his wrongdoing and the very real harm he has caused..Some may object that a censure can be repealed by a future Congress, and is thus rendered meaningless. They underestimate the power of the modern news media to foster indelible images in the public memory..."
USA Today 12/21/98 Alan Dershowitz "."If the president does testify, he will have to be far more forthcoming than he has been in his prior testimony. If he tries to fudge, be imprecise, mislead or refuse to become specific, he risks alienating the very Democratic senators whose votes he needs to stave off removal. If he refuses to testify, he also risks alienating some senators. That is why every effort will be made to short-circuit the trial - by a plea bargain or a favorable constitutional ruling - before the president would have to make this crucial decision."."
New York Post 12/21/98 Dick Morris ".PRESIDENT Clinton's partisan base in the Senate is a good deal more porous than the solid phalanx of Democratic support in the House of Representatives would indicate. But the Republicans are not nearly as united as their House counterparts either. Will a handful of wavering Republicans push for a deal, and will the potential for wavering Democrats oblige Clinton to accept it? The likelihood is that there will be no deal. Clinton would probably grasp at one, whatever its terms, as long as he could stay in office, but the GOP moderates probably won't have enough support to make one stick. The momentum for not undoing what the House has done will prove very, very strong. What about Clinton's chances at a trial?.. Clinton cannot count on the Senate Democrats like he could on those in the House. Sen. Robert Byrd (D- W.Va.) is pretty much gone. He never liked Clinton and he is very likely to jump ship and vote against him. Then there are four Senate Democrats who, for various reasons, might join him. *New York's Pat Moynihan leads the list. Cranky and obstreperous, he's retiring from the Senate and could vote his formidable conscience. *Nebraska's Bob Kerrey has the contempt for Clinton that a man who lost a leg in Vietnam could be expected to have for a draft dodger.. *Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman is probably the single most honorable, moral and righteous member of the U.S. Senate.*Virginia's Chuck Robb faces a tough re-election fight in a basically Republican state. Likely he'll face popular ex-Gov. George Allen. A "profile in courage" vote to remove Clinton could be just the ticket to re-election..On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is determined to bring the issue to trial. He knows that to go for a deal would tar him forever with the GOP right, which might imperil his leadership. This is the hottest potato he has ever had the handle. If the Senate votes for conviction or for acquittal, he can handle it. If the Senate votes for a deal - overriding his leadership - he can live with that, too. But he won't back a deal, much less initiate one. The bottom line: There probably will be no deal. There likely will be a trial. From there, it's anybody's guess.."
Reuters 12/21/98 ".A Democratic senator widely respected by both parties for extensive knowledge on Senate history and procedures, said Monday there must be no "deal'' involving the White House in any impeachment proceedings. "To a very large degree, we are now navigating in previously unchartered waters, but one thing is clear: For the good of our nation, there must be no 'deal' involving the White House or any entity beyond the current membership of the U.S. Senate,'' Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia said in a statement. "Whether there is a trial or whether there is some other solution, that decision must be made by senators, and it must be bipartisan or it will have absolutely no credibility with the public,'' Byrd said...Byrd advised senators to "go home, take the telephone off the hook, stop speculating, and focus instead on the true spirit and meaning of this Holy Season of Christmas.''
On Cspan airing of USSS Byrne deposition by A Whitewater Researcher 12/12/98 ".BYRNE IS NOW SAYING THAT USSS (ERT)/WH HOUSE PERSONNEL WALKED IN ON CLINTON AND AN ALLEGED OTHER PERSON, IN A COMPROMSING POSITION, IN WH MOVIE THEATER INCIDENT, AND THE OTHER PERSON IS ELEANOR MONDALE!!! ."
On Cspan airing of USSS Byrne deposition by Freeper The Glass is Half Full ".During Secret Service Officer Byrne's videotaped testimony released today, he implicated a west wing receptionist (name redacted) as another of [Clinton's sexual partners].."
Capitol Hill Blue 12/21/98 Doug Thompson ".Bill Clinton, trying to put the best face possible on the undeniable fact that he is the first elected President* in history to be impeached, said this weekend that "it's time to put an end to the politics of personal destruction." Fair enough. But if Bill Clinton wants to put a real end to the "politics of personal destruction," then he should pack up and hightail it out of Washington. Because it is Bill Clinton and his henchmen who ran a White House-based political machine dedicated to the dismemberment of anyone bold enough to call the lowlife son-of-a-bitch a liar, sexual predator and felon-to-be (which, of course, he is). It was Bill Clinton who unleashed mad dogs like Sidney Blumenthal and James Carville on Ken Starr, Kathleen Willey and a host of other enemies -- both real and perceived..."
FoxNews Larry Margasak 12/21/98 AP ".Senate officials dusted off 130-year old impeachment procedures Monday, studying how to conduct a trial for President Clinton, even as Al Gore urged former Senate colleagues to find "a fair bipartisan compromise'' to end up with censure.. The White House received warnings from Democrats about trying legal maneuvers that would challenge the legitimacy of the House's impeachment vote. "I think anything that is seen as parliamentary maneuvering to get out of this is not going to be accepted by the American public,'' Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana said in a CNN interview. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said such a challenge would be a "terrible mistake.'' And Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the senior Democratic senator, said, "For the good of our nation, there must be no deal involving the White House or any entity beyond the ... U.S. Senate.''."
Associated Press 12/21/98 Richard Carelli by Freeper Earl B. ".Some political experts believe a White House attack on a lame-duck Congress' impeachment authority would be a strategic blunder. ``It would be politically unwise for the White House to proceed in that fashion,'' said Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution. ``With no drumbeat of resignation materializing, the White House would be better advised to show an appreciation for the constitutional process rather than defiance for it.''."
Lansing (Mich.) State Journal 12/21/98 V incnet Delgado ".Rep. Nick Smith, R-Addison, called for Bill Clinton to resign Sunday, predicting the president will fall when new information is released in 30 to 45 days. "I was shocked by it," Smith said of the evidence--not yet made public--he said Republicans reviewed before Saturday's historic vote. Smith claims the evidence includes unsubstantiated testimony detailing a pattern of behavior by Clinton that would likely bring indictments. The congressman stopped at a Habitat for Humanity open house in Charlotte Sunday between phone calls with House Republican leadership in search of a new speaker. "It's pretty damn sad," said Smith, who voted for all four articles of impeachment against the president. "It churns my stomach." ."
The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ 12/21/98 Joyce Howard Price by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...The No. 2 man in the Senate yesterday predicted an impeachment trial for President Clinton, throwing cold water on White House hopes to shor t-circuit the process with a censure deal...."I think we will follow the Constitution. The Constitution says if you receive these articles [of impeachment], you will have a trial," Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles said yesterday on "Fox News Sunday."...Se nators could stop a trial from proceeding with a simple majority of 51 votes, but the Oklahoma Republican said, "I don't think that's going to happen."...Republicans generally leaned toward at least starting a trial...Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republ ican...said the Senate has a constitutional duty to try Mr. Clinton...Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, has previously said he doesn't believe censure is "worth a tinker's damn." Interviewed yesterday on CBS' "Face the Nation," he said, "I thin k it has to go to trial..."..."I'm absolutely convinced it can be a fair trial," Mr. Nickles said..."."
Wall Street Journal 12/21/98 ".'We must stop the politics of personal destruction. We must get rid of the poisonous venom of excessive partisanship, obsessive animosity and uncontrolled anger.'-- Bill Clinton, Post-Impeachment . So, with one more jab at the motives of those who solemnly impeached him, the President now wants to stop personal destruction. Let us pause to return to the beginning. With one phone call, Bill or Hillary Clinton could have called off James Carville. With a mere headshake, the President could have stopped his attorney, Robert Bennett, from tarring Paula Corbin Jones. He did not. Instead, Mr. Carville was unleashed to ridicule--"Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll find." In May 1994, Mrs. Jones sued the President for sexual harassment, and on December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives impeached William Jefferson Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Now, Mr. Clinton says, he seeks a compromise from the Senate that is "proportionate.".."
Wall Street Journal 12/21/98 Robert H. Schuller ".After the independent counsel made his report, I prayed that the president would ask himself three questions: What course of action would be best, first for the country, second for his family and finally for himself? Which decision would begin to close the breach instead of widening it further? Which response would hold the hope of restoring some honor and dignity to all who have been embarrassed by his behavior? In view of the crisis confronting us now, I ask that he reconsider those three questions again and pray for guidance.."
CBS NEWS SITE Freeper report 12/21/98 ".CBS- President Clinton Monday rejected a proposal for censure put forward hours earlier by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.."
London Telegraph 12/21/98 Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ".AS always, the pendulum will swing back in President Clinton's favour. But will it swing far enough to save him this time? The national apathy that has shielded him from outrage for so long is now his foe. Americans are too busy with themselves to rally, decisively, to his defence.."
Landmark Legal Foundation/Washington Times 12/21/98 Mark R. Levin ".Moments after his impeachment, Bill Clinton, surrounded by scores of the president's most rabid congressional supporters, told the American people that "We must stop the politics of personal destruction. We must get rid of the poisonous venom of excessive partisanship, excessive animosity and uncontrolled anger. That is not what America deserves. That is not what America is about." The most uncivil and indecent man to occupy the office of the presidency now lectures us about the dangers of the politics he has perfected and unleashed on this great nation during his six years in office.."
Freeper pfesser on NewsMax 12/21/98 ".Up till now, the official story was that White House seductress Monica Lewinsky had caught Bill Clinton's roving eye by boldly flashing her thong underwear to the unsuspecting Prez. A kiss here, a perjury there and the rest is impeachment history. But this week STAR Magazine adds a new wrinkle to the story of how the two Starr-crossed lovers broke the ice. Turns out, it was Monica's boyfriend who first made his intentions clear. In interviews for her upcoming tell-all book, Lewinsky reveals to Princess Di biographer Andrew Morton that she flashed her unmentionables only after the First Philanderer - "signaled his sexual interest in her by lecherously admiring a suit she wore. 'I'd like to see what's under it', she says the president told her." Monica dutifully obeyed her Commander in Chief by "hiking up her skirt to give him a peek. She says his response was: 'Nice.'" ."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:2:./temp/~c105wdBmCr:: Bill [H.RES.614.ATH] IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES December 19, 1998 Mr. HYDE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to RESOLUTION Appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States Resolved, That Mr. Hyde, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Canady, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Rogan, and Mr. Graham are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, that a message be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of these appointments, and that the managers so appointed may, in connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may include the following.
Boston Herald 12/21/98Don Feder ".So, when Clinton decries ``the politics of personal destruction,'' savor the hypocrisy. It's hard to imagine a man more unfit - legally or morally - to hold the office of president. The House majority rendered a true verdict according to their oath to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Only if the Senate follows suit will justice be done. ."
Rush Limbaugh Show 12/21/98 Bennett Interview Freeper newsman ".News accounts today that former President Gerald Ford and former Senator Bob Dole have joined hands with their liberal democrat friends, in an attempt to nullify the House's impeachment Saturday of Bill Clinton, angered conservatives and constitutionalists across the nation. To the glee of the demoralized democrats, who were soundly defeated in Saturday's House vote, Ford and Dole suggested that the Senate, instead of trying the indicted, felonious president, should let him off easy, with only a censure. But, appearing on the Rush Limbaugh Show today, author Bill Bennett seemed unperturbed by the news. In fact, the author of the best- selling book, "Death of Outrage," seemed somewhat amused. .."There are three possibilites," Bennett said. "(1) Conviction and removal; (2) No conviction, and nothing else happens; (3) Not convicted, but he is censured. If he gets one of those last two, he will celebrate and probably play the [bongo] drums or whatever..I don't want to understate the importance of the Senate trial. But the verdict of history [already] has been rendered."."
Boston Herald 12/21/98 Joe Fitzgerald ".Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Henry Shelton added ``we have watched (Hussein) relentlessly and shamelessly lie, thumb his nose at efforts to ensure he honored his commitments, (and) deny inspectors access to information they needed to do their jobs.'' Change the name and context of those charges - lying; thwarting investigations - and they sound familiar, don't they? ."
The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ 12/22/98 Nancy Roman by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "..."There will be a trial," asserted John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican....Senate rules giv e Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist--who will preside over the trial--the authority to resolve "evidentiary" and "incidental" questions....a simple majority of senators can overrule him at any time...the three impeachment trials of judges that ha ve occurred within the past 12 years. Federal district judges Harry Claiborne, Walter Nixon and Alcee Hastings were impeached and convicted on charges that involved perjury or false statements...the trial of Judge Nixon, who was impeached for lying to a g rand jury...Mr. Nixon contested his removal from office...The Supreme Court decided otherwise. The decision, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that Congress alone has the power to decide such matters as the nature of an offense, the rules of eviden ce, and how an impeachment proceeding is conducted...." ."
AP 12/22/98 Vladimir Isachenkov ".For Russian Communist Viktor Ilyukhin, the House impeachment of President Clinton is a triumph of law and Kenneth Starr is a man to envy. Ilyukhin, a former senior prosecutor turned prominent lawmaker, has been trying for years to prosecute President Boris Yeltsin. He finally succeeded last summer in setting up a parliamentary panel to review charges against Yeltsin ranging from treason to genocide against the Russian people. The latter, he says, was masterminded by Jews -- an assertion that caused an uproar last week. ``You can't trust a man who can lie, especially if he's a U.S. president, so I welcome the (House) move'' to impeach, Ilyukhin, a somber-looking 49-year-old, said Monday.."
Wall Street Journal 12/22/98 James Taranto ".Even in his darkest hour, Bill Clinton's amazing political skills were on display. Who but our impeached president could have brought together feminists and Larry Flynt, especially on an issue involving sex? Last Thursday Mr. Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine, joined Mr. Clinton's cause by "outing" would-be Speaker Bob Livingston's sexual transgressions and threatening other Republicans with the same treatment. Two days earlier, a gaggle of prominent feminists, including Betty Friedan and Eleanor Smeal, had descended on the Capitol, where they declared their fidelity to the hustler in the White House. Strange bedfellows indeed. But this convergence is not as surprising as it seems, for contemporary feminists have a lot in common with pornographers. Both are staunch opponents of Victorian hypocrisy and traditional notions of morality and decency. Both have for years used the legal system to wage war against sexual privacy. If we find ourselves in an era of "sexual McCarthyism," feminists and pornographers deserve far more of the blame than Ken Starr does.."
Wall Street Journal 12/22/98 ".As expected, a deluge of post-impeachment polls are making the argument that Americans don't want the president removed. But only one national survey, conducted by Rasmussen Research, gives clues as to why. Rasmussen found that 61% of Americans believe President Clinton deserves to lose his job. Yet, only 37% want the Senate to convict and remove him. The discrepancy is explained when the 24% who don't like either Clinton or conviction are asked why. About 10% of the population has equal contempt for Congress, and another 10% think removal from office would be bad for the country. A final 4% flatly oppose elevating Al Gore to the presidency. Interestingly, 39% of those surveyed believe the president has committed impeachable offenses that are more serious than those of the Lewinsky scandal. Those are matters that could yet surface in a Senate trial."
Toronto Sun 12/22/98 Peter Worthington ".What got me was the motion for censure that House Democrats wanted instead of impeachment motions - a devastating indictment which would reduce any normal person to shame, calling Clinton morally reprehensible who'd degraded and defiled the office of president. If that was what Democrats thought, you'd think an honourable Democratic president would resign on the spot. Then after the impeachment (I guess the two rejected charges were a triumph for bipartisanship, while the two that passed were a partisan vendetta), all those Democrats who wanted Clinton censured trooped over to the White House and suggested he was the greatest American president in history. More than anything, that shows what a meaningless charade censure would have been - will be, if the Senate goes along with it."
Keye's Cspan 12/22/98 Freeper stingray ".Dr. Alan Keyes' speech to a group at Paterson College in New Jersey was airing Sunday night on C-Span, and in response to a question, Dr. Keyes was asked about the probability of partisan politics playing a role in an impeachment trial in the Senate, the way it did with the impeachment vote in the House.(or words to that effect.) Dr. Keyes responded with an interesting point. He prefaced his remarks by saying he wasn't sure the following was true, only that he believed it to be true..Dr. Keyes then proceeded to explain that the Senate casts hundreds of votes every year during its session, and that most -- more or less -- fall along partly lines, with all of the attendant partisanship one might expect to find, as in the case of the House impeachment vote. However, in the case of a vote to convict one impeached by the House, he offered the following as a constitutional protection from this kind of partisan demagoguery: [U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. .Dr. Keyes' point was that out of all the votes cast in the Senate, only a vote cast to convict or acquit in cases of impeachment is done so "on Oath or Affirmation." He explained this to mean that Senators who approach an impeachment trial with anything less than integrity and an open mind to try the facts and weigh the evidence, can be sanctioned by the majority for violating their "oath or affirmation" to do their constitutional duty.."
Augusta (GA) Chronicle 12/22/98 ".House Democrats, arguing that the president's lies did ``not rise to the level of im-peachment,'' nonetheless deplored his personal conduct as reprehensible, disgraceful, repugnant, etc. Then they indignantly marched en masse to the White House to lead a pro- Clinton pep rally, proving their defense wasn't just based on constitutional technicalities. If that were the case they would have left after the vote. By rallying behind a man whose personal character they spent a day and a half assailing, Democrats demonstrated where their moral compass really is. The denunciation of his conduct was about as sincere as Clinton's 1992 promise to lead ``the most ethical administration in history.'' ."
Capitol Hill Blue 12/22/98 ".A constant argument offered by apologists for William Jefferson Clinton is that he should not be tossed out of office because such an act would be contrary to public opinion. Most Americans, they claim, don't want Clinton impeached or don't think he should resign. In their rush to forgive Clinton for any and all of his many transgressions, they overlook one significant historical fact: If public opinion were the only guiding factor, most of the significant change in America's history would never have occurred. To wit: President Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation freeing the slaves even though mass opinion at the time overwhelmingly supported slavery. Congress passed the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote over the objections of an American population who didn't think it was such a good idea (and, since it was women who gave Clinton the numbers he needed to win election in both 1992 and 1996, the public may have been right). The patriots who signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, were considered a minority, flaunting popular public opinion that wanted to keep the 13 colonies a part of England. Polls in 1964 showed most Americans opposed the Civil Rights Act that passed Congress and became the law of the land. ."
Reuters 12/22/98 ".President Clinton says he is reconciled to his impeachment, is confident that history will vindicate him and has purged himself of the anger he felt toward his attackers, The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.The Times reported Clinton in a jovial mood at the party for friends, and even laughing at the idea that Hustler sex magazine publisher Larry Flynt had become the latest influence on the Washington political debate. Flynt has vowed to expose the private lives of several politicians..The Times said that when asked how he felt to have been impeached, Clinton replied: "Not bad.'' And then added that he believed that within 10 or 20 years would be on the right side of history and that historians would not give undue weight to the impeachment when they analyze his presidency.."
Washington Post 12/22/98Joan Biskupic ".At the Supreme Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist controls things down to the nanosecond. He cuts off lawyers mid-syllable when their time before the bench expires. He corrects mispronunciations. He doesn't abide flourish or fawning. In short, once Rehnquist puts on the black robe, he is impatient, intimidating and domineering. Now that President Clinton has been impeached, this creature of the controlled venue could soon be presiding over a very unbounded Senate trial, a monumental event that would be part political, part judicial, with many of the rules written as the process goes along. Rehnquist, 74, a big, stooped, bespectacled man who walks the court grounds each morning without much notice from tourists, will likely rule with his signature brusqueness if a trial is held. But as someone who has written about the Senate's "sole" power to try impeachments, Rehnquist also would not try to defy the will of its members. Legal experts say he probably would not allow himself to rule on the merits of any charges against Clinton, cast a deciding vote or, at the outset, accept a defense motion to throw out the House's impeachment charges without any Senate consideration. But Rehnquist would not shy away from setting a clear tone. And the chief justice knows better than most about the seriousness of the moment.."
AP 12/22/98 Larry Margasak ".As President Clinton faces a Senate trial that could remove him from office, four House Republicans who voted to impeach him are urging the Senate to consider censure rather than removal from office. And the Senate's senior Democrat, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who is an expert on Senate procedures, spoke of compromise Monday while hinting that a censure could replace a trial. But he said only senators must decide. ''Whether there is a trial or whether there is some other solution, that decision must be made by senators, and it must be bipartisan or it will have absolutely no credibility with the public,'' Byrd said in a statement. ''There must be no deal involving the White House or any entity beyond the ... U.S. Senate.'' Hours after Vice President Al Gore on Monday called for a ''fair, bipartisan compromise,'' the four Republicans wrote Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., urging a censure that ''would impose a fine and block any pardon.'' ..The letter to Lott was signed by Reps. Sherwood Boehlert and Benjamin Gilman of New York, Mike Castle of Delaware and Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania. Castle has been publicly advocating a censure, but House Republican leaders did not allow that alternative Saturday when Clinton was impeached on two articles of perjury and obstruction of justice in concealing his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky..."
LA Times 12/22/98 Elizabeth Shogren ".Clinton regaled his listeners with a description of a letter that Flynt wrote to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr--whose investigation of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky led to his impeachment-- congratulating Starr for aiding the cause of pornography.."
NewsMax 12/22/98 Carl Limbacher ".Florida Rep. Tillie Fowler has seen top secret documents describing an alleged rape by Bill Clinton and says the accusation could play a role in the upcoming Senate trial of the impeached President. The material was made available to all members of the House and was said to be conclusive enough to persuade several wavering Republicans to vote for impeachment last Saturday. In an impeachment eve appearance on CNBC, Fowler was asked about the documents, now sequestered in D.C's Gerald Ford Building, by Hardball host Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: You know the secrets in the Ford building, don't you? FOWLER: I certainly do. MATTHEWS: And can you give us any definition as to what additional information involving Jane Doe # 5 and other material like this that is leading people in your caucus to vote for impeachment in addition to the publicized material? FOWLER: Well, to me what we already know is sufficient to move forward with impeachment and that is what I base my decision on. There is information there that I think goes more to the character of this man and to what he will do that has been deemed too salacious to release. MATTHEWS: You mean the rape accusation. FOWLER: Those and others... MATTHEWS: Rape, that's what we're talking about, isn't it? FOWLER: I won't speak to that. But there are things in there that are not good. I have made my decision, as I think most of us have, on the evidence as to whether it goes to perjury... MATTHEWS: Help me out here. Why are members of the Republican caucus willing to read material that accuses the President of things like rape and make decisions based on that information but are not willing to disclose it after they learned it? FOWLER: Well, I think there are some rules right now about that. It's not supposed to be disclosed because this is part of what's going to be used, I believe, in the trial. U.S. News & World Report's Major Garrett, another Hardball guest, reported that 15 to 20 House Republicans accessed documentation on the rape allegation. After Fowler's bombshell revelation, Garrett confirmed that the material, "can be grist for the Senate trial and may in fact be grist for the Senate trial." .."
Washington Times Bill Sammon 12/22/98 ".President Clinton, who on Saturday called for an end to "the politics of personal destruction," will not ask friend James Carville or pornographer Larry Flynt to end their efforts to punish Republicans for impeaching the president. White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart yesterday said Mr. Clinton would not ask Mr. Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, to stop investigating the sex lives of Republicans because the White House doesn't "have any control over what a newsmagazine publisher does." As for Mr. Carville, who on Sunday vowed to make pro-impeachment Republicans "pay for what they did," Mr. Lockhart said, "James has strong opinions" and explained, "We're going to leave it to him to decide what he wants to do about that." On Sunday, former Clinton adviser David Gergen said the White House should ask Mr. Flynt to "cease and desist" and call off other "overly aggressive allies." He added: "The White House can't have it both ways. They can't conduct a high-toned, presidential set of statements and at the same time have this lower-level gutting of the opposition.".."
Richmond Times-Dispatch 12/19/98 Mark Earley ".But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this entire episode is the subtle campaign being waged to convince us that public character and private character are really two different things that function independently of one another..Few of us would accept this reasoning in our own lives. Would we support a person with impressive credentials to be the principal at our children's school if he had a history of abusing his own children? Would we trust the life of our husband or wife in the hands of a skilled, but alcoholic, surgeon? Would we place our elderly parents in a nursing home administered by a renowned director who has admitted to lying under oath in a court of law? If we truly believe that personal character does not affect how an individual does his or her job, the answer to all of these questions should be yes. And yet none of us would trust that which we hold most dear with someone who does not have personal integrity and principle. Why should we hold the fate of our communities and nation in less esteem? ."
New York Daily News 12/22/98 Jim Pinkerton ".NOW HERE'S a Clintonian slip for you. Yesterday, during his briefing for reporters, White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was asked about the anti-impeachment efforts of Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt. It was Oct. 4 that Flynt effectively joined the Clinton camp, taking a full-page ad in The Washington Post and offering a $1 million reward for information about members of Congress, preferably Republicans, who threatened the president and who had caused pain in their own marriages. In his best "Mission: Impossible" monotone, Lockhart disavowed any knowledge of Flynt's actions: "I don't think that we have any control over what a news magazine publisher does." A news magazine? The outraged voices of reporters chorused to challenge Lockhart's use of "news" in front of "magazine." While many Beltway reporters feel, er, stained for having covered theMonica Lewinsky story, they still maintain that they're working for publications a few notches higher than the smutty Hustler. Lockhart graciously downgraded Flynt to mere "magazine publisher" and the Q-and-A session moved on.."
White House Bulletin 12/22/98Daily Newsletter for Lobbyists ".The headline of an item in today's White House Bulletin is: "More Information About Clinton May be Made Available to Senate." Here's the text: Washington is still abuzz with sketchy reports that the House is holding damaging information about Clinton in secret executive session. According to a GOP House source, the information covers a number of areas, including the Freeh/LaBella campaign finance probes and other women, including Jane Doe #5. Some of the information was made available to undecided Republican members before they cast their vote in favor of the impeachment. The information will also be made available to interested members of the Senate, reported the source this morning. The "managers inform them," said the source, referring to the fact that those House members chosen by the majority as prosecutors for the Senate trial will be the conduit for the information. The source also contended Judiciary Committee counsel David Shippers "almost quit" in frustration and that he believed the LaBella memo alone "was enough to impeach" the President. Added another GOP source this morning: "The Senate wants to take a look at what is sitting in the Ford building. If nothing else, we have to verify the rumors aren't true.."
Washington Times 12/22/98 Wesley Pruden ".The president's friends have run out of superlatives to describe how they feel about his behavior: "disgusting," "contemptible," "reprehensible," "outrageous" and "dishonest" are some of the mildest. He has "betrayed" his wife, his daughter, his friends, the American public and anyone else who was ever foolish enough to believe in him, but he has certainly not betrayed his country, so his lies and immorality do not rise to "impeachable offense." If he were a mayor, an alderman or maybe the commissioner of municipal sewers he might not be qualified for further service, but he's certainly fit to be president of the United States. The Democrats vie with each other to say the sharpest things about the president's private conduct, describing a man they wouldn't trust to drive their wives and daughters to church, and then hurry off to the Capitol steps to join in a pep rally for the man they almost universally privately agree is a liar, a cheat, a lecher and a bum. For his part, the president calls off the bombers over Iraq, and his lieutenants at the Pentagon concede, obliquely, that very little damage was done, probably because very little damage was intended. The lives of American fliers were put in harm's way, and for squalid reason. We're all assured that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, so we assure Saddam that we have no intention of killing him, and instead kill the peasants that we say we have no quarrel with The president marches off to church, carrying his medium-size Bible and comes out to meet the photographers clutching the hand of his daughter, whom he has no shame to use as a prop. Faith and family get equal billing in this Sunday morning exercise in betrayal. Such shameless use of religious symbols would get the ACLU on a Republican's case, but the liberals defend it because they think the president doesn't really mean it. ..."
UPI 12/22/98 Jennifer Brooks ".While House Judiciary Committee members are home with their families for the holiday week, their staff is already toiling to prepare for their role as prosecutors during the upcoming Senate trial of President Clinton. In early January, Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., is expected to formally present two articles of impeachment to the Senate, charging the president with grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate would begin its trial on the afternoon of the next day although it would probably delay any further action until the Clinton team has a chance to prepare a response, which could take weeks. Judiciary Committee sources say the staff is working with the Senate parliamentarian, dusting off procedures that have only been used once before in the nation's history, during the 1868 Senate trial of President Andrew Johnson. The committee is also shifting gears from its role as a jury for the charges against the president to the role of prosecutors who will actively push the case against him. In addition to Hyde, 12 other Judiciary Republicans will act as "managers," or prosecutors: Reps. James Sensenbrenner, Wis.; Bill McCollum, Fla.; George Gekas, Pa.; Charles Canady, Fla.; Steve Buyer, Ind.; Ed Bryant, Tenn.; Steve Chabot, Ohio; Bob Barr, Ga.; Asa Hutchinson, Ark.; Christopher Cannon, Utah; James Rogan, Calif.; and Lindsey Graham, S.C.."
AP 12/22/98 Alan Fram ".When Robert Byrd speaks, fellow senators usually listen. And as they weigh whether to remove the impeached President Clinton from office, the Senate's zealous defender and acknowledged expert on procedures is sure to have an impact. Colleagues aren't just looking to the 81- year-old West Virginia Democrat for guidance on what the first presidential impeachment trial in 130 years might look like. The respect runs deeper, flowing from the passion he has shown for the Senate and the Constitution as institutions, even when that has steered him into conflicts with presidents of his own party. So when Byrd spoke Monday about ``whether there is a trial or whether there is some other solution,'' he made it easier for advocates of censure to argue their case. ``Senator Byrd will be highly influential in any major constitutional process,'' Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday. ``His comments were ambiguous but certainly opened the door for possible censure if that's the right thing to do.'' Byrd simultaneously made overt lobbying efforts by the administration and others more difficult when he warned, ``For the good of our nation, there must be no deal involving the White House or any entity beyond the current membership of the U.S. Senate.'' ``His voice means a lot, and he was basically saying, 'Don't tamper with the jury,''' said Don Nickles, R-Okla., the No. 2 Senate GOP leader, who also said he had recently sought advice from Byrd on impeachment procedures. ``He was exactly right.'' .."
Fox News 12/22/98 Freeper Committed ".Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado is clearly stating that he does not see any way there can be a censure deal. He insists it will go to trial and reads Senator Byrd as warning both the White House and ex-Presidents to leave the senate alone so they can do their job.."
Washington Times 12/22/98 Ralph Z. Hallow ".A surprising array of Republicans say the GOP-controlled Senate should push ahead with a trial of President Clinton despite post-impeachment polls showing him with record-high job-approval ratings and Republicans at record lows. From fiscal conservatives like Jack Kemp and Tom Slade to social conservatives Gary Bauer and Randy Tate, Republicans told The Washington Times yesterday that the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to try the president on the two impeachment articles approved by the House Saturday. "The Constitution mandates an impeachment trial in the Senate and that is what should happen," said Mr. Kemp, the party's 1996 vice- presidential candidate. "And I believe the president should welcome the opportunity to present his case before the Senate and the American people." Mr. Bauer, president of the Family Research Council, agrees that Senate Republicans should no more let the polls guide them than did their House counterparts. "The House has shown tremendous courage," Mr. Bauer said. "The Senate should follow with a trial that is quick and fair. It ought to end with a vote on whether what he has done warrants his removal from office. I believe it does." That position is at odds with Republican Party elders like former President Gerald Ford, who joined with former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, in calling for censure of Mr. Clinton.."
Washington Post 12/22/98 Ann Gerhart and Annie Groer ".Contrary to popular opinion, not all Hollywood Democrats are outraged at President Clinton's impeachment. At least one believes it's long overdue. Actor James Woods -- best known for his screen portrayals of lying, scheming, rotten and generally evil types -- thinks that the president deserved impeachment and, furthermore, that the Senate will end up removing Clinton from office. Says Woods, 51, who litters his opinions with colorful but unprintable language, "He's a certified liar, a card-carrying liar, and lying is the cancer at the base of the spine of every crime ever committed." ."
MSNBC 12/22/98 Dennis Shea by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...David Schippers, who ominously warned of crimes not yet charged and not yet fully uncovered?...the city's hungry investigative reporters...try to...break the back of the Clinton presidency?...is Ken Starr...gearing up for another round of indictments (of) the White House palace guard?...Bruce Lindsey...?...Nate Landow...?...the resurrection of Travelgate or Filegate with the indictment of the First Lady?...Moynihan is already on record saying that lying under oath is an impeachable offense....Kerrey once called (Clinton) "an unusually good liar."...Hollings had some very harsh things to say about (Clinton)...Lieberman('s)...good friend is...Bill Bennett....Byrd...will jealously guard the prerogatives of the Senate..."we should proceed with a trial..."...the more he (Clinton) badmouths the process and impugns the motivations of those who voted to impeach, the more he irritates Henry Hyde, the man most likely to be whispering into the ears of Trent Lott as the impeachment drama unfolds...."."
USA Today 12/22/98 Jonathon Turley ". In framing the discussion over censure, there's a misconception that a Senate trial is solely about the accountability of the president for alleged criminal conduct or misdeeds in office. Senate trials do perform such a function. But the trials also hold individual senators accountable to both their constituents and to history. By forcing a public trial and testimony, any final conviction or acquittal occurs after the public is fully informed of the evidence against a president. If the evidence shows that a president is guilty of crimes in office, individual senators may still vote to acquit in the interests of the nation. In so doing, however, individual senators are accountable for their decisions to retain a presumed felon as the chief executive. Specific admission. The viability of the Ford/Carter plan depends on the specificity of the president's admission. The Constitution does not require conviction for presidential crimes. It does require clarity as to the underlying conduct and the decision of the Senators. If an impeached president wants to avoid a trial, like indicted individuals he must be prepared to admit to the facts that would be produced by such a trial. Thus, if the president admits clearly to lying under oath before the grand jury and committing the acts of obstruction, there is no need for a trial. Otherwise, if he continues to contest the facts, the Senate has an obligation to determine the facts through the testimony of the relevant parties...Problem with immunity. The Ford/Carter plan also calls for the Senate to guarantee any admission by the president would not be used against him in any future criminal trial. This may be difficult to achieve under both the Constitution and Senate rules. The Senate cannot compel Ken Starr to grant such immunity without violating the Constitution and historical precedents. For his part, Starr (like any prosecutor) presumably would require the president to plead guilty to criminal conduct as the precondition for any plea bargain - a condition Clinton is unlikely to accept. There is only one method by which the Senate could grant such protection: a congressional grant of testimonial immunity. Congressional immunity, however, is rarely given, and it is generally confined to securing information needed for the Congress to fulfill its oversight and legislative duties. .Absent a clear and unambiguous admission by the president, any censure would convert Senate members from jurors into enablers of presidential misconduct. The president has always possessed the ability to end this crisis with a singular moment of clarity. The decision must be his alone, as must be the consequences. ."
Worldnetdaily 12/23/98 David M. Bresnahan ".Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, is warning President Bill Clinton that new evidence is about to come out that could change the conventional wisdom about the outcome of a Senate trial. Hatch says if a trial takes place in the Senate new evidence he is aware of will end Clinton's career. He is offering an opportunity to avoid that, but attacks in his home state are making his job more difficult. All members of the Utah congressional delegation came under attack from the state's attorney general -- and some believe it is a direct result of their votes to impeach Clinton. The only Democrat elected to state office in Utah is Attorney General Jan Graham. Monday she gave Utah's three House members and two senators one week to sign an unusual affidavit. Graham has asked the delegation if they have ever been unfaithful to their wives. She sent them an affidavit asking them to attest to their fidelity. Graham's motivations and intentions were questioned, and some suggested she may have been "put up to it by someone in Washington." Graham refused a request for an interview."It is unfortunate that the chief prosecutor of Utah doesn't understand the difference between perjury and sexual misconduct," said Cannon. "It's also unfortunate that her partisan love of this president would lead her to demean such a serious process. I have no intention of giving any credibility to her actions by signing her affidavit.".."That's just dumb," said Hatch of Graham's actions. He said that efforts to find sexual immorality in the lives of Republicans was an unwise approach to the current challenges in Washington over the impeachment issue. "That's just throwing gas on the fire," he added. "That's just plain dumb." Hatch confirmed that he is working behind closed doors to provide Clinton with one last opportunity to avoid an impeachment trial in the Senate. Although he agrees that if a vote were taken now, there would not be enough (two thirds) to convict Clinton, he believes a trial would change that. Hatch did not wish to reveal what new evidence may come forth, but he did say that "if these things come out and they are proven to be true, anything could happen." Hatch says he sent a message of advice to Clinton: "Get this over with as quickly as you can. Agree to whatever it takes to get it over with because right now the votes aren't there, but over time they could be there." The Senate returns to Washington on Jan. 6, and a trial is expected to start very soon after that date."
NY Post 12/23/98 Marilyn Rauber ".A partying President Clinton said it feels "not bad" to be the first commander-in-chief impeached in 130 years and predicts history will vindicate him in a decade or two, a new report says. A day after he was impeached by the House, a cheery Clinton - entertaining pals at a Sunday night holiday party at the White House - laughed about porno publisher Larry Flynt's new clout and said quitting never "crossed my mind," the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday. "
Houston Chronicle 12/23/98 ".The Constitution calls for a Senate trial to follow impeachment by the House. Going from impeachment to censure would be a constitutional improvisation that would weaken the severity of impeachment and tempt future Congresses to regard impeachment as a mere gesture rather than the ultimate safeguard against abuse of power.."
Wall St. Journal 12/23/98 David Rogers ".House Republicans said they don't rule out using a Senate impeachment trial to introduce evidence about President Clinton's alleged past relationships with women other than Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern central to the current charges. Before Saturday's House votes to impeach Mr. Clinton, Judiciary Committee Republicans moved to buttress their case by urging GOP moderates to review these undisclosed files compiled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and the panel's own investigative staff. That effort provoked angry protests from the president's lawyers, but Republicans say the material may be needed in a Senate trial and could yet be made public then.. The committee's chief GOP counsel, David Schippers, has built on this and gone further afield to try to show wider pattern of lying and obstruction of justice by the president. The case of Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer who was allegedly groped by the president, was revisited; investigators were sent to Arkansas to pursue allegations raised by Dolly Kyle Browning, a Texas woman who claims to have had an affair with Mr. Clinton and is now suing him for defamation. Mr. Schippers complained that time ran out before the committee could finish its work. None of the material made its way into the impeachment charges against Mr. Clinton. Democrats say it is unfair now to bring the evidence in through the back door to embarrass the president before the Senate. For the White House, the situation has been troubling, since the president's lawyers haven't had a chance to review most of the evidence, which is closely held as executive- session material. While the president's legal team knew committee members had access to it, they were shocked when rank-and-file Republicans were shown the material in the final days before the impeachment votes...Among the two counts approved by the House, the material appears more relevant to the second, charging Mr. Clinton with obstruction of justice. While GOP Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut ultimately opposed impeachment, he said Tuesday that he found some of the material "very alarming and unsettling." Rep. Sue Kelly, a New York Republican who supported impeachment, said it had helped her resolve her struggle with both the perjury charges against Mr. Clinton and obstruction of justice. "It buttressed my vote," she said.."
Original Sources 12/23/98 Mary Mostert ".Does anyone remember "It's the economy, stupid!" Clinton's campaign battle cry in 1992 as he successfully trivialised George Bush's remarkable successes in foreign policy? In fact, at one point Clinton claimed the economy was in its worst condition since the Great Depression. The only salvation for the nation, we were told, was to elect Bill Clinton. Only, the recession was basically over, a point George Bush made. However, the national media sided with Clinton and the economy became the core issue. Clinton, like a barnyard rooster promising the make the sun rise with his crowing, took the credit for the improving economy long before any of his policies could have even affected it. Now we are being told by the Associated Press that, "at the end of a year that opened with allegations of a sexual affair and ended with his impeachment, President Clinton is enjoying some of the highest job approval ratings of his six years in office." In fact, a CBS News-New York Times survey completed Sunday, gave the president a 73% job approval rating, up 5% from the week before and tied for a high of last January, just before the Monica Lewinsky story broke. For most of the year we have been entertained by stories, especially in CNN that somehow or other the stock market is tied to President Clinton's fate. If he is impeached, we are told, the stock market will plummet. If he remains in office, all is well and the economy will boom. It is widely assumed that impeachment will create a recession. The House of Representatives impeaches Clinton on Saturday, and Monday and Tuesday, the stock market goes up. So much for the wisdom of CNN prognosticators... The signs are all around us that the Clinton administration is teetering on the edge of total disaster. How long can photo-ops be substituted for policy and propaganda take the place of programs? All his so-called foreign policy "victories" are propaganda victories. The much-touted Wye peace accord is evaporating. The billions of dollars sent to prop up one or another nation in the midst of crushing economic problems, the unending American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Iraq fiasco which ended with Saddam declaring victory and our allies angry ... and in America a growing anger and polarization among Americans that is being fueled by White House directed class warfare.."
