NY Post 1/17/99 Dick Morris by A Whitewater Researcher ". EXCERPTS: "...SENATE Democrats are scared to death of a vote at...Clinton's impeachment trial....Scared of a vote on calling witnesses, scared of a vote on ending the trial, scared of a vote on live testimony, scared of any kind of vote....They don't dare show that their party is not united as a phalanx behind the president...on any of these votes, a handful of Democrats - between five and 10 - would likely jump ship and vote with a united Republican bloc and against Clinton's interests. Such defections would argue for a critical weakness in the president's ranks and undermine the argument that the trial is just a partisan affair....a small but critical number of Democrats are leaning against the president, at least on procedural motions. This group could grow to the critical number of 12 - the number of Democrats who would have to vote to remove Clinton for him to lose....In order to stop the president's coalition from unraveling, the White House will find it better never to put it to the test of a vote." .."

MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/ 1/15/99 Lisa Myers NBC by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...star of the Clinton impeachment prosecution's witness list...is Monica Lewinsky...to drive home how young she is and bring to life the obstruction of justice case. She says.. .Clinton never told her to lie. But prosecutors want to ask: "Did he ever tell you to tell the truth?"...CALLING LEWINSKY also come big risks. As one prosecutor put it, "She's still in love with the guy."..."If...Lewinsky were to testify in the Senate, it would be like a tornado...It's unclear who would be left standing in her wake. "...Also high on the prosecution list...Sidney Blumenthal....Blumenthal says the president told him that Lewinsky was a "stalker" who came on to him and that he never had sex with her - lies Blumenthal repeated to the grand jury....Vernon Jordan and secretary Betty Currie, also are on the witness list now, but it's not certain they'll testify...Jordan and Currie can testify to key parts of the obstruction case - getting Lewins ky a job, hiding the gifts, alleged witness tampering..."

CNN 1/16/99 Freeper Tim Goodenough reports Sen. Warner ".EVANS: Mr. Chairman, now that you're running the Armed Services Committee this is a pertinent, particularly for you: Would the acquittal of the president, in the face of the allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, have any effect on military regulations involving kicking officers out of the military service, or enlisted men, for perjury/obstruction of justice? WARNER: Rollie, it will be a precedent. And I tell -- and I've talked to many -- this case troubles the military, perhaps more than any segment of our society. And I will also tell you that the Congress in the next 10 years, excuse me, the next two years -- under your first question -- will have to exercise to its absolute full responsibility reviews of all foreign policy and national security decisions, because that president, if he's to remain, will be an injured president. And the Congress has to live up to its co-equal responsibilities in reviewing each of those decisions as it relates to security and foreign policy. EVANS: Should the Senate take that into consideration, sir, as it reaches a conclusion? WARNER: This senator will take that into consideration.."

New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/17/99 Vincent Morris by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...Lawyers for...Clinton left the Capitol yesterday facing a daunting challenge: countering three solid days of arguments in favor of removing the president from office...."They're going to have to respond point by point to the allegations," said Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)....GOPers seem likely to win in their efforts to call witnesses to the Senate floor to present testimony...The fight over witnesses will rear up Jan. 25, when senators are slated to debate the issue....House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)...: "Lying under oath is an abuse of freedom. It is because the president has defaulted on the promises he made...that he has been impeached."...many lawmakers say the uncertain atmosphere of the trial makes events unpredictable...."There is no difference between a cash bribe or sitting before a federal judge and perjuring one's self, whether it be in the underlying civil deposition or, in fact, the grand jury perjury. Perjury and bribery are side by side," said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)..."

New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/17/99 Vincent Morris by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...As lawyers and lawmakers skirmished over his fate,...Clinton yesterday turned his attention to next week's State of the Union Address - perhaps his most important speech ever....Clinton practiced the speech yesterday...despite his impeachment....But critics, including Rep. Henry Hyde, (R-Ill.), said they probably won't even bother attending the president's State of the Union Address, while others complained of its timing...."I do think it's awkward. It would be a lot better if the president did not come up here while we're right in the middle of this," said Sen. John Chafee, a moderate Republican from Rhode Island...."It could just as easily have waited," added Chafee, who like several lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, said listening to a State of the Union Address in the middle of an impeachment trial is uncomfortable and surreal....Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) refused to say whether he would rally around any of Clinton's comments..."

Detroit News 1/17/99 by Freeper machman ".President Bill Clinton delivers his State of the Union address Tuesday night amid peculiar surroundings. He will be speaking not just to celebrities and dignitaries, but also to 100 men and women charged with determining his political fate. As a result, he will have a forum not merely to communicate with the public, but to tamper with the jury - or, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist prefers to call them, the triers of the case.."

St Louis Post-Dispatch Tim Poor 1/17/99 ".As the White House prepares to present its impeachment defense, it faces the knotty task of calling into question much of the evidence presented by the House while maintaining that no further witnesses are needed. House prosecutors teeter on that same fine line, seeking to convince senators of their airtight case against President Bill Clinton - but also that witnesses were needed to bolster it. By the time House Republicans finished their opening statements on Saturday, some previously skeptical Republicans said they were leaning toward voting to permit the deposition of witnesses, though few Democrats said they were persuaded to do so.."

The Orlando Sentinel 1/17/99 Charley Reese ".It seems to me that most of the Washington pundits have failed to see the real impeachment story. Some are gloating that the Republicans will self- destruct. Others are saying that there aren't enough votes to convict, so why are the silly Republicans pursuing this? The point they are missing is that the Republicans have no intention of removing Bill Clinton from office and never have had. It's quite obvious what the Republicans strategy is, despite what they say in public to disguise it. Step 1: Impeach Clinton. Step 2: Hold a trial in the Senate. Step 3: Sit back and let the Senate Democrats save Clinton. The payoff is obvious. Clinton stays in office, but he stays as a disgraced, ineffective albatross wound around Al Gore's neck as snugly as a hangman's noose. Gore is denied the presidency, is forced to defend Clinton, and remains at risk for any blunders or new scandals Clinton generates during the next 18 months. In the meantime, Republicans can go to the public and say, "We did our duty, we upheld the Constitution and the rule of law, but the dirty, corrupt Democrats preferred to keep a philanderer, perjurer and obstructer of justice in the White House for purely partisan reasons."."

Silicon Valley Logic 1/18/99 ".If censure was the penalty for speeding, would Americans ever obey the laws of the road? .Do President Clinton's supporters believe in the Pledge of Allegiance, or should we perhaps strike the last phrase that guarantees Americans "justice for all"? .If Anita Hill had as much evidence to back up her charges as there is evidence to back the perjury and obstruction charges against President Clinton, would Clarence Thomas be a Supreme Court Justice today? ."

AP 1/17/99 Jim Abrams ".Awaiting the White House defense, Senate jurors sparred Sunday over whether witnesses should testify at President Clinton's impeachment trial. Democrats pledged to call their own witnesses, including independent counsel Kenneth Starr and informant Linda Tripp, if the Republicans press forward. ``It will be a spectacle. It will go on and on, '' Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., said..In addition to the witness debate, partisan lines also were drawn on the legitimacy of the case against Clinton, with Republicans saying House prosecutors last week presented convincing evidence that the president committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Democrats said they'd heard nothing worthy of conviction and again pushed the option of censure.."