Jewish World Review 12/23/98 Thomas Sowell ".Bill Clinton is not simply a "flawed" man, as some of his apologists now say. He is a thoroughly corrupt man, cynical and shamelessly selfish. He has corrupted every institution of government that he has touched. ....the law has long taken a back seat to Clinton's own interests and agenda. Whether as governor or as president, Bill Clinton has attacked those who have tried to enforce the law and come to the aid of law-breakers ranging from a drug dealer in Arkansas to Webster Hubbell in Washington. British statesman Edmund Burke said it all two centuries ago: "There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." This has long been a thoroughly corrupt man and the only question now is whether he can corrupt the Senate.."
Freeper Committed on FoxNews 12/23/98 ".Fox News is reporting that no one has rallied around any of the censure ideas being floated yet. Now they quote Christine Heffner of Playboy on political ethics and ask her to judge Larry Flynt. What a high standard we have reached . . . . Fox also reports that despite the polls showing support, the polls must be looked at in depth. There are underlying facts shown in the polls that do not bode well for the president. The implication is that while they like the job he is doing, they will not be in the slightest upset if he is fired by the Senate. Relying entirely on popularity polls has brought the president to the abyss.."
Drudge 12/23/98 ".Last February, the DRUDGE REPORT alerted readers who were following the Paula Jones sex case that there was great interest swirling around a woman named "Juanita." She was code named "Jane Doe #5." A month later, NBC NEWS star Lisa Myers explored the "Juanita" story in a nightly news shocker: A woman claims she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton back in the 1970s! The White House called that allegation, "Outrageous." The following is a flashback to the first Myers report on "Juanita" that aired on the NBC national news on Saturday, March 28, 1998: "The explosive new allegation tonight is that President Clinton sexually assaulted a woman 20 years ago in Arkansas. It involves an alleged encounter at this Little Rock hotel in the late 1970s, between then Attorney General Bill Clinton and campaign worker, Juanita Broaddrick. In court documents today, Jones' lawyers claim Clinton quote 'forcibly raped and sexually assaulted' Broaddrick, then quote "bribed and intimidated her" to remain silent. Sources say that Broaddrick, now 54, recently denied under oath that such an assault occurred. But Jones' lawyers claim she had told their investigator she had suffered a quote 'horrible thing' at the hand of Clinton, and did not want to relive it. And NBC NEWS has talked to four people from Arkansas who say Broaddrick told them of such an assault years ago.. In an interview with NBC NEWS, Yoakum said Broaddrick told him that Clinton invited himself to her hotel room, allegedly to discuss her nursing home business.."
AP 12/23/98 ".After refusing to allow alternative resolution in his chamber, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay said today that votes to remove President Clinton might materialize ``out of thin air'' if senators read the evidence. DeLay, R-Texas, said the House adopted two articles of impeachment ``due to the overwhelming evidence against the president.'' He said it was premature to shortcut a Senate trial and rush to judgment. A number of senators have suggested that a long trial be avoided because there never would be a two-thirds majority needed to convict Clinton of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' ``Before people look to cut a deal with the White House or their surrogates who will seek to influence the process, it is my hope that one would spend plenty of time in the evidence room. If this were to happen, you may realize that 67 votes may appear out of thin air.'' DeLay said a censure resoluton would have failed in the House because the Democrats' proposal was too weak and any Republican resolution would have been too strong. He advised senators, ``There are reams of evidence that have not been publicly aired and are only available to members.'' .."
Washington Post 12/23/98 Michael Kelly ".So, there was the first impeached elected president in the history of the United States, standing on the South Lawn. There, with the stain of disgrace still fresh as paint upon him. There, facing a nation he had betrayed and harmed. And the man seemed to believe he was speaking from the moral high ground.. he piously intoned: "We must stop the politics of personal destruction. We must get rid of the poisonous venom of excessive partisanship, obsessive animosity and uncontrolled anger." "Excessive partisanship"? Certainly the president was not referring to the House Democrats, who voted to not impeach a man they themselves had described as having "violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of the president and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him." "Poisonous venom"? Certainly this was not aimed at California Democrat Tom Lantos, who, on the floor, likened the House to "Hitler's parliament" and "Stalin's parliament." Nor at Illinois Democrat Jesse Jackson Jr., who compared the vote to the racist overthrow of Reconstruction. Nor at House Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost, who said Republicans could have "blood on their hands," for debating while American pilots bombed defenseless Iraq. In deploring "uncontrolled anger," the president was assuredly not referring to the actor Alec Baldwin.In inveighing against "obsessive animosity" the president meant no disrespect to James Carville, who appeared on "Meet the Press" the day after the president and frothed thusly: "These people are going to pay for what they did...." Nor, I am sure, was the president sniping at Salon magazine editor David Talbot, who brutally outed House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde..And, rest assured, the president meant no censure of Talbot's media soul mate, the pornographer Larry Flynt, who orchestrated the impeachment-eve expose of Republican Speaker-designate Bob Livingston..I trust that it goes without saying that the president was not referring at all to the media outreach efforts of White House special assistant Sidney Blumenthal..And the president meant no insult to Betsey Wright and private investigator Jack Palladino, who ran his 1992 campaign operation to squelch "bimbo eruptions," nor to private investigator Terry Lenzner, who has helped the president's defense team. The vast wreckage about us is one man's work. And this work will continue with that man's blessing. The president's press spokesman, Joe Lockhart, was asked on Monday if the president, in his desire to end the politics of personal destruction, would ask Larry Flynt to stop exposing the sex secrets of Republicans or if would ask James Carville to stop threatening Republicans with retribution. Nah, said Lockhart. .."
Landmark Legal Foundation Website 12/22/98 ".Finally, the "censure" idea simply will not die. The reason is apparent: Mr. Clinton does not want to be tried by the Senate, just as he did not want to face a jury in the Paula Jones case. He is guilty as charged of perjury and obstruction, and those urging censure on his behalf - or hoping to short-circuit the trial process -- know it. That is why the House Judiciary Committee Democrats refused to use their subpoena power to call any fact witnesses during the impeachment hearings. And that's why we hear hysterical rhetoric about the supposed societal dangers of an impeachment trial in the Senate.."
Milwaukee JOURNAL SENTINEL (J S ONLINE) 12/23/98 AP ".For Kate TeWinkle, the impeachment of President Clinton was personal. As the events that led to the president's impeachment unfolded, TeWinkle watched with an interest beyond the historical significance. After all, it was her father David Schippers who played a leading role in one of the biggest national political dramas of the past 130 years. TeWinkle, 45, watched in amazement as her father, a veteran attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, laid out the evidence in support of impeaching the president to the House Judiciary Committee..She recalled a family trip to Washington D.C., during the post-Watergate era, where her father made a memorable statement to his family about one of the Constitution's authors. "He said, "Look at where Mr. Jefferson is looking, directly into the Oval Office'," she said. "Then he turned to us and said, "No wonder Richard Nixon resigned. I couldn't look Thomas Jefferson in the face either.' ".."I hope they look back at him as someone who was truly committed to our country, our Constitution, our way of life here and would protect it no matter what," she said. "He truly believes that if (Clinton) is allowed to get away with this that our Constitution isn't worth anything.".."
Washington Post 12/24/98 Mary McGrory ".It should not come as a surprise that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was almost immediately converted from historic tragedy to ideal Christmas gift for the man who has everything. During the long and sensation-strewn debate, the Democrats often looked happier than the Republicans. At one point, after Democratic leader Dick Gephardt spoke, his colleagues seemed almost to be dancing in the aisles. Gephardt, a man who never before stirred strong emotion, had given the speech of his life, begging the Republicans to reject the resignation of their newly fallen speaker, Bob Livingston, and by extension to give another adulterer a stay of execution...Monday brought good news of a Clinton surge in the polls as the result of his historic disgrace. He was up to 73 percent in public favor. It brought the encouraging word from Sen. Robert C. Byrd, the garrulous constitutionalist, whose passion for history matches his passion for pork. He had been speaking ominously of going through the whole nine yards of procedure. He softened his position about the necessity of a full trial. And four Republicans who had voted for impeachment said they thought censure was a better idea. Monday night also brought evidence that while both Clintons are pitching forgiveness, they haven't quite achieved it with the press. They did not want to have bad stories about canceling the annual Christmas reception, so they made sure their guests felt unwelcome. They relegated them to a tent in the back yard, herding the mob upstairs and down for a slow shuffle through the lavish decorations while children wailed for their supper, which was cookies only. It was probably the worst crush since Andrew Jackson invited the world to his inauguration. He was censured, you remember, although not for that.."
The New York Times 12/24/98 James Dao ".DeLay's staff said later that the Texas congressman was simply urging the senators to study all the evidence closely, and was not referring to anything in particular. DeLay's suggestion that people deciding the president's fate spend "plenty of time in the evidence room" seemed puzzling in one sense. A senior Republican Judiciary Committee aide said senators would not even be allowed into the room where nonpublic materials are kept because House rules allow only House members and certain aides to see those documents. However, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee or the full House could vote to share those materials with the Senate, the aide said.."
London Evening Standard 12/23/98 Jeremy Campbell ".The likelihood that a Senate trial of President Clinton will begin early in February increased today as at least 16 Democrat senators say they are willing to let it go forward. Since Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, sources on Capitol Hill say a trial for perjury and obstruction of justice is a "virtual certainty", although it could be aborted at any time by a simple majority vote. The group of Democratic senators who are opposed to making an early deal with the White House for a censure motion to avoid going to trial include some of Mr Clinton's longtime allies and friends: Tom Daschle, the leader of the Democratic minority, and John Breaux. That gives the push for a trial added credibility..Republicans in the Senate may allow a vote on censure, but not until the prosecution in the trial phase of the proceedings has completed its summing-up...One White House lawyer said: "That could be the key, whether Starr would cut a deal."
AP 12/22/98 ".The Arkansas Democratic Party called upon Rep. Asa Hutchinson on Monday to remove himself from the prosecution team that would pursue impeachment against President Clinton in a Senate trial. The party said Hutchinson would have "an irreparable conflict of interest" because his brother, Sen. Tim Hutchinson, would be sitting as a juror, along with fellow senators..."
Jackie Frank 12/23/98 "..With tensions high in the House debate on impeachment, Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy Friday confronted an outspoken advocate of ousting President Clinton, Republican Bob Barr, calling him "racist." Kennedy was set off by Barr's use of a quotation from his uncle, former President John Kennedy. He charged that the Georgia lawmaker had lost the right to invoke the Kennedy name due to his contact with a white supremacist group. In his statement during the impeachment debate, Barr quoted Kennedy: "Americans are free to disagree with the law, but not to disobey it; for a government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent and powerful, no mob, however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy a court of law." Barr spoke to the Council of Conservative Citizens, but said last month that he had not known of the group's views on race until after the meeting. Friday he again denied any affiliation with their views. "Bob Barr quoting my uncle, a racist like Bob Barr," Kennedy said in a raised voice to reporters outside the House chamber. ..."
NY Post 12/24/98 Richard Johnson Jeane MacIntosh Kate Coyne ".COULD a woman who once claimed to have been raped by Bill Clinton turn up as a witness in the President's looming Senate impeachment trial? Speculation began last Friday when CNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews flatly stated that this will happen..Matthews never identified the woman on-air as Broaddrick. He did, however, point out to viewers that his mystery woman is "going to have to decide whether she sticks with her affidavit or whether she sticks with the story she's been telling reporters. She is certifying to reporters that this rape occurred.."
New York Post 12/24/98 Ray Kerrison ".THE United States is going into this Christmas on a desperate search to resolve President Clinton's crisis without putting the nation through a long, embarrassing trial in the Senate. There is only one way it can be done to satisfy justice, history, friend and foe alike: The president must plead guilty to the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. A verbal spanking called censure will not do. A piece of paper admitting vague wrongdoing will not do. A back-room deal conceding "lying under oath" will not do. President Clinton has been impeached for committing two serious crimes. Nearly 80 percent of the people believe he is a perjurer. Every newspaper I've read labels him a perjurer. Even his Democrat defenders like Rep. Charles Schumer believe he is a perjurer. In the public mind, William Jefferson Clinton is a criminal. Therefore, he should be treated as such..But if, like every other criminal in the land, he pleads guilty up front to the crimes charged to him, there is no trial, just a decision on the penalty. In effect, Clinton would have to throw himself on the mercy of the "court." The Senate in its wisdom would probably do the right thing, consistent with the knowledge that no one would want to see the president handcuffed and taken off to prison - now or at the end of his term.."
Washington Times 12/24/98 Suzanne Fields ".When Bill Clinton's friends continue to talk about his reprehensible reckless behavior, violating truth and forfeiting their trust, they aren't talking only about the rule of law. They're also talking about adultery with a young woman in the Oval Office. As they plead for censure instead of impeachment they use words of rebuke and scorn as strong as any the president's enemies have used against him. In fact, they sound a lot like the Puritans, whom the defenders of Bill usually reserve for maligning enemies... But intellectual distinctions are unstoppable, too. For all of the messy details of sex and deception, the appeals for sending a moral message to our children about the connection between lying and the rule of law rang with occasional eloquence last week...Rep. J. C. Watts, a Baptist preacher from Oklahoma, followed that advice with the richness and poetic syntax of a man with God's message. "If we do not label lawlessness, our children cannot recognize it," he said. "And if we do not punish lawlessness, our children will not believe it. So if someone were to ask me, 'J.C., why do you vote for, why did you vote for the articles of impeachment,' I would say, 'I did it for our children'." Then he put it in the slang the kids would understand, without a convoluted definition of what it means to lie or the definition of "is." Said he: "[Kids] say 'cross your heart, hope to die,' 'pinkie promise,' 'king's X,' 'blood brothers'. These are the childhood instincts that seek to draw a line between the honest and the dishonest; between the principled and the unprincipled." ..Perhaps it was a cornball exercise to teach children the importance of truth with Parson Weems' apocryphal story of George Washington who could not tell a lie about his hatchet and his father's favorite cherry tree, but it carried an important truth that Bill Clinton has been unable to confront or refute. Instead, the president allowed David Schippers, the blunt man who was the Republican's chief investigative counsel, to leave the public with a devastating evaluation of him. "He lied to the people," he said in his summation. "He lied to his Cabinet, he lied to his top aides, and now he's lied under oath to the Congress of the United States. There's no one left to lie to." I wish we could be sure about that.."
New York Times 12/24/98 James Dao ".Referring to talk about a quick resolution of the impeachment process, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said, "I've just been alarmed that since Sunday so many of my colleagues think this band wagon is gaining speed. Well, nobody called me." Senate Democrats continued to insist on Wednesday that there were not enough votes in the Senate to convict the president and that there was strong, bipartisan sentiment to find a way to open a trial but then wrap it up quickly, through a swift vote to dismiss the charges or acquit the president and then to censure him. "I think there's a real desire to move in a bipartisan way and with more dispatch than was done in the House," said Sen.-elect Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who voted against impeachment in the House and plans to vote against conviction in the Senate. Trying to bring about a quick conclusion of the process, Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, has been serving as an unofficial liaison between the White House and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in discussions over the shape of a trial and the possibility of censure, according to several senators. Lott was not available for comment Wednesday. But his spokesman, John Cwartacki, said the senator had vowed to oppose "any effort to short-circuit" the impeachment process, and thought that a trial must at least begin in the Senate..."
Wall Street Journal 12/24/98 Bob Davis ".At the same time, Mr. Clinton has already been using budget announcements to demonstrate that he won't let the government be distracted by the continuing impeachment fight -- and to demonstrate his loyalty to liberal Democrats, who have been his staunchest supporters.."
AP 12/24/98 Walter Mears ".The ghosts of this Christmas past will haunt President Clinton to the last hour of his last day in the White House as he deals with the Republican House that impeached him. Democrats will be reinforced in the new Congress, but short of the strength to win what the president said he will seek to do: broaden federal education programs, enact guarantees of patients' rights in managed health care, and act on the always-sensitive issues of Social Security and Medicare financing. On Wednesday, Clinton added a proposal for $1.12 billion in assistance for homeless Americans next year, a 15 percent increase. There's more to come Jan. 19 in his State of the Union message to a Congress in which Republicans will have a narrowed, six-vote House majority, and 10-seat control in the Senate. Whatever is done in the next two years can't be done without them, which means compromise.."
Drudge 12/24/98 ".Hillary Clinton has finally snapped! The NATIONAL ENQUIRER is set to report in its January 5, 1999 edition: The First Lady has psychically attacked the President, hitting him so hard she left a visible mark on his face -- and Secret Service agents had to separate them. ..The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that the ENQUIRER is planning to run the account in a Cover Page Screamer. "Secret Service agents had to physically separate them to keep the apart. Hillary went off to another room. At one point the President old an agent, 'Keep that bitch away from me. I don't want to do anything that'll get me in more trouble." The ENQUIRER reveals that just hours before the couple walked out of the White House holding hands after the impeachment vote on December 19, there was an explosion in the Presidential quarters -- the First Lady was doing most of the screaming. The tabloid also claims that Bill Clinton is back on the fast food train! "The President is a mess. He's been gorging on fast foods again," an insider tells the ENQUIRER in the special report. Impacting on newsstands next monday.."
Reuters 12/24/98 ".President Clinton is more likely to be hit by a meteor than to resign, Vice President Al Gore said in a CNN interview released Thursday. Gore, speaking on CNN's "Both Sides with Jesse Jackson" program that will air Sunday, said anyone who thinks Clinton will resign following his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives Saturday does not understand the man. "He will definitely not resign," the vice president said according to a transcript provided by CNN. "He is more likely to be hit by a meteor than he is to make a decision to resign. "If he was going to make a decision like that, he would have given up a long time ago -- earlier in his life, with all of the hardship that he had: His father died before he was born, he grew up in poverty, he overcame the odds to be elected," Gore added. "He is not going to resign." ."
New York Daily News 12/24/98 Thomas DeFrank ".Sen. Daniel Moynihan has thrown his considerable prestige behind censuring President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, informed sources told the Daily News yesterday. But Moynihan (D-N.Y.) also has told friends and allies in recent days that any censure resolution must have teeth in it to attract Republican senators - teeth that Clinton may not accept - and shouldn't be considered until a Senate trial is fully under way..Moynihan, a key swing Democrat in the impeachment jockeying, met secretly for about an hour Tuesday in a hideaway Capitol office with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), dean of the Senate Democrats. "It's fair to say their thinking is pretty similar," said a well-placed source aware of the meeting. "They want to make sure this is done correctly and thoughtfully." Though Moynihan is described as keeping his options open, "the will of the Senate is drifting in the direction of censure, and he's amenable to that," the source said. "But he also thinks the Constitution is very plain about how you proceed, and it's the Senate's duty to follow those historical procedures." For that reason, Moynihan agrees with Byrd and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) that a trial must proceed for more than a token period of time before censure or other alternatives to a vote on Clinton's guilt or innocence are broached."Other options can be considered," said the source, "but at a minimum that shouldn't happen until all the wheels are in motion" in a trial.."
TIME 12/98 Eric Pooley Michael Weisskopf "."You know the tortoise and the hare? I'm the tortoise, moving along slowly, and hopefully getting across the finish line without getting run over." Then the independent counsel chuckles, gives one of his mild, impenetrable smiles and adds a few quiet words that make it clear this tortoise-and-hare business involves more than study habit. "It is dangerous crossing the road, isn't it?".."
............... I am the last one on the boat that believes our President is involved in murder...Im open to the possibility
Washington Post 12/23/98 Peter Baker ".A few days before President Clinton would be impeached last week, his extended defense team dialed in for its daily strategy conference call. With the outcome of the vote seemingly preordained, the mood was demoralized, the ideas scant. "It was so pathetic," one member of the team said after hanging up. "No one had anything to say except the pollsters." Their message? "Everything's great." Indeed, as he has throughout the crisis, pollster Mark J. Penn told the lawyers and political strategists how the public remained strongly behind Clinton in his impeachment fight. Yet never had the disconnect between those numbers and the far disparate political reality in the U.S. Capitol been more clear. Heartening as they were, the polls were doing nothing to save Clinton from becoming only the second president to be impeached. As this presidential adviser explained how matters had gotten so out of hand, there was no hesitation: "The mesmerizing power of Mark Penn." Penn may have been the messenger, but he was hardly the only one in Clinton's camp to take too much comfort from the president's strong poll numbers. As his team sifts through the wreckage of the House's votes and begins preparing for the next stage when the matter moves to a Senate trial, many inside and outside the White House are trying to answer a variation on the half-century-old question that echoed through Washington after China's revolution: Who lost impeachment? .."
NY Post 12/24/98 David Gelernter "..IT'S an old story: When you reach a certain point, emotion takes over and requires that you hit back. Last week we saw two versions of the same ancient tale. We hit Iraq, and the House of Representatives hit President Clinton. ''Rightly to be great,'' says Hamlet, ''is not to stir without great argument, but greatly to find quarrel in a straw when honor's at the stake.'' A less- exalted version of the same drama plays every day at the nation's grade schools. Some obnoxious child decides to torment some other forbearing child and does, relentlessly - until the forbearing child finally smacks him. Whereupon the first child is mystified, and goes crying to the authorities to report himself the victim of an outrageous, bullying attack. But there are times when honor requires any normal human being to stop calculating and let go. Former-future-Speaker Robert Livingston did nearly the same thing on the same weekend. The time came for him to quit, and ... he quit! The nation was stunned. Ordinarily, when the time comes for a man to quit nowadays, the done thing is to hire a lawyer and have a tantrum. The sight of plain, ordinary human behavior venturing outside without 15 layers of padding and camouflage confuses us. Our children don't know what ''honor'' is; we don't teach them. The word makes us squirm. The weekend's events were simple, but we were in no condition to understand them. .."
New York Times 12/25/98 Richard Berke ".Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York made clear on Thursday that President Clinton should be censured but not removed from office, warning that the moves to oust Clinton might threaten to "very readily destabilize the presidency.".. His seniority, scholarship and independence make him an influential member of the Senate. "We are an indispensable nation and we have to protect the presidency as an institution," Moynihan, a Democrat who has been a fixture of American politics for five decades, said in a telephone interview from his home here, where he was preparing for a Senate trial by reading The Federalist Papers. "There has to be a commander in chief," he said. "You could very readily destabilize the presidency, move to a randomness. That's an institution that has to be stable, not in dispute. Absent that, do not doubt that you could degrade the republic quickly." ."
New York Times 12/25/98 Richard Berke ".Although he made clear that he was not pleased with how the House acted in voting to impeach Clinton, Moynihan refrained from directly criticizing the other chamber. "Look, they had responsibilities on the House side and they carried them out in a manner that is not enviable," he said. "No one would wish that on them. I don't have any animus whatever." Imploring people to read the Constitution, Moynihan said, "Pick up the Constitution. Read it. They came to their judgment. Now it's with us." .."
The Washington Times 12/25/98 Ralph Z. Hallow ".Some Republicans say Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and other GOP leaders have abandoned the work ethic this holiday while the White House and Democrats continue their public campaign against a Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton. Worried Republicans complain that the leadership and Senate offices of Mr. Lott, Mississippi Republican, have been closed since the beginning of this week for the duration of the Christmas-New Year's holiday season. "The idea that we are going to shut down for two weeks, with the White House still out there spinning is -- well, it's just crazy," said one senior aide to a GOP lawmaker, who asked not to be identified. "We are about to make one of the most important decisions we've ever made as a party in the Senate, and we're not even on deck," the aide said.."
The Washington Post 12/25/98 Mitch McConnell ". Reasonable people can, do and surely will disagree over the substance and merit of the House-passed articles of impeachment. What should not be in dispute is the fact that there is absolutely no merit to the "lame duck" legal argument advocated by some of President Clinton's advisers. They wrongly contend that the 105th Congress's articles of impeachment somehow expire and will not be valid for consideration by the Senate after the 106th Congress convenes in January. To press such an illegitimate legal theory would be to forestall resolution of a serious and divisive debate. While this time-consuming maneuver certainly would be a more enjoyable exercise for the Clinton team than a defense of the actual case against the president, it would be a disservice to the Senate and the country. In 1988 the Senate Rules Committee, then controlled by Democrats, studied this question thoroughly and concluded that "[t]he clear weight of precedent and sound policy supports the conclusion . . . that the Senate may continue" an impeachment into the next Congress.."
The LA Times 12/24/98 ".The gavel that slammed down on the House votes to impeach President Clinton also signaled the opening shot of the 2000 congressional campaign. A moderate House Republican from New York who opposed impeachment already has drawn a primary opponent angered by his stand. A likely Democratic challenger to Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-San Diego) in 2000 went to Balboa Park to denounce the incumbent's support for impeachment. And some liberal activists, not content to wait until 2000, are looking into whether they should mount recall campaigns against impeachment advocates.."The fundamental irony is, if impeachment goes to its logical conclusion, the party of the president will be most benefited," said Rep. James A. Leach (R-Iowa), a moderate who voted for impeachment. "And I accept that I, as an individual representative, will be severely jeopardized.".."
New York Post 12/24/98 Vincent Morris ".President Clinton's hope of avoiding an impeachment trial dimmed yesterday as Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and other Democrats left town, ready to let the proceeding go forward. Although censure remains the punishment of choice for most senators, Democrats decided not to go against Majority Leader Trent Lott's desire to begin the trial after Congress returns to work on Jan. 6. The decision not to stall came as Democrats realized a trial will both appease Republicans and buy time to draft a censure resolution that might pass muster with liberals and conservatives. "So far, very little progress has been made," an aide to one key Democratic senator acknowledged. "When the trial begins, everyone will be more willing to negotiate." Jim Kennedy, a Clinton spokesman, said yesterday that the White House hasn't tried to avert an impeachment trial, but it does want the matter resolved...The main stumbling block continues to be the substance of a censure resolution..In the meantime, Clinton continues to defend himself by insisting he did not commit perjury when he swore before a federal grand jury that he did not fool around with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky.."He is more likely to be hit by a meteor than he is to make a decision to resign," the veep said..."
Washington Times 12/24/98 Joyce Howard Price "..Vice President Al Gore says he believes President Clinton's enemies are motivated by the president's efforts to improve race relations and enhance the status of women and the poor. In a CNN interview on Dec. 25 , Mr. Gore was asked by Jesse Jackson if he believes the president's "commitment to racial reconciliation" -- the same commitment of such great emancipators as Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson, the talk show host said --is driving the "anti-Clinton mania." "President Clinton and I have been trying to bridge the historic divide that has come about because of race and ethnicity in this country, elevate the role of women in our society, and bring about some other changes -- lifting the poor -- that have caused many to feel a little unsettled as old patterns begin to give way," Mr. Gore said."
Washington Times 12/25/98 ".Edwin Meese, who was attorney general under President Reagan, says censure of the president, in place of a Senate trial, is a terrible idea. "I hate to say this because of my respect for both President Ford and President Carter, but actually what they are advocating is the formation of a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution. And I think it's absolutely wrong," Mr. Meese said on the America's Voice television network. "There is no constitutional basis. I can't think of anything that is worse. We could have a trial for six months in the Senate, or we could have all kinds of other things that might happen that have been conjured up by people talking about this, but I don't think anything would be worse in terms of the destruction of the separation of powers in terms of a violation of the clear-cut constitutional mandate of the responsibility of Congress than that kind of a circumvention that has been suggested." ."
Washington Times 12/25/98 ".Not everyone on the left is rallying to the support of President Clinton. Patrick H. Caddell -- who worked as a pollster and strategist for George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart and Walter Mondale -- and Marc Cooper, a contributing editor of the Nation, say "the last supper" of Mr. Clinton's presidency is "being paid for with the bankrupting of the liberal moral treasury." The two men, writing in the Wall Street Journal, say they do not favor Senate removal of Mr. Clinton, but they believe the president deserves whatever he gets for betraying the liberal cause on any number of issues... "The refusal to speak out on the possible Sudan deception led us directly to last week's tragedy of Operation Desert Fox. As the missiles exploded in Iraq, Democrats cheered. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and Minority Whip David Bonior -- both of whom voted against the 1991 Gulf war and argued for the right to publicly challenge the wisdom of George Bush's decision -- this time pontificated shamelessly about threats to national security. The low point came when Rep. Patrick Kennedy [Rhode Island Democrat] on the House floor resurrected -- nearly word for word -- the scurrilous language the LBJ White House used in 1966 when it questioned the patriotism of his uncle, Robert F. Kennedy, who had begun to speak out against the Vietnam War. Rep. Kennedy even suggested that Congress should ask the CIA for permission to go ahead with the impeachment debate." .."
Washington Times Dan Freedman 12/25/98 ".EXCERPTS: "...The group includes...Sen. John Ashcroft...Sen. Rick Santorum...Sen. Robert C. Smith...and Sen. James M. Inhofe..."...this group dismisses the possibility of a Senate censure as "virtually nothing," as Mr. Inhofe put it...these senators...push for a full trial of Mr. Clinton on the two impeachment articles approved by the House....Mr. Inhofe said..."I think we should go on with a trial....When you look 10, 20 years into the future and the possibility of a corrupt president in office, we have to make sure we protect this constitutional process....The White House fears something we don't know may be brought out at trial. Prejudging the disposition of this is not appropriate."...The conservative senators (have) personal contempt for Mr. Clinton. Mr. Ashcroft has called for Mr. Clinton to resign because he has "disgraced himself [and] broken faith with the American people."...they...doubt...that censure of a president is constitutional..The Constitution directs the Senate to hold a trial...but says nothing about censure...."
Chicago Sun-Times 12/21/98 John O'Sullivan ".How is it that the best natural politician to occupy the White House since FDR now finds himself impeached and facing possible disgrace and ejection from office? That is the mystery of Bill Clinton. When it comes to public policy, Mr. Clinton succeeds by being infinitely flexible. Having vetoed welfare reform twice, he then signed the Republicans' third welfare bill and toured the country taking credit for it. He raised taxes sharply in his first budget, and a few years later told wealthy taxpayers he had raised them too much. He even called on teenagers to show sexual responsibility. But the flexibility he shows on serious political questions deserted him completely on his private vices. Since the Lewinsky story broke, he has stonewalled, perjured himself, taken refuge in absurd legal and semantic evasions. And when the truth was finally dragged from his reluctant mouth, it was always too little, too late, and too qualified. It was almost as if he felt he was entitled to use power to get sexual favors and that he really had nothing to apologize for. And the record suggests that is precisely his view. When he was governor of Arkansas, he treated the office as an escort agency. State troopers scouted out likely prospects, delivered him to assignations, and helped to keep Hillary off the scent. In the White House, he used his secretary Betty Currie to shuttle Monica Lewinsky past suspicious aides..Now that Clinton has been impeached, will the Senate convict him? Conventional wisdom asserts not, arguing that Democratic senators will prevent the necessary two-thirds majority and that Republican senators may even halt the trial in return for Clinton signing a censure and paying a fine. But conventional wisdom asserted a month ago that there was no prospect of impeachment. In reality, it is impossible to forecast the effects of such powerful political theater as a trial of a president conducted before the full Senate by the chief justice of the United States. It will compel the attention of the many millions who have paid little heed to the details of the charges. It has extraordinary power to change public opinion. And Mr. Clinton can only halt it now by making the full admission of his past lies and evasions.."
Chicago Trib 12/25/98 Naftali Bendavid "."It is unfair and unproductive to compare this to an American criminal trial," said Larry Pozner, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "This is a political trial. This is the ultimate camel designed by committee. You make it up as you go along, and none of the rules that apply in an ordinary trial apply here." With impeachment trials so rare, and the rules so untested, many attorneys said it will be hard for lawyers on either side to know how to frame the issues or how to predict senators' reactions. ..In the past, senators have felt free to make whatever decisions they want, leaving lawyers little to go on. In the 1986 impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Harry Claiborne, for example, Claiborne filed a motion seeking to establish that the Senate must find him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" for him to be convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The senators voted him down. An impeachment trial is a unique blend of politics and law. It is run by a group of officeholders who not only wield the powers of judge and jury, but also have partisan political agendas they are free to indulge..."
Deb Riechmann AP 12/25/98 ".Impeachment. The Olympics. Northern Ireland. At crunch time, people tackling thorny issues like these have all turned to the same troubleshooter -- George Mitchell.. He turned down a chance to sit on the Supreme Court, telling Clinton he wanted to shepherd health care through the Senate -- an effort that died amid partisan bickering... During his six years as Senate majority leader, Republicans saw him as a sharply partisan fighter, and he angered colleagues from both parties when he held them in session to debate the health bill, even though it was doomed..As Clinton's impeachment trial looms, presidential aides say they expect Mitchell, who has been advising the White House informally, to play a larger role in contacting his former colleagues who would make up an impeachment jury. That could prove difficult. Democratic senators, including Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., have warned the White House not to tamper with the jurors. So Mitchell's task would be to mediate without meddling. ``They couldn't find a better person,'' says Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, who occupies Mitchell's former Senate seat. ``He has a lot of integrity and understands Congress and the presidency. He would be a wise choice at a time when Clinton obviously needs it.'' ."
James Gerstenzang 12/25/98 San Francisco Chronicle ".The battle over President Clinton's impeachment, nasty during the House debate, threatened yesterday to grow nastier as the president's trial looms in the Senate. The White House and its Democratic allies cried foul over unpublished and uncorroborated evidence collected by investigators about Clinton's private life. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said senators should consider the material, in addition to the formal record compiled as part of the House debate that led to the president's impeachment. Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, responded by calling DeLay ``a frustrated moral ayatollah.' .``He wants to impose his twisted morals on everyone else,'' Harkin said, adding that out of frustration of failing to gain popular support for his position, ``DeLay must be approaching an apoplectic state.'' ``We know what the evidence is'' against Clinton, said Harkin. ``What the Republicans are afraid of is (that) Clinton will win big.'' ."
Arizona Republic 12/25/98 Mike McCloy ".As U.S. senators consider whether to go ahead with an impeachment trial of President Clinton, some House members are urging them on with tales of lurid evidence hidden away in a government office building. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., joined in waving the bloody shirt Wednesday, volunteering on talk radio that the secret information portrays Clinton as a "sexual predator." But Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., is concerned about the fuss over the mystery evidence because it was excluded from the House Judiciary Committee report that was used as the basis for Saturday's vote to impeach Clinton. Shadegg voted for impeachment but, he said, he did not review the evidence before he voted. Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., was one of the congressmen who did review the evidence. In remarks that appeared in The Arizona Republic on Sunday, the day after the impeachment vote, Salmon said of his reaction to the material: "I came away nauseated. There are things that go far beyond what we've heard.".. When Starr's evidence was turned over to the Judiciary Committee in September, entire sections of the Starr report were deemed too sensitive for public view and blotted out. The Starr report opened with a list of explanations for the redactions, including "national security," "privacy" and "personal identifying information." A fourth category was labeled "sexual description." ..Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported House Republican leaders as saying said "they don't rule out" introducing new evidence against the president about women other than Monica Lewinsky in a Senate trial, including the cases of Kathleen Willey and another woman who claimed to have had an affair with Clinton.."
AP 12/25/98 Larry Margasak ".With Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan now favoring censure, the White House Friday welcomed new signs that momentum is growing in the Senate for a penalty short of removing President Clinton from office. Moynihan, D-N.Y., who had not previously revealed his position, did so Friday in a published report. Administration officials quickly expressed new hope for ``a bipartisan solution'' that would avoid Clinton's removal through a Senate trial.. It would take a two-thirds vote - or 67 of 100 senators - to remove the president from office. With 45 Democrats and 55 Republicans, at least 12 senators from Clinton's party would have to vote against him to reach 67 - a scenario few see as realistic. But Clinton's supporters worry about what could happen once a trial gets under way, and they are hoping for a quick resolution to the two articles of impeachment approved by the House.. Moynihan added that ``you obviously can infer'' that he supported censure. Lieberman has suggested that Democrats should not be taken for granted. ``As far as I know, hardly any of my colleagues in the Senate have said how they would vote,'' he said.."
The Mirror/UK newspaper 12/24/98 ".Sources in Washington D.C. say that the First Lady, stressed out by his self-confessed womanizing and threats of being booted out of office, smacked him so hard she left a visible mark on his face. Clinton told one agent: "Keep that bitch away from me," according to the Enquirer magazine which reported the shocking bust-up. She hit him soon after they arrived back in the US. from Israel when they had a screaming match in the White House on December l9th. On the trip they had separate compartments on Air Force One and she was noticeably cool to the president, drawing away from him on more than one occasion in public.."
Jewish World Review 12/25/98 Thomas Sowell ". Bill Clinton is not simply a "flawed" man, as some of his apologists now say. He is a thoroughly corrupt man, cynical and shamelessly selfish. He has corrupted every institution of government that he has touched. Arkansas health officials who threatened legal action against the Clintons' business partner Jim McDougal for not putting adequate sewage facilities into a project he was building were summoned to Governor Clinton's office and told that McDougal was "a supporter of mine." Shortly thereafter, these health inspectors were fired. A state medical examiner who ruled the mysterious deaths of two teenage boys "accidental" was given a hefty raise by Governor Clinton, even though a later autopsy and grand jury investigation concluded that these deaths were homicides. Later the medical examiner was promoted to a job as consultant to Joycelyn Elders, even though a prosecutor linked these deaths to drug traffickers. A convicted drug trafficker who had hired Clinton's brother was given a pardon by the governor. Earlier, Clinton had awarded this same drug trafficker a $30 MILLION state bond underwriting contract. In short, the law has long taken a back seat to Clinton's own interests and agenda. Whether as governor or as president, Bill Clinton has attacked those who have tried to enforce the law and come to the aid of law- breakers ranging from a drug dealer in Arkansas to Webster Hubbell in Washington. British statesman Edmund Burke said it all two centuries ago: "There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." This has long been a thoroughly corrupt man and the only question now is whether he can corrupt the Senate.."
WorldNetDaily 12/24/98 Tanya Metaksa ".This holiday season has been especially memorable with the Dec. 5 arrival of a third grandson and fourth grandchild, James Matthew Daugherty, who will spend his life in the next millennium..He will surf the web at the speed of light and find the following statistics concerning the vote on four counts of impeachment. He may be surprised to discover that 199 of the 206 Democrats (96.6 percent) voted straight 'no' on all four articles of impeachment, with two Democrats not voting on any count. Of the remaining five Democrats, one did not cast a vote on the last two articles, while only four Democrats-- GeneTaylor (MS), Ralph Hall (TX), Charles Stenholm (TX) and Virgil Goode (VA) voted "yes" on the first three articles of impeachment and "no" on the fourth article. He will find that there was one Independent who really voted with all the Democrats. He may wonder what that Independent label really meant. Finally, he will see that while the Republicans were in the majority, they appeared to vote in a most non-partisan manner: 84 Republicans voted 'no' on one or more articles. If I were his history teacher, I could not fault his conclusion that the partisanship on the issue of impeachment belonged to the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, not Republicans. With the benefit of hindsight, James will understand that despite the vote of impeachment, the American people were more interested in preparations for the holidays and in their own economic future, than the future of a president, who everyone knew was completely incapable of telling the truth..."
UPI 12/27/98 ".Senate Rules Committee Chairman Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., says (Sunday) the Senate will not consider a censure resolution against President Clinton until it has completed his impeachment trial. McConnell told Fox News Sunday that he believes, ``we can wrap this up very quickly, this is not a complicated case.'' ."
UPI Spotlight 12/27/98 ".Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., says (Sunday) that during President Clinton's impeachment trial, the Senate will: ``set a very high standard for civility for bipartisanship. We really want to demonstrate that now we're the ones on trial as well, that we can live up to people's expectations.'' Speaking on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' television program, Daschle said, ``Censure could come at any point'' during the trial..."
Reuters 12/27/98 Nancy Waitz ".Leading Republicans and Democrats said Sunday President Clinton was sure to face an impeachment trial in the Senate over the Monica Lewinsky scandal but was unlikely to be removed from office. Senators from both parties said in television talks shows that the process, due to start early in January, should be dealt with as quickly as possible and was most likely to end in a tough censure resolution against the president.. ``If we cannot convict...we're going to have to do the next best thing which is to point out to the American people how really bad (Clinton's) actions were,'' Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said on the CBS program ``Face the Nation''. ``We're going to have to do the very best we can to let the world know that this president has sullied the office, that he has not done what's right, that literally he has brought embarrassment to the nation,'' said Hatch, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman..``Assuming neither of the articles pass, which is what is widely expected to be the outcome today, then at that point it seems to me you sit down and you negotiate the censure alternative,'' McConnell said..."
NBC 12/27/98 Tim Russert Freeper reports ".Russert: Senator Moynihan, what will happen in the Senate in the next few weeks? Moynihan: We'll have a trial and then there'll be censure, and then hopefully we'll have closure."
Freeper Wil H report on FoxNews 12/2798 Tony Snow and Jesse Jackson ".Later, Snow was trying to get Jackson to admit that the President commited a High Crime based on the Federalist Paper's definition of a a High Crime being a crime committed by a person in a high place Jackson, who obviously didn't listen to the definition, in response said, no, the President commited a "low crime" .."
Chicago Sun Times Robert Novak 12/27/98 ".Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the 71- year-old, seven-term senior Democrat in the Senate, has made clear in private that he intends to call the shots now that the House has impeached President Clinton. Byrd, author of a definitive history of the Senate, has informed colleagues that he will be a stickler in upholding the chamber's rules. Last week, he issued a statement declaring that the White House has no place in negotiations for Senate censure instead of impeachment. When Sen. Thomas Daschle began as Democratic floor leader in 1995, he seemed eclipsed by Byrd. Since then, he has developed into a highly effective legislative tactician. Now, Daschle's desire to defend Clinton may collide with Byrd's goal of maintaining the Senate's integrity.."
Washington Post 12/27/98 George Wil ".Now, about the idea that the prescient Founders designed a Senate suited to devise a Solomonic solution to today's impeachment unpleasantness, the theory, wonderfully contradictory, is: The Senate will be judicious about impeachment because, being more insulated from public opinion than is the House, it is made for intellectual sobriety and moral independence. And the Senate will demonstrate judiciousness by correcting the House's reckless disregard of public opinion. This theory about the Senate's inclination toward disinterestedness is slain by a slew of facts, one of which is that the Senate today is more controlled by public opinion than the House. Almost all Senate seats can be contested closely, while about 85 percent of House seats are not, thanks to the natural political homogeneity of many districts and to increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering. No Senate seat is out of reach of either party. But analyst Charles Cook says that in the 1998 House races, 76 winners were unopposed (that is, they faced no major party opposition) and only 62 of the 435 races were competitive..."
New York Post 12/26/98 Susan Edelman ".Sen.-elect Charles Schumer isn't betting President Clinton will hold onto his presidency. "Who knows? If you asked me six weeks ago whether the House would vote to impeach the president, I'd say, 'No way.' "So predictions are hazardous," Schumer said yesterday - expressing surprisingly little faith Clinton can win Senate acquittal on charges he perjured himself and obstructed justice in Sexgate. "In the House, what started as a small group [who favored impeachment] conglomerated into a large group. "I hope that doesn't happen in the Senate, but it might," Schumer told The Post as he dished out mashed sweet potatoes and green beans at a Brooklyn YWCA Christmas dinner for 1,200 homeless people."
New York Post 12/26/98 Richard Johnson Jeane MacIntosh ".PUBLICITY-mad Abe Hirschfeld - who supposedly offered to give Paula Jones a $1 million check if she would drop her case against the President - has shared his innermost thoughts on Bill Clinton in a letter to The Post. "If every person who commits perjury or a felony is able to go unpunished," Hirschfeld writes, " he will create chaos within the judicial system of our nation ... Killing and hurting hundreds of innocent people in Iraq, in my opinion, ties all this into covering up his previous crimes. He committed Class A felony crimes in the Middle East." Hirschfeld, who was charged last month with trying to order a hit on a business partner, observed, "The poll that shows the public support for President Clinton is probably only because of his appearance with his wife and daughter, as being a nice family."."
NY Times 12/26/98 Frank Bruni ".All 13 are lawyers, with legal degrees from universities as diverse as Yale and Brigham Young. More than half have worked as prosecutors, targeting people ranging from street punks to soldiers, militia members to elected officials. But despite that breadth of knowledge and experience, the Republican congressmen appointed as managers of President Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate have as many questions as answers about the historic roles they are set to play. It is their job to argue and present the case for removing the president from office, but they have yet to decide how best to do that, in part because they are still dusting off the rules and rummaging through history for relevant guideposts. The only Senate trial of a president was 130 years ago, when President Andrew Johnson was acquitted. "There's not much precedent," Rep. Christopher Cannon, R-Utah, one of the managers, said. "I think we're all trying to figure it out as we go.".."
LA Times 12/26/98 Norman Kempster ".With civil wars in Africa threatening to spread to neighboring countries, and a Balkan conflict ready to erupt again, President Clinton's impeachment-clouded administration faces a growing list of war-or-peace decisions in the new year--even if it is able to keep Iraq in a strategic box. In addition to active or potential wars in Congo, Sudan, Angola and Kosovo, Clinton must cope with continuing economic dislocation in Asia and Russia, a dangerous deterioration in the Middle East peace process and endemic instability in North Korea. None of these challenges is new, but all threaten to explode early next year--just as Clinton's Senate trial on impeachment charges is expected to get underway. Any one of them could provide a stern test of Clinton's nerve, as well as his vaunted ability to concentrate on the issue at hand regardless of distractions.."
CNN 12/25/98 Inside Politics Carl Rochelle ".Two influential Democratic senators, Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, are drafting a proposal to censure President Clinton and avoid his removal from office, CNN learned Friday. The move is no doubt a relief to the White House, because both senators are independent-minded and strong leaders among their colleagues. Moynihan was among the Democratic senators who criticized Clinton's behavior in the Monica Lewinsky affair in early September. He also has broken ranks with thep resident on other occasions. Moynihan and Byrd met earlier in the week and agreed to draft a proposal that can pass constitutional muster and draw Republican support, a Senate source close to Moynihan told CNN. They intend to take the plan to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle when it is completed, and then run it by Senate Republicans, the source said. The collaboration may reduce the chances that the Senate will convict Clinton on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice sent to it by the House of Representatives. The House finished its formal duties in the impeachment proceeding against Clinton last Saturday..."
Insight Magazine January 11-18, 1999 Gene Crocker via the Internet ". . . . Never has an issue been clearer or more important. If the rule of law prevails, then our republic has a chance to survive, though all politicians will be put on notice that lies and perjuries are not acceptable. But, if Clinton walks with a censure, this will be the clearest evidence that our Congress will have replaced the Constitution with the reign of privilege. If this occurs, it will not be foreign enemies or home-grown terrorists that destroy us; it will be our own Senate and Congress. It is these men and women who are the defendants and it is the future of America they have put on trial.."
House Judiciary Committee transcript 12/988 David Schippers "..When [the President]was asked in the grand jury whether Mr. Bennett's statement was false, he still was unable to tell the truth -- even before a federal grand jury. He answered with the now famous sentence, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." That single declaration reveals more about the character of the President than perhaps anything else in this record. It points out his attitude and his conscious indifference and complete disregard for the concept of the truth. He picks out a single word and weaves from it a deceitful answer. "Is" doesn't mean "was" or "will be", so I can answer no. He also invents convoluted definitions of words or phrases in his own crafty mind. Of course, he will never seek to clarify a question, because that may trap him into a straight answer. Can you imagine dealing with such a person in any important matter? You would never know his secret mental reservations or the unspoken redefinition of words. Even if you thought you had solved the enigma, it wouldn't matter - - he would just change the meaning to suit his purpose."
The Review 12/25/1998 D. K. Zimmerman ".Watching the House debate the articles of impeachment last weekend was a bittersweet experience. It was heartwarming to see the GOP ignore polls and stand for an easily measured standard of conduct. At the same time, it was depressing to observe Democratic hypocrisy and extremism in their desperate abandonment of any pretense of ethical standards."
David Gergen 12/28/98 US News ".It's time for a cease-fire By his misdeeds, Clinton reminds us of important national principles As Republicans in Congress prepared to put a scarlet "I" on the breast of President Clinton last week, there was a rising clamor for him to resign. Even among Americans beyond the beltway, a national poll found that 58 percent said he should resign if he were impeached. He should do no such thing. A case for resignation existed months ago, when the scandal broke, but his stepping down now would seriously damage the highest office in the land. If this president is driven from office by the opposition party, acting alone, we will weaken the hand of his successors for decades to come... Assuming no new evidence comes to light and the White House finally calls off all efforts to personally discredit its foes, it seems highly unlikely that the 55 Republicans in the Senate can put together 67 votes against Clinton..."
American Spectator 12/26/98 R Emmett Tyrrell ".Our president has picked up the support of yet another distinguished American. He is Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine, the magazine for men who wear diapers--more on that another time. Flynt says he loves this president and will protect him from Republican hypocrisy. Incidentally, do not be put off by Flynt's apparent coarseness: the diction of a mental defective, the thoughts of a hopeless slob. He is a Clintonian sophisticate to the utmost, reminiscent of the Clintons' partners at Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, and, for that matter, of various members of the Clinton family. Consider the other stalwarts who have recently come out for the Clintons. There is Abe Hirschfeld, the New York parking-lot tycoon who put up $1 million to rid the nation of that malodorous Paula Corbin Jones suit, and Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard prof and deli entrepreneur. There are the private investigators Jack Palladino and Yale-educated Terry Lenzner. Their presence in the Clinton camp provides eloquent testimony to the dignity the Clintons have brought to the White House, in glorious contrast to the "sleaze" of Ronald Reagan and the militarism of George Bush. Yes, some have had their problems with the law. Mr. Hirschfeld was arrested on December 9 after his indictment for allegedly organizing a murder-for-hire plot. On January 19 Flynt will stand trial on 15 charges of obscenity violations. Yet Dershowitz is as clean as a hound's tooth, and we have very little current information on Palladino and Lenzner, who keep their activities rather secretive..Yes, the Clintons have brought some unique voices into national politics. One of the most unusual is their long-time defender, the glabrous James Carville. He once spoke of knee-capping Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Just over the weekend he announced that "these people [Republicans who voted for impeachment] are going to pay for what they did. This was a cowardly and dastardly thing that they did, and there's going to be retribution." Not twenty-four hours earlier the President called for an end to "excessive partisanship, obsessive animosity, and uncontrolled anger.".."
AP 12/25/98 ".Loyalty is in the job description, and Vice President Al Gore is providing loyalty plus as President Clinton's defender-in-chief in the impeachment struggle. It is a stand-up role that not only serves Clinton but may also boost Gore as he seeks the Democratic nomination for the White House in 2000...At the same time, Gore speaks in his TV interviews and other forums to quash the notion that the president might resign, as House GOP leaders said he should. "He has been a great president,'' Gore said in a CNN interview. "He is not going to resign.'' For emphasis, he said it again five times in the same interview. ..Eventually, there is another threshold awaiting Gore. When Vice President Gerald R. Ford was defending Richard M. Nixon early in 1974, against Watergate charges he said were the work of extreme partisans - Democrats in that case - Ford also said, "I shall remain my own man.'' That ended short of impeachment with Nixon's resignation as president, after he had to surrender tape-recorded proof of his own role in the coverup. Ford said that had he known of that evidence, "I would not have made a number of the statements I've made.'' .."
Washington Post 12/27/98 David Broder ".On April 11, 1951, Congress was up in arms about President Harry Truman's dismissal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur as commander of United Nations forces in Korea. Republicans were furious that Truman had sacked the national hero for insubordination. House GOP Leader Joe Martin and Sen. Bill Jenner of Indiana threatened impeachment, but Sen. Richard Nixon of California had a better idea. Nixon "proposed a Senate resolution of censure, saying the president 'has not acted in the best interests of the American people.' " This nugget of history, retrieved from the microfilm files of The Post by indefatigable researcher Ben White, sheds light on the current drive to wind up the controversy over President Clinton by a similar censure resolution... It is a reminder, however, that we have little basis for judging the effect of such a resolution, or even how seriously it would be taken by the target of the verbal spanking. Clinton is famous for his ability to compartmentalize, and even if he were required to sign a censure resolution, he might consign it to the most remote corner of his consciousness. Many of the same Democratic House members who on Dec. 19 professed their willingness to censure Clinton for having "egregiously failed" in his responsibilities and "dishonored the office" of president, were by afternoon backslapping the same man and cheering him as "one of our greatest presidents," to quote Vice President Gore. At a minimum, that White House spectacle must raise questions whether censure by Congress would be greeted with more than a shrug by this president on his way to a fund-raiser or a round of golf.."
Brian Bloomquist 12/26/98 ".Gore told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published yesterday that he might vote to break ties on pretrial motions and procedural matters, such as whether to allow certain evidence to be admitted in the trial..In a CNN interview with Jesse Jackson to be aired today, Gore suggests Republicans want to destroy Clinton for helping the poor, bridging the races and boosting women. Asked "what's driving this [anti-Clinton] passion," Gore said, "President Clinton and I have been trying to bridge the historic divide that has come about because of race and ethnicity in this country, elevate the role of women in our society and bring about some other changes - lifting up the poor - that have caused so many to feel a little unsettled."."
UPI Spotlight 12/27/98 ".The Republican Party is knocking Al Gore's intention to influence President Clinton's impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, saying there(is) "no controlling legal authority" for the vice president to intercede.."
The Union Leader 12/27/98 Joseph W. McQuaid ".Overlooked by much of the news media that we saw and read regarding last weekend's impeachment vote in the House were the remarks of U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts, Republican of Oklahoma...Children know that it is wrong to lie, Watts told his colleagues. They know "cross your heart and hope to die." They know "pinky swears" and "on your honor" and a host of other solemn and sincere sayings. And we as adults must reinforce and back up what they know, not tear it down. The line between truth and lying should not be drawn by the chief executive using a fine-point pen, Watts thundered. It must be drawn, big and bold and wide, using a good, solid Number Two school pencil. It was a marvelous word picture, illustrated dramatically a few minutes later when U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston, apologizing to his family and constituents, announced his resignation both as Speaker- designate and as a member of Congress. Having committed no crime, he nonetheless determined that past adulterous indiscretions had made him unfit to serve at this pivotal time in our history. He hoped, he said, that Mr. Clinton would follow his example.."
Richmond Times Dispatch 12/27/98 Ross Mackenzie ".It's Christmas time -- the time for celebrating a life representing the Virtuous and the Good and the True, a time especially for children -- and I want to talk to you about what has just happened in our country regarding our President. You have asked what's so bad about what he did, and why you can't lie if he can? And Mom has asked during the past months, What do we tell the kids? Not only are those good questions. They go to the heart of the matter before the country. This is a country of laws, and the laws affect everyone: you, me, Mom; your friends; the poor we try to help at Christmas; everyone -- including even our President..."
News Max.Com 12/27/98 Richard Brookhiser ".REPUBLICANS say it won't fly. But many Democrats, opinion-makers, and poll respondents say they like the idea of censure. They are reluctant to remove a President from office, but they don't want to approve of perjury and cigar parties either. Censure sounds good, and it means nothing: a perfect punishment for the age of Clinton...Censure is a non- punishment appropriate to President Clinton's non-repentance, and to the non-forgiveness he seeks from us. With one face, tear-stained, he tells us he has sinned, while with another (belonging to David Kendall) he still denies ever having had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile Americans, between gagging and gags, tell pollsters (some of them at any rate) that it is all a private matter..."
New York Times 12/27/98 Alison Mitchell ".When, as now seems likely, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist opens the impeachment trial of President Clinton early next year, there will be no time devoted to jury selection. Nor will the jury be impartial."
The Associated Press http://wire.ap/org/ 12/27/98 Laurie Kellman by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...A month-long, full-blown trial would ``not really impede the Senate,'' Santorum, R-Pa., said...What the Senate will consider, and how much of the graphic sexual evidence will be reviewed in public, is still fodder for fierce debate....House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, a leading proponent of impeachment, suggested that the Senate examine evidence never released publicly. A senior House GOP official, who demanded anonymity, has said DeLay is referring primarily to the conflicting accounts of a woman who accused Clinton of making an unwanted sexual advance toward her while he was Arkansas attorney general....Several undecided House Republicans reviewed that sealed evidence in the days before the House impeached Clinton along party lines....Rep. Bob Franks, R-N.J., said Sunday the sealed evidence wouldn't change the facts of the trial. But the material threatens to further embarrass the Clintons and might give the president motivation to cooperate with efforts to bring the matter to a close,."
Congressional Review 7/21/95 Freeper report from THOMAS website about a public hearing for Bob Packwood, Barbara Boxer said ".First, they say public hearings on this matter would bring the Senate into disrepute. I argue that the opposite is true. As former Chief Justice Brandeis said, `Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.' By acknowledging problems and demonstrating a willingness to discipline our own, we strengthen the Senate and the bonds with the people. We win confidence from the people by discharging our responsibilities frankly and openly--no matter how controversial the issue. But we irrevocably lose the people's respect by sweeping our problems under the committee room rug. The Senate is not a private club; it is the people's Senate . We do not go in the back room, light up a cigar, and decide these cases... ...Now, why are public hearings important? Because they demonstrate to the people--out in the sunlight--that we take seriously our constitutionally mandated responsibility to discipline our own, to discipline our own for unethical conduct. Each time an allegation of misconduct surfaces, the bonds of trust between the Congress and the people are strained. But by facing these allegations head-on, by holding public hearings and supporting appropriate disciplinary actions, we begin to repair those bonds of trust. Covering up our problems and attempting to hide them from the people only makes matters worse. And that is not the way we should function as a democracy."
Reuters 12/27/98 ".Former White House spokesman Mike McCurry confirmed Sunday he "was troubled by some of the president's behavior" but said Bill Clinton had already received the punishment "that will hurt the most." By being impeached by the House of Representatives, Clinton "has now suffered in history what no other president save (Andrew) Johnson has suffered, and that is going to be with him forever," McCurry said on the NBC television program "Meet the Press." ."
Drudge 12/27/98 "..Independent Counsel Ken Starr gave Juanita Broaddrick [Jane Doe #5] full immunity from prosecution earlier this year, according to case intelligence. Broaddrick was given immunity from prosecution for possibly providing false or misleading information in an affidavit filed in the Paula Jones case. Last February, the DRUDGE REPORT alerted readers who were following the Paula Jones sex case that there was great interest swirling around a woman named "Juanita." She was code named "Jane Doe #5." A month later, NBC NEWS star Lisa Myers explored the "Juanita" story in a nightly news shocker: A woman claims she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton back in the 1970s! The White House called that allegation "Outrageous" and Starr's office would later determine that Broaddrick's story was too hard to pin down. The OIC left her name out of its impeachment referral, however, it did give Congress background information on the shocking Broaddrick episode.."
Washington Post 12/27/98 David Broder Richard Morin ".The sharply divided public reaction to the impeachment of President Clinton has provided a dramatic showcase of a struggle for American values that goes back to the 1960s and remains unresolved today. As an emblematic figure from that troubled decade, polls and analysts said, Clinton confronts his fellow citizens with choices between deeply held moral standards and an abhorrence of judging others' behavior, a conflict the Baby Boomers have stirred all their adult lives..But few issues are more revealing than Clinton's impeachment when it comes to highlighting how values have changed over the past 30 years. Almost without exception, experts interviewed said the public verdict in his case is far different than it would have been in the late '60s because the values environment has changed..Reflecting the partisanship engendered by the long investigation of Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, most Republicans demand a moral example and most Democrats reject it..Over the last 30 years, polling shows the proportion of people saying they think their fellow citizens generally are as honest and moral as they used to be has fallen significantly. In a 1952 survey, as many answered yes as said no. In 1965, there were three yeses for every four noes. But this year there were almost three noes (71 percent) for every yes (26 percent). In the same period, trust in government also has declined radically. In 1968, 61 percent said they trusted the government in Washington to do the right thing most or all the time; in 1998, only 33 percent felt that way..."As citizens, we have become just spectators, even voyeurs. . . . We've told the pollsters we want the whole issue to be over, and yet we can't bring ourselves to change the channel. . . . It reflects a cynicism beyond mistrust. It reflects a view that government really doesn't matter, except as it provides occasional spectacular entertainment. It is not good news for democracy."."
L. A. Times 12/28/98 Marlene Cimons ".Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., warned the White House on Sunday that challenging the House's recent vote to impeach President Clinton on procedural grounds could backfire. The White House has suggested that the impeachment procedure might be invalid because a ``lame-duck'' House of Representatives from the Congress that expires at the end of this year passed along the articles of impeachment to a Senate that will be part of the new Congress that takes office on Jan. 6. But Daschle suggested that any maneuver aimed at overturning the House vote would smack of the same sort of legalisms that Clinton has invoked to say he did not lie when he denied having sexual relations with Monica S. Lewinsky. It ``would delay the process, politicize the environment -- and I don't think it would succeed,'' he said."
Washington Post 12/28/98 Helen Dewar ".Plans for the Senate's trial of President Clinton began to take shape Sunday as key senators said it could begin within days after Congress reconvenes Jan. 6 and conclude swiftly, possibly with a tough censure although perhaps without a financial penalty. But several Republicans indicated they may insist that Clinton say he lied to a grand jury, which he has so far refused to do. Some also signaled they will resist censure before the completion of a full-blown trial. And Democrats reacted icily to the possibility of a White House challenge to the legitimacy of the House impeachment votes. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, also suggested that there may be no need to call witnesses, such as Monica S. Lewinsky and other figures in the sex scandal that led to Clinton's impeachment by the House on charges of lying under oath and obstructing justice.."
National Review 12/31/98 Jay Nordlinger "." This was far from "lying about sex"; this was genuinely "frightening." The event, of course, was Richard Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox as Watergate special prosecutor, the key moment in the history of American fascism. Dean -- like others from that era -- cherishes the memory, and will brook no comparisons. Never mind that Cox was duly replaced by Leon Jaworski, who did a perfectly respectable job of driving Nixon from office. Dean and his brethren have a manifest interest in guarding the uniqueness of their experience. Call it scandal jealousy; or, as the anti- Clinton priestess Lucianne Goldberg does, "Carl Bernstein disease" (named after the Nixon-toppling investigative journalist who tells anyone who will listen that the pursuit of the current President is absurd). The veterans of Watergate are furious that others have encroached on their turf, daring to oust another President and, worse, citing the precedent of 1973-74 in doing so..There are, naturally, great differences between Watergate and the Monica follies; but there are marked similarities, too (particularly in the area of obstruction of justice). Above all else, what the Clintonites cannot abide is any mixing of their man's name with that of Nixon, two of the most damning syllables in the American political vocabulary. For years, "Nixon" has served as an almost unanswerable epithet, shaming the GOP. In 1984, Walter Mondale -- piqued at President Reagan's frequent invocation of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy -- advised Republicans to "stick with your own heroes: Harding, Hoover, and Nixon" (and how he lingered over this last!).."
NY Times 12/28/98 Stephen Gillers ".The Justice Department indicted Mr. DeZarn for perjury and proved he had attended the fund-raiser in 1990. The jury convicted him, and the judge imposed a 15-month prison term after concluding that Mr. DeZarn told new lies about his old lies at the trial. On appeal, Mr. DeZarn argued that because Mr. Wellman also had a party in 1991, which was not a fund-raiser, his answer was literally true and therefore not perjury. He relied on the same 1973 Supreme Court decision that the President's lawyers repeatedly cite. But in October, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati affirmed the conviction and sentence. In the 1973 case, it ruled, the witness's literally true answer was "nonresponsive." He ignored the question entirely, which should have alerted the questioner. Mr. DeZarn, by contrast, gave responsive and "categorical answers to questions" in order to mislead. The court wrote: "A perjury inquiry which focuses only upon the precision of the question and ignores what the defendant knew about the subject matter of the question at the time it was asked, misses the very point of perjury, that is, the defendant's intent to testify falsely and, thereby, mislead his interrogators. Such a limited inquiry would not only undermine the perjury laws, it would undermine the rule of law as a whole." Mr. DeZarn knew that the investigators were really asking about 1990, not 1991, so his literally true but "contextually false" and misleading answer was perjury. The lesson of the DeZarn case can be applied to many of Mr. Clinton's sworn answers.."
Financial Times 12/28/98 Gerard Baker ".Any lingering hopes President Bill Clinton may have harboured that he might be able to avoid a formal trial in the Senate on impeachment charges faded at the weekend as the leading Democratic senator said a trial would have to begin early in the new year. Tom Daschle, Senate minority leader, rejected the possibility that senators might agree to avoid a potentially long and distracting trial with a vote to censure the president instead. "I think we have to start the process. The constitution lays out a procedure by which we ought to begin, and I think the Senate will follow that," he told NBC News. But there was no reason why the process should not be concluded quickly, he added."
New York Post 12/28/98 Vince Morris ".Key Senate Democrats yesterday predicted a two- month impeachment trial for President Clinton, and warned White House aides not to use legal trickery to try to shorten it. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a four-term Democrat from New York, predicted on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Clinton's trial on two articles of impeachment will end with a censure deal - possibly around March 1. But first, "Let us hear what testimony is brought before us," Moynihan said, supporting Senate Republicans who insist on starting a trial Jan. 6 or 7 and possibly cutting a deal with Clinton when it's over or in its waning days..."
Washington Times Joyce Howard Price 12/28/98 ".There was growing agreement yesterday that the U.S. Senate will open an impeachment trial on or about Jan. 7, and Vice President Al Gore won't be a part of it.. Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed yesterday that Vice President Gore should have no role in the trial or pretrial proceedings. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that Mr. Gore believes he might be called, as president of the Senate, to break ties in procedural matters, such as admissibility of evidence."
www.spectator.com 12/27/98 R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. ".The Nixon impeachment is the immediate precedent for the present crisis. As a precedent it vividly illuminates the present crisis. The grounds for impeaching Richard Nixon were written up by a group of lawyers including Hillary Rodham and Bernard Nussbaum, President Clinton's first White House counsel. The bar set by them to impeach Nixon was much lower than the bar set to impeach Clinton--despite the Clintonites' claims to being so cruelly persecuted. The grounds for impeaching Nixon involved merely unethical behavior, not felonious behavior, as in the case of Clinton's perjurious testimony and obstruction of justice. The dangers to the Republic attendant with impeaching Nixon were far greater than impeaching Clinton today. The Cold War was on, and there was even open war between the Israelis and the Arabs. Finally faced with the evidence against him--evidence solely of ethical misconduct--Nixon resigned. The country was saved from further torment. Nixon saved it.."
Wall Street Journal 12/28/98 Andrew McCarthy ".Over the past few weeks a boundless number of made-for-media pro-Clinton lawyers, all brandished by their TV hosts as "former federal prosecutors," have harangued viewers with the latest theme in their campaign to stave off the president's removal from office: the asserted need for "proportionality." As they see it, proportionality is the concept that the punishment prescribed by law should be ignored because it seems too severe under the circumstances. Specifically, Mr. Clinton's defenders argue that it would be disproportionate to remove him "merely" because he subverted the judicial proceedings he is sworn to preserve, protect and defend. In fact, no responsible federal prosecutor would refrain from bringing felony charges in the president's case...The idea of proportionality also comes with an important caveat: Law-enforcement officials who break the law must be subject to harsher punishment than ordinary citizens. The reasons are obvious.. So how does proportionality apply to Mr. Clinton's situation? Unlike most defendants, who may cost the government a few thousand dollars, the president's obdurate lying and stonewalling have cost us several million dollars. He has torn asunder the sexual harassment laws. He has made it exponentially more difficult for the government to justify prosecuting those who lie under oath. And his behavior raises the specter of a compliant Justice Department redefining the legal definition of perjury to suit the administration's interests. Taken together, Mr. Clinton's actions could easily justify several charges aggregating to well over 15 years of potential jail time. But let's confine the accusation to a single count of grand-jury perjury, an offense carrying a statutory maximum of five years' imprisonment. The guidelines that control federal sentencing initially compute this at "level 12," which translates to a jail sentence of 10 to 16 months for a first offender.."
The Oklahoman 12/28/98 Joseph Sobran ". When a man is defended by James Carville, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Dershowitz and Larry Flynt, it seems almost superfluous to convict him. The very fact that he attracts partisans of this caliber is itself a kind of verdict..We live in a country that can't even agree that perjury ranks among the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that disqualify a man from serving as chief executor of its laws. He can swear to tell the truth before God and man, and proceed to utter a series of cold- blooded, premeditated lies, and he remains worthy to lead us..In the offices he has occupied, Clinton has used his power to procure women, to find jobs for those who gratify his lust, to defame those who resist his advances, to conceal evidence of his guilt, to enlist his subordinates (who, like him, are nominally public servants) to carry his lies, and even to order timely acts of war to delay his impeachment. We are assured by his dutiful subordinates --the same Cabinet officers who have vouched for his lies (and didn't see fit to resign when the truth became undeniable) -- that these acts of war were fully justified. Shame on those who suspected that this president was abusing his immense power. ."
LA Times 12/28/98 Ronald Brownstein ".Among conservatives it is an article of faith that Congress has to oust President Clinton to awaken a country badly in need of moral renewal. That argument has only two problems. One is that all evidence suggests that a moral renewal is already underway in America. The second is that the public response to the Clinton scandal--condemnation of his behavior bounded by opposition to his removal--embodies the new social consensus that's making this renewal possible...To the right, Clinton embodies everything that went wrong with America in the 1960s. Forcing him out is meant not only to hold him personally accountable for his duplicity, it's also meant to roll back the "moral relativism" advanced by the baby boom generation and reestablish bright lines of right and wrong. ..These arguments not only help explain why conservatives have been so passionate about removing Clinton. They also help explain why the rest of the country has been so cool--if not hostile--to that cause. The right's problem is that while it sees the struggle against Clinton as a critical moment in a long culture war, most Americans consider that war long settled..."
U.S. News 12/98 Marianne Lavelle ".If impeachment reaches the Senate floor, White House strategists should not count on an easy ride. While it still seems unlikely that the president's opponents could muster the 67 votes required to evict him, the prospects for an early settlement seem equally remote. Those who know the Senate a tradition-bound body stocked with independent minds say the president could be in for a long and arduous fight. The outcome would probably come down to a swatch of senators who could wreak havoc with the conventional wisdom by voting to convict, acquit, censure or even, in the end, insist that resignation is the only dignified solution.. Their biggest fear is that independent-minded Senate Democrats will begin to flake off legislators like Dianne Feinstein, Fritz Hollings, Bob Kerrey, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. On the eve of the House vote, Democratic Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and William Lipinski of Illinois said Clinton should consider resignation but that was hardly a ground swell, and it didn't set off great alarms in the West Wing. Looking for a pre-emptive strike, Clinton's allies are canvassing Democrats to determine if they could show perhaps through a signed public statement by at least 34 senators opposing conviction that holding a trial would be futile.."
Jewish World Review 12/28/98 Larry Elder ".Take Alan Dershowitz's recent appearance on "Rivera Live": " A vote against impeachment is not a vote for Bill Clinton. It is a vote against bigotry. It's a vote against fundamentalism. It's a vote against anti-environmentalism. It's a vote against the right-to-life movement. It's a vote against the radical right. This is truly the first battle in a great culture war. And if this president is impeached, it will be a great victory for the forces of evil, evil, genuine evil. ...So why the hysteria? Simple. Many Democrats plainly and quite deeply find Republicans irredeemably, irretrievably evil. Yes, evil. Consider the way Dick Morris said the president described his 1996 campaign opponent, Bob Dole, a World War II veteran who nearly lost his life defending the country. According to Morris, Clinton said: " ... Bob Dole is not a nice man. Bob Dole is evil. The things he wants to do to children are evil. The things he wants to do to poor people and old people and sick people are evil. Let's get that straight." ."
Universal Press Syndicate 12/10/98 Joe Sobran ".The trouble with Bill Clinton is not that he is immoral, but that he is a moral freak -- someone whose deviancy has been so bizarre that nobody could have predicted it in any specific way. Yet he is able to take refuge in the very fact that his behavior is so far off the charts. The framers of the Constitution didn't specify that a president could be impeached for having fellatio with a subordinate in his office. And even now, nobody blames them for this oversight -- except, by implication, Clinton's apologists, who consider the omission virtual exoneration, just as they consider the failure of Paula Jones's lawyers to mention fellatio as a form of "sexual relations" an excuse for Clinton's denials under oath..."
Judicial Watch 12/28/98 ".Judicial Watch announced today that it would deliver this week a copy of its Interim Report to each member of the United States Senate. The Interim Report's nearly 4,000 pages of supporting evidence is already available to each Senator through the House Judiciary Committee. The Report outlines impeachable offenses by President Clinton related to Filegate, Chinagate, IRS-Gate, and Trustgate (the Clintons' illegal defense trust funds). The Report's evidence relating to Presidential perjury about Dolly Kyle Browning, a former paramour of Clinton's, was confirmed by Chairman Hyde's chief investigator David Schippers and his staff. The Report is part of the official record of the House Judiciary Committee and will be supplemented with additional evidence on Filegate and Travelgate uncovered by Judicial Watch in just the past few weeks. "The Senate cannot look the other way. It has a constitutional and moral obligation to consider the entire Clinton pattern of conduct of intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of justice," stated Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel. "The rules of evidence allow other witnesses and evidence to be introduced in the Senate trial that would confirm a `pattern of conduct' that would help prove the specific allegations in the impeachment articles.."
National Review 12/28/98 Jonah Goldberg ".Elizabeth Shogren from the Los Angeles Times has gotten a great deal of play for her recent article about how Clinton is handling the trauma of being impeached. . . .Shogren was able to query Clinton about how he was coping with the fact he was impeached. She then wrote up the conversation and portrayed Clinton as cheery and over-confident.. . . The "news," of course, is that Clinton is not contrite, not good news for the honorable Democrats in the Senate trying to save his butt with a censure deal that first and foremost calls for contrition.."
Los Angeles Times - DAILY PILOT 12/26/98 Husein Mashn ".Serious problems have been uncovered by a six-month congressional investigation into the connection between Democratic Party fund raising and the transfer of sensitive satellite technology to the People's Republic of China, says Rep. Chris Cox of Newport Beach, who oversaw the investigation. e classified final draft of the $1.5 million, 1,800- page study will be completed today, Cox said. The select committee has uncovered exceptionally serious problems in the area of our jurisdiction," Cox said. "If it was publicly known, it would be shocking, indeed." Cox chaired the select committee, which includes members of both parties who looked into an alleged transfer of sensitive satellite technology to China from Loral Space & Communications Co. and Hughes Electronics Corp...Although the report is classified and has been successfully guarded from being leaked to the media, Cox said the select committee will attempt to "declassify as much of the report as possible," by early next year. "We have in recent months been focusing on [Chinese] espionage directed against U.S. military technology," Cox said earlier this week. "We'll have Christmas Day off, but then we'll be back to work Saturday."."
Scripps-Howard 12/29/98 Lawrence O'Rourke ".House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., summoned the House impeachment prosecutors back from their holiday breaks for what he billed as an informal meeting to work out assignments. Hyde returned to Washington from his suburban Chicago home on Monday, saying he wanted the impeachment team to start studying its authority and options. Hyde presented two articles of impeachment to the Senate clerk on Saturday, Dec. 19, shortly after the House approved them by a largely party-line vote. Hyde acted after the House, also along party lines, named Hyde and 12 other Republicans as impeachment managers... "
Star Tabloid 1/5/98 Freeper fountainhead reports ".It was a long line at the supermarket check-out, so I was able to read the story behind the screaming headline on the cover. Yes, it is the Juanita Broaddrick story that we Freepers know so well. However, it did have a few more details that bear mentioning. Ken Starr did give Juanita (aka "Jane Doe #5") immunity in return for her admission that she did file a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case. And yes, she did so because she was intimidated. These scare tactics go back as far as 1992 when potential "bimbo eruptions" were trying to be contained. Both the FBI and Starr believe her story. However, they didn't feel that they had enough concrete proof to include it in the charges. However, this story is not going to be contained. There were numerous references to the people who had seen the evidence in the Ford Building and the impact it had upon them.."
Freeper report on MSNBC 12/28/98 ".Pat Caddell, former Democrat strategist of the McGovernite/Humphrey oldguard group of the Democrat party, explained on MSNBC why Democrats are literally throwing their bodies on the tracks in front of the impeachment/conviction train going through Washington. Explained Mr. Caddell (not exact quote)"they have given Clinton a free pass because of their fear." The jest of what he was saying is that Clinton has had a 'free pass', read: get out of jail card, for years because the liberals are so intimidated with fear concerning the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, and Ken Starr. In otherwords, the oldgaurd of the party has swallowed its values to support Clinton, because they fear the 'right'. ."
The Orlando Sentinel 12/29/98 Charley Reese ".Well, Willie Clinton has been impeached, and the sky didn't fall. Nor will it fall when the Senate takes up impeachment. It will not fall if they boot him out of office, which, at the present moment, I doubt they will do. These days one has to become an expert in the varieties of heifer dust. The Democrats, members of the party of slime, gave up addressing the issues. Following the orders of the sociopath-in-chief, they just attacked Republicans. The lame arguments they put forth are interesting for their lack of logic and seamy sophistry.. Clinton at least can be proud of his defenders -- Larry Flynt, the pornographer; assorted actors, one of whom, Alec Baldwin, has called for the killing of Rep. Henry Hyde and his family (let's see if the Justice Department prosecutes Baldwin for threatening a federal official); the hypocritical feminists; the gay lobby; and the shameless Democrats. Looks to me like a conspiracy by left-wing extremists to keep the bad guy in office.."
Washington Times 12/29/98 Sean Scully ".Senate Democrats have given up trying to stop an impeachment trial of President Clinton, but they continued yesterday to struggle to save his presidency from an up-or-down vote on removing him from office...Mr. Daschle did rule out one strategy -- circulating a letter from Democratic senators vowing not to vote to remove the president. If 34 or more senators sign the letter, the trial would be moot. "I think it would be a big mistake," Mr. Daschle said on "Meet the Press." "First of all, it would delay the process; secondly, I think it might politicize the environment."."
USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/ Kathy Kiely by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...House members who will argue for President Clinton's removal in a Senate impeachment trial hold their first legal strategy meeting Tuesday....House Judiciary C ommittee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., and a dozen other Republican members assigned to the prosecution team...plan the historic proceeding, which is expected to get under way as early as Jan. 6....the 13 impeachment ''managers,''...are likely to discuss s ensitive issues such as which, if any, witnesses to call in the case against Clinton, who stands accused of lying under oath and obstructing justice to conceal an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky....(Congressman Asa) Hutchinson cautio ned that a full-fledged trial may be unavoidable....''It might be difficult to cut very many corners with regard to testimony,''...Hutchinson, a former federal prosecutor, believes that the trial will require testimony and cross-examination of witnesses.. ..the case against the president ''can't be presented very well in a summary.''..."
New York Post 12/29/98 Ray Kerrison ".SEN. Pat Moynihan, often acclaimed as the pride of New York politics for his erudition and balance, has jumped aboard the censure bandwagon as the best way to dispose of the Clinton impeachment mess. "We'll have a trial and there will be censure and then, God willing, there'll be closure," said the New York Democrat..Censure will be totally worthless if it does not specifically state the president committed the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. And because Clinton has vowed he will never confess to those crimes, censure is nothing more than an illusion. Censure also would be a legal and historical blunder. When Moynihan and his peers in the Senate sit down to write the censure document, they will inherit an obligation to write a companion notice to Alton Stone. Stone is the horse groom I wrote about on Dec. 1. He has just been sentenced to five months in jail, five months' house arrest and two years' probation for lying to a grand jury in the death of the legendary race horse Alydar...Moynihan's claim that removing a president following impeachment will destabilize the institution of the presidency is insupportable. I don't recall one Democrat raising that specter when they were after Richard Nixon's neck in 1974. Why is it suddenly pertinent in this case? No one has done more to destabilize the presidency than Clinton. Consider what the Democrats themselves said of him in their censure resolution: "When the president took the oath of office, implicit in that oath is the obligation that the president set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth. "William Jefferson Clinton has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions, has violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of the presidency and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him." Of all the dishonorable things Clinton has done, nothing quite compares with the undisputed finding that he was having sex with Monica Lewinsky while talking on the phone to a congressman about the troops in Bosnia. If this is not destabilizing the presidency, what is? The chief protector of the presidency should be the president himself. If he trashes it, tramples on it and defiles it, then he is not worthy of the office - and should be removed. ."