Boston Globe 1/17/99 Adam Pertman ".In the end, it seems clear that the House managers weren't really trying to nail down 67 votes in just three days. ''That would have been a very high mountain to climb,'' said David Steward, a defense attorney who represented US District Judge Walter L. Nixon Jr. during his impeachment trial in 1989. ''So they chose to take a different route ... that lets them present their case the best they can.''.Analysts in and out of Congress agree that a majority, if not all, of the Republicans at the end of the month will approve the calling of witnesses, regardless of what the president's lawyers say in their three days of defense. Conversely, all or most Democrats are expected to cast their ballots against live testimony, irrespective of the strength of any arguments the House managers might have made. The reason is simple: Without a damaging surprise from Monica S. Lewinsky or another key witness, the effort to oust Clinton from office seems sure to fail."

AP FoxNews 1/17/99 Laurie Asseo ".If the Senate trial of President Clinton were a regular court case, attempts to influence how the senators vote would be considered jury tampering. In this case, it's perfectly all right. "There's nothing wrong with writing in and saying what's on your mind,'' said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor. "And there's nothing wrong with a senator taking his constituents' views into account as part of the mix. ... I think it's democracy.'' In his first ruling of the impeachment trial, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said Friday the Senate "is not simply a jury; it is a court in this case.'' Therefore, lawyers should not refer to the senators as jurors, he said.."

Washington Weekly 1/18/99 Peter Mulhern by Freeper JeanS ".The flight from personal responsibility is breathtaking. The evidence is overwhelming and still there is no confession of guilt, no meaningful effort to atone. I don't mean William Jefferson Clinton. This time I'm talking about the Democratic Party and its fellow travelers.."

Washington Weekley 1/18/99 Wesley Phelan ".One of the unintended legacies of Bill Clinton's presidency will be the rise to prominence of a new breed of conservative, public interest law firms. The never-ending corruption of the Clinton Administration, including Janet Reno's Justice Department, has demonstrated the need for well-organized, well-staffed private watchdog groups to act as defenders of our constitutional system of government.."

Inside Cover NewsMax.Com 1/17/99 ".Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon told the Arizona Republic it left him "nauseated". Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays told the New York Times it was "horrific". Those are just two of the on the record reactions from House members who have viewed the evidence now being kept under lock and key in D.C.'s Gerald Ford Building -- about a rape allegedly committed in 1978 by then- Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton. Now Inside Cover has learned that the secret House material on the alleged rape of Jane Doe #5, a.k.a. Juanita Broaddrick, is so powerful and convincing that it actually reduced another House member -- a man -- to tears. Thursday night, on CNBC's "Hardball," host Chris Matthews alluded to an unnamed Representative who Matthews said was brought to tears as he reviewed the Broaddrick material.."

LA Times 1/17/99 Art Pine ".By some expectations, Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) ought to be leading a vocal charge in the Senate to remove President Clinton from office. A strait-laced Republican partisan with impeccable conservative credentials, Craig has made no secret of his distaste for Clinton's behavior. As far back as September, he declared that the president "clearly has lied to the American people and has lied to a judge." Yet this week, as the Senate began formally trying Clinton on the impeachment charges brought by the House, Craig took his seat having tempered his ardor, adopting the measured, almost nonpartisan approach to the impeachment question that the Senate as a whole appears to have embraced. Nor is he alone. So have many other of the Senate's most conservative Republicans, among them Oklahoma's Don Nickles and James M. Inhofe, Arizona's Jon Kyl, New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, Missouri's John Ashcroft and Craig's fellow Idahoan, Dirk Kempthorne. "The bottom line is we have taken an oath of impartiality as jurors ordinarily do, and we do have to do impartial justice in this case, whatever one wants to call us," Kyl said in an interview Friday during a break in the impeachment trial.."

Insight Magazine 2/8/99 Paul Rodriguez ".The Senate should be advised not to embarrass the president" by calling on William Jefferson Clinton to testify on his own behalf in the impeachment trial, said former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman on CNN on Jan. 14. With those 10 little words -- the Senate should be advised not to embarrass the president -- Holtzman defined what is wrong with the impeachment debate now raging in America. Not embarrass the president? Good grief, what about the president not embarrassing us! Have Holtzman and her allied swarms of harpies and shills forgotten what has brought our nation to a political standstill, making it the laughingstock of the world?."

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 1/17/99 ".President Clinton last week claimed to have been too occupied with the people's business to monitor his own impeachment trial. Curious disengagement from a man whose job security will be determined by the Senate's verdict. If the upper chamber sustains the accused perjurer in high office, Congress need not compound the error by playing accomplice to Mr. Clinton's latest schemes for mishandling your money:."

Washington Post 1/17/99 Juliet Eilperin ".The Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee are used to negative publicity. They've been labeled zealots by many Democrats and accused of carrying out a vendetta against a duly elected president. Political analysts have blamed them for the party's poor performance in last November's midterm elections. But by yesterday afternoon, the 13 GOP prosecutors from the House had achieved a measure of vindication, pushing their perjury and obstruction-of- justice charges against President Clinton farther than all but a few politicians imagined was possible a few months ago."

Washington Post 1/17/99 Ruth Marcus ".In his presentation to the Senate yesterday urging the removal of President Clinton, Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) spoke two words that go to the very core of the presidential impeachment process: "scary" and "cleanse." "To set aside an election is a very scary thought in a democracy," Graham acknowledged, noting that Clinton had been elected not once, but twice, and remains from the point of view of Graham and many of his Republican colleagues mystifyingly popular..."Cleanse this office," Graham implored, conjuring up the dramatic vision of Vice President Gore stationed outside the Senate chamber to assume the mantle of the presidency if two-thirds vote to convict Clinton. .."

Washington Post 1/18/99 David Broder ".It is hard to imagine how Bill Clinton can push his stratospheric job approval ratings much higher. But on Tuesday, with his State of the Union address, he has a good chance to succeed. Judging by the samples from his goody-bag that he has been handing out in speeches in the past weeks, he will once again promise Americans not only a balanced budget but an array of attractive mini-initiatives that his polling says are sure winners with the public.."

Reuters 1/17/99 Doug Palmer by Freeper Anti0Bubba182 ".A key Senate Republican said Sunday it was likely witnesses will be called in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, despite White House arguments that the Senate already has enough material to judge the case. ``I think it will be pretty tough under these circumstances not to have witnesses,'' Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on NBC's ``Meet The Press. ."

The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ Joyce Howard Price by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "The White House faces a difficult task in getting the Senate to end the impeachment trial of...Clinton, given the powerful case House prosecutor s presented last week, senators of both parties said yesterday....Sen. Dianne Feinstein...asked...whether she believes there are the necessary 51 votes to halt the trial, said, "At this stage, I do not believe there are."...Prominent Republican senators w ho appeared on network talk shows yesterday agreed. "The votes to dismiss are not there," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, chairman of the Rules Committee, said...Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican; Senate Budget Committe e Chairman Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican; and Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas Republican, concurred....The White House "has a heavy burden now," Mr. Hatch said...He argued that Mr. Clinton's attorneys will not be able to "just sweep away the House's case " with a motion to dismiss the impeachment counts before witnesses are heard...."

Landmark Legal Foundation 1/19/99 Mark Levin by Freeper Rob1 ".Clinton is in trouble now because he tried to fix the outcome of a courtcase -- the Paula Jones case. That case was ordered to go forward by the U.S. Supreme Court (9-0). He lost. So what did he do? In front of a federal judge, Susan Webber Wright, he tried to "fix" his case. He assured that false testimony would be given by Monica Lewinsky, via her false affidavit. He lied to the grand jury later. They conspired to hide evidence. These are very, very serious offenses. And I might add one other thing that nobody has focused on -- what Clinton has done to Lewinsky. He conspired with her to commit perjury. The President of the United States, the man who swore an oath to faithfully execute the law, took this young woman and turned her into a criminal. He put her in criminal harm's way. He didn't care if she went to Leavenworth for 25 years. Lewinsky never had any motive to lie. She told 11 people she was having sex with the President, according to the Starr Report."

NY Post 1/18/99 Vincent Morris by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...(Sen. John Kerry)...said that if the Republicans ask Monica Lewinsky to testify in the impeachment trial, Democrats will put Linda Tripp and Sexgate prober Kenneth Starr on the witness stand....there were increasing signs of a partisan meltdown...Democrats and Clinton's lawyers are...opposed to hearing live testimony, while most Republicans seem willing...key Senate Republicans said the prospect of witnesses was more likely...."I think it will be pretty tough under these circumstances not to have witnesses," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said..."If there's a conflict in evidence, then I think we have to look for witnesses," Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) said...Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) agreed. "I would like to see witnesses," he said, although he and other GOPers suggested that if the White House concedes points presented by prosecutors, no witnesses are needed....Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and his...prosecutors are leaning toward asking Clinton to testify on his own behalf...."

Wall Street Journal 1/18/99 "."Don't tamper with this jury," Senator Robert Byrd warned the President from the Senate floor back in October. Now, as the Senate convenes as a jury, scatology king Larry Flynt has launched a blackmail campaign designed to intimidate them into giving the President a pass. Senator Byrd's warning was directed at the White House attempt to get 34 Democratic senators to sign a pledge that they would never remove the president from office even if he were impeached. But it came just three days after Mr. Flynt took out an ad in the Washington Post offering up to $1 million for information about any illicit sexual affairs by Congressmen, that is to say, either Representatives or Senators. But of course the scalps on display all happen to be foes of the President, such as Bob Livingston and Bob Barr. Who can doubt that Senators, if they vote the wrong way, will be next? ."

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 1/18/99 Ralph Reiland Freeper Ditto ".Just six years ago, the chatter was about legendary intellectual brilliance - Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale Law. Now it's just impassioned pleas from taxpayer-paid attorneys, arguing that it doesn't rise to a big deal if the president of the United States harasses women and breaks laws.."

Reuters 1/18/99 ". The White House legal team on Monday will continue fine-tuning a legal defense against charges that President Clinton obstructed justice and lied under oath in trying to hide his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In an ironic twist, White House lawyers will begin presenting their defense in the Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday, the same day that Clinton is slated to give his State of the Union address to Congress.."

Washington Post 1/18/99 A Washington Post reader Mary Vogel ".Monday, January 18, 1999; Page A22 One of the saddest consequences of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair is that we have to read in our newspapers comments from analysts and letter writers that President Clinton should be excused for his behavior because "like most of us, Mr. Clinton is a deeply flawed human being" [letter, Dec. 20]. I beg to differ. Most of us are not deeply flawed human beings. I know many friends and relatives, past and present, who are faithful to their wives or husbands and who do not lie. And, yes, past and present, there are many honorable men and women in public life.."

WorldNetDaily.com 1/18/99 Geoff Metcalf ".As the eyes of the world are turned on the U.S. Senate trail of William Jefferson Clinton, the questions unasked remain the most significant, monumental, and potentially terminal. .National Security: Last week Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post urged the timid, diffident congressional prosecutors to examine "one corner" of the Monica Mess. He observed "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 unchallenged testimony." He went on to note "What did the president do to protect himself, and national security, from blackmail and damage other than propose an absurd cover story to Monica?" Was the Clinton conspiracy to conceal the Monica factor because of embarrassment over a sexual indiscretion, or an effort to thwart Congress and the American people from learning how a foreign intelligence service may have pierced the curtain of White House security?."

NYT 1/18/99 Jill Abramson Neil Lewis ".President Clinton's lawyers are preparing a defense to the Senate on Tuesday that broadly attacks the prosecution case presented by the House managers on the facts, on the law, on the Constitution and even on history. According to several White House advisers, the heart of the President's defense will remain that the charges against him fall far short of the high constitutional standard for impeachment. "This impeachment is a direct affront to that constitutional standard," George J. Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, said today on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." .."

Jewish World Review 1/18/98 Don Feder Freeper Marcellus "."In the past year, Clinton lied repeatedly to the American people, lied under oath and lied again to Congress. Given this record, should I believe anything he now says? Do I have 'sucker ' stamped on my forehead?"....David Brinkley...observed that the president "has not a creative bone in his body. Therefore, he's a bore and will always be a bore."....Apologies to Brinkley, but it's not just that Clinton is unimaginative and insipid (many decent people are both). Bill Clinton is perhaps the most superficial man to ever occupy the White House. His words, like his life, are wholly devoid of substance. What kind of man can drag the highest office in the land through the mire of sexual scandal for more than a year? The same sort who believes that high-sounding, but ultimately hollow, phrases can dignify a dishonored presidency.."

The National Post 1/18/99 Mark Steyn by Freeper Capt. Canuck ".The Slicker has somehow micro-managed an ill-advised pants-drop in a Little Rock hotel into the first impeachment trial of an elected president.."

Sacremento Bee 1/18/99 Muriel Dobbin ".Larry Sabato, a professor of government at the University of Virginia, argued Clinton would not deliver a business-as-usual report to Congress "if he had any shame." "He wants to do it because this is what he is good at," said Sabato. "The Democrats will perform like trained seals, and he will probably be up 10 points in the polls in the morning." ."

AP Pete Yost 1/18/99 ".Resigned that some witnesses may be summoned, President Clinton's lawyers will use past testimony, federal laws and the Founding Fathers' own words to dispute that House prosecutors have made a lies-and-obstruction case worthy of ousting the president. A senior White House adviser said Monday that "we can't worry about'' the repercussions of delving into the facts of the Monica Lewinsky case to aggressively highlight inconsistencies among various accounts of witnesses, including some House prosecutors want to question. Witnesses "seem to us to be a foregone conclusion,'' said the adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We plan to make the most forceful case we can against the evidence.'' .."

Washington Times 1/18/99 "..Washington may be riveted by his historic impeachment trial, but President Clinton has spent most of his time in recent days detailing a litany of spending proposals. The proposed spending spree continued Thursday, even as the House impeachment managers opened the first of three days of arguments in the Senate that Mr. Clinton should be removed from office for perjury and obstruction of justice.. "Every day this week, Bill Clinton has announced a new, big, spending initiative or a new tax increase proposal," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. He suggested the timing is more than a coincidence. Mr. Norquist called the proposals "a direct payoff to his spending interest allies so that they won't be tempted to vote to {remove} him from office." ."

Washington Times 1/18/99 ".The senators deciding the fate of President Clinton are wrestling with the burden of proof that should guide their decision. The possibilities range from a low threshold for conviction - "a preponderance of the evidence" - to the very high standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt." ."