Freeper Penny on Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 12/29/98 ". THERE WAS a time when the United States Senate was seriously described as the greatest deliberative body in the world. Now it is called upon to act like it. All those grand old platitudes that senators are known to utter on ceremonial occasions-- all those words about courage and judgment, and, yes, about truth and duty and the rule of law--suddenly apply. A president of the United States has been impeached, and now his trial becomes a clear and ever more present necessity. Senators might actually be called on to act on their principles.."
Washington Times 12/29/98 John McCaslin Freeper LS report ".In John McCaslin's "Inside the Beltway," he quotes a criminal defense lawyer from Fairfax, VA named Kate Untiedt on the oft-used "Clinton defense"--- "the president lied and got away with it so why can't I?" asks her clients. The judges have always struck down such a motion she adds, and suspects that the defense is widespread, based on her own experiences..."
Drudge 12/29/98 ".Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott urges Democrats to "calm down" and not rush forward with a censure deal for President Clinton, in an interview set for Tuesday's LOS ANGELES TIMES. Lott now says that the Senate must hear a full presentation of the evidence before deciding Bill Clinton's fate. He tells the paper: "We need to go forward and do our constitutional duty to hear the evidence." In the interview, Lott blasts Senate Democrats that are opposed to convicting Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction in the Lewinsky mess. "Are they all loony left?" Lott asks. "Are there no Democrats that are offended if, in fact, the evidence proves perjury or obstruction of justice? Surely there are some Democrats that will be concerned about that." .."
Landmark Legal Foundation 12/29/98 Mark Levin Arthur Fergenson ". It is certainly ironic that earlier this month Gerald Ford joined with Jimmy Carter to ask the United States Senate to cut short its constitutional obligation to try the articles of impeachment returned by the House of Representatives. After all it was Mr. Ford, almost 29 years ago, who actually urged the impeachment of Justice William O. Douglas - a fact his new-found liberal friends conveniently ignore. Mr. Ford had, of course, no "high crimes or misdemeanors" of which to accuse Justice Douglas. Nevertheless, he concluded that he would urge impeachment without one, and proclaimed on the basis of no authority whatsoever that "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history. ." That was, and is, wrong. Impeachment lies only for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." This is a term of art derived from the English practice and applied for 200 years in the United States. It is no more incapable of interpretation and application as a matter of law than other terms in the Constitution, such as "equal protection of the law" and "freedom of religion." Mr. Ford, who would have impeached Justice Douglas based on ideological differences, is now asking the Senate to ignore its obligation to try the impeachment of Bill Clinton returned by the House."
The Washington Times 12/29/98 Wesley Pruden ".Sex, lies and lots of audiotape. The impeachment train continues to rumble through the countryside, pushing aside all the old railroad ties, junked cars, abandoned refrigerators, hickory trees, sticks and stones the president and his accomplices can throw up on the tracks.. The huffing and puffing of the New York Times, trying to manufacture a spontaneous combustion of sentiment for a meaningless resolution of censure, created a few headlines and elevated the temperature of cable-TV talk-show hosts and their guests, but not much else. This demonstrates how the fracturing of the media into print, television and above all the Internet has rendered the dinosaurs moot if not mute..You can't blame Mr. Clinton for feeling particularly cocky. He may even look forward to the trial. Since he is not bothered by the usual emotions of shame and mortification that would have driven other men in his situation to ask for a revolver and a silver bullet on his breakfast tray, a trial before the United States Senate would be a challenge and a dare, fun and games to taunt the judgment of history.."
The Weekly Standard David Tell, for the Editors 1/04-11/99 ".United States senators-- following the lead of the 101st senator, the New York Times editorial page--are scrambling to fashion a "deal" for the "censure" of William Jefferson Clinton. The deal is proposed in the gravest possible tone of voice. Its advocates claim to be acting only with the noblest of aims: in practice, to "spare" the nation any further, drawn-out "agony" over the Lewinsky affair--and, in principle, to "protect the presidency" from any future, similarly "unwarranted" encroachment by the congressional impeachment power. The "agony" business hardly merits comment. It is mere rhetorical bloat meant to give the plan an extra measure of urgency. Americans could hardly be less "agonized" by this year's scandal. Anesthetized would be a better word for it.."
Human Events, page 6 1/1/99 Ann Coulter ".The clich‚ is now accepted as fact: "Clinton has been lucky in his enemies." (I'd just like to say, has anyone gotten a gander at Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler or Barney Frnak?) In any event, Clinton was not lucky in drawing Henry Hyde and America's favorite Democrat, David Schippers, as his adversaries. He was not lucky at all. Now that the magnificent House of Representatives has just avoided ducking its constitutional responsibility, it's the Senate's turn to duck its constitutional responsibility. Let's play back the record. On January 26 of this year, Sen. John F. Kerry (D.-Mass.) said of the charges that President Clinton had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, "I want to believe him." But, Kerry said, Clinton needs to answer "every single question and be as detailed and forthcoming as possible" to survive. Otherwise, Kerry said cryptically, it "gets cloudier and more complicated." Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.) called the charges a "crisis of the regime." He warned that the President was finished if Clinton had sex with the former intern. "If it's so, it represents a disorder," Moynihan said. Steven Grossman, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, summarized the view from the President's own party: "Everyone acknowledges there are legitimate questions that need to be answered." But he added, "the President has made it clear he will answer all of them." And he did answer all of them. He lied, but he answered all of them. Monica Lewinsky and a certain blue dress would soon establish (7.87 billion to 1) that the President had invoked the moral authority of the Oval Office to lie to "the American people" -- as he called his subjects. Suddenly, the standard for a "crisis of the regime" and a "cloudier and more complicated" situation changed. And it would continue to change as Clinton kept getting caught in each new lie and felony.."
National Enquirer 12/29/98 Larry Haley "."How do I deal with the terror in my kids' eyes when they hear Alec Baldwin wants everyone to kill our family members? It's an outrage!" With those words, the shaken son of Congressman Henry Hyde revealed the nightmare he and his family have been living since Baldwin stunned America with a blood-curdling rant about stoning Rep. Hyde and his family to death. In an exclusive ENQUIRER interview, Henry Hyde Jr. blasted Baldwin for his comments on national TV, admitting he's fearful "some deranged person" could murder himself and his loved ones.."
The Weekly Standard 1/4-11/99 Fred Barnes ".THE DAY AFTER HE WAS IMPEACHED, President Clinton gathered with several hundred friends at the White House for a Christmas party. He acted like a man who'd just received an honor, not a rebuke. He joked about Larry Flynt, the porn publisher bent on exposing Republicans as philanderers. And he noted that attacks on an opponent's personal failings are a common tactic in politics. To punctuate the point, he recounted the famous story of President Lincoln's response to complaints that Gen. Ulysses Grant had a drinking problem. "Whatever he's drinking, make sure the other generals get some, too," Clinton quoted Lincoln as saying. Think about that anecdote for a moment and you'll understand why the president himself is the biggest impediment to his short- circuiting a trial in the Senate and escaping with censure..Don't get your hopes up, Mr. President. There's a groundswell for censure in the Senate, but not for granting censure to a cocky, unrepentant defendant.."
AP Larry Margasak 12/29/98 ".For the first time, the House members appointed to prosecute President Clinton plotted strategy Tuesday for a historic Senate impeachment trial. Some said they want to call witnesses -- an idea that got a cool reception from the Senate Republican leader. ``I personally, as a former prosecutor, always like to have witnesses,'' said Rep. James Rogan of California as he entered the closed-door meeting of House managers named for Clinton's trial. ``Which witnesses, the tenor of their testimony, what areas need to be gone into, depends on a number of things,'' including whether Clinton will accept certain facts and not challenge evidence, Rogan added. But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said he believes a trial could be held without witnesses. ``Are witnesses required? I don't think so,'' Lott said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. ``I think the record is there to be reviewed, read, presented in a form that (House prosecutors) choose ... and I think that would be sufficient.'' ."
Scripps Howard News Service 12/29/98 Joan Lowy ".Senate Republicans are under intense pressure from their party's conservative wing to follow any impeachment trial through to its conclusion no matter how long it takes, or whether there are enough votes to convict President Clinton. While some Senate Democrats and White House allies publicly have advocated averting a prolonged trial through a censure deal, conservative political activists said they are strongly urging GOP lawmakers to stay the course..``The thing that I like to remind everybody of is that two months ago on Nov. 3 impeachment was being called a dead issue. It was over. Nothing was going to happen,'' said Tom Katina, executive director of the American Conservative Union. ``If we've learned anything over the past year, it is that you can't predict anything.''."
Washington Post 12/30/98 David Broder ".Disillusionment began for me during the 1992 campaign with his deceptive answers about his dealings with the draft. It made me recall Doris Kearns Goodwin's earlier warning that when we found a presidential candidate who reinvented his own history, we should pay heed, for such a character flaw would only be magnified by the power of the Oval Office. The Monica Lewinsky story shocked me last January, not because it confirmed Mr. Clinton's reputation as a womanizer but because - as Mike McCurry, the former White House press secretary, said the other day - ''the recklessness of his behavior'' was so stunning. In my first column on the subject, I said, ''a journalist must suspend judgment until all the facts are known,'' and for weeks thereafter, I confined my comments to the ''need to think about the really murky issue of when the private sexual behavior of presidents and presidential aspirants deserves to be a matter for public scrutiny.'' But I also said, ''The rule of law requires any American to give truthful testimony when sworn as a witness in a legal proceeding [and] no one is above the law.'' ..I have said - to the intense aggravation of many of you - that resignation would be a true act of contrition by a president who admits he has ''misled'' his colleagues in government and the American people. It would be a voluntary act, prompted only by his conscience and his respect for his oath of office. And it would permit a man who shares Mr. Clinton's entire agenda, but is unimpaired by his character deficits, to assume the presidency - as the voters twice have ordained. I appreciate all your letters, even the most critical ones. But that is where I stand.."
L. A. Times 12/30/98 Richard A. Serrano ".The members of the House of Representatives who will prosecute President Clinton revealed Tuesday they expect to call a number of key witnesses and may unveil additional new evidence after the historic trial formally opens next week in the Senate.. But they are clearly leaning that way, as many of the 13 managers -- all Republicans -- said they would expect to see presidential pal Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie, Clinton's personal secretary, as witnesses against the president.."
Freeper A Whitewater Researcher 12/29/98 reports ".EXCERPTS: "...Friends of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr tell CBS News he has not ruled out a deal which would free the president from any criminal liability after he leaves office, CBS News White House Correspondent Bill Plante reports....The White House is discreetly discussing with senators of both parties what such a so-called "global settlement" would take. That would leave it up to the Senate to set Mr. Clinton's punishment - which the White House hopes will be some sort of censure....Most censure proposals have included a stipulation that the president admit that he lied under oath in testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky....But the president's defenders still insist there's absolutely no way he will admit to perjury or lying - only that he "misled." So what will Mr. Clinton have to do to get a deal? They don't know the answer at the White House, but they're trying to find out...."I would prefer that there would be a vote on the articles of impeachment," he (Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott) said...." Freeper adds ".NBC News correspondent Chip Reid said on MSNBC tonight that there are no such talks going on now among Judge Starr and "friends" regarding a Clinton censure/immunity deal, and that Judge Starr has not been contacted about such a meeting. Reid called the above CBS News Clinton censure/immunity story a "trial balloon"..."
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 12/30/98 Meredith Oakley ". If members of Congress think Clinton's (mis)conduct merits only disapprobation, let them issue their various and sundry press releases denouncing and insulting him in the most emphatic and denigrating language ever conceived by a press secretary and move on. But if they see perjury in sworn testimony couched in terms to deceive and obstruction in the pursuit of justice in a land where all are supposed to be equal under the law, then they need to quit playing mind games with themselves and the rest of us, too."
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 12/30/98 Paul Greenberg ".If anybody can get the president off with mere disgrace, surely it will be those two quite different Democratic pillars of the Senate of the United States, Robert Byrd and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. One could not envision two more different types than the (a) grand old man of the Senate from West Virginia, a veritable well of pomp and circumstance, in the most grandiloquent tradition of 19th Century American oratory and heirlooms, and (b) the incisive senator from New York, who not only thinks for himself but does it very well. If it were not such a devalued word, one might be tempted to describe Pat Moynihan as the Senate's only intellectual. ..At last Senator Moynihan, who has encountered so few intellectual challenges in the Senate worthy of his talents, will have one deserving of his ingenuity. Will he be able to craft what John Ehrlichman, in an inspired moment back in the Nixon Years, called a modified limited hangout? Or will Daniel Patrick Moynihan dare to be a Daniel? In the words of the old hymn: Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone, dare to have a purpose firm, dare to make it known! Or is that sort of religious metaphor irrelevant in an age of normal nihilism? .."
The Houston Chronicle 12/30/98 Martin Schram ".And here was the president saying that this first ever condemnation by impeachment was, well, really not bad at all. Just what does he think Democrats working to save his ebullience-stained presidency are going to be able to do with that? ."
The Houston Chronicle 12/30/98 Jane Ely ".But it is Gramm who is the true miracle -- a voice of calm reason and grand good sense in the first public remarks of length and merit he has made on the question of the constitutional process that is supposed to govern this procedure. Simply, if not nearly as well, put, Gramm says the Senate has a clear, constitutional obligation to vote on whether the president is guilty or not of the two articles of impeachment adopted in the House -- and nothing more. In essence, he says the Senate has no dern business censuring and/or punishing the president or anyone else in the administrative or judicial branches of the government. Furthermore, he notes, in much more elegant phrasing, censure as condemnation can't compare to what already has occurred to Clinton: He's been impeached -- for now and for history. Gramm has concisely, correctly and fairly stated what should be obvious to everyone affected by this process. The president either is guilty or innocent of the crimes with which he is charged: perjury and obstruction of justice. If he is guilty, the Senate should remove him from office. If he is not, the Senate should pronounce him innocent and do or say nothing else. The Senate has no business censuring the president for behavior not of enough consequence to oust him from office.."
Wall Street Journal 12/30/98 J Cummings ".In the hours before the House's historic vote to impeach President Clinton, White House aides worried that calls would build for his resignation. Even loyal Democrats, they feared, would argue he should go, if only to spare the nation the trauma of an impeachment trial. But as the days went by, aides heard barely a ruffle.Credit President Clinton's high approval ratings for discouraging calls for his resignation and, perhaps more importantly, a conviction among senior Democrats that even if they pushed, he wouldn't jump. President Clinton may have a reputation for waffling, but when it comes to holding onto his job, his tenacity goes without question."Even if the polls showed an overwhelming desire for him to go, the president would still stay," says Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor and a friend of the president since the two were in college. "He's not a quitter. He never quit running for office and, since the election victory of 1996, he's been running for his place in history. He will continue to run until his dying days. That is his last great campaign.".."
Newsmax Carl Limbacher 12/30/98 ".Last Wednesday, House Majority Whip Tom Delay publicly confirmed what official Washington has been whispering about since all but five of up to fifty wavering Republican House members cast their votes for impeachment a week ago Saturday: The secret Sexgate information now under lock and key at D.C.'s Gerald Ford Building is explosive, perhaps explosive enough to convict Bill Clinton in a Senate trial.. Since Tom Delay's comments, the prestige press has grudgingly acknowledged that one of the Ford Building secrets has to do with Jane Doe # 5, whom NewsMax.com readers have known for months as Juanita Broaddrick. Broaddrick's story is one of brutal, forcible rape alleged against Clinton, which mainstream reporters prefer to describe as "an unwanted sexual advance." But are the Ford Building secrets, now being guarded more tightly than our nuclear missile technology, limited to documentation of Juanita Broaddrick's allegation? .. Is it possible that yet another woman besides Juanita Broaddrick has emerged to accuse the President of the United States of forcible rape? The answer to that question may be found in 1996's best selling Clinton biography, "Partners in Power", by former Johnson and Mondale aide Roger Morris: "A young woman lawyer in Little Rock claimed that she was accosted by Clinton while he was attorney general and that when she recoiled he forced himself on her, biting and bruising her. Deeply affected by the assault, the woman decided to keep it all quiet for the sake of her own hard won career and that of her husband. When the husband later saw Clinton at the 1980 Democratic Convention, he delivered a warning. `If you ever approach her,' he told the governor, 'I'll kill you.' Not even seeing fit to deny the incident, Bill Clinton sheepishly apologized and duly promised never to bother her again." [page 238, "Partners in Power"] Is this Juanita Broaddrick? She too had told friends that Clinton raped her while he was attorney general. And her allegation also included biting. But discrepancies between the account of Morris' Clinton victim and what is known about Broaddrick indicate that they are not one in the same. Broaddrick was not "A young woman lawyer in Little Rock" at the time of her alleged attack. At age 35, she was actually three years Clinton's senior. She was not a lawyer. And Broaddrick hails from Van Buren, Arkansas, not Little Rock.."
Freeper reports 12/30/98 CNN Inside Politics--Candy Crowley ".Candy Crowley, an excellent reporter, reports a tentative deal between Lott and Dashiell that would effectively remove any senators from being able to vote for Clinton's removal. Before any witnesses could be called by Hyde, the Senate would first have to vote by 2/3 that there would be grounds for removal based on a preliminary presentation (without any witnesses being permitted). THIS FINDING MERELY WOULD BE A REPETIITION OF THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES VOTED BY THE HOUSE (AN INDICTMENT). But now, instead of a majority vote, the indictmenrt would require a 2/3 vote. What Lott has done to protect Clinton has been to replace the requirement of a majority vote to go ahead with the requirement of a 2/3 vote.. And we thought Bill Clinton was "slick." ."
A Whitewater Researcher on CNN http://cnn.com/ 12/30/98 Candy Crowley and John King ".EXCERPTS: "...Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)...said affidavits filed by unnamed "Jane Doe" witnesses in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit against Clinton could become an issue in the Senate trial....In an interview on CNN's "Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields" to be aired this weekend, Graham was asked about a suggestion by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that the Senate consider evidence not included in Independent Counsel Ken Starr's released report....(Graham) says he believes some of the affidavits filed were false, like Lewinsky's. "There's some other witnesses who filed affidavits that I believe were not truthful, and the reason they didn't present the evidence truthfully is because they were afraid. And I think that may come out over time,"...When asked if one of those "Jane Does" could come forward in the next few weeks, Graham said "That is possible. That scenario has been brewing for a long time."...Graham says the material...was not made public,... but was accessible to members considering impeachment in a House storage room and is within the "evidence pool."...Graham says it will be up to Chief Justice Rehnquist to ultimately rule on what is admissible in the Senate."."
Washington Times 12/30/98 Sean Scully ".The two top Senate leaders are working on a plan to begin a full trial for President Clinton on Jan. 11 and wrap it up within two weeks -- without a single witness being called to testify. But the 13 House Republicans who will present the case to the Senate said yesterday that they might need to call witnesses, possibly including Monica Lewinsky and presidential secretary Betty Currie. "We will have to prove our case if the president is not willing to stipulate to facts that are pretty clear to most people in America," Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican, said yesterday after a closed-door strategy meeting. Ultimately, however, the decision rests with the Senate, which has wide powers to set its own rules and choose which witnesses will be allowed to testify. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom Daschle are crafting a plan in which: No witnesses will be called. The two sides will quickly lay out their cases. The Senate will vote up or down on Mr. Clinton's removal. If it fails, a vote to censure the president will follow. .."
Washington Bulletin (National Review's Internet Commentary) 12/30/98 John Miller ".Squeamish Republicans in the Senate may have found a clever way to avoid doing their Constitutional duty following the impeachment of President Clinton, but it requires them essentially to rebuke their House colleagues. In fact, they are heading toward what might be called an "unimpeachment." Majority Leader Trent Lott is reportedly planning a trial that will last only six or seven days, wrapping up before Clinton's January 19 State of the Union address. He also won't permit any witnesses to appear (a key component of a quick trial), despite requests from House Republicans that they do. After both sides have briefly made their cases, a vote would be taken, not on whether to convict Clinton, but on whether the alleged offenses are in fact impeachable. In other words, the Senate would repeat what the House already has done. If less than two-thirds of the chamber votes in the affirmative, as seems almost certain, the Senate would then entertain a resolution to end the trial. Republicans who had just finished casting a vote meant to please their conservative constituents could then flip sides, arguing that there is no sense in prolonging this "national nightmare" because there is no plausible way Clinton can be removed. A majority--made up mainly of Democrats but including enough Republicans--would vote for the trial to end. There would be no actual vote on removal. This strategy is an odd reversal for Lott, who blasted Clinton two weeks ago for bombing Iraq on the eve of the House impeachment vote."
Larry Margasak 12/30/98 AP ".Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott proposed Wednesday holding an early vote that would require a two-thirds majority to permit a full airing of evidence in President Clinton's impeachment trial and open the door to censure if it failed. The lead House prosecutor immediately objected. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde urged Lott "not to sacrifice substance and duty for speed,'' and said the majority leader's plan "would unwisely short-circuit the process.'' "We are especially concerned by your proposal to forgo a trial if one-third of the Senate fails to vote for the House position on a preliminary motion before the president and the House have fully presented their cases,'' Hyde wrote Lott. The sudden split between Hyde, the leader of 13 lawmakers appointed by the House to be prosecutors, and Lott came as Senate leaders discussed more detailed plans for the first presidential impeachment trial in 130 years.."
L. A. Times 12/31/98 Richard A. Serrano and Edwin Chen ".Key players in the pending impeachment trial of President Clinton sent conflicting signals Wednesday on how they would conduct the case. The chief House manager in the case strongly urged the Senate to conduct a full-blown proceeding that allows a ``fair presentation of the evidence'' on whether Clinton should be removed from office for his conduct in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal. In a three-page letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., also formally requested that his prosecution team be given the opportunity to call a ``limited number of witnesses.''.Asked to elaborate, a GOP aide working closely with prosecutors said only that the new evidence would show Clinton ``getting people to sign affidavits that aren't true.'' The impeachment article charging Clinton with obstruction of justice accuses him of, among other things, encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment case. Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the prosecutors, or managers, said the identity of other women may become known during the Senate trial because of evidence that they, like Lewinsky, were encouraged by Clinton to lie in the Jones case about their relationships with him."
Freeper Chanel reports The Progressive Review 12/30/98 Sam Smith ".As Whitewater IrregularPalmer Hinsdale reasonably asks, "When did you last receive a jury summons, walk into court, and tell the judge that you cannot be bothered with a trial. and simply want to censure the defendant and move on?" Before taking this deceitful and dangerous turn, the senators would do well to consider well the oath they must take before trying a president, one that requires them to study the evidence actually submitted to them by Kenneth Starr and not just what their colleagues and others have had to say about it. In particular, they might reveiw evidence that was presented to House in confidence, evidence that has been available to representatives all along but which, for reasons best known to themselves, some not only ignored but now claim, that because they ignored it, it can not be used in the Senate trial.."
Washington Post 12/30/98 AP "..Text of letter Wednesday from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., regarding the Senate impeachment trial: Dear Majority Leader Lott: ..We are also concerned with your proposal that you might foreclose any trial if the House position fails to get a two-thirds vote on a preliminary motion before the Senate has even had a full airing of the evidence. This proposal effectively grants one-third of the Senate the power to decide whether there will be any airing of the evidence...However, we must not act so hastily that the president and the House of Representatives do not have a fair opportunity to present the case and the Senate does not have a fair opportunity to review a meaningful factual record. We believe that a proper presentation of the evidence will likely require the appearance of a limited number of witnesses. We also believe that the president and his counsel may wish to call witnesses as part of their defense. During the impeachment inquiry, the House Judiciary Committee relied on an extensive factual record consisting of grand jury testimony, depositions and interviews. Our independent analysis of this record formed a sufficient basis to impeach President Clinton. Indeed, even the president implicitly acknowledged the sufficiency of the record for this purpose. Despite repeated invitations, the president and his counsel declined to call and cross- examine a single fact witness to dispute the record during the inquiry... We are somewhat surprised that the Senate would seek to have a preliminary vote on whether the articles establish a violation sufficient to warrant removal. Perjury and lying under oath -- even outside the scope of official duties -- have played a central role in each of the four most recent impeachments (Judges Nixon, Claiborne and Hastings and President Nixon). For example, in the impeachment trial of Judge Walter Nixon, you and 88 other senators voted to convict and remove Judge Nixon because: ``In the course of his grand jury testimony and having duly taken an oath that he would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Judge Nixon did knowingly and contrary to his oath make a material false or misleading statement to the grand jury.'' -- Article I in the Impeachment of Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr...Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde Chairman cc: Honorable Thomas Daschle Senate Minority Leader "
Investors Business Daily 12/31/98 ".Come this time next week, the Senate will have begun the deadly serious work of President Clinton's impeachment trial. Before cutting a deal, the Senate should examine the story of Nathan Landow in a trial. Trial managers ought to call the Bethesda, Md., real estate magnate and longtime Democratic fund-raiser as a witness. Most facts in the Lewinsky cover-up are known and almost entirely unchallenged, yet key elements of other events remain unvetted. Landow is linked to the aftermath of sensational allegations that Clinton groped Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office suite in November '93. For senators weighing Clinton's possible obstruction of justice, Landow's story may provide a case study in the White House pattern of dealing with potential witnesses against the president. Twice, Landow has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not testify against himself. Landow first took Fifth Amendment refuge before the grand jury this summer, and then did it a second time when the House Judiciary Committee called him to testify in late November.."
FoxNews Sunday 12/27/98 Tony Snow & Jesse Jackson ".SNOW: Reverend Jackson, you just mentioned Larry Flynt. The president so far has refused to come out and call for Larry Flynt to cease and desist. Will you make that call? JACKSON: Well, my appeal to the president and to the -- and to the vice president and to Republican and Democrats alike is stop the Flynt-level of politics. But then you've got a Flynt-level; you've got a Ken Starr-level; you've got a Ms. Tripp-level. I mean this whole decadent, degenerate mess -- there are no winners in it. SNOW: Well, let me just... JACKSON: And so at some point, you appeal that -- you know, even the Republican congresspeople who didn't have the choice of voting censure or voting impeachment -- as soon as they -- the gag was off, even they appealed to the Senate. Let's choose censure, not impeachment and move on with the nation's business. I thought that was good, sound judgment, except it should have come a week earlier. SNOW: Should Bob Packwood have been permitted to stay in the Senate? JACKSON: Should have had that option. And the people should have made that decision. In a sense, he was driven out by the people because, in a democracy, the people must be heard I thought that, during the fall when all this -- the polls kept saying censure yes, impeachment no. November 3rd, the people said it even louder -- reprimand yes, censure; impeachment no. And the Republican Congress can't seem to hear the people. And they must be a factor in democratic judgment.."
Freeper Marcellus on Jewish World Review 12/31/98 Thomas Sowell ".Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan has spoken out for some sort of deal for censure, so as to avoid "de-stabilizing" the presidency as an institution.....Whether the Senate censures, convicts or acquits, a landmark precedent will be set and this country will have to live with the consequences for many years to come....[Some]have claimed that impeachment and removal from office would change our whole form of government to a parliamentary system in which the chief executive serves at the pleasure of the legislators....Bill Clinton has already lowered the respect and esteem of that office. His remaining in the White House is more likely to do lasting damage to that high office than his leaving would. Ironically, some of those who are talking most loudly about the dangers of a coup d'etat overturning an election were themselves attempting to do just that a quarter of a century ago during the Watergate impeachment crisis. The Democrats' Congressman John Conyers was one of them.."
Judicial Watch 12/31/98 ".Judicial Watch today urged Senator Trent Lott to disassociate himself with the reported plan to abort a Clinton impeachment trial. "Frankly, I don't understand Lott's efforts to short-circuit an impeachment trial by allowing only 1/3 of the Senate to end the inquiry even before it begins. Lott's efforts show disrespect for House's role in impeachment, by implying the articles are unworthy of Senate consideration. His efforts show a disrespect for the United States Constitution, which envisions a trial after impeachment articles have been approved by the House. And, perhaps most importantly, the Lott plan shows disrespect for law and order - presidential perjury and obstruction of justice must fully be prosecuted by this Senate. To do anything less condones Clinton's lawlessness," stated Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel.."
NY Times 12/31/98 Asa Hutchinson ".Those who would have the Senate truncate its impeachment proceedings present us with an intriguing proposition: a trial without evidence, a verdict without facts.. Senators must take a special oath before entering an impeachment trial, one requiring them to do "impartial justice" -- to lay aside their previous biases and sympathies and to judge the case on the merits of the evidence. How can a verdict be reached without assessing the credibility of witnesses by hearing their testimony first hand? Can members truly reach unbiased conclusions based on depositions that have been challenged, publicly debated and fed through numerous filters? These existing depositions include many instances of conflicting testimony and leave a void of potentially valuable witnesses, like some senior Presidential advisers and staff. Most important, the flat stack of depositions does not provide the jurors with the opportunity to hear the testimony from the witnesses themselves. Rather, it comes to them second and third hand, dry words on a page, filtered through House hearings with summary witnesses who also presented the facts second hand. Shouldn't the jurors, who must finally decide the guilt or innocence of the President of the United States, have the opportunity to hear the testimony upon which they must cast their vote? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to ask questions through Justice William Rehnquist?."
Wall Street Journal 12/31/98 ".Even Mr. Clinton's defenders now argue that the American people knew they were getting no angel back in 1992. So it can hardly be a surprise to anyone six years later that the wild child drove the family convertible hard and fast once too often, and went over the side of the mountain. As the town geezer might have said about the town rowdy in all those young-and-restless movies years back, "Looks like he finally got himself impeached."A report in the Los Angeles Times of his remarks at a White House Christmas party confirms that Mr. Clinton emerged from the crack-up with his cockiness intact. In this respect, the President is alone. For the rest of official Washington, in particular on Capitol Hill, the clear sense is that our system of government has arrived at a point many felt unthinkable. Impeachment, and now trial..The fact that the GOP voted against the grain of the opinion polls must rank as the most shocking phenomenon of them all. After that alone, anything is possible, and anything, like so much else that was unthinkable in 1998, may include the Senate slowly finding its way to 67 votes.."
New York Times 12/31/98 James Bennet Lizette Alvarez ".President Clinton just cannot seem to get himself censured. Predictions after the midterm elections that Clinton would escape impeachment with censure by the House foundered on his refusal to say that he lied under oath, along with steely legislative management by Republican leaders. A similar dynamic could take hold in the Senate. Clinton has told his aides he will not concede that he lied, even though some senators are urging that he do so to pave the way for censure. What is not yet clear is whether enough senators -- 51 or 60, depending on how censure is presented -- would be satisfied with such a rebuke, without Clinton's acknowledgment of wrongdoing...White House advisers insist a deal could nevertheless be struck quickly. "There's no Tom DeLay in the Senate," said one senior White House aide, referring to the House whip who corralled votes for Clinton's impeachment. Republicans in the Senate are less likely to act as a bloc, this adviser argued, adding that Senate Democrats, by contrast, are cohering..The White House must also politely round up enough independent-minded senators, who are scattering over the question of censure.."
Ottawa Sun 12/31/98 R Cort Kirkwood ".And one thing that happened on impeachment day, during the 80-Democrat rally at the White House, proves the point. While the man who dropped his drawers for oral sex in the Oval Office prattled on about "decency" and "civility," his wife was by his side. The look on her face, a smarmy "Oh-I-admire-you-so-much-Bill" look, hid the hatred for America that courses through her veins. With her impeachment mask set for the cameras, while Bill Clinton defiantly said he would not resign, you could imagine what was roiling in Hillary Clinton's mind: "No. He won't resign. But what do I mean, he? It isn't a man's world anymore. We won't resign. And we won't resign because we are going to finish the deconstruction we began 30 years ago in college. "We undermined the war against communism in Vietnam, we undermined your Victorian sexual morals, we destroyed the Nixon Administration and the white, male establishment it stood for. "Who says we should step down? The same people who belong to Nixon's party? Perhaps you've forgotten. We do not abide your rules and laws. Didn't you learn anything from the 1968 Democratic National Convention or from Woodstock? Haven't you learned anything at all? We will not be driven from office by revanchist Republicans. "We brought down your president 25 years ago. We didn't come this far to allow your conventional morals and values to bring down our president. Perjury? About oral sex? Adultery? You must be kidding. So forget resignation." .."
NewsMax 12/30/98 Mona Charen ".Can a country that gives a known perjurer 70 percent approval ratings be entirely wholesome? Maybe. One interpretation was offered by Mark Steyn of the London Spectator and Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard in the January/February issue of The American Enterprise magazine. Steyn offered that "the better you know Clinton, the more you loathe him. That would seem to be a fairly general rule. And that's the difficulty because the American electorate don't often get to see him in the raw." Ferguson agreed. "You have to watch Clinton day in and day out to understand the depth of his loathsomeness. That is why the Beltway media turned against Clinton. ... But for most people, politics is not terribly interesting. ... They just tune in every once in a while. 'Oh, there's the president with his new initiative about banning deadbeat dads from being allowed to have guns. That sounds like a good idea.' And then you turn off again and go about raising your children and doing your work.".."
MSNBC Web Site 12/31/98 Jay Severin ".First, does the president stipulate to all the facts as presented by Kenneth Starr? Yes, most people believe Clinton did virtually everything Starr alleges. But admitting it to the world without a fight must strike Clinton as repulsive. But if he fights, he invites all out war - with Democrats as well as Republicans - and he has the most to lose. Second, does the president admit to lying under oath? He still adamantly maintains he did not, and that he will not say he did. Such an admission is the very DNA of any deal brokered between the two political parties. If Clinton balks, he may make a deal impossible and deadly political conflict unavoidable. If, on the other hand, he pleads nolo contendere to the perjury, he could kill the trial and, at the same moment, give birth to a life-saving censure. Last, but surely not least, is the overall truth that, while 67 votes to convict do not today exist in the Senate, very queer things can occur in trials, when awful evidence pours forth and opinions shift. President Clinton is well advised to heed what Lawyer Clinton was taught in law school: a bad settlement is better than a good judgment.."
AP Wire 12/31/98 ". Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said Thursday he expects Democratic colleagues to support an early vote that could abbreviate President Clinton's impeachment trial and open the door to censure. The proposal, which would require a two-thirds majority to continue the trial after its first few days, was floated by Majority Leader Trent Lott this week..While Lott has set a goal of finishing the trial in January, Hyde has asked for permission to call witnesses, and suggested the case should not end before sometime in February.."
12/31/98 Freeper Doug from Upland reports ".While some dedicated FReepers were planning their trip to D.C. on the 5th of December, I was on the phone. And on the phone. And on the phone. After many calls and referrals, I finally had the opportunity to talk to the chief investigator of the judicary committee. We had a lengthy discussion and I gave him information he had never before heard. Some of it was information which I have discussed with Dr. Paul Fick. The investigator was intrigued enough to be willing to try to make the time to meet with Fick. ... The meeting was very productive. The information amazed them. What amazed me is why they did not have it before.. I told them tales of witness intimidation that they have never heard before and told them where to go to verify...The chief investigator of the judiciary committee.DID NOT KNOW THAT L.D. BROWN HAD BEEN OFFERERED A 100K BRIBE AND A JOB TO STAY OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND NOT TESTIFY. He also did not know that SALLY PERDUE HAD BEEN THREATENED AND HAD THE WINDOW SHOT OUT OF HER CAR TO GET HER TO BE QUIET. He did not know that THEY TRIED TO KILL GARY JOHNSON BECAUSE OF THE SECURITY VIDEO HE HAD OF CLINTON GOING INTO FLOWER'S APARTMENT WITH HIS OWN KEY..."
Chicago Sun-Times 12/31/98 Robert Novak ".Two days after he was impeached by the House, President Clinton traveled to Baltimore to join Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo in announcing $850 million in grants for the homeless. To wary Republicans, that looked like part of an ``impeachment budget.'' While the official White House line is to wail over tight budgetary restrictions, the president strews goodies. Besides helping the homeless, the president has disclosed more for health, workers and defense. Civil servants at the Office of Management and Budget tip Capitol Hill that there is much more to come. That Clinton is dipping into the budget surplus, supposedly inviolable until Social Security is ``fixed,'' is undeniable. Only the motive is in dispute..Dec. 21: The administration let it be known that Clinton will include in the budget new aid programs for low-income and disabled workers, as well as more than $10 billion in extra defense spending.. Dec. 22: The president and Defense Secretary William Cohen proposed a raise in military pay by 4.4 percent, the biggest across-the-board increase in 15 years... Dec. 23: The president went to Baltimore to ask for $1.15 billion for the homeless, a 15 percent increase... Dec. 27: Administration officials revealed that the president would seek a 31 percent increase, to a total of $25 million, in spending to fight infectious diseases.."
Washington Post 01/01/99 John Harris Juliet Eilperin ".Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) spent yesterday intensely canvassing fellow senators about his plan for an expedited trial of President Clinton amid a backlash of criticism from some conservative senators who vigorously object to Lott's approach. The majority leader has consulted with more than two dozen GOP senators in recent days as part of an outreach campaign that has had his "phone lines burning," in the words of one aide, but not yet produced a workable consensus on how Republicans will proceed with the politically incendiary impeachment issue when they return to Washington on Wednesday. Some conservative senators served warning yesterday that they will oppose any process that might halt a trial before senators hear a full presentation of evidence and witnesses, and can cast up-or-down votes on the articles of impeachment passed last month in the House..."
The Economist 1/1/99 ".WITH every day that passes, matters get worse. The country is drifting along in a state of neglect. Legislative programmes are unheard of. Reformist debate has stopped. The political atmosphere is as poisonous as it has been since the 1960s. Iraq is bombed, and half America- as well as much of the world-wonders at the president's motives. When Russia collapses, when markets stumble, when China gets aggressive, when the next terrorist atrocity occurs, the world still hopes America will take the lead. But how can it, when Bill Clinton is about to go on trial before the Senate? Everyone wants this horror-and horror is not too strong a word-to end. Had Mr Clinton resigned in August, when he was forced to admit that he had lied to his family, his colleagues and the American people, he could have finished it there. He could still do so; and would do so, if he were capable of shame or had any sense of honour.."
Dayton Daily News 01/01/99 George Wil ". Gracious! Can we please deal with Clinton without indicting the American public? Conservatives denounce the public as strangely anesthetized; Moynihan suggests the public is on the verge of tolerating wild political volatility. A plea to the political class: Keep Clinton or spare him, but spare the rest of us these theories that make the rest of us the problem. In a sense, instability in the presidency is old hat and hardly unnerving to this republic. Six of the seven presidencies immediately prior to Clinton's were truncated---by assassination (John F. Kennedy), intra-party strife (Lyndon B. Johnson), scandal (Richard Nixon), or disgruntled voters (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush). Then came Clinton, whose sorrows are the result not of "randomness" engulfing the presidential office but of his lubriciousness making him ridiculous and felonious.."
Freeper Committed 01/01/98 on Cspan ".just aired (probably a re-run) the touchy - feely annual open house of the American branch of the Communist Party. Standing above a sign on the podium calling for stopping the "GOP grab for power", Judith LeBlanc, executive secretary of the Communist Party of America spoke with great passion. She called on all their loyal followers to immediately e-mail their elected officials in Washington and demand that they "STOP THE IMPEACHMENT MADNESS"."
Baltimore Sun 01/01/99 Susan Baer As he confronts the gravest crisis of his political life, President Clinton is finding himself with diminished credibility, with the modest agenda of a lame-duck president and with few of the valuable political advisers who were by his side earlier in his presidency. Gone from the White House are such skilled political veterans as Leon E. Panetta, Clinton's former chief of staff, who had a keen understanding of the culture of Capitol Hill, and former press secretary Mike McCurry, who offered the public an authoritative, yet genial, face for the White House...To augment his political brain trust, Clinton brought back to the White House last fall some former staffers -- including Steve Ricchetti, a lobbyist in private practice who once worked for Clinton as a Senate lobbyist, and Susan Brophy, another former Clinton lobbyist who had moved overseas -- to work specifically on relations with Congress, where Clinton has never enjoyed great favor. "I can't think of another president who, at this stage in his presidency, was so dependent on those people who've left," says Charles O. Jones, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin.Benjamin Ginsberg, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for the Study of American Government, says Clinton has been weakened to the point where his fate in the Senate is largely out of his hands and subject to political forces beyond his control. "The ultimate irony is that Bill Clinton, presidential activist, has gotten himself in a situation where all of his horses and all the king's men are irrelevant as to whether Humpty Dumpty gets put together again," Ginsberg says.."