The Cincinnati Enquirer 1/18/99 Billy House Gannett News Service ".A key House prosecutor Sunday raised the possibility that the Senate could vote to convict President Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice, yet choose not to remove him from office. "There's some historical precedent they could do that," said Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., appearing on CBS's Face The Nation. ' 'If you look in the history of impeachment trials in the Senate, I believe you will find that dynamic of where you had two separate votes, and that will certainly be up to the Senate . . . that's, I think a constitutional option," Mr. Graham said. Mr. Graham said it is not his decision to make, "but that would certainly be an interesting dynamic, no doubt about it, in this case." ."

FoxNews 1/18/99 Hannity and Colmes Reported by Freeper Helms ".Henry Hyde to sit out SOTU."

CNN AllPolitics 1/18/99 ".With President Bill Clinton's Senate impeachment trial set to resume Tuesday, the White House is planning an addition to its defense team: three House Democrats who would attack the impeachment process as unfair to the President. Administration sources say Judiciary Committee Democrats John Conyers of Michigan, Thomas Barrett of Wisconsin and Rick Boucher of Virginia are being asked to prepare presentations for the impeachment trial. It was Conyers who, during the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings, called Independent Counsel Ken Starr "a federally paid sex policeman."."

ATR US Newswire 1/18/99 "."Taxpayers should fully expect Bill Clinton to attempt to bribe his jury at the State of the Union speech tomorrow night," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Two years ago, when he was facing re-election and stealing every conservative idea in sight, Bill Clinton declared that the 'era of big government is over.' This year's State of the Union Address will be given while he is facing possible removal from office. Because of that, Bill Clinton will forget his claim from two years ago and put forward a large number of new government spending programs and tax increases. "These new tax-and-spend proposals are nothing but a blatant attempt to persuade liberal Democrats to vote to keep Clinton in office. If any other person on trial did similar things they would be thrown in jail for bribing the jury.."

Christian Science Monitor 1/19/99 Godfrey Sperling by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...(David) Broder...adds: "As Clinton continued to dodge and weave, the self-inflicted damage to the moral authority of the presidency grew."...Broder says that Clinton has "trashed" Washington....Clinton's recklessness has been unbelievable. I think he has trashed Washington, the American people, and the presidency....Broder...was "appalled" last May when Clinton declined to answer this press conference question: "Does it matter if you have committed perjury or broken that law?" "The rule of law," says Broder, "requires any American to give truthful testimony when sworn as a witness in a legal proceeding...and no one is above the law."...Clinton has broken the moral law as well as the law of our courts....I don't accept the "everyone does it" excuse....our presidents still have an exemplary role to play...Clinton has set a terrible example for all our young people...Broder thinks Clinton should resign. I do, too....The sky wouldn't fall. The wounded president would be gone..." ."

The Washington Post 1/19/99 Richard Cohen "."I feel like a character in a novel," Bill Clinton told his aide, Sidney Blumenthal, almost a year ago. The novel he cited was Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" about the Moscow show trials of the 1930s. The parallels are obvious, if not disingenuous. Clinton's problem is not that he is being framed. It is that he's guilty.."

The Associated Press 1/18/99 ".At Martin Luther King Day parades and prayer breakfasts, in their offices and in homes, many blacks said Monday they have a particular stake in the impeachment trial of President Clinton -- a man described as ``the best thing that has happened for blacks in a long time.'' ``If Clinton is removed from office, that's a slap in the face for black America,'' said Mikel Holt, editor of the Milwaukee Community Journal, a black newspaper. ``That's in essence, derailing the civil rights freedom train.'' .To some, the impeachment itself is being driven by fear of minority power. ``My question is, are they really hounding him for his personal transgressions, or (to punish) him for making his administration the most diverse that the country's ever known? That, to me, seems the undertone,'' said Victoria Mares Hershey, first vice president of the NAACP in Portland, Maine. ."

Clinton Investigative Commission http://www.impeachclinton.org 1/18/99 Jack Clayton by A Whitewater Researcher ".Jack Clayton, spokesman for the Clinton Investigative Commission (CIC) will deliver up to 100,000 new petitions (collected from the web site and direct mail) supporting the conviction and removal from office of...Clinton. Mr. Clayton will begin at Sen. Bob Kerrey's office at 11 am on Tuesday, January 19th and will present paper petitions and diskettes....The House impeachment team has concluded their presentation for Clinton's conviction and removal from office...these opening proceedings were filled with persuasive arguments and strong factual evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice. (For a full account of the trial to date, please visit CIC's "News on Capitol Hill" headline at http://www.impeachclinton.org/news/index.html)....A pro-impeachment crowd of CIC members attended the beginning proceedings of the historic impeachment trial of Clinton...if body language...is any indication of serious interest and impartiality, it did not exist on the Democratic side... "

The Arizona Republic 1/19/99 Chris Moeser ".Texas Sen. Phil Gramm joked he'd rather go to the dentist than attend President Clinton's State of the Union address tonight. Rep. John Shadegg isn't going at all. Shadegg, R-Ariz., is boycotting the speech, saying it wouldn't be appropriate for him to go. "This is strange and strained," Shadegg said late Monday. "My view was to sit there and pretend that that wasn't the case would require a level of pretense that I just didn't think was appropriate." Shadegg points out that only last month, Clinton was ripping House members for voting for two impeachment counts. And recently, Clinton has accused Congress of focusing so intently on impeachment that nothing else can get done. But Clinton is willing to go to the House to give his speech, in effect having it both ways, Shadegg said.."

NY Post 1/19/99 Dick Morris ".PRESIDENT Clinton is finally feeling his own pain.. But now there are no more last-minute bells, no more Hillary pep-rallies to convince him that all is really well. The humiliation and shame of the Senate impeachment trial is in his face. And it hurts. His pain is real; he's in agony. Don't believe the preposterous spin coming out of the White House: that the president is simply too busy doing the work of the American people to even think about what the Senate is doing, that he has only spent 10 minutes listening to his lawyer's summary of the Senate proceeding. Those are deliberate and stupid lies designed to create a surreal fantasy of life in the White House.."

The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ 1/19/99 John Godfrey Andrew Cain by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle said yesterday that witnesses "may be inevitable" in...Clinton's impeachment trial -- a key goal of GOP House prosecutors in the case....But speaking the day before...Clinton's attorneys open three days of defense against charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, the South Dakota Democrat warned that a Senate decision to allow witnesses sets the stage for a protracted trial...."Who are we to tell either the House or the White House how they're going to run their case?" Mr. Daschle asked....White House attorneys tried to decide just that yesterday, putting the finishing touches on their rebutt al to the case outlined last week by House prosecutors....White House counsel Charles F.C. Ruff, today's only planned speaker, formally begins the president's defense at 1 p.m. in the well of the Senate, giving senators a broad outline of the president's defense. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart would not discuss the schedule for tomorrow and Thursday...."

International Herald Tribune 1/19/99 ".The icy streets of Washington have been deceptively quiet. No demonstrators. No placards. Not a sign that the republic is riven over the legitimacy of this presidential impeachment. But don't be fooled by the wintry calm. The American people are speaking. And speaking and speaking and speaking. They are speaking so much that the Senate e-mail system overloaded last week when the usual influx of 70,000 messages a day shot up to a whopping half-million. .The phones, meanwhile, hardly stop ringing in offices of the 100 senators or anybody else prominently associated with the trial of President Bill Clinton.Public opinion polls are one thing. But this tidal wave of e-mail, faxes, telegrams, letters and phone calls are the unfiltered voice of the people, the true measure of a nation that is incensed, fixated, bored and exhausted by the latest trial of the century, all at the same time."