Washington Times Wes Pruden 01/01/99 ".We're barely into '99, the last year (as popularly measured) of the old millennium, and the fix seems to be in. Trent Lott, the "leader" of the Republicans in the Senate, appears to have agreed to follow the lead of Tom Daschle in taking an early vote to short-circuit the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Once a vote is taken to end the trial, before the evidence is heard, the Senate could attach a few words scolding the president for his naughty behavior to a resolution recognizing National Pickle Week, or Cigar Appreciation Day. Everybody would go home happy.. At the White House, the president's lawyers are pleased and probably not a little surprised by how esy it may be to roll Trent Lott. They are even now weighing the prospect of stipulating the authenticity of five volumes of evidence presented against Mr. Clinton in the House. The he lawyers hint they would accept a deal to allow the evidence -- which nobody, and certainly not Bill Clinton, has ever disputed or attempted to disprove -- to be accepted as authentic. In turn, the senators would agree not to draw any conclusions from the evidence..."
The New York Times 1/2/99 Katharine Seelye ".The angry conservatives applauded her [Huffington] loudly. But they gave their most vigorous support to a Democrat sitting on the same panel. He was Patrick Caddell, a Hollywood writer and former adviser to the presidential campaigns of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart. Caddell lashed the Republicans for political ineptitude. He said they foolishly carried out a partisan impeachment over the president's sex life while failing to go after the Clinton administration for what he said was the far more serious offense of accepting foreign campaign money and transferring sensitive missile technology to China.."
AP John Solomon 1/2/99 ".``It is a crossroads for a whole lot of people. It's uncharted territory. And it is a dangerous situation for everyone, because they may screw up, and people will remember it for a long time,'' said James Thurber, an American University professor who studies Congress. With the president already stained by impeachment, he and his supporters want a quick end to the Senate trial. If necessary, his lawyers are prepared to fight for acquittal, no holds barred, and are readying an elaborate defense that could stretch as long as six months if the case goes to a full trial.."
The New York Post 1/2/99 Brian Blomquist ".Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott appears to be backing away from a plan to have a mini-trial of President Clinton without witnesses in order to move on to a swift censure, congressional sources said yesterday. Lott (R-Miss.), who was criticized by several fellow Republicans over the plan, talked yesterday to some GOP senators by phone, as well as to House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who would serve as the chief prosecutor in a trial, sources said. After talking with Hyde and others, Lott appeared to back away from his proposal for a four-day trial, an idea that some senators interpreted as a plan designed to get to a censure rather than a verdict on the two articles of impeachment approved by the House. Yesterday, it sounded as if Lott was focused on a trial rather than censure..."
AP 1/2/99 Walter Mears ".Offstage while the Senate deals with the final act in the impeachment of President Clinton, the man who wrote the script for it has not rested his cases. Kenneth Starr has only lowered his profile since the House approved the perjury and cover-up charges he framed and sent them to the Senate for trial. The special prosecutor may yet have a role in the outcome, should there be a Senate attempt to punish the president without firing him. That could involve Starr because a censure settlement involving admissions would leave Clinton vulnerable to the independent counsel's prosecutors after his term ends. Starr's Office of Independent Counsel still has targets to pursue, with indictments and at trial. His spokesman said they may be operating for another two years or more, before wrapping up what began as their Whitewater investigation with a final report. That would be longer than any special prosecutor in the 20 years of the independent counsel law, which expires in June. Even if the law lapses, Starr would be entitled to continue. And after noon on Jan. 20, 2001, there would be no bar to the indictment of a censured former president. Starr said so when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee.."
London Telegraph 01/03/99 James Langton ".LEADING Republicans now seem certain to push for the removal of President Clinton with a full trial beginning in the Senate this week. A growing number of senior conservatives have ruled out the "quick fix" of a censure motion, which would effectively rap the President over the knuckles but allow him to complete his term. They want to see the full evidence of Mr Clinton's wrongdoing on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice presented to lawmakers when the trial opens on Wednesday. This includes documents collected by Ken Starr, the special prosecutor, and held by the House judiciary chairman Henry Hyde, which are said to include evidence that the President sexually harassed a White House volunteer, Kathleen Willey, and paid hush money to the former Justice Department official and Arkansas friend Webster Hubbell. The President also faces fresh allegations about his private life with confirmation yesterday that paternity tests are to be carried out on a 13-year-old boy he is alleged to have fathered.."
Chicago Sun-Times 1/3/99 Robert Novak ".Already cool relations between Senate and House Republicans became icy when House GOP impeachment managers learned that representatives of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott this week paid two secret visits to the White House for negotiations concerning President Clinton's trial. The House prosecutors were miffed that they had not been informed about the talks. But what really upset them was the spectacle of agents for the would-be judges going down Pennsylvania Avenue, hat in hand, to bargain with the accused."
The New York Times 1/3/99 Maureen Dowd ".Speaking to computer big shots recently, Mr. McCain drew an angry reaction when he said he had a problem with the President's lying under oath. "One guy yelled that he'd rather have his daughter raised by Larry Flynt than Bill Bennett," he recalls. "I almost fainted." Back home in Phoenix after a Fiji vacation, the usually unequivocal Republican equivocated about what should happen to Mr. Clinton. "One thing I don't believe in is a fine," he hedges. "It would just mean an added tax on Barbra Streisand, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg." .."
Houston Chronicle 1/3/98 Paul Greenberg ".A trial of the president? Unthinkable. What rules of evidence will be adopted? Which witnesses will be called? Surely some kind of face-saving deal can be worked out. There is no shortage of ways out. If a trial must be held -- alas, the Constitution does seem to insist on it -- then open and shut the proceedings the same day. Work out some sort of vague censure so we can all move on. The pundits and pols are talking up all kinds of painless arrangements, the sort that would meet every requirement but justice. As the days go by and all kinds of palliatives are prescribed, each seems to lack something: moral substance. And it may begin to dawn on our senators that some things, like the spirit of the Constitution, will brook no compromise. It may even dawn on them that trying to evade its spirit will not put this behind us, but only deny the country the clear, definitive resolution that is the purpose of a trial..."
Boston Herald 1/3/99 Kate Gorham ".But after getting past the usual blather about what a great president Slick Willie has been, while continuing to balance his numerous sexual interludes, the truth about Marilyn comes out. Marilyn can identify with the beleaguered commander in chief because, as she blatantly admits, ``I too was before a grand jury and lied.'' Whoa! What an admission! And stated just as nonchalantly as though she were recounting her breakfast menu. And why? To protect her family, of course. Don't we all cover our own butts in order to protect our families? ``Bill Clinton did not want to embarrass Hillary and Chelsea, plain and simple,'' concludes Marilyn, in a massive error in judgment. Do you honestly believe, Marilyn, that a man who claims he didn't inhale while smoking marijuana, who dropped his drawers in front of a state worker in Arkansas and asked her to kiss it, who had oral sex in the Oval Office with an air-headed intern half his age, is truly concerned about whether or not he is humiliating his wife and child? The truth, for once, Marilyn..."
Associated Press 1/3/98 Jim Abrams ".Bill Clinton isn't likely to be removed from office, but his presidency is permanently blighted by his impeachment on charges he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, senators said Sunday. "President Clinton is whistling past the graveyard if he thinks that this is going to be forgotten during the course of the next 20 years or for that matter in the next 200 years,'' said Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash. Gorton, appearing with five other senators on NBC's "Meet the Press,'' said he thinks the House articles of impeachment accusing Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice are sufficient to remove the president from office. But the Washington senator doesn't believe the two-thirds Senate vote needed to convict Clinton is there. Instead, he and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., have floated a plan under which the Senate, after several days of hearing arguments from both sides in the case, would vote on whether the charges against the president are enough to remove him from office. With a two-thirds majority unlikely, the Senate could move to end the trial and consider a censure motion against the president..."
The North Platte(NE) Telegraph 1/3/99 Guy Curtis "..Are you as skeptical and sick of polls as I am? We are reminded every ten minutes that Clinton is hugely popular. That means that most of us in southwest Nebraska are out of touch. First of all, where are these polls on Clinton being taken? In Hollywood, perhaps? And who is being polled, besides Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin and Barney Frank? Such impartiality smacks of a recent opinion poll showing that 98 percent believe the United States should pull their aircraft carriers and forces out of the Middle East and leave Iraq alone. I forgot to mention the poll was TAKEN IN BAGHDAD!.."
AP 1/3/99 Jim Abrams ".Senators from both parties say President Clinton should not deliver his annual State of the Union address to Congress if the scheduled date conflicts with his impeachment trial in the Senate. The Jan. 19 date for the speech thus provides a concrete deadline for senators now searching for a way to bring a quick end to the impeachment trial. "I think it would be unseemly and distracting for the president to be giving a State of the Union address to Congress while he was under trial in the Senate,'' Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said Sunday."
Dayton Daily News 1/3/99 Mike DeWine (Senator - Ohio) ".There are those who want the Senate to take the easy way out: Censure the president and avoid a trial. I will not be a party to such a maneuver. I will vote against censure under any circumstances. The Senate should either convict or acquit the president, and nothing else. I will oppose any kind of censure resolution, whether before, during or after trial. The Framers granted the Senate a singular power over the president: removal from office. It is not our job to punish the president, nor is it our job to seek from him some statement of public contrition. Our only task is to judge whether he is fit to continue in office. Once we have made that judgment, it will be time to move on.."
Reuters 1/3/99 ".Members of the U.S. Senate disagreed sharply Sunday on whether any attempt should be made to expedite the impeachment trial of President Clinton that is set to begin this week. One prominent Republican senator, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who was among those pushing for a full- scale trial, said he believed Clinton himself should appear before the legislative body to testify. Meanwhile, several senators said the president should consider delaying his State of the Union address, planned for Jan. 19, if the trial was not wrapped up by the time he is to deliver the speech. Senator Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican known for his strong conservative views, said on Meet the Press that a trial was needed because the president, although acknowledging an improper relationship with Lewinsky, has disputed charges that he lied under oath and obstructed justice."
Reagan Information Interchange 1/1/99 Mike Hammitt ". We went to school when the Constitution was taught in public schools and you had to pass tough tests on the subject. When you had to be able to recite the Preamble, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address from memory. We had to know that under the Constitution the Senate's responsibility is "Judgment in Case of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States..............." (Article 1, Section 3, paragraph 7)...Hopefully, there will be enough of our Senators who will be old enough to remember, and with honor and integrity, uphold our great Constitution, regardless of party affiliation, FBI files, media hucksters and white house spin doctors and do the job charged to them by the constitution. And last, we pray that we will see sixty-seven members of that August body who will, if never again in their lifetime, regardless of party affiliation, become not Democrats or Republicans but American Senators.."
AFP via Drudge 1/4/98 Agence France Presse ".Representative Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told CBS television that there was some interest in hearing from a woman who has allegedly recanted a sworn statement that she did not have sex with Clinton. She was one of six -- former White House intern Monica Lewinsky among them -- who had made such a denial in affidavits submitted in connection with the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.. Asked about the relevance of any Jane Doe testimony to the president's trial, Graham said the obstruction of justice charge might be bolstered if it was shown that she feared telling the truth or that one of the president's agents had pressured her to lie. Likewise, Republican Representative Bill McCollum of Florida said Jane Doe testimony might point to a pattern of obstruction of justice on the part of the president. "But I don't think right now that that's the stage we're in," he said on Fox television.."
The Washington Post 1/4/99 Orrin Hatch ".As one of 100 senators, I have reflected on the impeachment of Bill Clinton for many months and have done so publicly. In trying to honestly answer the questions put to me by colleagues and the media, I have exhibited the uncertainty many of us are experiencing over what is in the nation's interest..On the other hand, I am concerned about reports that suggest serious consideration is being given to a "raise-the-bar" plan to preclude a trial if 34 senators believe that the Articles of Impeachment, even if proven, do not constitute impeachable offenses. As I understand the proposal, a new rule would be established requiring two-thirds of the Senate to vote to proceed with a trial following preliminary presentations by the parties... Whatever the Senate does, I hope it will respect the integrity and courage it took for the House to impeach the president..."
Roll Call 1/4/99 Ben Pershing ". Scheduling could prove to be the most contentious issue if the Senate is forced to outline procedures for a Clinton trial. That was certainly the case in the Johnson trial, when both sides of the case tried to use scheduling to their advantage. According to Michael Les Benedict, a professor of history and adjunct professor of law at Ohio State University, the defense and the prosecution took turns decrying the trial's schedule. "In the beginning, the Senate established procedures and rules about how long the President would have to respond," said Benedict, the author of the 1972 book, "The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson." He added, "The President's lawyers said they couldn't meet that time. A vote came on giving the defense more time and that passed. That was one of the very first signs that a fast trial wasn't going to happen." The length of the proceedings actually favored Johnson, as Senators grew weary of the burden such a decision placed on them. With the trial drawing to a close, the tide seemed to have turned in favor of the defense, and it became the prosecution's turn to plead for more time. "The people who were more committed to impeachment consistently moved to expand the hours and consistently lost," said Benedict."
Florida Times-Union 1/4/99 ".President Clinton's supporters argue he should not be removed from office because polls show most Americans are opposed. Sure. Let the people vote directly on whether to remove the president. Then let them vote on a major tax cut. Next, on school vouchers. After that, let them vote on congressional term limits, a balanced budget amendment and abolition of the Internal Revenue Service. Polls show the people favor those things, overwhelmingly. But Clinton and his allies are blocking them. Why should public opinion be sacred when it agrees with the liberals but meaningless when it disagrees? Liberals have little use for public opinion. They use the courts to overturn election results and decisions by the elected representatives of the people."
London Telegraph 1/4/99 Hugh Davies ".CONSERVATIVE Republicans pushed their reluctant party leaders in the Senate yesterday to steer clear of a bipartisan plan evolving in Congress to limit the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton to four days next week.The test vote, designed to save America the agony of a long trial with unseemly sexual detail, is being supported by the Republican Senate leader, Trent Lott, a strait-laced Southern conservative who seems determined to resist his Right-wing colleagues. A Republican meeting has been called for Thursday to discuss the tactic.."
LA Times 1/4/99 Janet Hook Edwin Chen ".With GOP congressional leaders at odds over how to handle the impeachment of President Clinton, the scramble to direct the momentous process is reopening bitter divisions that have riven House and Senate Republicans for years. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is floating a plan for expediting the impeachment process that could kill the charges against Clinton in a matter of days. House impeachment leaders are fighting back, demanding more time to present their case for convicting Clinton. It is hardly the first time the GOP majorities of the two chambers have been at loggerheads. For political, institutional and sometimes personal reasons, the House and Senate GOP have a long history of putting their similarities aside and finding reasons to fight. A frequent bone of contention is the Senate's tendency to deep-six or downplay initiatives drawn up by the House's hard-charging conservatives. House Republicans fumed last year, when Lott refused to even schedule a vote on a tax cut they considered the cornerstone of their campaign platform for 1998. The year before, they saw red when Senate Republicans tried to block a cost-of-living increase for members of Congress. And during their first year of controlling Congress, in 1995, House conservatives seethed as one item after another from their revered "contract with America" seemed to disappear into the black hole of the Senate.."
The Washington Post 1/5/99 Guy Gugliotta ".After more than four months of brutal partisan feuding, Sens. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) have managed an as- yet-unmatched feat: crafting a truly bipartisan proposal to deal with the impeachment of President Clinton. The Gorton-Lieberman plan, though its fate is uncertain, envisions a short Senate trial that could end within a week to 10 days..The motions, Gorton said, would say that "assuming that all the facts alleged by the House are correct, they constitute sufficient grounds for conviction and removal of office." The Senate would then debate the motions for at least two days, Gorton said. Lieberman envisioned 20 minutes a senator -- a maximum of 33 hours. After that, the senators would vote on each motion. If two-thirds of those voting agreed, a full-scale trial would begin. If two-thirds did not agree, an indication that the Senate did not have the votes to convict, the Senate would vote again on whether to dismiss the case or end the trial. That motion would carry on a simple majority. Lieberman stressed that failure to get a two-thirds majority would not mean an automatic end to the trial, which would continue as long as 51 senators did not vote to end or dismiss it. Also, Gorton added, the proposal does not address censure, which would have to be considered separately. ."
Investor's Business Daily 1/5/99 Editorial ".You have to give President Clinton top marks for political courage - or at least chutzpah. After his yearlong effort to hide the truth, and after being impeached, he's still in there swinging. The Senate, though, looks ready to take a dive. The nation and the world have come to know how far Clinton is willing to go to excuse his reckless behavior. Perjury. Obstruction of justice. Character assassination. These are all hallmarks of this president and his minions. And it appears that, at this stage in the fluid story of Clinton's impeachment, this strategy is working.."
Jonathan Broder MSNBC 1/4/99 ".White House officials sought Monday to push Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott into quashing Republican opposition to a streamlined impeachment trial of President Clinton. But some officials said they would be ready for a lengthy, grueling trial if necessary, and predicted disaster for the GOP if Lott could not persuade Senate Republicans to back an abbreviated trial. WE'LL KNOW by Thursday at the latest," one senior adviser told MSNBC, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Either they're going to go with this abbreviated procedure, in which case the Republicans will end their suffering, or they will hold a full trial and go into a whole other ring of the inferno." ."
Lexington Herald-Leader 1/4/99 Daniel Buccino "."Quite simply, I gave in to my shame," President Clinton said recently, during another in his series of not-quite-apologetic apologies about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. If Clinton knew anything about shame, he wouldn't be in this predicament -- nor would we as a mortified nation. And if he were genuinely interested in giving in to his shame, there might be an opportunity for him to restore a shred of his own decency and the dignity of the United States.."
Scripps Howard News Service 1/4/99 Joan Lowy ".A majority of Republican senators oppose a bipartisan plan for a quick, truncated impeachment trial, making it more likely that a trial with witnesses will go forward, a prominent GOP senator said Monday.."
London Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ 1/5/99 Hugo Gurdon by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...CLINTON may be forced to shelve his State of the Union Address, the showpiece in the American political calendar, because of his impeachment trial....Democrats and Republicans agree that he cannot stand at the podium in Congress on Jan 19 if he is still, figuratively, in the dock of the Senate facing perjury and witness-tampering charges being prosecuted by the House of Representatives. Senators of both parties say it would be improper for the President to deliver an oration to his accusers and, in the Senate's case more importantly, to his jurors....Mr Clinton desperately wants to go ahead with the speech...It would not be a constitutional problem were the President to fail to deliver the speech in person. Although the constitution requires presidents to give Congress an annual report, before the advent of television many sent it in writing....."
THE NEW YORK POST 1/5/99 Dick Morris ".WHAT will happen once the Senate trial of Bill Clinton opens and the prosecution and defense present their cases? It is most likely that the Senate will vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment, assuming there are no new charges and no new evidence. Then, as the Senate moves to consider censure and punishment, the real battle will begin. The dilemma senators will face is clear. Once the impeachment process has been halted, what leverage will the Senate have over President Clinton to get him to admit perjury or to accept a fine and censure? Without removal from office hovering over Clinton, the White House will be in the clear and it isn't likely that the Clintons, either one, will be in the mood to make concessions. Clinton knows full well that there are not enough votes to convict him and suspects he can muster a majority to drop the case without agreeing to anything in advance, so he will prove inflexible in any negotiations - even before the charges are brought to vote...The best option is to pass a bill stripping Clinton of his pension and of his expense allowance after he leaves office. Leaving him to fend for himself, with only Secret Service protection provided by the taxpayers, would be a fitting punishment for the first president since Gerald Ford not to rate millionaire status. While Congress cannot fine Clinton, it can certainly pass any law it wishes relative to his pension and expense allocation. Would the Senate Democrats be nutty enough to filibuster the bill? I doubt it. Would Clinton dare to veto it? Probably not. Would his veto be overridden in a heartbeat? Most likely."
Freeper vrwcl reports 1/5/99 FOX News ".Just heard a report on FOX News. They said that the idea of a shortened Senate impeachment trial is now considered dead by both parties. It is felt that a short trial with no witnesses and without a full presentation of the available evidence may be unconstitutional, and that the issues are too weighty to try to take a "short-cut".."
Washington Times 1/5/99 Wes Pruden ".Quick, someone call 911. They need an emergency supply of grief counselors in the United States Senate. Some of the senators are on the verge of cracking under the stress of duty and the responsibility of accountability. Nary a one came to Washington at the business end of a shotgun, but from the public way some of them are parading pity for themselves in the guise of commiseration for the country a bystander might imagine that none is here voluntarily. The pain of it. The sheer anguish of it all. Such delicacy of wounded feeling ennobles us everyone..From all the weeping, wailing and gnashing of store-bought teeth you might think the aide assigned to warm the toilet seat on cold mornings called in sick.."
Manchester Union Leader 1/5/99 Richard Lessner ".What an amusing sight, watching the Solons of the United States Senate attempting to wriggle out of their constitutional duty. As Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio noted last week in the Wall Street Journal, "The Senate's role is not to punish the President, it is not to force the President to take responsibility for his actions, and it is not to force him to recite some public act of contrition. The Senate's role is simply to decide whether he is fit to remain in office. It should do so quickly and move on." ."
The Washington Times 1/5/99 Tod Linberg "It's the permanent things that cause problems -- things like the oath, dating back in its current form at least as far as the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, that senators will take at the start of the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. The oath goes like this: "I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws: so help me God." As a matter of practical politics, the continuation of this impeachment business looks like a loser for all concerned.."
Christian Science Monitor 1/5/99 Peter Grier and James N. Thurman ".As Senate negotiates trial options, the debate is driven by two moral visions that mark late 20th-century America. At a basic level, the national debate over President Clinton's impeachment is driven by competing visions of what constitutes right and wrong. Many voters believe the process - which the Senate this week is preparing to take over - has degenerated into a partisan brawl. True, politics and personalities have played a big part in Washington's year-long struggle over the matter of the president and ex-White House intern Monica Lewinsky. But the volume of the din does not mean the words themselves should be ignored - and they offer interesting and sharply different sets of values for the modern world. Many of the president's attackers might be called absolutists. They focus on the particulars of the case: Mr. Clinton lied under oath, and that's wrong, period. Clinton's defenders, by contrast, are relativists. They look at the context of the untruths, including what the president allegedly lied about, and questioners' motives.."
1/5/99 James K. Glassman Page A11 "."I think it would be unseemly and distracting," said Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) on "Meet the Press" Sunday, "for the president to be giving a State of the Union address to Congress while he was under trial in the Senate." Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) agreed: "It's inappropriate." Good point. It was inappropriate, too, for the president to hold a rousing pep rally at the White House with his allies from the House on the afternoon of the impeachment vote. The appropriate response to impeachment is not brassy defiance but silence, contemplation, shame and departure..."
Dallas Morning News Letters to the Editor 1/5/99 George Seevers ".With a nationally known pornographer now attempting to blackmail United States Senators over the Impeachment vote, has it not yet become obvious why we should be more careful about placing the morally challenged in positions of authority? ."
New York Times 1/5/99 Alison Mitchell ".But the Senate appeared far from agreement on a plan by Senators Slade Gorton, a Washington Republican, and Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, that would condense a trial into a matter of days and then require test votes on whether each of the two articles of impeachment sent by the House warranted Clinton's removal from office. If, as expected, neither article drew the 67 senators that would ultimately be needed to convict Clinton, then the Senate would vote to adjourn the trial. Republicans say Lott will move ahead with the proposal only if a majority of the Senate's 55 Republicans back it, but opposition to it only seemed to be growing among Republicans. "It's a serious mistake," said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican. "It's not constitutional. It creates a bad precedent and I don't think this President would take it seriously." And Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican, expressed opposition in an opinion piece in The Washington Post, saying he feared the procedure could create a long-term precedent and be seen "as a repudiation of the House's decision to impeach President Clinton." Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who is generally more moderate than Gregg and Hatch, underscored once again his determination to see a full trial. "As a precedent it has to be done right," he said of an impeachment trial after attending a health- care event at the White House. "I think it's the trial of all time. I don't think there has ever been a trial in the history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which is as important as this one." .."
USA Journal 1/5/99 Jon E. Dougherty ".Bill Clinton could not have picked a better time to be president of the United States. Even though he's the most corrupt man ever to sit in the Oval Office and only the second president in 220-plus years of American history to be impeached, he is fortunate because he rules at a time of national prosperity and well being. The economy of the United States is solid and getting more so everyday, we're at peace with the world for now, the trains and planes generally run on time, crime rates are falling, and there is a general feeling of success among most of our population. For these reasons, we are told, most Americans don't want to see Clinton removed from office. He's a louse, a liar, a serial adulterer, and probably even guilty of treason, but no matter. Most of us would, it seems, prefer that the Senate violate their constitutional mandate to try him and instead vote to censure him or something even less punishing than that. Or would we? What if the majority of Americans knew exactly what was at stake here because no matter which side of the issue you're on, it's fair to say that most of us have not been properly "educated" about impeachment. Just because the masses may want our leaders to do something that isn't called for in the Constitution doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.."
Omaha World-Herald 1/3/99 ".A congressional report, the existence of which became known last week during a time when holiday preparations were the most important thing on the minds of most people, didn't make much of a splash in the news. For two reasons, Americans ought to be more informed about the subject matter, which involves China's efforts to acquire American technology. The 700- page report is the work of a special committee that was formed last June after concerns had arisen about the possible relationship between contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign and the release of technological secrets to China. Much of the report is classified. From the parts of it that have been made public, it appears that China has obtained U.S. secrets about missiles and satellite guidance systems that potentially compromise the safety of the United States and its allies. Reports also indicated that the Chinese may have obtained secret information about nuclear weapons from U.S. laboratories.. The other reason Americans ought to be concerned about the subject of the report is the possible bearing it might have on the fitness of President Clinton to remain in the White House. The investigation of campaign finance scandals has come along too slowly, in our opinion, partly because Attorney General Janet Reno continued to insist that her Department of Justice investigators, instead of an independent counsel, were the proper authorities to investigate. As a result, Clinton's trial in the Senate is about to begin without an opportunity for his jury - the Senate - to consider how the release of classified technology to the Chinese might have been influenced by illegal donations of Chinese money to his campaign..."
The New York Times 1/5/99 Jill Abramson ".President Clinton's lawyers are preparing an assault on both the form and content of the two articles of impeachment sent to the Senate by the House Judiciary Committee. With Sen. Trent Lott, the majority leader, and other senators attempting to forge a bipartisan consensus on how to proceed with a possible trial, Clinton's legal team has not wanted to get in the way of the negotiations. But the president's lawyers have been busily deconstructing every word and charge in the articles, which allege perjury and obstruction of justice. They have prepared some new legal arguments as well as a more detailed critique of the evidence the Judiciary Committee cited in buttressing its case for impeachment in its final report issued on December 15. ."
American Judicature Society - Yahoo! News 1/5/99 Company Press Release - Chicago - PRNewswire ".If a citizen urges a U.S. senator to vote a certain way in President Clinton's upcoming impeachment trial, would it be jury tampering? No, says the American Judicature Society, a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that educates the public about the nation's courts. According to Charles Gardner Geyh, director of AJS's Center for Judicial Independence, senators do act as jurors in impeachment trials -- in the sense that they hear arguments and evidence presented by prosecutors and defense counsel for and against the president, deliberate, and reach a verdict to convict or acquit. ``However, in many more respects the impeachment trial is quite different from ordinary courtroom trials,'' says Geyh (pronounced JAY). ``For instance, unlike grand or petit jurors, who are routinely removed from the jury panel if they show bias for or against the defendant, members of Congress participate in impeachment proceedings regardless of predisposition.'' .."
Montgomery (MD) Journal 1/5/99 ".Neither of Maryland's current U.S. senators - Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski - has said publicly how he or she will vote if the House impeachment of President Clinton goes to a trial or otherwise requires a decision in the Senate..there is a widespread assumption among the so-called experts that there is no way to find a two-thirds majority of the Senate that would favor convicting Clinton on either of the two impeachment counts approved by the House. Mikulski and Sarbanes may well illustrate just how tenuous that assumption could be, judging from their conduct in the recent past when the impeachment issue came before the Senate, according to Human Events, a Capitol Hill news weekly. There are 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats in the Senate, and of the latter, 27, including Sarbanes and Mikulski, voted in 1989 to convict Federal District Judge Walter Nixon for making "a false or misleading statement to a grand jury." ..Sarbanes and Mikulski will be hard pressed to justify voting in 1989 to convict one federal official for violating his oath of office by lying to a grand jury but voting not to convict another who did the same thing in 1999. .."
The O'Reilly Factor 1/5/99 Freeper report ".Conrad Burns (R-Montana) says he doesn't know how he will vote but agrees with O'Reilly that the White House is arrogant and that a trial is needed. Suggests the Senate go into executive session to hear witnesses such as Lewinsky. He thinks Americans are already convinced of Clinton's guilt and don't need to hear the witnesses televised. Senator Burns believes the Senate is willing to listen to a presentation by Hyde.America will focus on what really happened. "Now we're shooting with real bullets," he said.."
NBC 1/5/99 Lisa Myers ".Robert Byrd, the Senate's most respected voice on impeachment, a Democrat known for integrity and independence, said Tuesday the trial of President Bill Clinton should be abbreviated but thorough. I don't think a week is enough, Byrd, D-W.Va., told NBC News. It seems to me that this could be done within three weeks, or four. I don't believe that we need to call witnesses. We've heard the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. BUT BYRD, 81, also said the Senate should not duck a vote on removing the president from office. The Senate should go forward with a trial ... should reach a judgment up or down, he said. ..Asked about Clinton's response that it felt not bad to have been impeached, Byrd said, I was sorry that he gave that response. One cannot be flippant ... and there's a certain arrogance about it. Of the president's appearance with House Democrats minutes after he was impeached, Byrd said it was an an egregious display of shameless arrogance the likes of which I don't think I have seen. ."
The Washington Post 1/6/99 Terry Neal ".Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, has been all over television of late, with commentators regularly giving him a chance to display his prodigious talent for bashing President Clinton. Instead, Santorum has offered diplomatic odes to the constitutional process, the importance of impartiality and the need for judicious consideration of fact. On ABC's "This Week," CNN's "Crossfire," CNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews," it's been the same story line: nice Santorum. No sign of bombastic Santorum anywhere. "You see, it's not enough just that it's a crime or might be a crime," Santorum said in a recent interview. "We're not there to punish the president. We are only there to protect the Republic." To some degree, Santorum's public high-mindedness over Clinton's impeachment trial highlights the way things work in the upper chamber, where senators pride themselves on taking a more cerebral, judicious approach than the often rambunctious House. But it also reflects the differing politics at play as consideration of the president's fate shifts to the Senate this week.."
CNS 1/5/99 Ben Anderson ".While attacking the House Judiciary Committee for dooming its "quest for justice," a Washington-based public interest group is calling on the U.S. Senate to consider additional evidence during President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman has asked the Senate to consider evidence unrelated to the articles of impeachment passed by the House but, which may substantiate claims of corruption surrounding the Clinton administration. Klayman points to Judicial Watch's Interim Report which outlines evidence "that perjury and obstruction of justice are part of a 'pattern of conduct' by this President and his agents, and are by no means limited to the Lewinsky matter.".. "It is now clearer than ever that Chairman Henry Hyde and the House Judiciary Committee made a fundamental mistake when they chose against the advice of conservative and others to limit the impeachment inquiry to only the Lewinsky sex scandal" Klayman said. By "ignoring concrete evidence of bribery, likely treason and obstruction of justice in the Chinagate scandal" Klayman said Hyde and the Committee Republicans now lack "any real standing to complain about predictable Senate maneuvers to avoid a trial on the sexual proclivities, and lack of truthfulness, of the President" "Unless there is full accountability for the serious offenses which this President has committed against the American people, a bad and very harmful precedent will be set for future generations," Klayman said. "Moreover, our nation's security, the rule of law, and the privacy rights of its citizens will be further compromised."."
Washington Times 01/01/99 Sean Scully ".Senate Republicans are lining up against the notion of censuring President Clinton, rallying opposition to an idea that until recently seemed all but inevitable. Censure, said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, "is becoming more and more transparent. ... It's not the same attractive option it was, say, three weeks ago to a lot of people." At least four well-respected Republican senators have come out against censure in recent days, saying the Senate should hold a full trial, then vote up or down on whether to remove the president from office. If Mr. Clinton is acquitted, that should end the matter altogether. "If Congress were to censure, fine or otherwise try to punish a president, it would dramatically alter the balance of power between the branches," said Sen. Mike DeWine, Ohio Republican. "Congress could use the precedent of a censure ... as a weapon against future presidents and thereby significantly weaken the institution of the presidency itself." ..Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas Republican, said on Tuesday the Senate "should not erode the Constitution in a way that is contemplated in censure because we must not open the door to punishment through censure every time a Supreme Court justice displeases one party or the other, or an administration official offends Congress." Others, including Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, and Sen. Michael B. Enzi, Wyoming Republican, have made similar comments. "Although I will listen to further debate on censure," Mr. Enzi said in a written statement before Christmas, "I have yet to find a constitutional basis for any such action against the president." .."
Washington Post 01/01/99 Thomas Edsall ".In floating a trial balloon aimed at bringing a swift conclusion to impeachment proceedings, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has embarked on a risky political path that has already provoked the Republican right. Lott is gambling that it is worth angering hard-line House members, his party's conservative wing and Republican activists in his home state in order to protect vulnerable GOP senators facing tough reelection fights in 2000, according to both Republicans and Democrats involved in the process..."
New York Post 01/01/99 Brian Blomquist ".Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott appears to be backing away from a plan to have a mini-trial of President Clinton without witnesses in order to move on to a swift censure, congressional sources said yesterday. Lott (R-Miss.), who was criticized by several fellow Republicans over the plan, talked yesterday to some GOP senators by phone, as well as to House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who would serve as the chief prosecutor in a trial, sources said. After talking with Hyde and others, Lott appeared to back away from his proposal for a four-day trial, an idea that some senators interpreted as a plan designed to get to a censure rather than a verdict on the two articles of impeachment approved by the House. Yesterday, it sounded as if Lott was focused on a trial rather than censure.."
New York Times 01/01/99 Lizette Alvarez and Eric Schmitt ".In the first signs of serious discord among Senate Republicans over impeachment, several senators, both conservatives and moderates, said they opposed a proposal that would permit a preliminary vote on articles of impeachment without a full trial. "That's a whitewash and a shirking of our responsibility the Constitution gives us," said Sen. James Inhofe, a conservative Oklahoman, in a telephone interview Thursday. "We have to have witnesses and have a full trial. How can someone vote without hearing from witnesses and without hearing all the evidence?" Sen. Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican who served as a Senate committee lawyer during the Watergate hearings, echoed Inhofe's concerns and said that the Senate must guard against moving too hastily as it prepares to sit in judgment of President Clinton. "'It's beginning to appear that there's an effort to cut this down to a very short period of time at all costs," Thompson said Thursday. "It's important that we not try to jury rig some kind of process that will solve our short-term political problems, but might not do justice to our obligations."."
http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpwh02.htm 1/6/99 AP Mike Feinsilber ".It is a rare moment in Washington: Nobody knows if the impeachment drama will freeze the government in gridlock while the Senate decides whether the president stays or goes or if it will all end quickly in a compromise. One historian even suggests that lower level officialdom, with no one above paying much attention, might seize the initiative. That's what happened during a comparable period, from the spring of 1972 to the summer of 1974, when the capital was embroiled in Watergate. All three branches of the government -- the executive, legislative and judicial -- are rarely involved in the same events, but President Clinton's impeachment trial ties them together. The White House will devote maximum energy to defending Clinton. The Senate will be conducting a trial. And the Supreme Court is certain to notice that its chief justice, William Rehnquist, will be across the street, presiding over that trial.."
USA Today 1/6/99 Samuel G. Freedman "..Nearly 30 years later, this affinity of the New Right for the New Left, for its brash style and fierce purism, helps explain why the GOP majority in Congress appears hellbent on holding an impeachment trial, regardless of the chief executive's likely acquittal and the public's desire for censure and conclusion. The conventional way of looking at the antagonism between a baby boomer president and his GOP contemporaries is as a continuation of the 1960s' culture wars. The promiscuous, pot-smoking, draft-dodging Clinton, by this thinking, embodies all the rebellion of the era. In his ouster, the nation's traditional values would be restored. .."
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 1/6/99 ".This senatorial ``discourse'' continued Monday and Tuesday but on the morning news shows. Senator after senator after senator - more than a dozen by last count, Republicans and Democrats - are out on the media hustings talking tactics as if they were the prosecution and/or defense. But they are not; they are the jury. And they being the jury, those lobbying for this deal and that concession or stipulation, partisan or non, have become a thoroughly tainted lot. .. No other judge whom we know of would tolerate the antics of these jurors. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has done irreparable harm to the Clinton case and to the constitutional process by sustaining such misbehavior with his silence.."
WorldNetDaily.com 1/6/99 Stephan Archer "..A new report in the Senate suggests the House of Representatives may have been hasty to impeach Clinton on charges limited to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal and raises accusations of political abuse of the Internal Revenue Service, misuse of FBI files, illegal fund-raising activities and more. The 4,000-page interim report was delivered to all members of the U.S. Senate last week by Judicial Watch, Inc., a non-partisan public interest government watchdog group. In the report, Judicial Watch presents evidence that President Clinton may have been involved in bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors in what has become known as Chinagate and Filegate..Also included with the interim report was a list of dead persons associated with the Clinton administration, prepared by WorldNetdaily contributing editor David Bresnahan for his book, "Cover Up." The list was left on Tripp's chair by Monica Lewinsky, according to Tripp's Filegate testimony. Tripp considered the list to be a threat..."
CNN website 1/6/99 Freeper DC Agent ".From the CNN site: "But the House managers insist witnesses are necessary and some want to go even farther than the material covered in the Starr report by calling other so-called 'Jane Does,' women who were not named in the Paula Jones case but who gave sworn statements in an effort by Jones attorneys to demonstrate 'patterns of conduct' by Clinton. Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), one of the House managers, said if the Jane Does 'provided affidavits that were false and they did so because operatives of the president encouraged them or threatened them, that would be relevant.'" ."
The Associated Press http://wire.ap.org/ 1/6/99 Laurie Kelman AP by A Whitewater Researcher ". EXCERPTS: "...Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said today he hoped to announce a framework for...Clinton's impeachment trial within 24 hours but cautioned the historic proceeding could stretch three weeks or more. Democrats vowed ``universal, unanimous'' opposition to calling witnesses.... After struggling for days to build a consensus, Lott told senators his emerging plan would be one ``that neither the House nor the White House will just necessarily think is wonderful but will give all parties a fair chance to make the case and get to a conclusion that's an equitable one.''... ``We will get that done hopefully in a relatively short period of time without limiting it to a day or three days or three weeks, for that matter. It could very well take longer than that,'' Lott said...(House Judiciary Chairman) Hyde met Lott today to discuss the trial....Hyde was seeking to allow House prosecutors and the White House to each call five to eight witnesses but that no decisions were made...." ."
Reuters 1/6/99 ".The White House believes that President Clinton will prevail in his Senate impeachment trial, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said Wednesday. "Based on the facts and based on the Constitution, the president will prevail,'' Lockhart told reporters at his daily briefing. The Senate plans Thursday to open the first impeachment trial against a president in 130 years and will examine charges that Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice in trying to conceal his relationship with Monica Lewinsky..."
CSPAN 2 1/6/99 Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott paraphrase by A Whitewater Researcher ".At 10 AM 1/7/99 we will receive representatives of the U.S. House so that they may present articles of impeachment against Clinton. At 1 PM on 1/7/ 99 the Senate will proceed to consider articles of impeachment. Senate presiding officers will escort the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court into the Senate chamber. Upon completing its business today, the Senate will adjourn to 9:45 AM 1/7/99. Lott wants to be recognized immediately at that time to begin live quorum. At 10 AM the Senate will receive managers of the House so that they may exhibit articles of impeachment. There is a bipartisan group of the Senate meeting right now with the House impeachment managers. A Briefing for a full trial is being provided for. A lot of gaps to what I just said. We wish to be fair, we have a duty to be honest, fair, and dignified to the American people. Moynihan is recognized. Moynihan Praises Lott., and pledges to continue to work with him. Lott: We will stand together in an appropriate manner. Presentation of impeachment articles may be imminent. Requests quorum call.."