Roll Call Morton Kondrake 1/18/99 ".More than anything, President Clinton's State of the Union address tomorrow night is likely to be a poignant reminder of what an awful waste this presidency has become.. There probably never was a chance that Clinton could be classed as a "great" President by historians -- that designation requires overcoming some huge challenge -- but now he'll be lucky to rate more than "below average." In fact, last week's devastating exposition of the obstruction of justice case against Clinton by Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.) even makes it thinkable for the first time that Clinton might be forced out of office. That eventuality -- still unlikely -- would render Clinton a "failure" along with Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding and Richard Nixon.."

New York Times 1/19/99 Richard Berke ".A telling sign of the impeachment troubles confronting the Republicans is that they are so fearful of ceding the White House and the Democrats a political advantage that they would not dare boycott President Clinton's State of the Union address on Tuesday night, though some considered doing so. This is no time to seem whiny or pettily partisan.. "

New York Times 1/19/99 Bruce Barlett by Freeper Lex ".It would be clever politics for Mr. Clinton to pre-empt Congress and call for across-the-board tax relief. If forced to choose between a popular tax cut and pressing forward with a politically unpopular impeachment trial, there is little doubt Republicans will select the former over the latter. A tax cut could become the President's secret weapon.."

ABCNews.Com 1/19/99 Brian Hartman ". Adding to the team of private and government lawyers working the Clinton defense, ABCNEWS has learned, will be several Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee..Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, is being tapped to put together a three-man team of House members who fought for Clinton during the House impeachment hearings. Who better to take on the case made last week by Republicans from the committee than the Democrats who sparred with them on a daily basis during impeachment hearings? .."

National Journal 1/16/99 Stuart Taylor Freeper Marcellus ".Does all this mean that Senators are unprincipled if they vote to acquit Clinton? Not necessarily. Senators could, of course, find Clinton innocent of some or all of the factual allegations -- although not, in fairness, without first hearing the witnesses against him. Failing that, Senators could oppose removal on the grounds 1) that the Claiborne and Walter Nixon precedents were wrong; 2) that the Constitution prescribes a lower standard of impeachability for Presidents than for judges; 3) that Clinton's alleged crimes are less grave than Claiborne's or Walter Nixon's; or 4) that discretionary considerations counsel against removing Clinton, even if he is proven guilty of high crimes. The first three arguments are untenable; the fourth is respectable although not, in my view, persuasive.."

Washington Times 1/19/99 Wesley Pruden ".The more Algonquin J. Calhoun and the crack legal team dispute the case against Bill Clinton as brought by the House of Representatives, the more the senators will need the testimony of witnesses to sort out the lies, evasions, half-truths, misinformation and disinformation offered by and in behalf of the president. Trying to run a trial without witnesses is like a honeymoon without a bride, as any first-year student at any semi-respectable hairdressing institute could tell you, on par with the notion that lies under oath about sex are OK, and yesterday Tom Daschle, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, gave it up. He conceded that calling witnesses is "inevitable." Welcome back to reality."

Jewish World Review 1/19/99 Thomas Sowell http://www.jewishworldreview.com by CHIEF negotiator ".IN THE OLD MOVIE "DOG DAY AFTERNOON," a bank was robbed for the purpose of getting money to finance a sex-change operation. But, even in the movies, nobody tried to claim that this was "all about sex." As far as the law was concerned, it was all about bank robbery. If the bank had been robbed to get money to pay off a mortgage or send a child to college, it would have been just as illegal and the personal motivation just as irrelevant.."

The State, Columbia SC 1/19/99 Freeper newsman ".Rep. Lindsey Graham did the state proud when he spoke Saturday before the U.S. Senate urging President Clinton's removal. Using common sense, personal touches and plain talk, Mr. Graham framed the president's outrageous behavior in ways senators -- and average citizens -- could relate to.."

AP 1/19/99 Laurie Kellman ".Ruff, a imposing figure in Washington legal circles for two decades, challenged the evidence laid out against Clinton by 13 Republican House prosecutors last week and said the White House welcomed the opportunity to prove Clinton's innocence. ``Some have suggested that we have feared to do so. We do not,'' Ruff told the senators as the trial resumed after a two-day recess. ``William Jefferson Clinton is not guilty of the charges,'' Ruff argued. ``He did not commit perjury. He did not obstruct justice. He must not be removed from office.''."

Boston Herald 1/19/99 Freeper I'mPeach ".The fact that President Clinton's adversaries will attend his State of the Union speech tonight is a sign of the respect they hold for the institution of which he has been such a dreadful custodian. ``Quite frankly, I'd rather go to the dentist. But I intend to go,'' said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas). ``I'm going to applaud. I'm going to be respectful.'' It promises to be a depressing speech. Bill Clinton could scale untouched heights of windy rhetoric.. The phenomenon of spin doctors reminds us of Lincoln's warning: ``It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time.'' The warning is well-known. Less well-known is Lincoln's preceding sentence: ``If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.'' Whatever the polls show, Clinton has long since forfeited the nation's confidence. The speech is best considered as spectacle, nothing more.."

Capitol Hill Blue 1/19/99 Doug Thompson Freeper CHIEF negotiator ".At or about 2100 hours EST (that 9:00 p.m. for the rest of you), the First Felon will get up in front of a Congress that really doesn't like him and deliver the annual State of the Union address to an American public that really doesn't trust him.."

LA Times 1/19/99 Edwin Chen ".With the prospects increasing for a full-length impeachment trial complete with witnesses, support in the Senate for censuring President Clinton as an alternative to removal from office is eroding among Democrats and Republicans alike. The emerging bipartisan opposition to censure further clouds the outlook on how the impeachment trial will be resolved.. Another top Republican, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the chief deputy whip, went so far as to say that he would filibuster a censure proposal--a gambit that would require 60 votes to overcome. But with only 45 members, Democrats may be hard-pressed to persuade 15 Republicans to join then in voting for censure.."

NewsMax 1/18/99 Hap Barko ". A NewsMax.com reader, Hap Barko, sent us a fascinating email: While listening to Saturday's presentation before the Senate, I was struck by words Congressman Lindsey Graham used in discussing "crimes" that may be impeachable. In fact, I was struck so hard by them, I think he understands what's really going on. The similarity between his choice of words and the President's crimes (that are being ignored) are, I believe, not coincidental. .. "This hits it head on. Impeachable conduct does not have to occur in the course of the performance of the 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. "That, of course, is the situation in this case. "It would be absurd to conclude that a judge who committed murder, mayhem, rape or perhaps espionage in his private life, could not be removed from office by the U.S. Senate. .."

Newsmax 1/19/99 Linda Bowles ".When this president stands before us making promises, can he be believed?. Can we afford to tolerate a system of government in which federal judges are removed from office for perjury but the man who appoints them is not, when members of the military are discharged for sexual misbehavior but their commander is not, when other politicians are imprisoned for obstructing justice but the chief magistrate is not, and when private citizens are imprisoned for lying under oath but the chief law enforcement officer of the country is not? ."

The American Cause 1/19/99 Patrick Buchanan ". Given 24 hours to present their case, the House managers spoke in a hushed Senate chamber, for once uninterrupted by the aging student radicals of the Judiciary Committee and demagogic rants from the House floor. So it was that the strength and power of the case against the president was brought home. Even Senate Democrats conceded by week's end that, on the facts as presented, Bill Clinton lied under oath to corrupt a civil trial and perjured himself to a U.S. grand jury to cover up his felonies. Yet, though they may seethe with rage at Clinton's stupidity, Democratic senators still do not want one of their own to be the first president removed from office for criminal misconduct. They will be looking for a way to give themselves cover while distancing themselves from Bill Clinton -- to condemn him without removing him. Thus, if Clinton is acquitted by 34 liberal Democrats, his party will revive the censure option. Republicans should seal off this escape hatch, so the Democrats are compelled to do their moral duty -- either convict Clinton and remove him from office, or declare him innocent of all high crimes.."

Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier 1/19/99 Editorial ".The president's continuing denials of charges that he committed perjury before a federal grand jury and obstructed justice seem at variance with the factual record - at least as it was thoroughly presented by the House prosecution team during its opening arguments last week. Yet the president's attorneys, in their first line of defense, will insist that the House's case is based upon misinterpretations - and that Mr. Clinton is not guilty. Unfortunately for the president, the obstruction charge now looms much larger than it did before Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., delivered a convincing review of the evidence - including a highly incriminating time frame. As one Washington insider put it Sunday on ABC's "This Week":"The White House is going to have to put up a full-fledged, 100 percent defense on the facts, on the law, on the Constitution. And most important, now they're really going to have to go at the argument of obstruction of justice, because Congressman Hutchinson, by showing the intensification of activity in December of '97, and by showing the coaching of Betty Currie, I think, hurt the White House badly." That wasn't a member of any vast, right-wing conspiracy talking. That was George Stephanopoulos, former top-level aide to President Clinton, assessing the high stakes of the defense presentation.."

Houston Chronicle 1/18/99 Cal Thomas Freeper hope ".What the House impeachment managers experienced in their compelling presentation of the facts in the trial of William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, recalls the words of that good old boy in the film, "Cool Hand Luke." What they had there -- as they pleaded with many moderate and liberal senators and with the public -- was a failure to communicate to a generation unfamiliar with law, reason, history and an unchanging moral code.Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) repeatedly appealed to such things as "sacred honor" to hold accountable a president who is interested only in saving his skin.. Hyde spoke of a "covenant" of truth between a president and the people... The president's behavior, said Hyde, is about "the rule of law vs. the rule of raw power." But Clinton is a man for whom the law is just another obstacle he will surmount to get his way, even with an intern, or to compromise the integrity of others..."

NewsMax 1/19/99 Tony Snow ". Bill Clinton will do what any president would do under the circumstances. He will crow about good times and insinuate that Congress ought to do his will. This is how all State of the Union addresses work, and it explains why they are such colossal bores. The speech attempts to transform the dull statistical columns of the federal budget into a symphonic score -- a feat that is as impossible as alchemy. Not one is memorable for politics or oratory. This would include the one I helped write. But beneath the dreary recitation of programs and promises one will be able to detect a second message this year -- one that politicians will transmit with body language and outward behavior; with their cheers, huzzahs and pointed silences. Washington, you see, is a town on edge -- rife with tension, cleaved by pandemic distrust and exhausted by the carnal peregrinations of the commander in chief. To liven the drama, an accused man will offer goodies to his jury, the Senate. According to historian/Capitol Hill denizen Al Felzenberg, Andrew Johnson successfully bribed his way out of impeachment, using the powers and emoluments at his disposal. The combination of battle fatigue and potential conflicts could give television viewers an opportunity to see something almost never witnessed at these fetes: empty seats.."

MSNBC 1/19/99 by RAJ ".Judiciary Committee Member Boucher declines White House offer to join Ruff's defense team."

AP 1/19/99 ".Excerpts from President Clinton's defense presentation before the Senate, as transcribed by the Federal Document Clearing House: ``The principal focus of the discovery being conducted by the Jones lawyers during this period was not on the merits of their client's case. They devoted most of their time and their energy to attempts to pry into the personal life of the president. Mr. Bennett, the president's counsel, objected to those efforts on the ground that they had no relevance in Ms. Jones' claims, and were intended to do nothing other than advance the agendas of those who were supporting Ms. Jones' lawsuit.'' - Ruff. ..``The (House Judiciary) committee called no fact witnesses. ``Despite numerous efforts to extract from the committee some description of the specific charges against which the president would have to defend himself, it was not until approximately 4:30 on Dec. 9, as I was completing my testimony before the committee, that any such notice was provided. ``And then it came in the form of four draft articles of impeachment. ``Three days later, the committee reported out those articles.'' - Ruff.."

FoxNews 1/19/99 Freeper Wil H reporting ".Last Thursday, the only hole the White House tried to pick in the House Manager's argument was to challenge Sensenbrenner's assertion that Ruff had agreed that a reasonable person might conclude that Clinton had lied. Ruff quoted a DIFFERENT exchange in Ruffs rebuttal to that which Senesenbrenner was refering to. Sensenbrenner then made a public statement to rebut Ruff's rebuttal, and set the record straight. That notwithstanding, Ruff has just disengenuosly accused Sensenbrenner of not telling the truth, citing his original defence that HE KNOWS was innaccurate and has been rebutted by Sensenbrenner.."

Drudge Report 1/19/99 ". "This is outrageous, arrogant and will do nothing to help the president's case!" The reaction of a senior Republican senator after he learned on Tuesday that Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills would be presenting the Clinton defense on Lewinsky obstruction charges in the Senate impeachment trial. Late last year Mills herself was hit with charges of wrongdoing by a House subcommittee investigating the White House Database situation. When called before the committee to explain the withholding of documents in the congressional probe, Cheryl Mills chose to give "demonstrably false testimony," a committee report claimed...The Mills matter was referred to the Department of Justice for investigation of possible perjury and obstruction, according to Hill sources.."

Weekly Standard 1/25/99 David Tell ".This week advocates for the Clinton White House will speak from the Senate rostrum. At first blush, they will seem-to any serious student of the Lewinsky scandal-to be making an implicit, highly unflattering judgment about the intelligence of the 100 senators. If extensive legal documents recently filed on the president's behalf are any guide, his lawyers will spend the next few days ostensibly inviting the Clinton impeachment jury to believe a great many truly stupid arguments: That the case is best explained by reference to the vindictiveness and venality of Kenneth Starr and Paula Jones, respectively; That the president "is guilty of personal failings" exclusively, failings for which he has nevertheless "appropriately" apologized to the nation; That the charge of actual, more-than-private criminality on Clinton's part turns only on the fevered exaggeration of abject trivia-such as that "he used the phrase 'certain occasions' to describe eleven events over some 500 days"; And that the relevant law and evidence are so soggy with ambiguity that the president's pre-August Lewinsky cover stories might still somehow be "literally true"; his insistence that fellatio is not sex might still somehow be "totally reasonable"; and his protestations of innocence might still somehow be the only testimony we are obliged to take at face value.."

1/19/99 Matt Drudge ".By one count, at least 14 senators fell asleep for 5 minutes or more during White House Ruff's presentation this afternoon. They included several Democrats: Leahy, Levin, Robb, John Kerrey, Chris Dodd, Lieberman, and Robert Byrd, according to one insider. This was the 3rd day in a row that Byrd seemed to have had problems staying awake. The Republicans that were noticed sleeping were Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond... "

FoxNews Carl Cameron 1/19/99 by Freeper dlm ".Carl Cameron just reported on Brit Hume's Special Report that the House Managers are still pursuing the Jane Doe's."