AP 1/6/99 John Solomon "..The White House is developing a trial strategy to force an early vote to show that the Senate cannot muster the two-thirds majority required to convict President Clinton, presidential advisers said Wednesday. The advisers said the goal is to give Clinton's defenders a potent political weapon in case Republicans press ahead with a plan to present witnesses and evidence at a lengthy trial that the public has indicated it does not want. ``Once we show the two-thirds is not there, the message is it's just a show trial with no chance of conviction. And every day we can remind the public of that,'' said one White House official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity..One White House official said presidential lawyers have discussed presenting, at the start of the trial, a comprehensive, single motion to dismiss the case against Clinton on a variety of grounds -- that the case doesn't meet the constitutional test of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'', that the evidence doesn't support the charges, and possibly that the articles were improperly approved by a lame-duck House. If that motion isn't made or kept from a vote, an outside adviser to the White House said, a Democratic senator could make a motion to table or adjourn the trial before evidence is presented..."
Idaho State Journal 1/6/99 Paula Garriott ".With 8400 e-mail messages and phone calls, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, had plenty of input on deciding whether to vote to convict President Clinton on two impeachment counts. While he said he is determined to be an impartial juror, he said he is opposed to only censuring Clinton. "On Thursday or Friday of this week, I will raise my hand and swear to be impartial," Craig said. "I want to concentrate on the details of the allegations, the evidence and the facts." Craig said he has studied the Constitution and the Senate's only course is to hear the case and either convict or acquit Clinton on the two articles of impeachment forwarded to the Senate from the House last month. "He's either fit to serve or not fit to serve," Craig said."
AP David Espo 1/7/99 ".House Republicans hope to compel testimony by Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and other witnesses at President Clinton's trial, lawmakers said Wednesday as Senate leaders sparred over guidelines for the nation's first presidential impeachment proceedings in 130 years. On the opening day of the 106th Congress, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., expressed optimism that agreement was near on a procedure for a ``full trial ... and votes on articles of impeachment at the end of the process.'' One GOP source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it would probably be February at the earliest before votes are taken on the president's fate. Democrats vowed opposition to any plan to call witnesses, and insisted they had not been presented with a written proposal for Clinton's trial. By a vote of the GOP-controlled House last year, the nation's 42nd president stands accused of two articles of impeachment alleging perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with attempts to conceal his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.."
Investor's Business Daily 1/7/99 Daniel Murphy ".Few now think the Senate will remove Clinton from office. But the months-long effort by the White House to avoid the president's impeachment, urge censure in its place and avoid a trial's convening appears to have failed completely. It's possible that not only the man Bill Clinton will be on trial, but his methods will as well.."
A Whitewater Researcher 1/6/99 on Fox News Channel/The O'Reilly Factor ttp://www.foxnews.com/ The Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/ ".Bill O'Reilly opened his interview of Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member John Fund by asking, "Could there be new and damaging evidence against...Clinton introduced at his Senate trial?" ..John Fund replied that he wanted to be fair to Clinton, that the allegations of twenty years ago were not at all relevant to Clinton's Senate impeachment trial. "Five women gave affidavits which said they had not had certain contact with the president. They now say those affidavits were false." "All five of them?" O'Reilly asked. "In part or in whole, yes." Fund replied. Fund continued: "And I think the president of the United States and his allies do have to give an explanation as to why these five women filed false affidavits. The women themselves are going to have their interesting stories to tell that would be relevant to the Senate trial... Fund added that the Kathleen Willey federal "grand jury was meeting in Washington as we speak, and they may hand down indictments in that case." O'Reilly and Fund agreed that "that guy from Maryland (allegedly Nathan Landow) would be indicted, and Fund said "and perhaps some others". O'Reilly pressed Fund, "Do you think that's going to happen?" Fund: "Yes." O'Reilly said that would be another big headline, and also said later that such a development in the Willey case "can't do any good" for Clinton in his Senate impeachment trial. Fund went on to discuss the Jane Doe #5 case in further detail:.You know Bill, in the campaign finance scandal, everybody said there was nothing there. But 121 witnesses decided to either flee the country, take the Fifth Amendment, or just clam up." Fund continued: "The pattern of witnesses mysteriously not being available is consistent throughout every Clinton scandal. Look---I am not against the president. I am for getting all the facts out. And in scandal after scandal, the facts have been frustrated."... Fund also mentioned the matter of Linda Tripp's Privacy Act violation. "The administration has been caught red-handed releasing Linda Tripp's private personnel files just like they released Kathleen Willey's letters to the president. Those were in their official government files. They were released---that's against the law." O'Reilly predicted one or more arrests in the Kathleen Willey case, specifically for intimidating a witness. Fund predicted that Clinton's Senate trial will be much more stately and restrained than people expect, and that it would not be a media circus. Fund expects "a reasonable trial, with reasonable witnesses," and if Clinton "wants to contest every single fact, which he didn't contest in the House, some of these new witnesses may be brought forward." Fund continued: "Senator Byrd said that the (Clinton White House post-House impeachment vote) pep rally...was the most egregious display of arrogance he had ever seen in public life Senator Byrd said he's not sure how he's going to vote on impeachment. The White House is winning itself no favors with these tactics." ."
Washington Times 1/7/99 Nancy Roman ".Most Republican senators now insist that the Senate trial of President Clinton, beginning today, be a thorough proceeding complete with witnesses.. Republican senators said if the managers, whom the House reapproved yesterday, need witnesses to make their case, they should be allowed to call them..Mr. Hagel said senators may agree to restrict questions about sexual acts to references to the report. For example, he said senators could refer to page 24, paragraph 6, of a given document without mentioning the act described there. Democrats appeared to realize that they cannot prevent a full-scale trial of the president, but most staunchly oppose witnesses. ..House managers will arrive at 10 a.m. and read the articles of impeachment. Chief Justice Rehnquist will be escorted into the chamber by three Republican and two Democratic senators. He will be sworn in by the president pro-tem of the Senate, Strom Thurmond, South Carolina Republican, the senior member of the chamber. Justice Rehnquist then will swear in the 100 Senators en bloc. Each senator will swear "that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.".."
MSNBC 1/7/99 ".Chris Cannon - One of the House managers - Just confirmed on MSNBC that they are planning on calling Kathl;een Willey and Dolly Kyle-Browning to show witness intimidation and Obstruction of Justice..."
Reuters 1/7/99 ".The White House made a last-minute bid Thursday to keep witnesses and new evidence out of President Clinton's impeachment trial by saying it would agree to base its defense solely on the case handed over by the U.S. House of Representatives.."
1/7/99 UPI S ".As the U.S. Senate prepared to open historic impeachment proceedings, the White House said (Thursday) President Clinton's attorneys have offered to accept the record of the House impeachment inquiry as the unchallenged basis of the Senate trial. In agreeing to stipulate to the House record, in effect offering not to challenge any of the testimony, Clinton's attorneys say there would no need for calling witnesses..."
The Charlotte Observer 1/7/99 Carol Leonnig ".Republican Sen. Jesse Helms said Wednesday that President Clinton's behavior warrants an impeachment trial and Clinton will have to convince him why he should not be removed from office. ``I'm saying that anybody in the office of president, if his name was Ronald Reagan or Jerry Ford or whoever, who brought this nation of ours to the point of being ridiculed around the world, I think that is a high crime,'' Helms said in a telephone interview with N.C. reporters the day before Clinton's trial was set to begin. ``And it's an abuse of office.'' Helms stopped short of saying how he would vote, but emphasized that Clinton's defense team would have to work hard to convince him that Clinton's actions don't justify removal.."
www.polyconomics.com Jude Wanniski 1/7/99 by Freeper chinche ".Memo To: Jonathan Alter, Newsweek columnist From: Jude Wanniski Re: Watch Lindsey Graham I've watched you recently on several shows making the same arguments against the President's conviction in a Senate trial that I made for months. If you would like, I will gladly send you a record of all the memos and letters I'd written in defense of the President -- being willing to allow him his reckless behavior and his definition of what really went on to dispose of the perjury and obstruction of justice charges.. What caused me to change my opinion, Jonathan, is the bombshell dropped during the hearings by Rep. Lindsey Graham, the young South Carolina Republican, when he highlighted the testimony that Sid Blumenthal gave before the federal grand jury. Sid acknowledged that when he confronted the President about the Monica Lewinsky story early last year, immediately following the President's deposition in the Paula Jones case, the President told him that Lewinsky had come on to him, threatened him unless he had sex with her, which he said he refused to do, and that she described herself as "the stalker." Graham tells me he was unaware of this testimony until his Judiciary Committee GOP colleague, Mary Bono, showed it to him. He says he immediately realized its implications and did a Nexus search, expecting to find stories about Lewinsky being a stalker and sure enough, there they were, a pile of them... And so he did. In the hearings, Graham made the point that if it were not for the blue dress, the President would have permitted the young woman he had played with in the Oval Office to be destroyed in a he-said, she-said confrontation. This was an evil act, Jon. I'd talked myself into believing the stalker story had come from the knife-fighters, Carville or Begala. But when it became clear the President himself had put this into motion, I was no longer able to sustain the elaborate rationales I had developed in my mind and heart in his defense. It is then I could relate to Henry Hyde's point that the impeachment process was not to punish the President, but to cleanse the Oval Office. Lindsey's "bombshell," which I wrote about on December 10 and which Novak made the subject of his column on December 14, is one of the major reasons the House moderates chose to vote for impeachment. When he dropped the bomb, Graham asked the women on the committee especially to see how bad the President behaved. This goes far beyond sexual harassment. It is the kind of behavior a rapist uses when asserting that yes he did have sex with the girl, but she had come on to him. Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA], practically jumped out of her shoes screeching at Graham for having dared to suggest he knows how a woman might think. He had hit a nerve with her, as he had with me. I'm writing to you, Jon, because I can easily put myself in your shoes, because that was exactly where I was a month ago. There is much more going on here than meets the eye. Take a look... "
FoxNews Randall Mikkelsen 1/7/99 ".The White House said Thursday that the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton threatened to be "manifestly unfair'' by opening without clear rules on how to proceed. "We may be in a situation where we do move forward without clear rules of the road,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said. "I would suggest that that would be a situation, an environment, that is manifestly unfair to the president.''.. Clinton's defense team was awaiting word Thursday on a last-minute bid to keep witnesses and new evidence out of the trial by saying it would agree to base its defense solely on the case handed over by the U.S. House of Representatives, which last month voted to impeach Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. "We're willing to have the case tried based on that (House) record,'' Lockhart said earlier in the day. If the proposal, made to senators late Wednesday, is rejected, Lockhart said Clinton's lawyers would be prepared to file motions, call witnesses, seek evidence and take other steps that could greatly prolong the trial.."
Scripps Howard News Service 1/7/99 Lance Gay ".One senator said the view from the Senate floor reminded him of a hanging. Another said he sat there musing over the meaning of the four gold stripes on the black robe worn by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. A third said she was caught in awe of the seriousness of the occasion. So it was Thursday that the full weight of the Constitution fell on the shoulders of 100 senators ordered into silence to begin the impeachment trial of President Clinton.. ``Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye,'' intoned Senate Sergeant at Arms James Ziglar, reciting the traditional call to order in the Senate. ``All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States, articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States.'' A hush fell across the historic chamber, which was crammed with visitors, as Rehnquist told the senators to stand as he gave them their oath: ``Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?,'' he said.."
Inside Cover (NewsMax.com) 1/7/99 ".Few have been more vociferous in their support for Bill Clinton than Congressman Robert Wexler..Cole asked Wexler if he could disclose what he knows about the Starr documents -- the ones never released publicly -- that sit in an office in the Ford Building under armed guard. Wexler said, "I cannot comment more, all of us are sworn to secrecy." Cole pressed Wexler about the published reports that Jane Doe #5, now known as Juanita Broaddrick, told FBI agents working for Ken Starr that Clinton had raped her. "We had always thought that this was about consensual sex. If that turns out not to be the case, this will be an entirely different matter." .."
The Independent (UK) 1/8/99 Mary Dejevsky and Andrew Marshall ".At 1.25pm yesterday, escorted by five senators and a posse of security guards, the Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, walked solemnly into the chamber of the US Senate. It was a formal entrance without precedent in living memory. "Pleased to welcome you," drawled Strom Thurmond, the 96-year-old "father" of the Senate, inviting Mr Rehnquist to take the oath. "Do you solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, now pending, that I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?" "I do," replied Justice Rehnquist clearly, but without awe or pomp, and proceeded to administer the same oath to the assembled senators.."
www.intellectualcapital.com 1/7/99 by Freeper ancient_geezer ".The House Republicans staked their case for impeachment, finally, on the principle of equality under law. If the president gets away with perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power, they argued, then the rule of law will be gone and Clinton will be on his way to being King Bill. In raising this anti-monarchical plea, the Republicans discovered why they had been called "republicans"; in the first place and got an inkling of how they might make equality a Republican principle again.."
United Press International 1/7/99 ".Demonstrators gathered in Los Angeles and Sacramento to protest efforts to remove President Clinton from office. About 100 protesters demonstrated outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles today, carrying signs and encouraging motorists to honk in support of their efforts.."
The Washington Times 1/8/99 via Drudge Wes Pruden ".The White House offered yesterday to "stipulate" that the Starr report, which it has relentlessly scorned as the work of the Antichrist, is factual and agree to its use as a compendium of facts of the case if that's what it takes to prevent the Republican managers from calling witnesses... But what stipulation means, as the White House concedes, is that the Starr report would be the record the Senate uses to decide whether Mr. Clinton is guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. This is the price that Mr. Clinton is willing to pay to keep witnesses out of the public ear. Monica and Bettie Currie on the witness stand, reciting how the president urged them to bear false witness in the interests of obstructing justice, might turn the impeachment trial into a real trial. He's counting on what the lawyers call "jury nullification," an O.J. verdict, where dishonest jurors render a verdict that has nothing to do with the evidence. The fix is in, and he's desperate to keep it that way. If the Republicans in the Senate insist on hearing witnesses and considering the evidence, the White House insists, "all bets are off." .."
New York Post 1/8/98 ".My advice is still: Take the crisis in Washington very seriously, even if the bubble-heads on Wall Street don't. There is a very good chance Bill Clinton will be removed from office but it won't be quick or neat. Certain Senate Republicans already have stuff on the President that could sway enough Democrats to vote Mr. Clinton out of office. I'll save the specifics for another time. But the bombshell information exists, and it doesn't have anything to do with illegitimate children or other women. The most important thing is that the impeachment process will be incredibly confusing for both American and foreign investors. In other words, Washington won't be doing its real job. And with that happening, there is a good chance that the U.S. and its financial markets will no longer continue to rate the same favored status usually accorded them by foreign investors. So how bad could it be if foreigners stop putting their money into the U.S. or start taking out what they already have here? The answer is simple: very bad.."
Wall Street Journal 1/8/99 Paul Gigot by Freeper Rodger Schultz ".By now everyone believes that Senate Republicans want a long impeachment trial while Democrats prefer a short one. Like many things in politics, the exact opposite is closer to the truth.."
The Washington Times via WorldNetDaily 1/7/99 Alan Keyes by Freeper sidewinder ".In recent days, many senators have been speaking as if they have the constitutional authority to decide whether or not the House's impeachment of Bill Clinton will be brought to trial. But a good case can be made that any such senatorial action would violate the terms on which the Constitution establishes the Senate as the court empowered to try impeachments of the president of the United States..."
Chicago Sun-Times 1/8/99 Robert Novak ".Battling fatigue and frayed nerves, senators and the House impeachment managers were bogged down in their fourth consecutive day Thursday of trying to agree on a format for President Clinton's trial. Their failure does not bode well for Clinton. It still seems unlikely in the extreme that two-thirds of the Senate will vote to remove Clinton from office. But nobody can be absolutely certain. Just as the seeming certainty that the House never would vote for impeachment proved a fantasy, the inevitability of a swift, easy trial has faded away..The deeper Republican senators got into the process, the more they wanted a full trial of indeterminate length that presents all evidence.. Now, with only a majority vote needed, it seems certain that there will be witnesses. The questions now are who and how many. As many as 15 witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky, are contemplated. Thus, the shape of the trial has taken the same course as everything else in the impeachment proceedings. The process seems to gain momentum by the hour, moved not by public opinion but by an irresistible current making the removal of the president seem to be a real possibility, after all. This has produced mixed emotions at the White House. On one hand, Clinton's political advisers grimly warn that a protracted trial with multiple witnesses will backfire on the Republican Party and guarantee Democratic victories in the 2000 elections. On the other hand, the president's strategists are uneasy about what may develop as witnesses provide new evidence. In the senators-only meetings this week, Republican lawmakers who had taken the opportunity to visit the evidence room expressed shock at the unpublished allegations against the president. Some who a week earlier had been disinclined to call witnesses--such as Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)--demanded a fuller trial.."
National Post 1/8/99 David Frum "..There is a weird paradox at the heart of the Clinton White House's strategy in the impeachment trial, which began in the U.S. Senate yesterday. The White House's friends in the media insist it is absolutely certain a Senate trial will lead to the president's acquittal and vindication. They predict, too, that any trial will lead to political catastrophe for the Republicans. And yet, at the same time as the White House spinmeisters express serene confidence a trial will end in victory for Mr. Clinton and disaster for his opponents, they are virtually begging for a deal that will cut the trial short before the evidence against Mr. Clinton is presented.. From the outside, it looks as if he has nothing to worry about. But the White House isn't behaving as if it had nothing to worry about. It's behaving very worried indeed. And with reason. While the latest CNN polls show the public opposes convicting and removing the president by a 63%-33% margin (down from 68%- 29% last month), it's also true, as the Gallup poll has consistently found since the fall, 66% believe Mr. Clinton perjured himself and more than 50% believe he obstructed justice..Those senators are in a jam. The public may accept the proposition a perjurer may occupy the presidency, but it's a hard thing for a senator to assent to. Senators are law-makers. They think in terms of making rules. And they have to wonder: If they leave a known perjurer in office, what rule exactly are they establishing? Will they be creating a precedent that perjury is not a "high crime or misdemeanour," the offences established by the constitution as grounds for removal from office? If so, in what sense will it remain true a president must tell the truth under oath? After all, whatever it is OK for Mr. Clinton to do, it is OK for all his successors to do. If he can lie to win a lawsuit, so can they. And the consequences of that new political rule are not easily calculated..."
New York Times 1/8/99 Frank Bruni ".As Senate leaders struggled to set parameters for a trial, the House members appointed to prosecute President Clinton said Thursday that they wanted to present testimony from as many as 15 witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky and an array of current and former presidential advisers.. Cannon said that House members were trying to be careful only to do what they considered essential. "We're not going to call witnesses unless they go to the very core issues of perjury and obstruction of justice," he said.."
Richmond Times-Dispatch via www.inquisit.com 1/7/99 Freper vitolins "."A censure vote could establish a precedent by which a future Congress could threaten a president with that club and thereby destabilize the balance of power between executive and legislative branches of government," Warner said."
PR Newswire 1/7/99 Republic National Committee ".In his first act as a Senator this afternoon, New York Democrat Charles Schumer signed an oath pledging to be ``impartial'' in the impeachment trial of President Clinton -- even though he's already announced his decision in the case...Schumer today joined other Senators in signing an oath to ``do impartial justice'' in the impeachment trial of President Clinton; the oath was administered by Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Yet on October 6, in only his second appearance in the Judiciary Committee during the entire impeachment inquiry, Schumer said that ``I have come to the conclusion that there is no basis for impeachment of the president.'' Hillary Clinton raised $250,000 for Schumer's Senatorial campaign on September 23, and President Clinton separately hosted a $1 million fundraiser for him in October, Nicholson recalled.."
Original Source 1/9/99 Mary Mostert ".Throughout the entire period of time the House Judiciary Committee debated the Starr Report, almost every Democrat complained about how "unfair" it was that they had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Of course, their own time demands made it impossible, as well as simply unnecessary to cross examine witnesses. Now that Cliinton is impeached, and there actually IS a trial pending, what, do you suppose, is the Democrat complaint? They are now in orbit because the Republicans are planning to call witnesses - just what they wanted in the House. Only, now, they don't want witnesses and are complaining that Henry Hyde and the House Republicans are "unfair" to call witnesses. Clinton's spokesman, Joe Lockhart said yesterday that calling witnesses in the Senate trial is "not fair." Not having witnesses in the House debate was unfair and having witnesses in the Senate trial is "unfair?" Lockhart threatened, "If they insist on bringing witnesses it will significantly extend and delay this process and all bets are off. ... We don't believe that they've made a compelling case that the president be removed." Several weeks ago I said, somewhat tongue in cheek, that the only way Clinton can keep people on his side was to make sure that they DID NOT read the Starr Report. The White House must have read my column. Trying avoid witnesses in the Senate trial is an effort to keep the evidence out of their hands. ."
Fox News/Reuters 1/8/99 ".Senate Republicans and Democrats Friday reached agreement on a process for the impeachment trial of President Clinton which could allow for witnesses to be called to testify. The agreement would start the trial next week and then require a majority vote of the Senate to approve the summons of witnesses such as Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern at the heart of the White House scandal. In a joint appearance, Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said they both expected a broad bipartisan agreement on the plan, which the Senate was to vote on later in the day. "Our expectation is that it's going to be an overwhelming bipartisan vote'' on the trial plan, Daschle said.."
UPI 1/8/99 Michael Kirkland ".There are important differences between President Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate and an ordinary trial in a courtroom, with its constitutional guarantees to protect a defendant and its provision for review by the appellate courts. The Supreme Court placed the Senate impeachment process above the law when it ruled in 1993's U.S. vs. Nixon - which dealt with the impeachment of a federal judge - that impeachment is not reviewable by the federal courts on constitutional or any other grounds...Parker said: ``The idea that (the senators) are impartial in the way a jury is impartial is foolish....Such people would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case.'' He added, ``The White House gets a lot of mileage out of the assumption that the two (types of trials) must be the same.'' Besides, the professor said, Vice President Al Gore is waiting in the wings should Clinton be toppled. ``We're not talking about punishment of a person here,'' Parker said. ``We're talking about removal of someone from office and replacing him with someone who was elected at the same time he was. We are not talking about overturning an election.'' ."
Rush Limbaugh 1/8/99 Senator Larry Craig by Freeper newsman ".Senators, both democrat and Republican, agreed today to an up-or-down vote at the conclusion of the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, according to Senator Larry Craig, a guest on the Rush Limbaugh program. This part of the agreement reached by the democrats and Republicans on procedural matters was not mentioned in earlier news reports. Senator Craig also said that the Senate hopes to get the trial underway next Wednesday. "We expect it to last about two weeks," he added. "It sounds like to me that the import of the Constitution has prevailed," Rush commented, after hearing Craig describe the full agreement. "The import of the Constitution has, in fact, prevailed," agreed the Senator. He added that the Senators agreed that "It's important to do this right," and that's what our agreement today accomplishes. "This country is going to be served," and the business of the country will continue on, without disruption, he said. ."
AP 1/8/99 Larry Margasak ".Republicans and Democrats reached a general agreement today covering ground rules for President Clinton's impeachment trial. Lawmakers on both sides said it included the possibility of testimony by witnesses. The details had not yet been drafted, senators said, and they cautioned that no final accord had been sealed. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said that under the emerging plan the trial would begin next week with opening presentations. Meanwhile, four senators, two from each party, would beginning working on the difficult issue of calling witnesses. GOP House prosecutors are pressing for witnesses, while many Democrats oppose the idea. .Lott indicated that the breakthrough came inside the closed-door meeting when two senators of vastly different political persuasions, Massachusetts liberal Democrat Edward M. Kennedy and Texas conservative Republican Phil Gramm made back-to-back suggestions. Lott did not offer specifics..While the senators gathered, members of the House prosecution team also met and considered adding Kathleen Willey, the woman who alleges Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance in the White House, to the list of witnesses they would like to call, GOP sources said. Mrs. Willey would not be questioned about the alleged sexual advance but about any possible attempts to intimidate her, one source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.. "
Scripps Howard News Service 1/8/99 Lance Gay ".The divisions aren't only between the 45 Republicans and 55 Democrats, but within the parties themselves. Both the Democrats and the GOP are divided with conservative and liberal wings, disagreeing over how to handle Clinton. In the ranks of the GOP, the views range from Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Jeff Sessions of Alabama on the right to James Jeffords of Vermont and Olympia Snowe of Maine on the left. The GOP conservatives, who comprise a majority of the caucus, want to use the trial to embarrass Clinton and force him to admit perjury. The Democratic caucus also has philosophical fissures ranging from Fritz Hollings of South Carolina and Bob Graham of Florida on the moderate-right to Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts on the left. .."
Boston Globe 1/9/99 John Ellis ".Everybody's got a censure plan. Former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter have a censure plan. Former Senate majority leader Bob Dole has a censure plan. Senators Slade Gorton and Joe Lieberman have a censure plan. All of these plans are well-intentioned. None of them will work. There will be no censure of Bill Clinton. There will be no compromise ''solution.'' There will be no deal. There will be a vote up or down - most likely after an evidentiary trial - to acquit or convict. The roll will be called and Mr. Clinton will either be removed from office or let off scot-free. Two forces have converged to all but guarantee this outcome. First, Republican constituencies insist that such a vote be taken. They want a trial and they want a vote of conscience after all the evidence is heard. They will not be denied... Second, Mr. Clinton wants no part of a censure deal. He has stated repeatedly, through various mouthpieces, that he will ''never admit'' that he lied under oath. Without an admission of perjury, the various cen-sure deals collapse in a heap.."
The American Spectator 1/8/99 R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Close observers of the Clinton polls will tell you that there is a pendulum effect to them. When the pendulum swings Bill's way the White House broadcasts the good word. When the pendulum swings against him the White House is absorbed in other matters. When word hit the press that the President may have dallied with an intern the pendulum swung against Bill. Large numbers of Americans said that if the reports were true he should resign. There followed the usual anguish from high places and predictions of doom. Soon the public was registering high approval of the president, and the White House was broadcasting the good news..."
Knight Ridder 1/8/99 Steven Thomma "..Byrd is the only Senate Democrat who has said he could go either way based on the evidence he's read so far. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has assured the White House that Byrd is the only possible defector and that the remaining 44 Democrats are likely if not certain to vote against convicting Clinton and removing him. ``I don't think there's any reasonable scenario in which he could be convicted,'' said pollster Mark Mellman, who advises both the White House and congressional Democrats. Perhaps not. But conventional wisdom has been wrong at almost every stop in the yearlong scandal, most recently when it held that the House would never vote to impeach a president who had the backing of two- thirds of Americans.."
Reuters 1/8/99 ".The summons notifying President Clinton of his impeachment trial in the Senate arrived at the White House on a snowy Friday evening. But the president was not home. Senate Sergeant of Arms James Ziglar delivered the summons shortly after 5:30 p.m. EST Friday, while Clinton was returning from a day trip to Detroit.. The stern language in the summons makes clear the fate of the man commonly described as the most powerful in the world lies now in the hands of the 100 senators who sit as jurors in his impeachment trial. "You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore hereby summoned to file with the Secretary of the Senate an answer to the said articles ... and thereafter to abide by, obey and perform such orders, directions and judgements as the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises according to the Constitution and laws of the United States,'' it said. "Hereof you are not to fail.''."
Electronic Telegraph 1/8/99 ".THE White House-disseminated orthodoxy says Bill Clinton is home free: there is no way that 12 Senate Democrats will defect and, with 55 Republicans, create a two- thirds majority to throw the miscreant from office. But no one knows how to get to this putatively inevitable conclusion. The trial opened yesterday with prosecution and defence still not knowing if they could call witnesses. An unusual fragrance is drifting through the Capitol's marble columns. It is the tang of uncertainty, delicious to non-combatants but alarming to senators, who have long grown accustomed to knowing how battles will end before they begin. Watergate helps them not at all, for Richard Nixon resigned before being impeached, while the only other trial for impeachment - that of Andrew Johnson - took place 131 years ago.."
The New York Post 1/9/99 Deborah Orin ".The senators, Democrats as well as Republicans, do not want whatever they do to be interpreted as some sort of glorious endorsement of Bill Clinton's conduct," said presidential scholar Stephen Hess. "I think there's enough ill will for Bill Clinton among Democrats as well as Republicans not to let his spin doctors turn a Senate vote against conviction into some kind of vindication." As long as Democrats and Republicans kept mud-wrestling with each other, it was almost impossible for them to get together to punish Clinton. Now, in the Senate, that's not the case. Hess thinks GOPers and Democrats may ultimately be able to unite on a tough censure like this: "William Jefferson Clinton, through his pattern of deceit, has brought dishonor to the presidency." Republicans would likely want tougher words, but yesterday's unanimous deal means senators can civilly debate Clinton's fate across party lines instead of shrieking at each other while the nation gags. That's not good news for Clinton. His best bet was endless partisan nastiness - like the House impeachment battle - because that cast disrepute over the whole process. "This may make people feel that the impeachment is more legitimate than it appeared in the House," said Democratic strategist Steve McMahon.."
The London Daily Telegraph 1/9/99 Hugo Gurdon ".THE US Senate agreed a breakthrough deal yesterday which will allow Bill Clinton's impeachment trial to go ahead next week with witnesses such as Monica Lewinsky, his adulterous lover, waiting in the background to testify. Senators agreed to press on without the ban on witnesses which the White House demanded. It means that the President's nightmare may come true, in which Miss Lewinsky, his confidante Vernon Jordan, and secretary Betty Currie, are forced into the witness box to recall for a television audience his alleged perjury and efforts to persuade them to lie under oath. The White House fear is that this will erode his 62 per cent public approval rating and make it easier for the Senate to convict him...The bipartisan agreement was doubly hurtful to Mr Clinton since it not only meant that the White House had not got its way in keeping witnesses out of the trial, but Mr Clinton's own party had sold him out.."
AFP 1/8/99 ".Bill Clinton became the first US president from the rock-and-roll generation six years ago and the uncharted territory has been both a blessing and a curse in his tumultuous tenure...But the baggage of his "baby boom" generation has presented Clinton with explosive political challenges. Some see the president as a Vietnam war draft-dodging, pot-smoking, womanizer who unrepentantly fudges the truth when it is politically expedient. Others view him simply as a product of his times who abstained from a war he couldn't support, experimented harmlessly with drugs, had a "modern marriage" with a career woman -- and cleverly fudged the truth when it was politically expedient. ."
The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News web site) 1/8/99 Bill O'Reilly - Talking Points by Freeper UnBubba ".We all know [Clinton] refuses to answer the tough questions. But how bad is it? Fortunately, Bill O'Reilly is keeping track of this growing phenomenon. It has now been 254 days and counting since [Clinton] has answered open ended questions from the press. ."
The Providence Journal 1/9/99 ".Still, the case at hand poses special problems. Nearly everyone inside and outside the Beltway agrees that Bill Clinton, who is a graduate of Yale Law School and, as president, sworn to uphold the law, lied under oath. The question is whether the President's apparent violation of the law -- via alleged perjury in testimony to a grand jury and alleged obstruction of justice -- is sufficiently serious to warrant removal from office. The House of Representatives believes that it is. But many Democrats in the Senate (and nearly all in the House) claim otherwise: While condemning the President's personal conduct and lies under oath, they advocate some lesser sanction than banishment. But their (and our) preferred solution -- censure -- strikes most Republicans as a slap on the wrist for a serious transgression. .. Yet there is another approach that has been discussed. Since, under present rules, senators may vote only to convict or exonerate the President on the two counts of impeachment, those single votes prevent senators from expressing the view held by most Americans.. If, however, the Senate were to separate judgment from punishment, a bipartisan consensus may very well be possible. That would require one vote on the question of President Clinton's guilt, and another vote on removal from office. This would require senators to address the issues squarely, and it would prevent senators from hiding behind their vote in deference to partisan pressure or public opinion polls. It would also serve as a meaningful form of censure: President Clinton could scarcely feel vindicated if most (perhaps all) Democratic senators vote to declare that they believe he lied under oath and obstructed justice. ."
Boston Herald 1/9/99 Joe Fitzgerald ".It's nighttime in the city and Bill Ford, a Boston cabbie for 25 years, is behind the wheel, refusing to believe polls suggesting the president's more popular than ever. For one thing, no one he's met has ever been polled. For another, those claims are entirely at odds with what this 49-year-old Winthrop father has been hearing from that unpolled population in the back seat. ``Last summer,'' he said, maneuvering through the streets of Government Center, ``it was hard to find people who felt the way I did. Me? I've felt all along he should be impeached if he won't resign because he's disgraced the office. It's become a punch line for Jay Leno; that's what he's reduced it to. ``It makes me sick, hearing good people defending him, because I feel his actions are indefensible. I just can't understand how they continue sticking up for him. .. ``And I've got to tell you, I've been flabbergasted by what I'm hearing lately. Talk about a turnaround; everyone's saying he has to go. And I'm not always the one who brings it up. For a while I stopped talking about it altogether because it discouraged me to hear people defending this guy. But that's not what I'm hearing now. ``I just took a fare to Harvard Square and as he's getting out he says, `This guy's going to get a lot of our kids killed by trying to prove he's still in charge.' Believe me, I don't care what the polls say, the public's attitude is turning.."
New York Post 1/9/99 Marilyn Rauber & Brian Blomquist ".A hundred bitterly split senators walked into the historic old Senate chamber yesterday and emerged two hours later all smiles, declaring the partisan impeachment war over. And it took only one man to do it - West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, the Wise Old Man of the Senate and the influential ex-majority leader feared by the White House and revered by his colleagues. . "Sen. Byrd gave an address that was remarkable and healing and set the tone for everything that we said afterward," an awe-struck Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) said after the rare closed-door meeting in which GOPers and Democrats sealed a deal on how to start President Clinton's impeachment trial.."
The New York Times 1/10/99 Jill Abramson ".The Senate's agreement on how to conduct the initial phase of President Clinton's impeachment trial sent House prosecutors and the president's lawyers diving this weekend back into the voluminous evidence collected by Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel. In the 7,000 pages of grand jury testimony and boxes of supplementary evidence, Rep. Henry Hyde, the leader of the House prosecution team, sees a clear and convincing picture of perjury and obstruction of justice so grave that Clinton should be removed from office. From that same pile of evidence, the president's legal team is putting together a more aggressive defense than the one they presented unsuccessfully to the House -- one they now say should lead to the president's acquittal. The White House agreed to accept the record of testimony amassed by the independent counsel, although the president's lawyers profoundly disagree with Starr and Hyde about what the evidence shows.."
Alert America 1/8/99 Larry Nichols Alert America Newletter 16 ". You see, if they have a full-and-open trial, I believe firmly, it is in the interest to the proceedings to show background and to show that the Monica Lewinsky experience was not unique to this president. That they would very quickly call Juanita Broderick into the Chamber. You'll hear Juanita Broderick's story, one of rape and one of him, Bill Clinton, getting physical and beathing her. And you say, "well he-said-she-said", well she's changed her story several times. No ! That's what the White House put out. She told the story once... At this time, under fear of committing perjury, she told the first story again with one intention, which was to explain why she did the second story. And the second story was actually quite simple. She had been forced and coerced into signing it. .."
Committee on the Judiciary Press Release 1/8/99 Sam Stratman Michelle Morgan ". House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde made the following statement on behalf of the House managers in response to the Senate's agreement on the trial procedures: "We respect and appreciate the bipartisan agreement established by the Senate. We intend to use the time we have been provided to present a compelling case on the serious charges pending against the President. We also look forward to the opportunity - with Senate concurrence - to call witnesses in support of the evidence.".."
Online Telegraph 1/9/1999 Hugh Davies ".THE independent counsel Kenneth Starr is reviving his pursuit of Bill Clinton for allegedly fondling a 51-year-old socialite from a prominent Virginia Democratic family when she visited him at the White House, asking for help, in November 1993. Kathleen Willey has told of how the President embraced her in the Oval Office and lured her to his adjoining study to grope her breasts. She said: "I just could not believe the recklessness of that act." It emerged yesterday that Mr Starr is now building a solid case, indicating that he thinks Mr Clinton perjured himself about Mrs Willey. Republican prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial said they now wanted to call Mrs Willey as one of their witnesses to bolster their case against the President..."
USA Journal Online 1/8/99 John Bender ".The Democrat mantra, that the president's crimes do not rise to the level of impeachable offences raises some important questions no one is asking. Few of the president's apologists still claim he did not commit crimes. Instead they are claiming the president's crimes are not impeachable. This is very curious considering the crimes. The evidence is clear that the president committed serial perjury and headed an ongoing effort to obstruct justice. Both these crimes are felonies and in the case of perjury even Richard Nixon did not sink to that crime. In the case of obstruction of justice, Nixon was accused of that and no one claimed the crime was not impeachable. So the question for Democrats is; are the felonies perjury and obstruction of justice only impeachable if a Republican president commits the crimes? If obstruction of justice was an impeachable crime for Nixon why not for Clinton? It should also be noted that several federal judges were impeached and removed from office for perjury. Are Democrats really ready to make the argument that the president can commit crimes that judges are removed for committing? If that is their position one must ask; is that because the president is above the law or because crimes are less significant when committed by the president? ."
AP 1/10/99 ".As the U.S. Senate deliberates his fate, President Clinton went out to dinner Saturday night with one of his jurors -- Sen. Barbara Boxer. The California Democrat is also a family member. Boxer's daughter, Nicole, is married to first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's younger brother, Tony."
Union Leader 1/10/99 Joseph W. McQuaid ".There was both a solemnity and a dignity to last week's formal opening of the Presidential impeachment trial that was strangely comforting. This entire affair has been distasteful, unseemly, and terribly degrading for the country and our children. There may be more of it to come, if a full trial proceeds. Perhaps the silving lining to this very dark cloud is that our form of government can survive, will survive. Using age-old rules and a Constitution that retains its durability after more than two centuries, the Chief Justice of the United States and the 100 members of the U.S. Senate carried out their prescribed roles. We hope that schools were making this a "teachable moment" by showing the television images and displaying the newspaper accounts. We hope adults, too, were taking in this extraordinary demonstration of our republic at work.. As much as the formal proceedings were dignified, some of the participants then turned right around to play for the cameras. It was disconcerting, for instance, to see, on the Larry King TV talk show, no fewer than six U.S. Senators discussing the case and taking viewer phone calls as if this were just the latest Hollywood gossip. It was good to see New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith decline to participate in what he rightly called the undignified spectacle.."
Detroit News Christopher J. Peters vs. Larry Dubin 1/10/99 by Freeper machman ".Despite what the president's defenders would have us believe, the impeachment and removal process is not a criminal proceeding; the president will not go to jail or even be forced to pay a fine as a result of it. At most, he will lose his job and be disqualified from holding subsequent federal office. Any other "punishment" must be voluntarily agreed to by the president to pass constitutional muster.."
The Times & Free Press 1/10/99 ".As the Senate trial of President Bill Clinton proceeds on charges he lied under oath and obstructed justice, Mr. Clinton and his partisans are claiming that lying under oath does not "rise" -- they should say "descend" -- to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," thus not justifying conviction and removal of Mr. Clinton from office. Not only are they wrong, but 27 of the sitting Democratic senators who are trying Mr. Clinton are on record saying that lying under oath is serious enough for removal of a federal official from office. We are indebted to the Washington-based publication Human Events for calling attention to this information. In 1989, U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon was charged with making a "false or misleading statement to a grand jury." That, in part, is what Mr. Clinton is charged with doing. ..Sen. Kohl was not the only Democratic senator to vote that lying under oath to a grand jury is impeachable, deserving conviction and removal from office. Here are the 26 other Democrats who voted with him: Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, Sen. Richard Bryan of Nevada, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, Sen. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Sen. Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts, Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Chuck Robb of Virginia, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland.."
SUNSPOT-MARYLAND ONLINE 1/8/99 Dan Rodricks ". "As of now, many people say it's impossible that the Senate will vote to convict," says Maryland's former U.S. Sen. Charles McC. Mathias. "But who can say 30 days in advance?" People who assume the president can't be convicted aren't considering what might happen once all the senators consider all the facts. Mathias, contacted for a dose of reason and wisdom at his law office on G Street in Washington, believes Clinton's alleged perjury constitutes an impeachable offense. "Perjury before a grand jury is an attack on our judicial system," Mathias says. "People have not looked at this in those definitive terms." Once you do, Mathias says, it gets harder to dismiss Clinton's answers under oath to questions about his extramarital affairs as trivial, or, at least, not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. "This is the man," he adds for emphasis, "sworn to uphold the judicial branch." .."