The Associated Press 1/19/99 Pete Yost ".White House lawyer Charles Ruff's mission Tuesday was to create doubts about the strength of the evidence against President Clinton. In highlighting the weaknesses, Ruff denounced House managers for occasional ``fudge-making.'' But in the process, Ruff did some ``fudge-making'' of his own. In his remarks to the Senate, Ruff suggested Clinton lawyer Robert Bennett had invited lawyers for Paula Jones to ask Clinton pointed questions last Jan. 17 about the nature of any sexual activity between the president and Monica Lewinsky. ``Mr. Bennett at the time of the deposition pressed the Jones lawyers to ask the president specific questions about his conduct, rather than rely on this confusing definition they proffered,'' said Ruff. That was less than the full picture. At the start of Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition, Bennett did say that the Jones lawyers should ask the president, ``What happened ..., what did you do, what didn't you do'' in regard to Clinton's alleged relationships with various women. But when the deposition turned to Monica Lewinsky, Bennett tried to put a stop to the questioning as the Jones lawyers inquired whether Clinton and the former White House intern had ever gone into a hallway leading from the Oval Office to a private kitchen.."

The Associated Press 1/19/99 ".Text of House Managers' Response.WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: White House Counsel Charles Ruff today claimed that the managers have only alleged that President Clinton lied to the grand jury about the nature and timing of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. THE TRUTH: Here are four examples of perjurious statements made to the grand jury: 1. ``I was trying to figure out what the facts were.'' -- President Clinton, grand jury testimony, Aug. 17, 1998. This was the president's perjurious response as to why he was coaching Betty Currie, a potential witness.2. ``I wasn't paying a great deal of attention.'' -- President Clinton, grand jury testimony, Aug. 17, 1998. .3. ``My goal in this deposition was to be truthful.'' -- President Clinton, grand jury testimony, Aug. 17, 1998..4. ``I said to them things that were true about the relationship.'' -- President Clinton, grand jury testimony, Aug. 17, 1998.."

Freeper jimbo123 reports 1/19/99 ".According to Rep. Steve Chabot, a House Manager in the impeachment prosecution, Kathleen Willey has NOT BEEN RULED OUT as an Impeachment Trial Witness. He said the Washington Post story last week was NOT totally on the mark and was based on the comments of only ONE House Manager. Also "pattern of practices" witnesses may be called later.."

Washington Post 1/20/99 Helen Dewar Guy Gugliotta Freeper TxTruth ".White House counsel Charles F.C. Ruff Tuesday drew strong praise from senators of both parties for his opening defense of President Clinton, raising Democrats' spirits but reinforcing Republican demands that witnesses be called in the Senate's impeachment trial.."

WorldNetDaily.com Jon E. Dougherty 1/20/99 ".Shortly before Christmas, President Clinton signed clemency orders for 33 criminals, including three who had been convicted of lying under oath.."

NY Times 1/20/99 John Broder ".First his lawyers argued that President Clinton, an invisible presence in the well of the Senate courtroom, should not be removed from office for anything he had done. Then the President himself, towering above the three branches of government assembled in the House chamber, presented the case for his continuance in office on the basis of what he had yet to do."

ABC Nightline Freeper Dan Day 1/19/99 reports ".ABC Nightline just reported that an offhand remark by Lott was overheard by several reporters. Lott is quoted as having said, immediately after the State of the Union Address, "I swear, that's the worst I've ever heard, the man has no shame."."

New York Post1/20/99 Laura Italiano ".President Clinton repeatedly gave Americans the pointy finger last night - a gesture that demonstrates he's still more defiant than embarrassed about his impeachment troubles, body language experts said. Clinton turned his anger over impeachment outward, using numerous aggressive gestures - the swinging fist, the squint, the pointed finger - that experts said gave viewers this message: "I'm right, you're wrong." "When he wags his pointed finger at us, he's being defiant," said Kevin Hogan, author of "The Psychology of Persuasion."."

The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ 1/20/99 Andrew Cain by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "The White House yesterday scrapped a plan to add House Democrats to...Clinton's defense team after a leading Senate Democrat called the move inappropri ate....Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat and keeper of Senate traditions, called presentations by Democratic House members "unwise."..."I have reservations about the participation in this impeachment trial by any current House members, Democrati c or Republican, who have not been officially designated as participants by the House of Representatives," Mr. Byrd said...."I have concerns that such participation might set an unwise precedent."...The White House had hoped to add formal presentations fr om three Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee to help lock in Democratic senators' support during the first presidential impeachment trial in 131 years....But Mr. Bumpers, 73, who represented Arkansas in the Senate for four terms, will address senat ors on the Senate floor today or tomorrow, to discuss constitutional standards appropriate."

New York Post 1/20/99 Dick Morris ".THE president's State of the Union speech - with its emphasis on "values" issues like education, retirement and crime - boiled down to a plea to "do as I say, not as I do." ."

Wall Street Journal 1/20/99 John Taylor by Freeper Socks C. ".During the impeachment trial on Saturday, I stood with nine new Nixon library volunteers before a mural showing President Nixon waving to family and friends as he left the White House on Aug. 9, 1974. As always on these tours, I told them how painful the moment must have been, since resignation wasn't inevitable.."

New York Post 1/20/99 Deborah Orin ".IMPEACHMENT? What impeachment? That's the message in President Clinton's State of the Union speech, with its list of new goodies: that Clinton has better things to do than fret over impeachment, and he hopes the American people agree. The White House strategy assumed that Clinton's speech would send his job-approval polls even higher, thus sending a not-so-subtle message to senators to cool it with impeachment. Only one problem: Most senators, including key Democrats, don't seem to be listening to the polls - they're listening to the evidence. They're not sequestered, but many are acting as if they were. "There's nothing that Clinton can do with his State of the Union speech that will affect his Senate trial, because the senators are taking this thing very seriously on its own terms," said presidential scholar Stephen Hess.."

Florida Times-Union 1/20/99 Freeper newsman ".In 1974, President Nixon was facing impeachment. If he had been removed from office, it would have "overturned the election" of 1972. Even after months and months of investigation and media coverage of Watergate, a majority of Americans did not want Nixon removed from office, according to public opinion polls. But Nixon's Republican Party deserted him. His political base crumbled. He knew he would have been removed from office for obstructing justice. Nixon, often not an honorable man, did the honorable thing in the face of political reality. He resigned.President Clinton has said he will not resign. Never. Under any circumstances. But Democrats are forming a protective ring around the liberal Democrat, alleging that removing him from office would overturn the 1996 election results. (Voters elected Clinton and Al Gore; Gore would assume Clinton's duties.) .."

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Inc. 1/20/99 Freeper eleven ".CLINTON APOLOGISTS across the country organized rallies last night to defend their hero but, to quote a dispatch from the Washington Post, "a number of anti-impeachment leaders said they are having difficulty building enthusiasm." A rally in Washington on the president's behalf had to be canceled for lack of interest. Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women Except Paula Jones, offered this explanation: "Many of our activists are suffering from war-weariness about this." But folks on the other side seem to be revving up their campaign for the president's impeachment--and now conviction--despite the conventional wisdom that they don't have a chance to get that two-thirds' majority in the Senate. They're probably just as weary, but they're still mobilized."