UPI S 1/10/99 "..Rep. Lindsey Graham, one of the House managers for the trial of President Bill Clinton in the Senate, says he'd like to see six to 10 witnesses appear before the senators. Graham, R- S.C., told ``Fox News Sunday'' that the House managers won't ``talk this case to death,'' but he said, ``We can get this case done, from our point of view, even with witnesses...by the middle of February, with some cooperation.'' He declined to specify who is on the witness list..."
Insight Magazine 2-1-99 Jamie Dettmer ". While the Senate leaders consulted and plotted a "kinder, gentler" truncated procedure, one without the need for witnesses and too many embarrassingly graphic details, press disclosures of Humpty-Dumpty's festive hubris became a factor. For many senators on both sides of the aisle the president's reported joking at a White House party about porn publisher Larry Flynt and his targeting of Republicans as philanderers made nonsense -- yet again -- of his words of contrition. Censure, of course, loses its sting when the person to be censured remains unabashed and even arrogant. How do you shame the shameless? . . . . And the irritation with that particular pre-Christmas jocularity, combined with Clinton's pep rally on the South Lawn hours after he was impeached on Dec. 19, isn't confined to Republican senatorial ranks. Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a master parliamentarian to whom many senators are looking for guidance on how to handle the impeachment mess, still is smarting, calling the pep rally "an egregious display of shameless arrogance the likes of which I don't think I've seen." He added: "I would hope for his own sake he'd be more careful." . . . . Behind the scenes in the Senate there is considerable frustration with Clinton. There are public words and private ones. Off the record, some senators, Democrats included, say they believe the president should have put his interests second and resigned weeks ago. "He should have saved us from all of this," says a liberal Democratic senator. No such luck. ."
AP 1/10/99 Jim Abrams ".Some Republican senators who will sit as jurors to decide whether to remove President Clinton from office said Sunday that testimony from witnesses is crucial to their deliberations. Democrats said testimony could unnecessarily prolong the trial and end the current bipartisan harmony. And House Republicans among the 13 who will prosecute the two articles of impeachment facing Clinton pressed for the right to call witnesses. They put Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern whose affair with Clinton triggered the case, at the top of the list. ."I don't know how I can make a decision,'' said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on "Fox News Sunday,'' "without hearing from someone firsthand.''.."
New York Times 1/10/99 James Bennett by Freeper boston ".Though White House aides say they are still mapping out their strategy, the core of the defense team and of its case are settled. The team is to be led by Charles F. C. Ruff, the former Watergate special prosecutor who is Clinton's fifth White House counsel.."
Boston Globe, page C07 1/10/99. By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist ".It is sick enough that Kenneth Starr has not only advertised but actually timed a ''garbage'' indictment to influence President Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate. But it is mind-boggling that Starr would do so while trying to bury testimony by a witness who shreds the credibility of Kathleen Willey, especially since Starr and House impeachment managers have been bending heaven and earth to get Willey's allegations of a presidential semi- assault into the Senate proceedings.."
Atlanta Journal/Constitution 1/9/99 ".**President Clinton**'s legal team is predicting that the Senate would vote to dismiss the impeachment charges against him after the first phase of the trial procedure approved Friday. A motion to dismiss would require the support of a simple majority, or 51 senators. "We are optimistic, we are confident that the senators, once they see and hear this defense in this opening phase of the trial, will conclude that the articles do not justify or warrant conviction or removal from office," said Gregory Craig, special counsel to the president. "We remain hopeful that this matter can be resolved expeditiously and fairly." .."
Washington Weekly 1/11/99 ".President Clinton and the Democrats may not want the public to examine the credentials of the 400 so-called "historians" that signed a statement opposing impeachment of Clinton. Most of the 400 are unknown to the general public and their credentials are equally mysterious, though they share a common liberal ideology... Some of the 400 are not even historians. Only a handful have career resumes that might qualify them to speak with authority on the Constitution, the Presidency and impeachment. About seven are full time librarians. One is a top official in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Most of the 400 are specialists in women's studies, gender history, abortion, labor unions, multiculturalism, homosexuality, racial issues and other Democratic Party hot buttons.."
UPI 1/10/99 ".With his lawyers readying his defense in the Senate impeachment trial, **President Clinton** stayed put in the White House, surrounded by family members. Aides said the president, who has his wife's family visiting the executive mansion, planned to remain in the house today, skipping even regular church services. Clinton's attorneys, however, worked through the weekend to prepare the kickoff of his defense before the Senate, which must be presented Monday in the form of any pretrial motions or defenses.."
Philadelphia Inquirer 1/10/99 Steven Thomma ". What was once unthinkable is now remotely possible: President Clinton actually could be convicted by the Senate and removed from office. That outcome is still highly unlikely. It would take at least 12 Democratic votes added to all 55 Republicans to reach the two-thirds majority needed for conviction. And only one Democrat has signaled that he might vote against the President. But trials are often unpredictable. This one, which resumes this week with opening presentations by the House and the White House followed by questions to both sides from senators, could extend into a second phase in which new evidence might be allowed that could surprise and anger Democrats. Testimony from witnesses such as Monica Lewinsky that may yet come in such a second phase could change minds. Clinton himself could overplay his hand and alienate senators. Said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D., W.Va.), a former Democratic leader in the Senate: "Votes may shift depending on things that are unforeseen at present. Who knows? This could conceivably end differently." Byrd is the only Senate Democrat who has said he could go either way based on the evidence he has read. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) has assured the White House that Byrd is the only possible defector and that the remaining 44 Democrats are likely, if not certain, to vote against convicting Clinton and removing him.."
Reuters 1/10/99 by Freeper Brian Mosely ".President Clinton will go ahead with his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation next week, despite calls that he postpone it because of his impeachment trial, a spokesman said Sunday.."
Christian Science Monitor 1/11/99 Linda Feldmann by Freeper Cincinatus ".Some respectable observers applaud Flynt's brand of journalism for its fearlessness. He's not worried about ruining his access to White House sources or Capitol Hill parties and so he pulls no punches, says Susan Fain, a law professor at American University here. "I adore him," she says. "He couldn't care less what anybody thinks. At least he's his own person."."
www.cdapress.com 1/10/99 ".A Jan. 5 front-page Press story tells of a Post Falls chiropractor who had his license revoked simply because he's been charged with six counts of "sexual exploitation of his patients." The poor guy's punishment doesn't stop there, for he also faces trial later this month on criminal charges for the same six counts, plus one additional charge of practicing without a license. Why did this licensed professional get clobbered for his "every male does it" acts, while another licensed professional by the name of William Jefferson Clinton is permitted to retain his license, even though on more than six occasions, he "sexually exploited" a young female federal employee while on the job? The vast majority of morally deficient, double-standard American voters continue to give Clinton a "thumbs up," but here, in North Idaho, the local moralists give the poor chiropractor a "thumbs down." So what's the difference? Well, it could be that the promoters of double standards of law, namely the majority of American voters, believe Clinton's story that the young female employee had sex with him but he didn't have sex with her, that he was never alone with her, that it all depends on what you mean by the word "it," and that it pays to deny under oath all credible evidence you did anything wrong or illegal..."
New York Daily News 1/10/99 Thomas DeFrank ".Even the normally upbeat President Clinton has finally come to terms with the shame and humiliation that will be his historic legacy, aides say. "The President has the confidence of knowing the end result of this trial," said Sen. Robert Torricelli (D- N.J.) "His presidency will not end. But he finds it very painful. He's ultimately responsible for all of this and he knows it."."
CBS News 1/10/99 ".After a rare bout of bipartisanship when senators agreed to the initial plans for the trial, the rift between the two parties appeared to be growing. Democrats said testimony could unnecessarily prolong the trial and end the current bipartisan harmony. She's the key witness, said Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., on ABC's This Week. "She ought to be the one to present the story." Under the plan for the trial, the Senate will vote on whether to allow specific witnesses only after House prosecutors and the White House present their arguments and senators have a chance to ask questions. That's about two weeks away.."
The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ Frank Murray by A Whitewater Researcher ". EXCERPTS: "...There is no appeal for court review of Senate practices, which date from the first impeachment case with refinements from the 15 that followed b efore Mr. Clinton joined those so disgraced....there are fewer impeachment rules (XXVI)...with multiple precedents since 1797, when the first defendant...was required to post a bond to avoid arrest...the impeachment bible micromanages virtually every step -- barring all debate when legal motions are put to a vote, setting the time when daily sessions start, silencing senators and requiring them to put questions in writing, allowing trials to continue even if the defendant resigns, and ordering Senate door s opened until deliberation begins....the manual does not prescribe a standard of evidence. In civil courts that can range from "a preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing"; criminal courts require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."... A 1986 ruling leaves each senator free to decide the level of proof...."
International Herald Tribune 1/11/99 Brian Knowlton ".The outlines of the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton became clearer Sunday as leading Democratic senators cautioned White House lawyers against seeking to cut the process short.. Senator John Breaux, the chief deputy Democratic whip, warned Mr. Clinton's lawyers to offer a straight, factual defense and to avoid what he called ''evidentiary nitpicking.'' To move to dismiss the case before opening arguments are heard, on the ground that no impeachable offenses had been committed, ''would be a mistake,'' he said. ''I would caution them not to do that.'' ."
The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ Joyce Howard Price by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "House prosecutors said yesterday they...can...make a convincing case that...Clinton should be removed from office...the White House has until no on today to respond to the formal impeachment summons served to Mr. Clinton and to file motions. The House managers will have time to react to the White House and file their own motions. The formal trial begins Thursday....Mr. Rogan and other House prosec utors who appeared on talk shows yesterday identified Miss Lewinsky as the key witness they need in the trial....House prosecutors also said they want to call Mr. Clinton's personal secretary, Betty Currie; presidential confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr., who was involved in a job search for Miss Lewinsky; and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal....Rep. Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas Republican and a member of the House prosecution team, said on CBS he might also like to call U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber W right.."
Washington Times Greg Pierce by Freeper Lance Romance ".Most jurors would be instantly disqualified for being related to he defendant. But Mrs. Boxer is one of those rare individuals that will not allow family ties to affect her vote. Not Guilty.."
Freeper LN Smithee from Packwood matter and Congressional Record ".7/27/95 .BABS BOXER, 1995: "Opponents of public hearings in this case say that the allegations are so explosive that hearings would degrade into a circus-like atmosphere. I understand these concerns. However, I have confidence that the committee can discharge its responsibilities with dignity." BABS BOXER, 1999: "I don't understand why the House feels they have to sully the floor of the United States Senate when they didn't bring the witnesses before the House."."
Chicago Sun-Times 1/11/99 Lynn Sweet ". House prosecutors want women who told Paula Jones' attorneys about sexual encounters with President Clinton to be able to testify in his Senate impeachment trial. Senators, meanwhile, were divided Sunday over the crucial question of whether any witnesses would be permitted when the trial resumes Wednesday. Prosecutors believe the women's testimony goes to the heart of proving a pattern and practice of Clinton to obstruct justice, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times. Obstruction of justice is charged in one of the two articles of impeachment sent to the Senate from the House in the wake of his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky..."
Jewishworldreview.com 1/11/99 Thomas Sowell by Freeper hockey mom ".LIKE ONLY A YEAR AGO when we were being loudly warned against "a rush to judgment." Then, as more and more inescapable evidence came out against Bill Clinton, everything suddenly turned 180 degrees and the very same people were now loudly proclaiming that we should "get all this behind us."."
Washington Times 1/11/99 Greg Pierce by Freeper fountainhead ".Former presidential adviser Dick Morris thinks Kenneth W. Starr's indictment of Julie Hiatt Steele is aimed at discovering the White House "secret police" he says are in charge of squelching reports of President Clinton's wrongdoing. "I think that everybody gets that they're never going to oust Bill Clinton over perjury," Mr. Morris said Thursday on Fox News. "But they might over obstruction of justice. And if they permit witnesses, and they start fishing around and getting Terry Lenzner and Jack Palladino, and put them under oath and begin grilling them about their activities in squelching these various women. ..."
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 1/11/99 Meredith Oakley by Freeper Lonnie ".Maybe Lockhart didn't take Politics 101 and doesn't know who's running the show here. It is neither the president nor the House managers. It isn't even the chief justice of the United States, the presiding officer in presidential impeachment trials. In such matters, it is the U.S. Senate that calls the shots; or rather, a simple majority of the U.S. Senate. Judging by the events of recent days, I'd have to say that the U.S. Senate has shown a darned sight more regard for the process and the system and the society as a whole than any other institution in Washington, D.C.."
San Jose Mercury 1/10/99 RAJA MISHRA by Freeper Nick Danger ".In mounting what they say will be ``a vigorous, successful and complete defense,'' President Clinton's lawyers walk a fine line between making a strong argument for dismissing the impeachment charges against him and becoming too aggressive -- and time-consuming -- for the Senate's taste.."
Judicial Watch 1/11/99 ".A story in The Washington Post recently reported the Clinton White House will "adamantly" oppose allowing Dolly Kyle Browning, who had a 30 year relationship with Bill Clinton, to testify in the Senate trial. .Ms. Browning was first threatened in 1992 by an agent of Bill Clinton, who told her that "if you cooperate with the media, we will destroy you." In 1994 (during their high school reunion in Hot Springs, Arkansas), Ms. Browning and Mr. Clinton had a discussion about this threat (among other things) and Mr. Clinton disingenuously apologized to her. Despite threats and the discouragement of Bill Clinton and his agents, Ms. Browning testified when subpoenaed in the Paula Jones case and testified truthfully. During his deposition in the Jones case, Mr. Clinton followed through on earlier threats and lied under oath about her..Further compounding his crimes, Mr. Clinton introduced his own manufactured and fraudulent handwritten notes which, among other falsehoods, contained a flagrantly false account of the 1994 high school reunion. The House Judiciary Committee's impeachment staffers investigated Ms. Browning's testimony and obtained affidavits verifying key parts of Ms. Browning's account - thereby adding additional proof of presidential perjury and obstruction of justice. Hyde's chief investigator David Schippers had wanted her to testify during the House impeachment proceedings. "It is easy to see why President Clinton is `adamantly' opposed to having Ms. Browning testify in the Senate trial. Ms. Browning can give compelling testimony on his perjury, on his threats, and on his obstruction of justice," stated Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel. "The Senate, if it is interested in the truth, will want to give Ms. Browning `her day in court.'" ."
Washington Times 1/11/99 Mark Levin ".Do United States senators live in the same world as the rest of us? Do they read newspapers or watch the local television news? Have they ever visited a courtroom? Have they ever talked to a street cop? If they've done any of these things, they'd know that it's an ugly world out there. Every day innocent people are sexually assaulted and murdered in the most horrible ways. Our society is full of bad people who do terrible, grotesque and inhumane things to their fellow man. And all across this nation, judges and citizen- jurors are called upon to dispense justice and protect each of us -- and our liberties and lifestyles -- from the lawless among us. Should we expect less from those 100 citizens in the United States Senate to whom we give temporarily our public trust? Is it not their job, no matter how distasteful, to uphold the United States Constitution and ensure that a president who, as a defendant in a federal lawsuit, schemes and conspires to fix the outcome of that case is held accountable? Are they free to so easily dismiss their constitutional duty to remove a lawless president by feigning puritanical motives in not wanting to hear from fact-witnesses, such as Monica Lewinsky? There was a time when many of these same senators relished exposing former Senator Bob Packwood's dirty laundry in public. Senator Barbara Boxer comes to mind. Many senators welcomed the bizarre and pornographic testimony of Anita Hill, when they thought it would help defeat the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas. Do the names Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and Joe Biden ring a bell? And several senators were more than happy to receive details about Supreme Court nominee Bob Bork's videotape rentals, presumably hoping to find a darker side to the man - which did not exist. .."
ABC 1/11/99 ABCNEWS.com ".The White House filed its 13-page response to an impeachment summons today, outlining President Clinton's defense, but will offer no motions to delay the trial later this week. In the summons response, Clinton's lawyers deny the president commited perjury or tried to obstruct justice to conceal his secret affair with Monica Lewinsky. Even if he had, the lawyers argue, both charges should be tossed out because neither meets the "rigorous constitutional standard for conviction and removal from office of a duly elected president." ."
NewsMax.com 1/11/99 Carl Limbacher ".RUSSERT: Dolly Kyle Browning - will you call her? GRAHAM: No Jane Doe witness, people who gave affidavits denying a relationship in the Paula Jones case, will be called before the Senate unless, one - they recant, it's relevant, it's under oath and subject to cross examination. If a witness meets that criteria to help us explain that this is about a persuasive, all encompassing obstruction case then I think, yes, we should have the right to call any witness before the Senate that can show that there's pattern of obstruction of justice here. This is very much the essence of this case..(end excerpt) .The night before the House impeached Clinton, CNBC's Chris Matthews revealed that a "lot of borderline guys", representatives not ready to impeach, had their minds changed by the confidential files. Two impeachment articles passed by a margin of five votes or less. Evidence related to the Broaddrick rape allegation, and other harrowing tales yet unknown to the public, may have made the crucial difference. Arguably, without Juanita Broaddrick's allegation and other secret evidence, the President might not be facing Senate trial today. If Lindsey Graham gets his way, Americans might yet hear testimony about Mr. Clinton that will curl their hair.."
Philadelphia Inquirer 1/11/99 Raja Mishra ".White House lawyers spent yesterday plotting a legal strategy that will focus on trying to convince senators that the perjury and obstruction-of-justice case against President Clinton does not meet the constitutional impeachment standard of "bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." "We hope that senators will conclude that the allegations do not merit removing the President," White House spokesman Jim Kennedy said. But a key Democratic senator warned White House officials yesterday not to conduct a "scorched-earth" defense and not to try to have the case dismissed before arguments are made, as is their option. The White House could seek to challenge the articles of impeachment passed by the House last month because they were adopted by a lame-duck Congress, an argument made by some legal scholars friendly to the White House. The President's defenders could also make a legal claim that the articles are too vague, lumping numerous allegations in two articles. "Keep the arguments on the facts. But don't try a scorched-earth policy," Sen. John Breaux (D., La.) advised the President's lawyers on ABC. "People do not want us dillying with extraneous matter."."
AP 1/11/99 John Solomon ".In a 13-page response to the trial summons Clinton received last week, White House lawyers argued that the impeachment articles accusing the president of perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice don't "meet the constitutional standard'' and are "too vague to permit conviction and removal.'' The president "denies each and every'' allegation in the impeachment articles, which were approved by the House in a historic vote last month and stem from Clinton's effort to conceal his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.."
FoxNews AP David Espo 1/11/99 ".The House decided against filing any immediate motions, as well, although lawmakers are certain to seek permission from the Senate later to call witnesses. The papers were filed as key House lawmakers met privately to plan the formal presentation of their case. "We will do a very good job and then when we reach the point of asking for witnesses, we think the senators will be in a more generous mood having heard our case,'' said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., point man in the impeachment effort. In a conclusion to its 105-page filing, the House termed the impeachment battle a "defining moment for the presidency.'' If Clinton is not convicted, "then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again and no Senate will ever convict. The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned,'' the GOP prosecutor-lawmakers wrote. "Can you imagine a future president, faced with possible impeachment, pointing to the perjuries, lies, obstructions and tampering with witnesses by the current occupant of the office as not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? If this is not enough, what is?'' ."
AP 1/11/99 Highlights of House Clinton Report ".Experts pointed to the fact that the House refused to impeach President Nixon for lying on an income tax return. Can you imagine a future president, faced with possible impeachment, pointing to the perjuries, lies, obstructions, and tampering with witnesses by the current occupant of the office as not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? If this is not enough, what is? How far can the standard be lowered without completely compromising the credibility of the office for all time? ..``Ms. Jones' right to call and depose witnesses was thwarted by perjurious and misleading affidavits and motions; her right to elicit testimony from adverse witnesses was compromised by perjury and false and misleading statements under oath. As a result, had a jury tried the case, it would have been deprived of critical information. That result is bad enough, but it reaches constitutional proportions when denial of the civil rights is directed by the President of the United States who twice took an oath to preserve, protect and defend those rights. But we now know what the `sanctity of an oath' means to the president.''..``The Articles state offenses that warrant the president's conviction and removal from office. The Senate's own precedents establish that perjury and obstruction warrant conviction and removal from office. Those same precedents establish that the perjury and obstruction need not have any direct connection to the officer's official duties.'' ."
The Limbaugh Letter 1/99 Rush Limbaugh ".Ah. The moral high ground! This is what liberals most fear. The left has been battering the country from its perceived position of superiority for decades. Hence the arrogance, the condescension, the dismissiveness practiced by liberals everywhere. It has been the source of their rhetoric and pride. And now, to see conservatives building their arguments on ringing moral themes like: equal justice under law, is a knife pointed at liberalism's heart! Their fear is well placed. By casting their lot with a man who has never tread the moral high ground, they have already lost it. ."
Washington Times 1/12/99 ".When will this president stop lying? First William Jefferson Clinton lied under oath in his Paula Jones deposition. Then he lied before the grand jury investigating the Lewinsky affair. Then he lied in response to questions put to him by the House Judiciary Committee. Now Mr. Clinton is at it again, this time with a slew of bogus statements in his answer to the Senate impeachment summons. The president continues to make it abundantly clear that those desiring he make a clean breast of the whole mess will be sorely disappointed... Consider just one of the many fantastical prevarications contained in the president's response to the Senate -- that Mr. Clinton never coached his secretary Betty Currie with phony cover stories. Article II, the obstruction of justice charge alleges, in part, that the president related "false and misleading statements" to Mrs. Currie "in order to corruptly influence" her testimony. The story by now is old hat.. Not so, says the president in his response to the summons. No, Mr. Clinton is still trying to make us believe that when he talked to Mrs. Currie he was just trying to refresh his memory."
FOX Newswire 1/12/99 Larry Margasak ".President Clinton's spokesman today dismissed the House Republicans' brief for the impeachment trial as an overblown account that "reads like a cheap mystery.". At one point in the lengthy House brief, lawmaker-prosecutors argue that evidence and testimony must be viewed as a whole. "Events and words that may seem innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the context of the whole plot," the House said. The brief used as an example Monica Lewinsky's statement that "No one ever told me to lie; nobody ever promised me a job." "When considered alone this would seem exculpatory," the brief said. "However, in the context of other evidence, another picture emerges. Of course no one said, 'Now, Monica, you go in there and lie.' They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job, but once she signed the false affidavit, she got one." .."
Scripps Howard News Service 1/12/99 Michael Hedges ".Round one of the impeachment trial of President Clinton begins early Thursday afternoon when Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., will attempt to distill a year of scandal and partisan acrimony into a several-minute summary of why Clinton is not fit to lead America. Hyde, the Judiciary Committee chairman whose reputation for fairness and gravity has been challenged by his role as Clinton's Congressional prosecutor, had not finalized his remarks Tuesday, an aide said. But Hyde's words, expected to last no more than 15 minutes, will touch off the most significant American political trial of the 20th century.."
USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/ 1/12/99 by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...Do you think it's true Clinton committed perjury by providing false and misleading testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to Ken Starr's grand jury? True 79%...Not true 17%...If the charge is true, is the offense serious enough to justify Clinton's removal from office by the Senate? No, not serious enough 58%...Yes serious enough 40%...Do you think it's true that Clinton obstructed justice by trying to influence the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, his secretary and others in the Paula Jones lawsuit? True 53%...Not true 40%...If the charge is true, is the offense serious enough to justify Clinton's removal from office by the Senate? No, not serious enough 56%...Yes, serious enough 41%...Excerpt from print edition of article: Regardless of how you feel about his political views, would you say you respect Clinton? Yes: 43%...No: 55%..." ."
AP 1/13/99 Larry Margasak ".The impeachment case against President Clinton will be prosecuted like a conspiracy, alleging that the president schemed to keep Monica Lewinsky from revealing their extramarital affair and ultimately plotted to ruin her reputation, according to legal papers and House officials. While the House prosecutors placed final touches on their case, the White House prepared a trial brief that will suggest the House drew conclusions that ranged far beyond Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's analysis, according to an outside adviser to Clinton who is familiar with the brief.."
The New York Times 1/13/99 Frank Burni by Freeper UnBubba ".One of the 100 men and women who will decide President Clinton's fate is related to him by marriage, a grandmother of the same 3- year-old boy who calls Clinton uncle.."
The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ 1/13/99 Nancy Roman ".EXCERPTS: "Several key Republican senators yesterday accused their Democratic colleagues of having concluded that...Clinton should be acquitted, invalidating t heir oath to render impartial justice as his jurors...."I don't know how you render impartial justice if you make up your mind before the evidence is presented," said Sen. Ted Stevens...a former prosecutor. "There is a feeling, generally on our side, that the minds are made up on the other side."....Sen. Don Nickles...majority whip, balked...."I'm bothered by the fact that some have made up their minds: We can't convict therefore we should have censure," he said. "It's wrong for anyone -- Republican or De mocrat -- to announce their decision before the House managers and White House make their case."...Trial managers from the House...are also peeved at Senate Democrats...."It's inappropriate for senators who will be serving as a jury to come out and prejud ge the evidence prior to the trial," said Rep. Steve Chabot...and one of the managers...."
WorldNetDaily 1/13/99 David Limbaugh ".What Clintonoids find so intolerable about selective misconduct by Nixon is that he used the immense powers of his office (by using executive agencies under his authority) to violate the rights of citizens. Isn't the gravamen of this charge that Nixon was trying to violate citizens' rights? What difference does it make which instrumentalities he used to achieve his nefarious purposes? If indeed this is what so incenses the Clintonoids about Nixon then shouldn't they be outraged at the pattern of similar conduct engaged in by governor and President Clinton? Clinton has a long history of extramarital relationships and has maintained a taxpayer sponsored bimbo-eruption team to handle the resulting problems. When accused of such conduct he has always denied it and then used the powers of his state or federal office to terrorize and destroy the reputations of his female partners.."
UPI 1/13/99 Freeper vitolins ".Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry is drafting a censure resolution that would impose no fine on **President Clinton** nor require no written admission of guilty. The Boston Herald says Kerry feels the resolution could win enough Republican support to win a majority in the Senate. Kerry says a serious debate over censure would only begin if the president is acquitted on impeachment charges. Kerry said that if the president is judged not guilty, it is ``important for the Senate to say something on this case.''."
LA Times 1/13/99 George Weiel ".Impeachment: The Senate's role should be about upholding its sworn duty, not cutting the quickest deal. Before the hot-air balloon of self-congratulation rises any higher in the U.S. Senate, may a mere citizen remind the members of the impeachment jury that they have all sworn an oath to do impartial justice, not to do bipartisanship? ."
MSNBC Jay Severin 1/11/99 ".A unanimous Senate vote is rare and it renders almost ridiculous the baseline Clinton defense that this whole case is a partisan witch hunt. It doesn't make things easier for Bill Clinton now, politically, nor later, historically.."
Insight Magazine 2/1/99 Paul Rodriguez by Freeper TxTruth ".Not content with bad-mouthing and intimidating the independent counsel, the grand jury, the federal courts and Congress, the White House is now threatening the U.S. Senate with scorched-earth tactics. Incredibly, the other day White House mouthpiece Joe Lockhart told reporters: "All bets are off" in the impeachment trial if House managers insist on calling witnesses to bolster their case. All bets off? Absolute hubris! . What brings this to mind is something a senior, liberal Senate Democrat told us a few hours after William Rehnquist, chief justice of the United States, was sworn as the impeachment judge and in turn swore in the 100 jurors. "They [the White House] don't understand how we operate," the senator said..."
Washington Post 1/14/99 Jim Hoagland Freeper witnesstothefall ".WASHINGTON - Depressingly little remains unilluminated about the private dealings and communications of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But there is one corner of this drama that could bear more light as the Senate moves toward judgment: Mr. Clinton recognized in a telephone conversation with his young paramour that foreign intelligence organizations could, without much trouble, be listening in on their phone sex and other musings, according to Ms. Lewinsky's detailed and unchallenged testimony. What, then, did the president do to protect himself, and national security, from blackmail and damage, other than propose an absurd cover story to Ms. Lewinsky? ''It becomes clear that many people in the White House knew what was going on, in a general way,'' an intelligence professional observed to me recently. ''This is the kind of thing foreign intelligence would have targeted early and with high priority. The next question becomes, Did the CIA or anybody else here pick up foreign intelligence reporting on the affair, and what became of any information they got?'' ."
Boston Globe 1/13/99 Michael Kranish ".When President Clinton's lawyers released a 13-page rebuttal this week to impeachment charges, they repeatedly cited testimony by Monica S. Lewinsky to back up their assertion that the president did not commit perjury or obstruct justice. But at the same time, the White House is vehemently fighting any chance that Lewinsky and other witnesses might testify at the impeachment trial. The reason, legal specialists said, is that putting a witness on the stand is one of the riskiest maneuvers a trial lawyer can make - and the risk here is that it might turn the case against the president. ..But former federal prosecutors said the White House has much to fear from Lewinsky and other potential witnesses. Joseph diGenova, a former US attorney and a Republican who has been critical of the president, said Lewinsky and other possible witnesses not only could hurt the president's case, but also could hurt the prosecution.."
CNN TRANSCRIPTS http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ 1/13/99 by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ". EXCERPTS: "...two...House managers had a...meeting with...Kathleen Willey and her attorney....about...her being a witness...(of)...efforts by the president's supporters to suppress her claim that...Clinton fondled her in a room off the Oval Office."...(Chairman) Hyde opens the drama, sets the tone. He's followed by Jim Sensenbrenner...he intends to include what he calls all kinds of little nuggets, lots of stuff you haven't heard of before...Those nuggets must come from the official public record...thousands of pages. Each senator will have a copy....(Then)...the fact team...they will echo their prosecution brief, filed Monday...events and words that may seem innocent...in a vacuum may well take on a sinister or even criminal connotation...in the context of the whole plot....Those...will be presented...by Congressmen Ed Bryant, Asa Hutchinson, James Rogan and Bill McCollum...HYDE: "...I think getting the full picture will be instructive."..."
Washington Times 1/14/99 Nancy E. Roman Bill Sammon Freeper wyopa ".Abbe Lowell, Steve Reich and Kevin Simpson -- lawyers who helped prepare arguments against impeachment for the House Judiciary Committee -- walked Senate Democrats through the case and answered questions during the closed-door meeting.."
Impeachment Referral / Supplementary Materials - Tab K 1/14/98 OIC by Freeper Steven W.".Counsel for the House Managers report they've been rebuffed by that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, in their attempt to gain her testimony for the Impeachment Trial. Following is the relevant passage from her immunity agreement that mandates her appearance and (truthful) cooperation. 1B) Ms. Lewinsky will testify truthfully before Grand Juries in this district and elsewhere, at any trials in this district and elsewhere, and in any other executive, military, judicial or congressional proceedings."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".``We are here today because President William Jefferson Clinton decided to put himself above the law -- not once, not twice, but repeatedly. He put himself above the law when he engaged in a multifaceted scheme to obstruct justice during the federal civil rights case of Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton, et al. ``He put himself above the law when he made perjurious, false and misleading statements under oath during his grand jury testimony on Aug. 17, 1998. In both instances, he unlawfully attempted to prevent the judicial branch of government -- a co-equal branch from performing its constitutional duty to administer equal justice under law.'' -- Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R- Wis. ."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".``The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberties by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could ever be established in the United States of America. ``We are the trustees of that sacred legacy, and whether the rule of law and faith in our nation emerges stronger than ever or are diminished irreparably depends upon the collective decision of the message each senator chooses to send forth in the days ahead.'' -- Sensenbrenner. ."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".``Mr. Clinton has recognized that this relationship was wrong. I give him credit for that. But he has not owned up to the false testimony, the stonewalling, and legal hairsplitting and obstructing the courts from finding the truth. ``In doing so, he has turned his affair into a public wrong, and for these actions he must be held accountable through the only constitutional means the country has available: the difficult and painful process of impeachment.'' -- Sensenbrenner. ."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".``Perjury is the twin brother of bribery. By making the penalty for perjury the same as that for bribery, Congress has acknowledged that both crimes are equally serious.'' -- Sensenbrenner. ."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".``If the Senate is convinced that President Clinton lied under oath and does not remove him from office, the wrong message is given to our courts, those who have business before them and to the country as a whole.'' -- Sensenbrenner. ."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".``To set a different standard in this trial is to say that the standard for judicial truthfulness during grand jury testimony is higher than that of presidential truthfulness. That result would be absurd. The truth is the truth, and a lie is a lie. There cannot be different levels of truth for judges than for presidents.'' -- Sensenbrenner. ."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".``Had he told the truth last January, there would have been no independent counsel investigation of this matter, no grand jury appearance, no impeachment inquiry and no House approval of articles of impeachment, and we would not be here today fulfilling a painful and essential constitutional duty. ``Instead, he chose lies and deception despite warnings from friends, aides and members of the House and Senate that failure to tell the truth would have grave consequences.'' -- Sensenbrenner.."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".``Let it be said that we are electing people who are imperfect and who have made mistakes in life, but who are willing to so respect this country and the office of the president that he or she will now lay aside their own personal shortcomings and have the inner strength to discipline themselves sufficiently that they do not break the law which they themselves are sworn to uphold.'' -- Bryant ."
The Associated Press 1/14/99 ".````It is anticipated that the attorneys for the president will present arguments which will contest much of the relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The president has maintained throughout the last several months that while there was no sexual relationship or sexual affair, in fact there was some type of inappropriate intimate contact with her. ``What has now been dubbed as legal gymnastics on the part of the president has made its appearance. Other examples followed.'' -- Bryant ."
Wall Street Journal 1/14/99 Mark Anderson Campion Walsh ".House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde Thursday afternoon opened oral arguments in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, saying the case places the weight of the rule of law on the Senate. Hyde and 12 other House managers will present their case against Clinton over the next three days to the 100 sitting Senators. "These managers will explain how egregious and criminal the conduct alleged in the articles of impeachment is," Hyde said in his opening statement."
ABC/Nightline 1/14/99 Koppell by Freeper nom ".REP HENRY HYDE - But they didn't call any witnesses. The threshold was different. We were just accusatory over there. We had to develop enough evidence and we had 60,000 pages of transcripts under oath, depositions under oath, grand jury testimony under oath and for the level that we had to attain, which was to produce enough evidence to warrant a trial over in the Senate, we were, it was adequate. In addition, we were trying to get finished by the end of the year. I had pledged that we would not stretch this out, attenuate these hearings. And so given the time constraints and given the wealth of information we had under oath, we felt we could go ahead. Now, the Democrats were free to call any witnesses they want. It was fascinating that they complained there were no witnesses but didn't want to call any.."
AP 1/14/99 Terence Hunt Freeper Brian Mosely ".The conventional wisdom holds that everyone knows how the impeachment trial against President Clinton will wind up: short of the 67 votes needed to convict him and throw him out of office. But in a year of unexpected twists and turns, the prognosticators have been dead wrong about this case more often than right. And there is plenty of uncertainty ahead as the Senate wrestles over thorny questions such as whether to call witnesses, dismiss the case, vote on articles of impeachment or censure the president.."
Daily Republican Newspaper Co. Howard Hobbs 1/14/99 Freeper hope ". Behind the scene bipartisan negotiations in the Senate are pushing toward a Constitutional disaster. A full presidential impeachment trial complete with witnesses cannot be negotiated away. It is required. Bipartisan moves that would arrange for a dismissal vote prior to a decision on calling witnesses to the Senate is a "... grievously mistaken attempt to avoid a full exploration of the sordid details of presidential high crimes and misdemeanors," according to Constitutional scholar, Victor Williams, of the University of Tampa and a member of the bar of the District of Columbia. Williams' position is well researched and there is a recent case supporting his opinion in this matter. The Constitution requires a full public trial with 100 impartial Senate jurors hearing from any and all witnesses the House managers need for their prosecution and any defense witness Bill Clinton wants to testify. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution dictates that the impeachment court, with the chief justice presiding, fully adjudicate the case."It is not to be a rubber stamp of a closed-door committee process," says Williams. "For the first 197 years of the Republic's history, the entire Senate transformed itself into a court, receiving evidence and hearing witnesses during all impeachment trials," he added.."
Scripps Howard News Service 1/14/99 Michael Hedges ".President Clinton ``piled perjury on top of perjury'' while ``engaged in a conspiracy of crimes'' the U.S. Senate was told Thursday as prosecutors for the first time in history presented evidence supporting impeachment of an elected president. In a day rarely matched for its potential consequences and its gathering of the full spectrum of U.S. governmental power, House Republicans laid out a case that stressed the need to hold a president accountable for his actions. ``Failure to bring President Clinton to account for his serial lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under the law will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations,'' said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who presented an overview of the case against Clinton. ``It is truly sad when the leader of the greatest nation in the world gets caught up in a series of events where one inappropriate and criminal act leads to another and another and another,'' said Sensenbrenner. ``Even sadder is that the president could have stopped this process simply by telling the truth and accepting the consequences of his prior mistakes.'' .But White House spokesman Joe Lockhart stressed the partisan nature of the trial, saying, ``I don't think the founders intended a party that is in the majority in the Congress could remove a president at their whim based on partisan political differences.'' ."
Mark Levin News Release email 1/14/99 ".Landmark Legal Foundation today formally asked the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, and the United States Attorney for the District Columbia, to open immediately a federal criminal investigation into possible violations of Title 18, Section 1505 of the United States Criminal Code. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 states, in part: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress - shall [be fined not more than $250,000 and/or imprisoned not more than five years per violation]. Landmark president, Mark R. Levin, said, "We believe Larry Flynt and his private detective, Dan Moldea, are, and have been, attempting to corruptly influence the congressional impeachment process. They are apparently attempting to stop Republican members of Congress from criticizing during the impeachment- trial proceedings by threatening to disclose embarrassing personal information purchased by Flynt. This appears to violated federal law. The Criminal Division of the Justice Department has the duty, and the jurisdiction, to put an end to these coercive tactics." .."
MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/ 1/14/99 by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "Arguing that...Clinton "put himself above the law, not once, not twice, but repeatedly," prosecutors on Thursday urged the Senate to remove him from office for attempting to block investigation of his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky...Rep. James Sensenbrenner summarized the evidence that Rep. Henry Hyde said earlier shows how "egregious and criminal" Clinton's conduct was in concealing his affair with Lewinsky...."The evidence will clearly show that...Clinton's false testimony to the grand jury was not a single or isolated instance which could be excused as a mistake, but rather a comprehensive and calculated plan to prevent the grand jury from getting the accurate testimony in order to do its job," Sensenbrenner...said...(Rep.) Hutchinson delved into specifics, focusing on the timing of conversations involving Clinton, his secretary, Betty Currie, and his longtime friend, Vernon Jordan and the preparation of Lewinsky's false affidavit in the Paula Jones case...." "
Wall Street Journal 1/14/99 Daniel E. Troy, a Washington lawyer and associate scholar at the American Enterprise Institute ".By all means the Senate should call witnesses. And the first witness should be Bill Clinton. Inviting Mr. Clinton to testify would expedite the impeachment process, focus the American people's attention on the trial, and test whether he would continue to lie even in the well of the Senate. Calling Mr. Clinton would also enable the Senate and the American people to determine for themselves whether they believe him when he says he committed neither perjury nor obstruction of justice. The Constitution anticipates that the Senate would hear from witnesses in impeachment cases, as it has in every other impeachment trial. Drawing on the example of Britain's House of Lords, which is both the highest court and the upper legislative body, the Framers' decision to give the Senate the power to try all impeachments assumed the Senate would function as a court."
Jewish World Review 1/14/99 Jeff Jacoby Freeper Marcellus ".We have had popular presidents before, but we have never had a president who could not abrade his own popularity through stupidity, recklessness, or lawbreaking. We have never had a president whose approval ratings went up even as his trustworthiness, by common consent, went down. We have never had a president who was simultaneously being impeached in Congress for perjury and obstruction of justice and coming in first on the annual list of most admired men. It is almost Faustian.."
New York Post Online 1/14/99 Deborah Orin ".THE real question facing the nation is whether the Senate will finally force President Clinton to admit he lied. Don't hold your breath. Close to 90 percent of Americans now agree Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky, but the White House is still insisting the president told the truth - or at least he thinks he did. In other words, in White House-speak, the Emperor's New Clothes are still simply gorgeous, right? "His behavior is so over the edge. What is troubling is the deceit, the failure to own up to it. Before this is over, the truth must be told," is how one key Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) put it to the Washington Post late last year. Now, as Clinton's Senate trial kicks off today, the test for Lieberman and other Senate Dems is whether they'll have the courage to demand that Clinton finally 'fess up in full - which means admitting he lied. "For the president to believe we can move forward at all without him admitting he lied under oath is the president trying to make a souffle without eggs," says Republican pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick. ."
FoxNews Beltway boys reported by LYNXCry 1/14/99 ".The Beltway Boys were asked by Britt Hume what there impressions of Asa Hutchinsons presentation were.....Mort (a democrat) said it simply "Devastating!"... He went on to say that Asa could not have laid out a more compelling case for obstruction, and he clearly rebutted every defence that the White House had offered. Fred Barnes (a republican) had one word "Dazzling!" The irony of the fact that Asa was the very prosecutor who convicted Roger Clinton on the cocaine charges years ago may end up to be one for the history books indeed. ." Freeper Chris C adds ".Fox News' Shuster reported the Harkin and Wellstone walked out and that Dodd and Leahy were "not paying attention." ."
FoxNews O'Reilly 1/14/99 by Alissa and occupant ".O'Reilly stated that leading news sources are researching a story that may break at the worse possible time for Clinton."
AP 1/14/99 Pete Yost ".The House prosecutors sought Thursday to build a conspiracy case against President Clinton, but along the way they misstated a few of the facts and stretched some others in an effort to portray the evidence in the most dramatic light. For instance, Rep. James Sensenbrenner incorrectly said that Paula Jones was "forced to quit'' her job with the state of Arkansas after Clinton allegedly propositioned her and she turned him down. Actually, Mrs. Jones - whose sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton led to the impeachment controversy - said she quit voluntarily in order to move to California with her husband. In between, she received merit raises in her state job. Mrs. Jones' failure to prove she had been harmed in her job led to the dismissal of her lawsuit last April 1. Sensenbrenner also took aim at White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff, saying the president's defender "did not'' give a direct answer when asked before the House Judiciary Committee whether Clinton had lied. In fact, Ruff twice declared that the president testified truthfully to the grand jury last Aug. 17. Clinton "surely did'' tell the truth, Ruff testified last month when questioned by Sensenbrenner whether his boss had told the truth under oath. After the trial adjourned, the White House sought to score political points. Special Counsel Greg Craig charged that Sensenbrenner had "misled the Senate'' and "falsely characterized'' Ruff's earlier testimony. "Mr. Sensenbrenner surely knew that, and I would urge him to correct the record,'' Craig said..The House managers weren't the only ones having occasional trouble with the facts. In rebutting the obstruction charge in a written filing with the Senate, Clinton's lawyers highlight the testimony of Mrs. Currie that she didn't feel any pressure "whatsoever'' when Clinton asked such questions as "I was never really alone with Monica, right?'' Clinton's lawyers didn't bother to mention another section of Mrs. Currie's grand jury testimony when the secretary said she felt as though Clinton wanted her to agree with his statements. ."
Newsmax 1-14-99 Oliver North ".For six years this has been a presidency full of "firsts." William Jefferson Clinton is the first Commander in Chief to dodge the draft, the first sitting Chief Executive to testify in his own defense before a federal grand jury, the first Head of State to pay $850,000 to a former employee to settle a sexual harassment case. And next week Mr. Clinton, the first elected president to be impeached will become the first impeached president to deliver a State of the Union address to the jury weighing his guilt or innocence. Expect a "boffo" performance. For those who watch this State of the Union address, a state of denial will be helpful. "The president looks forward to delivering the State of the Union address on January 19th," said White House spokesman James Kennedy, "and we have no intention of being diverted from addressing the issues that are important to the country." Do not expect to hear anything of presidential perjury, executive obstruction of justice, "inappropriate relationships" or "that woman." None of those are important to the country.."
National Review 1/14/99 ".President Clinton's trial started in the Senate on Thursday, with Congressman Asa Hutchinson highlighting the key role Vernon Jordan played in Clinton's obstruction of justice. If called as a witness, Jordan may reinvigorate the case against Clinton. In the February issue of The American Spectator, investigative reporter Byron York reviews hundreds of pages of Jordan's grand-jury testimony and provides a fascinating account of the power lawyer's implausibly bad memory under oath. Time and again, Jordan couldn't remember the content of scores of conversations he had with the president and his staff that took place just weeks before his sworn testimony. Jordan's testimony contradicts both the documentary record and Monica Lewinsky's later testimony.."
Washington Post 1/15/99 Charles Krauthammer ".Rarely in the annals of double-think has a party distinguished itself as has the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton. First they insisted that the House complete its impeachment inquiry on President Clinton by the end of 1998. Then, when the Republicans did exactly that, the Democrats claimed the House's impeachment to be illegitimate because it was passed by the lame-duck 105th, whose term expired with 1998. Then the Democrats waxed eloquent about how House Republicans had created a travesty of impeachment by calling no firsthand witnesses and relying on Ken Starr's written record. Now the Democrats wax eloquent about how Senate Republicans would create a travesty of impeachment by calling witnesses and not relying on Ken Starr's written record.."
Washington Post 1/15/99 Susan Schmidt ".House Republicans managing the impeachment trial of President Clinton have decided not to seek public testimony from former White House volunteer Kathleen E. Willey if the Senate decides to call witnesses, Republicans said yesterday. House managers have examined several boxes of evidence on Willey's allegations, collected by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, that Clinton made an unwelcome sexual advance toward her during an Oval Office visit in 1993. Two of the 13 Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee serving as prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial interviewed Willey and her lawyer Monday in Richmond. But Republican House lawyers, along with one of those congressmen, characterized the Willey interview as mere due diligence, and said there are no immediate plans to bring Willey or her allegations before the Senate.."
Washington Times 1/15/99 Donald Lambro ".A majority of Americans may not want to see President Clinton removed from office, but the longer the televised congressional impeachment process continues, the more his support seems to erode in public opinion polls. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that by a margin of 57 percent to 36 percent, Americans remain opposed to removing the president from office on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, but that number represented a significant shift in public opinion since the House impeached him last month.."
Washington Times 1/15/99 Wesley Pruden ".The opening day of the impeachment trial was full of enough pomp and ceremony to satisfy the fiercest Tory, but it's hard to keep in mind that we're supposed to cry, not laugh. Is this a bedroom farce by Tom Stoppard, or a tragedy of state? It's a tragedy, of course, beneath the dignity of the United States of America. But Bill Clinton's greatest "gift" is his ability to strip all dignity from our most precious institution, to reduce everything, including himself, to a cheap joke. The president of the United States is down to his last true believer, who turns out to be a rich and ignorant pornographer. Hail to the chief. On Capitol Hill, the 100 most important people in the entire world (ask any of them) are finally struck dumb by the Constitution, forbidden to speak, listening with growing impatience to the prosecuting officers from the House, whom they regard as their inferiors but who get to talk all day without interruption.. We have to work to suppress giggles when, on the very eve of the trial, the first lady finally pays Paula Jones, whose lawsuit started all this, to go away. This was the scene when the president broke the news to the indulgent Sugar Mommy:."
Washington Times 1/15/99 Nancy Roman Sean Scully by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "The Senate's delicate pretrial bipartisanship began to fray Thursday as both Republicans and Democrats complained about revelations of private impeachment briefings held this week....On the day opening arguments began...Clinton's impeachment trial, Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, said that more than a dozen Senate Democrats erred in attending a closed-door briefing by Abbe Lowell and two other lawyers who prepared the defense of Mr. Clinton before the House Judiciary..."I watched all of them take the oath -- that comes very, very close to the edge of that oath," he said. Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, added that the meeting "signals very clearly that they have already made up their minds."...Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican and one of the 13 House managers, was outraged...."I remember Sen. [Robert C.] Byrd [West Virginia Democrat] telling the White House not to tamper with this jury and [the Democratic meeting] certainly raises in one's mind whether Sen. Byrd's message."
Washington Times 1/15/99 Frank Murray by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "House prosecutors asked a somber and silent Senate Thursday to remove...Clinton from office for perjury and obstructing justice, but repeatedly insisted they need to call witnesses to best make their case...."Can you convict the president...without hearing personally the testimony of one of the key witnesses?" asked Rep. Asa Hutchinson...He implored the Senate to allow House managers to call "co-conspirator" Monica Lewinsky and Clinton secretary Betty Currie to testify...The five House managers who made presentations Thursday meticulously laid out the case against Mr. Clinton. One said the president "piled perjury upon perjury"; another told the 100 senators that Mr. Clinton was guilty of "an evolving series of lies." Each predicted dire consequences if he is not removed from office...."Failure to bring...Clinton to account for his serial lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under the law will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations,"..."
New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/15/99 Vincent Morris Brian Blomquist by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...House prosecutors opened their impeachment case against President Clinton yesterday, comparing his alleged lies about Monica Lewinsky to a "cancer" threatening the nation's legal system....At the end of the six-hour session, Republican leaders suggested Clinton might be invited to testify...."I think he should be invited, or at least I don't have a problem with him being invited," GOP Whip Don Nickles (R-Okla.) told reporters....Sources said Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has been talking to 10 other senators about Clinton testimony, but no agreement has been reached....Starting a trial the likes of which America hasn't seen since 1868, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and other House members prosecuting the case pleaded with the Senate not to let Clinton off the hook...."Failure to bring President Clinton to account for his serial lying under oath ... will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations," said Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin...."
New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/15/99 Deborah Orin ".EXCERPTS: "Republicans turned the spotlight on...Clinton's lying eyes yesterday - and even Democrats concede they did a good job of it....GOPers hope the haunting image of Clinton's lies will lay the groundwork for getting a few Democrats to agree to call impeachment witnesses to test the president's truthfulness....Forget Clinton's word games, said Rep. James Rogan (R-Calif). Just look at Clinton's eyes on the video and see if you can believe he was telling the truth, much less the whole truth....The president claims he wasn't paying attention when his lawyer told the Paula Jones judge that he'd had "no sex of any kind" with Monica Lewinsky - and so he didn't confirm a falsehood....But there was Clinton on video, his eyes staring intently as he listened to the false claims and didn't dispute them, thus corroborating the falsehood with his silence...."How totally ludicrous," said Rogan after the video rolled while Clinton explained, with a straight face, that Lewinsky had sex with him - but he never had sex with her."
New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/15/99 A Whitewater Researcher ".The opening day of the Senate trial of William Jefferson Clinton was a distinguished moment for a Republican Party battered and caricatured these past 12 months. The congressmen making the case for convicting the president on the two articles of impeachment voted by the House of Representatives gave the lie to the argument that those who believe Bill Clinton should be removed from office are motivated by an irrational, partisan animus....Their presentations were sober, judicious, restrained and thoughtful (although we noticed with horror that one of the charts behind Rep. Asa Hutchison misspelled the word ''calendar'' as ''calender''). Faced with the overwhelming evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice as presented by the House managers, you really have to be motivated by an irrational, partisan enthusiasm for the president to believe that the case against him is just a load of Victorian nonsense.."
Wall Street Journal 1/15/99 Paul Gigot ".Among all of the potential witnesses at his Senate trial, there is one that Bill Clinton fears most of all--Bill Clinton This is the real reason the White House has frantically opposed calling any witnesses. Monica Lewinsky would be a wild card for both the president and House prosecutors. But other players (Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie) could very well help Mr. Clinton, who is their friend. The one witness who could sink or save the president is the Big He himself. This is also dawning on Republican House impeachment managers, who are privately debating whether to call Mr. Clinton. So far only one manager, candid California Rep. James Rogan, has advocated this in public. "If he really is innocent, he should come down to the Senate, he should testify, he should present his case," Mr. Rogan said almost in passing as he was staked out by reporters this week. Henry Hyde, the House paterfamilias, briefly mentioned the same possibility but has so far stayed neutral in the internal debate."
Investor's Business Daily 1/15/99 by Freeper heyduke ".The trial of William Jefferson Clinton has begun, with the House managers painting a dark picture of the president's disregard for the rule of law. They charge that he violated the sanctity of his oath and should be removed. They make a compelling case.."
Florida Times-Union 1/15/99 Editorial ".There is a theory, born in the White House war room in all likelihood, that the Republicans are going to "pay a heavy price" after impeachment. They will lose a majority in Congress and also the White House, it is said. ..But, since the conservative majority was given control of Congress by disenchanted voters in 1994: The per capita disposable income of Americans has gone up more than 15 percent. The median family income for two earners is up 12 percent. The Dow has gone up from 3900 to more than 9000. Civilian employment is up nearly 7 percent. Meanwhile: The number of families receiving welfare is down 40 percent. Mortgage interest rates are down 27 percent. If liberals wish to try to convince Americans they are responsible for what most people would call welcome trends such as these, they are free to try. Our guess is that it will be a tough sell.. American voters are (1) not noted for long-term memory and (2) not usually one-issue voters. ."
WorldNetDaily 1/15/99 John Doggett by Freeper sidewinder ".Our Constitution is a remarkable, revolutionary document. It says so much in so few words that many Americans forget how special it is. Before the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, men governed countries as though they were gods. Our Constitution was the first governing document to say that the people would rule a country, not the rulers. I mention our Constitution because the Senate is about to make a decision that will reverberate throughout history. That decision is whether the Senate will allow House managers to call witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial.."
USA Journal 1/15/99 Jon Dougherty ".As one who agrees that private lives should be kept private, I would also support the point of view that President Clinton's behavior with intern Monica Lewinsky - while in the Oval Office of the White House - is an abomination that deserves universal rebuke. However, had the president not lied to a grand jury about his involvement with Ms. Lewinsky, then yes, I would agree that no, he shouldn't be impeached solely on his personal behavior. However the matter of his grand jury perjury is something altogether different, and as senators wrangle over what to do about it during Clinton's impeachment trial, they should realize that this nation and its leaders ignore the rule of law at our own peril. In fact violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution have become so commonplace - a phenomenon demonstrated in the heartiest of bipartisanship - that at some point in time Americans have to begin wondering what would stop legislators and presidents from ignoring the Constitution in its entirety.."
The Times (London) 1/15/99 Bronwen Maddox Freeper Marcellus ".The White House yesterday declared that the House case was based on political revenge, not law, that the Founding Fathers had never intended that one party should be able "to remove a President at their whim", and that Mr Clinton would not testify on the floor of the Senate....Mr Hyde said that the House had impeached Mr Clinton simply because he had violated his oath to tell the truth and uphold the laws of the nation....Mr Sensenbrenner laid out the House's case that Mr Clinton had "put himself above the law, not once, not twice, but repeatedly" in a "multi-faceted" attempt to subvert justice....the framers of the US Constitution had rejected the British principle "that the king can do no wrong". Under the fundamental American notion that "no man is above the law", he said, "even the President of the United States has no licence to lie under oath". .."
Washington Times 1/15/99 Donald Lambro ".majority of Americans may not want to see President Clinton removed from office, but the longer the televised congressional impeachment process continues, the more his support seems to erode in public opinion polls. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that by a margin of 57 percent to 36 percent, Americans remain opposed to removing the president from office on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, but that number represented a significant shift in public opinion since the House impeached him last month. Independent pollster John Zogby, whose own findings were very close to those of the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, said, "The number for removal is up by 10 points and opposition to removal is down by 11 points. That's a big change. ."
Silicon Valley Logic 7/13/98 ".Janet Reno's Justice Department believes perjury and obstruction of justice are higher crimes than bribery, according to DOJ sentencing guidelines which rate bribery a ten and perjury and obstruction a twelve. (On the DOJ scale, the crime of trespassing is a mere four, while murder rates between a fourteen and thirty-four, depending on the circumstances.) ."
Washington Times 1/14/99 Nancy Roman Bill Sammon ".More than a dozen Senate Democrats met quietly yesterday to hear a presentation from three Democratic House lawyers on the evidence in the case against President Clinton. Abbe Lowell, Steve Reich and Kevin Simpson -- lawyers who helped prepare arguments against impeachment for the House Judiciary Committee -- walked Senate Democrats through the case and answered questions during the closed-door meeting. The gathering occurred just one day after senior GOP senators accused Democrats of having concluded that Mr. Clinton should be acquitted, and just hours before 13 House managers begin presenting the case against the president today at 1 p.m. ."
FOX Newswire 1/15/99 Larry Margasak Freeper Wil H ".Calling Monica Lewinsky a "very credible" witness, a House prosecutor told senators in President Clinton's impeachment trial Friday afternoon that the former White House intern's testimony establishes that Clinton "knowingly, intentionally" sought to obstruct justice. "If you believe the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, you cannot believe the president or accept the argument of his lawyers," Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., said in a summary of evidence on behalf of the 13 House prosecutors on the second day of their presentation.."
UPI 1/15/99 Freeper Brian Mosely ".White House press secretary Joe Lockhart (Friday) delivered repeated warnings to congressional Republicans against extending President Clinton's ongoing impeachment trial by calling witnesses, saying, "If this gets opened up...this will take an extended time." Lockhart complained that Republicans have taken a poll that shows they will fare better if witnesses are called, adding that Americans are "tired of the politics" and "tired of the polling."."
http://www.house.gov/barr/i_barrsenate.htm 1/15/99 Congressman Bob Barr ".What we have before us, Senators, and Mr. Chief Justice, is really not complex. Critically important, yes. But not essentially complex. Virtually every federal or state prosecutor -- and there are many such distinguished persons on this jury -- has seen such cases of obstruction before in their careers, probably repeated -- a pattern of obstruction of justice compounded by subsequent perjury to cover it up. The President's lawyers will almost certainly try to weave a spell of complexity over the facts of this case. They will nit pick the time of a call, or parse a specific word or phrase of testimony, much as the President has done. We urge you, the distinguished jurors in this case, not to be fooled. Use your common sense. Your reason. Your varied and successful career experiences. Just as any juror in any jury box anywhere in America does each day a court is in session. Just as does the average juror, so too have each of you sworn to decide these momentous matters impartially. Your oath to look to the law and our majestic Constitution demand this of you. As this great body has done so many times in the course of our nation's history, I am confident you will neither shirk from nor cast aside that duty. Rather, I urge, and fully anticipate you will look at the volume of facts, hopefully supplemented by live witnesses, and to the clear and fully applicable statutes; and conclude that William Jefferson Clinton in fact and under the law, violated his oath and violated the laws of this land, and convict him on both Articles of Impeachment, of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Even though such a high burden is not required of you under the Law of Impeachment, in fact it is there; it is met. The perjury is there. The obstruction is there. We ask you to strike down these insidious cancers that eat at our system of government and laws. Strike it down with the Constitution so it might not fester as a gaping wound; poisoning future generations of children; poisoning our court system; and perhaps even poisoning future generations of political leaders. Just as Members of both Houses of Congress have been convicted and removed from office for perjury and obstruction; and just as federal judges have been removed by you from life tenure for perjury and obstruction, so must a president; so, sadly, should this President. ."
FoxNews 1/15/99 by Freeper Oddither ".JUST AS BOB BARR WAS DELIVERING THE MOST POWERFUL PART OF HIS SPEECH-HE WAS INTERRUPTED (TIMING IS EVERYTHING) BY HARKIN TO OBJECT TO HIS USE OF THE WORD JUROR. GREGG TOLD HIM TO SHUT UP.."
PR Newswire 1/15/99 House Judiciary Committee ".House Judiciary Committee Chief Spokesman Paul McNulty commented on today's objection by Senator Harkin concerning the use of the word ``juror'' by House Manager Bob Barr: It is curious that after two days of listening to a thorough and compelling presentation on the facts and the law, Senator Harkin objected to being called a ``juror.'' One hopes that such protests arise from linguistic scrupulosity and not the fear that ``jurors'' are expected to convict when the evidence is overwhelming.."
newsmax 1/15/99 Cliff Kincaid Freeper I'mPeach ".On the first day of President Clinton's Senate trial, Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland dropped a bombshell which, if pursued, could result in Clinton's conviction and removal from office. He urged the Senate to examine "one corner" of the Lewinsky scandal that hasn't gotten much attention. He wrote, "Clinton recognized in a telephone conversation with his young paramour that foreign intelligence organizations could, without much trouble, be listening in on their phone sex and other musings, according to Lewinsky's detailed and unchallenged testimony." In his January 14 column, Hoagland, a Washington insider, went on to say, "What then did the president do to protect himself, and national security, from blackmail and damage, other than propose an absurd cover story to Monica?"."
Reuters 1/15/99 ".A Democratic U.S. senator raised the first objection during the impeachment trial of President Clinton on Friday, successfully arguing that senators were not merely jurors in the proceedings. Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa stood up near the end of the second day of opening arguments and took issue after Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican acting as a prosecutor in the case, labeled the 100 senators as jurors in the case. ``I object to the use and the continued use of the word 'jurors' when referring to the Senate sitting as 'triers,''' Harkin said..When it appeared Harkin was launching a lengthy discourse, a Republican senator interrupted and called for a return to the trial.. U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who presides over the trial, warned Harkin not to argue his point ``ad infinitum'' but ruled on the side of the Democratic senator. ``The Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case, and therefore counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors,'' Rehnquist said. Barr then picked up where he left off with a slight modification: ``We urge you, the distinguished senators sitting as triers of fact and law in this case, not to be fooled.'' Without missing a beat, he had replaced his original: ``We urge you, the distinguished jurors in this case, not to be fooled.''."
Washington Post 1/16/99 David Von Drehle ".The day's business was coming to an end. Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.) was at the lectern, reading a long speech. Nearly every word and every action in the impeachment trial of President Clinton has been scripted and rehearsed. Barr was explaining the allegations against the president in light of the United States Code, sections 1503, 1512 (not to mention title 18, section 371). It was not easy going. But he had finally emerged from the thick legal underbrush into a meadow of crystalline rhetoric and was about to wind things up, when suddenly . . . A surprise! A lean man in the back row had risen from his seat, and now the voice of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was cutting Barr off. "The chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa." And Iowa's Sen. Tom Harkin (D) said, "Mr. Chief Justice, I object." ..Rehnquist seemed slightly startled by the development. The TV analysts seized on it like feral dogs going after a bunny. But, alas, it wasn't really an unscripted moment. Harkin and his aides had been preparing for this all day. Like all senators, Harkin has taken an oath to "do impartial justice," but that hasn't blunted his willingness to go after the lawyers from the House. It was he who recently called the House case "a pile of dung," and he has passed up dozens of chances to withdraw that remark. Harkin was poised, waiting for Barr to utter a particular word, of all the thousands and thousands of words that make up a day at the president's trial. "The president's lawyers may very well try to weave a spell of complexity over the facts of this case," Barr warned. "They may nitpick over the time of a call or parse a specific word or phrase of testimony, much as the president has done. We urge you, the distinguished jurors in this case, not to be fooled." There it was: jurors. .."
Judicial Watch 1/15/99 Press Release ".It is ironic that while the President's and First Lady's lawyers at Williams & Connolly have used their ability to question Linda Tripp in Judicial Watch's Filegate lawsuit as a means to gather information which obviously they will attempt to use in defense of the impeachment proceedings, many major media have chosen not to report on her damaging testimony during this volatile and unpredictable period for the White House... During about 1« hours of hostile examination on Tuesday, January 5, 1999, Clintons' lawyers did find Tripp's testimony important. Contrary to a court order -- which they violated -- they probed into details about Tripp's actions in the Lewinsky sex scandal, for obvious use during the impeachment trial. "Isn't is interesting how some major media and Ken Starr don't find Tripp's Filegate testimony to be worth their time, but Williams & Connolly -- the Clintons' lawyers -- do," observed Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman.."
New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/16/99 Brian Blomquist by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "Momentum is building for witnesses - such as Monica Lewinsky - to take the stand in...Clinton's Senate impeachment trial, some senators said yesterday. And a top aide to Senate Majo rity Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) floated the idea that if...Clinton testifies, no one else would have to....Close to half of Americans want witnesses, and the witness they want to see most is Clinton, according to a new poll (which) found that 47 percent of respondents want witnesses, while 42 percent don't. If witnesses are called, the No. 1 figure people want to hear from is Clinton (71 percent) followed by Monica Lewinsky (61 percent)....Senators said House prosecutors, who completed their second day o f arguments yesterday, have made a compelling case for calling in witnesses to settle Sexgate disputes....Prosecutors argued that the Sexgate charges of lying under oath and obstructing justice boil down to a case of Clinton's word against Lewinsky's word ...."
New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/16/99 Dick Morris by A Whitewater Researcher ". EXCERPTS: "...If (Clinton's lawyers) accept the damaging factual record so well presented by the House managers, they admit perjury and obstruction of justice...if they contest the factual record. ..they open themselves to...witnesses and a long trial...by calling witnesses to testify...the House prosecutors (may) win over the public opinion they will need to oust the president....The House managers...presented a strong case that will be hard for t he president's lawyers to rebut....How Clinton's lawyers will fill the 24 hours allotted to them without raising self-defeating factual questions, which will lead to live witnesses, is anyone's guess....Every other piece of information has, inevitably, to advance the prosecution case...Once the Republicans succeed in getting to call witnesses...in prime time...Democratic senators - like Robert Byrd, Joseph Lieberman, Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey - might break ranks with the president after seriously review ing the evidence of obstruction of justice...more will follow.."
The New York Times 1/16/99 R W Apple Jr. ". January 16, 1999 R.W. Apple Jr. House prosecutors asserted Friday that Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony was far more credible than President Clinton's, and one of them told senators sitting in judgment in the impeachment trial that "it's the president who is not telling the truth." "If you believe the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, you cannot believe the president or accept the argument of his lawyers," said Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., opening the second of three days of arguments by House managers. The Senate must decide which to believe, he said, adding: "If you have any significant doubt about Monica Lewinsky's credibility or testimony, you should have us bring her in here and let us examine her face to face." ..Referring to Ms. Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and others, McCollum said: "Time and again, the president says one thing and they say something entirely different." ."
Boston Herald 1/16/99 Joe Battenfeld ".House prosecutors yesterday intensified pressure to bring Monica Lewinsky and others ``face to face'' before the Senate while charging President Clinton with weaving a ``web'' of lies and obstruction. The increasing GOP calls for witnesses - including Clinton himself - eclipsed a second day of repetitive and sometimes sexually graphic arguments by impeachment trial managers. ``Bring them in here,'' said Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.). ``Invite the president to come, judge for yourself their credibility.'' ."
Houston Chronicle 1/15/99 William F Buckley ". Is perjury understood by Republicans to mean one thing, by Democrats another? Do Democrats understand "sexual relations" to add up to something different from what Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did? Was the intimate orchestration -- Clinton to Betty Currie to Monica to Vernon Jordan to John Podesta to Dick Morris to Sidney Blumenthal -- a manipulation of people and events designed to obstruct justice? Or was it something else, merely human responses to an embarrassing situation? Does reality differ when Republicans look at it?."
Associated Press 1/16/99 Curt Anderson ".Strolling around the well of the Senate, South Carolina's Lindsey Graham used a folksy approach to urge a ``cleansing'' of the presidency through removal of President Clinton. Graham's presentation Saturday was remarkable both for his relaxed style and for his message. Calling himself a ``son of the South'' who grew up amid racial segregation, Graham said that Clinton cannot be a civil rights champion if he is guilty of perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit. ``I believe he's been an articulate spokesman for civil rights for our citizens,'' Graham told the Senate. ``When those rights had to be applied to him, he failed miserably.'' .. ``Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity,'' he said. Graham also referred to Clinton's continuing popularity, saying senators must trust that people would believe they did the proper thing if the president were removed. ``They will trust you. This is a cynical age, but I'm an optimist that no matter what you do, this country will get up and go to work the next day and we'll feel good,'' he said.."
AP 1/16/99 ".Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J.: ``The House managers understand that based on the current record and with the arguments presented to date, they are not going to win this trial.'' .Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.: ``I think they did a very good job wrapping up and summarizing. ... I would think a large majority (of senators) have not made up their minds.'' .Sen. Connie Mack, R-Fla.: ``There's a sense developing in the Senate there will probably be witnesses called. ... It's almost reached a point of inevitability that witnesses will be called.'' Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,: ``The managers today made an overwhelming case that these facts are important and that perjury and obstruction of justice ..., if proven, are impeachable offenses.'' ."
AP 1/16/99 ".Text of White House Special Counsel Gregory Craig's statement.. The House Republicans' case ends as it began, an unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the president from office. That standard is clear. Unlike federal judges, who are appointed for life and who serve during good behavior, our president is elected by all the people and should only be removed for the most grave offenses against the Constitution. ."
The American Spectator Online 1/14/99 Online Prowler ".Despite public indications to the contrary, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has fought tooth and nail to avoid having to call witnesses during the Senate trial of President Clinton. In two secret meetings in the days leading up to opening statements in the Senate on January 14, Lott was almost the sole dissenting voice on the issue of witness testimony. "He didn't want to do it," says a Senate leadership source. "But the House managers want it, and the rest of the Senate Republican leadership wants it, so it will happen." The fact that Lott couldn't keep his own party in line created deeper problems for Lott. He was embarrassed when he called minority leader Tom Daschle to tell him that he'd had to ask Sens. Jon Kyl, Jeff Sesssions, and Arlen Specter to come up with a witness plan and list to bring before Democrats within the next week.."
US House Judiciary Committee house.gov/judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde ".One of the most memorable aspects of this proceeding was the solemn occasion wherein every Senator in this chamber took an oath to do impartial justice under the Constitution. The President of the United States took an oath to tell the truth in his testimony before the grand jury, just as he had, on two prior occasions, sworn a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States." Despite massive and relentless efforts to change the subject, the case before you Senators is not about sexual misconduct or adultery - those are private acts and none of our business. It is not even a question of lying about sex. The matter before this body is a question of lying under oath. This is a public act. The matter before you is a question of the willful, premeditated deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice, through Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. These are public acts, and when committed by the chief law enforcement officer of the land, the one who appoints the Attorney General and nominates the Judiciary - these do become the concern of Congress. That is why your judgment should rise above politics, above partisanship, above polling data. This case is a test of whether what the Founding Fathers described as "sacred honor" still has meaning in our time: two hundred twenty-two years after those two words - sacred honor - were inscribed in our country's birth certificate, our charter of freedom, our Declaration of Independence."
US House Judiciary Committee house.gov/judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde ".Senators: please permit me a word on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues of the House. It is necessary to clarify an important point. None of us comes to this chamber today without a profound sense of our own responsibilities in life, and of the many ways in which we have failed to meet those responsibilities, to one degree or another. None of us comes before you claiming to be a perfect man or a perfect citizen, just as none of you imagines yourself perfect. All of us, members of the House and Senate, know that we come to this difficult task as flawed human beings, under judgment. That is the way of this world: flawed human beings must, according to the rule of law, judge other flawed human beings. But the issue before the Senate of the United States is not the question of its own members' personal moral condition. Nor is the issue before the Senate the question of the personal moral condition of the members of the House of Representatives. The issue here is whether the President of the United States has violated the rule of law and thereby broken his covenant of trust with the American people. This is a public issue, involving the gravest matter of the public interest. And it is not effected, one way or another, by the personal moral condition of any member of either house of Congress, or by whatever expressions of personal chagrin the President has managed to express.."
US House Judiciary Committee house.gov/judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde ". Some of us have been called "Clinton-haters." I must tell you, distinguished Senators, that this impeachment is not, for those of us from the House, a question of hating anyone. This is not a question of who we hate, this is a question of what we love: and among the things we love are the rule of law, equal justice before the law, and honor in our public life. All of us are trying as hard as we can to do our duty as we see it...no more and no less.."
US House Judiciary Committee house.gov/judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde ".Mr. Chief Justice and Senators- On June 6, 1994, the 50th anniversary of the American landing on the beaches of Normandy, I stood among the field of white crosses and Stars of David. The British had a military band of bagpipes playing Amazing Grace. I walked up to one cross to read a name, but there was none. All it said was "Here lies in Honored Glory a Comrade in Arms Known but to God." How do we keep the faith with that comrade in arms? Go to the Vietnam Memorial on the National Mall and press your hands against some of the 58,000 names carved in the wall - and ask yourself how we can redeem the debt we owe all those who purchased our freedom with their lives. How do we keep faith with them? I think I know how, we work to make this country the kind of America they were willing to die for. That's an America where the idea of sacred honor still has the power to stir men's souls..."
US House Judiciary Committee house.gov/judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde ".Dear Chairman Hyde: My name is William Preston Summers. How are you doing? I am a third grader in room 504 at Chase elementary School in Chicago. I am writing this letter because I have something to tell you. I have thought of a punishment for the president of the United states of America. The punishment should be that he should write a 100 word essay by hand. I have to write an essay when I lie. It is bad to lie because it just gets you in more trouble. I hate getting in trouble. It is just like the boy who cried wolf, and the wolf ate the boy. It is important to tell the truth. I like to tell the truth because it gets you in less trouble. If you do not tell the truth people do not believe you. It is important to believe the president because he is an important person. If you can not believe the president who can you believe. If you have no one to believe in then how do you run your life. I do not believe the president tells the truth anymore right now. After he writes the essay and tells the truth, I will believe him again. William Summers."
CNN 1/16/99 The Capital Gang Freeper BP2 ".The opening question: What did you think about the House Republicans' presentation? Margaret Carlson, an avid Clinton defender, was the second to speak. She said "After hearing the speeches, I wanted to go down to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and make a house arrest MYSELF!" She had nothing but bad words for the POTUS and compliments for the first three days of testimony. WOW! The rest of the talking heads agreed."
Cleveland Live 1/15/99 AP Katherine Rizzo Freeper I'mPeach ".He was calm, he was direct, he made lots of eye contact and he limited himself to less than half an hour. Now, Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot must wait for the question-and-answer phase of President Clinton's impeachment trial before he knows how well his words were absorbed by the senators on the jury..He showed a video clip of Clinton swearing out his oath to tell the truth to a grand jury, and he played the most famous excerpt of Clinton's video deposition, with an off-camera questioner saying "It was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?" and the president responding: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word `is' is." Chabot, one of 13 House managers serving as the prosecution in the case, went briskly through each element of perjury, and told the Senate that Clinton's statements qualified as perjury in every case. "The president of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of this land, lied under oath. He raised his right hand and he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then he lied, pure and simple," Chabot said. "He chipped away at the very cornerstone of our judicial system." He ended his part of the presentation with an appeal to send a message that truthfulness is important. "If the actions of the president are ultimately disregarded or minimized, we will be sending a sorry message to the American people that the president of the United States is above the law," Chabot said.."
Drudge 1/16/99 Freeper LYNXcry ".Drudge said on his show tonight that he is hearing that Lott is planning to have the witnesses to testify in nightime hearings when the big networks would be forced to cover it."
NY Times 1/17/99 RW Apple, Jr. ".Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., brought the Republican case to a crescendo Saturday morning with the declaration that the president must be removed because he had "made himself a notorious example of lawlessness." Opening the last of three days of the Republican presentation of the impeachment case against Clinton, Canady, like Clinton a graduate of Yale Law School, also argued that the Senate could not set a lower standard for a president than for judges who have been ousted in recent years for making false statements under oath... Canady and two colleagues on the panel of House managers, Reps. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., sought to pre-emptively rebut arguments of Clinton's defenders.. But Buyer laid special emphasis, of a kind that had not been heard in the trial before, on the impact of Clinton's alleged crimes on the armed services and women. If the Democrats continued to insist that the whole controversy stemmed from a private sexual matter, and was therefore beneath constitutional notice, Buyer demanded, did that mean that the evidence-gathering process in federal sexual harassment cases, like the one brought against Clinton by Paula Corbin Jones, which led to the Lewinsky case, was unimportant? A graduate of The Citadel, the South Carolina military college, and a veteran of the Persian Gulf war, Buyer argued that Clinton's "diminished veracity" had had an "inherently corrosive" effect on his capacity to function effectively as commander in chief and to carry out his foreign policy duties.. Graham, much the folksiest of the 13 managers, was assigned to explore Senate precedent, and he did so.. All three cases set significant precedents for this case, Graham said. But he laid special emphasis on a statement by former Sen. Charles Mathias of Maryland in the Claiborne case. Mathias, one of the prosecutors in that matter, said the following: "Impeachable conduct does not have to occur in the performance of an officer's official duties. Evidence of misconduct, misbehavior, high crimes and misdemeanors can be justified upon one's private dealings as well as one's exercise of public office." Clinton's defense is rooted to a considerable degree in the argument that the offenses charged do not involve official misconduct. Today, his spokesman, Joe Lockhart, said the final presentations constituted "a clear concession and admission that their case isn't strong enough without witnesses." The White House and most Democrats oppose calling witnesses. ."
Capital Connections 1/15/99 Karen Feld for National Post ".Only days before the U.S. Senate heard opening arguments for "the trial of the century," President Bill Clinton invited seven of his jurors to dinner. None of the senators thought it the least bit uncomfortable to dine at the White House in the midst of an impeachment trial. "Perhaps a little unusual, but not awkward," explained North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan, who embraced the occasion to welcome a head of state. The occasion was the state dinner for Carlos Menem, the Argentine president. California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, who has been talked about as Al Gore's potential running mate in 2000 and had called for Mr. Clinton to postpone his Jan. 19 state of the union address, insisted: "My Senate duties don't stop." Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, said "I'm serving the country this evening as is the president." ."
CNN.COM 1/16/99 Freeper powell ".SHIELDS: Margaret Carlson, you were there for this historic moment. Have the House managers effectively made the case for removing the president from office? MARGARET CARLSON, "TIME" MAGAZINE: I was there for many thousands of historic moments and at the end of ] it I wanted to go to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and make a citizen's arrest and put this whole thing behind me. But that's impossible. What the House managers did do, they wanted to make a strong case to vindicate their vote for impeachment, but not a case so airtight that the need for witnesses wasn't manifest. And they did the second thing. They, by going to the obstruction of justice charge, where there are a number of witnesses who could come in and clear up factual disputes, they made the case for bringing them in. And at every step of the way what the Republicans who've wanted to impeach and convict the president have been able to do is to draw out the process and go one by one. And the next step is to bring witnesses and that seems to be a foregone conclusion. SHIELDS: A foregone conclusion, Kate O'Beirne? KATE O'BEIRNE, CO-HOST: Margaret, don't dismiss out of hand the idea of a citizen's arrest, you know? You might want to keep considering that. CARLSON: I could put it behind you, too, Kate. O'BEIRNE: It would be a great story. CARLSON: Yes. ."
Washington Times 1/17/99 Frank Murray ".House prosecutors yesterday urged senators to put duty above politics, polls and partisanship and end President Clinton's presidency "here and now" instead of simply censuring him for dishonoring his public trust. "He can no longer be trusted. And, because the executive plays so large a role in representing the country to the world, America can no longer be trusted," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde said in arguing that nothing but conviction and removal from office is justified. "I'm done," he said to punctuate what could be his last word on the substance of the case. Delivering the emotional 24-minute speech he wrote in longhand overnight that moistened his own eyes as well as others in a Senate whose rules brooked no show of praise or disdain but didn't stop him from invoking what he called a debt to the nation's war dead. "If, across the river in Arlington Cemetery, there are American heroes who died in defense of the rule of law, can we give less than the full measure of our devotion to that great cause?" the Illinois Republican said in a paraphrase of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. He said his feelings were best expressed by a letter from a Chicago third-grader, William Preston Summers, whose father said the boy was "having difficulty understanding why the president can lie and not be punished" and wrote the letter as an alternative to the usual essay assigned for lying. "If you cannot believe the president who can you believe?" William said that Mr. Clinton should be sentenced to write a 100-word essay on lying. "After he writes the essay and tells the truth, I will believe him again." ."
Washington Times 1/17/99 Sean Scully ".Democrats yesterday refused to participate in a bipartisan effort to set the ground rules for hearing witnesses in the Senate. "I strongly believe ... that appointing a group of senators to make preparation for witness testimony would violate the bipartisan agreement that now governs our process," wrote Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, in a letter to Majority Leader Trent Lott. House managers, meanwhile, met yesterday afternoon to discuss which witnesses they will seek Senate permission to call. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican, said the managers are "about 50-50" on whether to "invite" President Clinton to testify. ."