Weekly Standard 1/25/99 David Tell ".This week advocates for the Clinton White House will speak from the Senate rostrum. At first blush, they will seem-to any serious student of the Lewinsky scandal-to be making an implicit, highly unflattering judgment about the intelligence of the 100 senators. If extensive legal documents recently filed on the president's behalf are any guide, his lawyers will spend the next few days ostensibly inviting the Clinton impeachment jury to believe a great many truly stupid arguments: .. This much of the president's defense will be all-too-familiar. But his attorneys will treat the Senate to at least one brand-new dumb idea, as well. Clinton's Senate trial, the White House now proclaims, is not just unwarranted by the evidence or legal-standard precedents, but outright "unconstitutional." The president, you see, is impeached before the Senate for "one or more" of four specified categories of grand jury perjury, and "one or more" of seven specified categories of obstruction of justice. By those "one or more" conjunctive clauses, his lawyers complain, the Clinton impeachment articles violate the president's Fifth Amendment due-process rights. For it is not enough that 67 senators agree Bill Clinton is guilty of some act of perjury or obstruction; they must all agree about precisely how he committed the crime.."

Savannah Morning News 1/20/99 Freeper newsman ".Although House Republican impeachment managers received generally positive reviews -- even from Democrats -- for their presentation before the Senate last week in the trial of President Clinton, the common analysis heard afterward was that "we haven't heard anything new".... Republicans respond: You want something new? Let's call witnesses."

Nightline 1/15/99 Robert Krulwich ABC News Freeper L.N. Smithee ". "A Public Confession of Adultery," as it says on the cover, written and paid for by Hamilton himself. With all the details, this time published for the whole country to see. And Maria Reynolds became as well known then as Monica Lewinsky is today, which was a terrible humiliation to Mrs Alexander Hamilton. But it was the only way he could see, sacrificing himself personally was the only way he could see to protect the integrity of the Treasury Department."."

Washington Weekly 1/20/99 J Peter Mulhern Freeper Sigi ".Every Sunday a phalanx of Democrat politicians hits the airwaves to argue that perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering are not "high crimes and misdemeanors," at least not when committed by a Democrat president during an economic expansion. This argument has no basis in constitutional law. It is a lie offered in defense of other lies. By amplifying that lie Democrats bring their entire party down to Clinton's level.."

Capitol Hill Blue 1/20/99 ".Also conspicuously absent when the justices of the Supreme Court entered the House chamber was Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is presiding over the Senate trial deciding whether to remove Clinton from office. Rehnquist's aides reportedly had questioned whether it was appropriate for him to attend the speech.."

Abilene Reporter-News 1/20/99 Linda Chavez Freeper newsman ".Having all but conceded defeat in their efforts to block witnesses in the impeachment trial, Senate Democrats are now hoping to turn the tables by threatening to call Ken Starr to testify. "Front and center is going to be Kenneth Starr. We're going to put the system of justice on trial," warned Sen. Robert Torrecelli, D-N.J. It's the O.J. Simpson trial redux...."

The State newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina 1/20/98 MICHELLE R. DAVIS Freeper gocowboys "."There was an unreal nature talking about the state of the union without talking about what's occupying at least Washington these days," said Charleston Republican Rep. Mark Sanford, who likened it to a family with a crazy relative in the room, pretending the odd behavior doesn't exist. "If Uncle Joe is sitting in the room drooling on himself or yelling ... and everybody tries to pretend he isn't there, it creates a tense situation. I think it's always better to acknowledge the obvious." GOP Rep. Lindsey Graham of Seneca, one of 13 House prosecutors in the impeachment trial, said Clinton's failure to comment on the trial showed "a total disregard for the rule of law."."

AP 1/20/99 Curt Anderson ".Even before President Clinton's State of the Union address, Republicans outlined their own agenda -- led by a 10 percent income tax cut -- partly to demonstrate they will tackle issues other than impeachment. ``No matter what the outcome of the president's situation, life in America will go on,'' Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., said in the GOP's nationally broadcast response to Clinton's speech Tuesday night. ``Our lives will continue to be filled with practical matters, not constitutional ones.'' .."

UPI 1/20/99 Freeper CharlotteVRWC ".Trent Lott, after sitting through President Clinton's State of the Union address."that's got to be the worst I ever heard." ."the man has no shame." ."

Daily Republican 1/20/99 Mike Rathco Freeper hope ".President Clinton repeatedly gave Americans the finger last night. It was an unmistakable message of "I'm right, you're wrong ... when he wags his pointed finger at us, he's being defiant," said Kevin Hogan, author of Psychology of Persuasion. He was angry and intense. His overly rehearsed gestures seemed unnatural and crudely out of place in the stately House of Representatives Chamber. He also incorporated the display of his crooked finger, the squinted eyes and a jabbing fist in the air. These ingenuous devices deadened any message of conciliation. Gone was the confidence man charisma that Mr. Clinton has often attempted to project in his public rhetoric.."

The Oklahoman 1/20/99 Pat Buchanan ".Yet, though they may seethe with rage at Clinton's stupidity, Democratic senators still do not want one of their own to be the first president removed from office for criminal misconduct. They will be looking for a way to give themselves cover while distancing themselves from Bill Clinton -- to condemn him without removing him. Thus, if Clinton is acquitted by 34 liberal Democrats, his party will revive the censure option. Republicans should seal off this escape hatch, so the Democrats are compelled to do their moral duty -- either convict Clinton and remove him from office, or declare him innocent of all high crimes..If Democrats wish to censure their leader, they have the power to do it in their own caucuses. But if they introduce a motion on the floor, Republicans should abstain. If Bill Clinton is to be censured by Congress, let the Democrats alone vote to condemn him. Then, we shall see whether they are sincere in their professed disgust at Clinton's conduct or if they are as cynical as those House members who, after begging for an opportunity to censure Clinton for disgraceful misconduct, boarded buses for a Rose Garden rally to cheer their imperfect but beloved leader.."

Chicago Sun-Times 1/20/99 Dennis Byrne ".Like an ill, chill wind, the idea of ``jury nullification'' has entered the Senate in the trial of President Clinton. In a nutshell, the idea allows jurors to convict or acquit a defendant based not just on the law and the facts of the case, but also on some other vague notion that strikes their fancy. A black man accused of murder, a.k.a. O.J. Simpson, can be acquitted, for example, because a racist society brought him to trial. Or, someone charged with burning down a black church should be freed because jurors don't agree with hate crime laws. Such ``jury independence'' sometimes appears in criminal trials, but it surprisingly popped up last week in the Clinton trial when Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) objected to the senators being called ``jurors.''."

NPR-Pacifica Network Freeper d14truth reporting call ins ". Two in a row--Both saying that perjury and obstruction of justice rise to the level of removal from office. Also, they recognized that the election would not be overturned, and that Al Gore and others would be capable of leading the country."

1/20/99 Freeper L.N. Smithee on defense ".I want to bleeping scream. I knew that the race card would be played here sometime, and here it is in the appearance of Cheryl Mills, implying that she is more sensitive to fairness of the law toward all because she is African-American. . It is a good thing I am not in the gallery. I would take off my shoe and throw it at her. Let me interject at this point that I am black.."

The Hill A B Stoddard Philippe Shepnick 1/20/99 ".House managers in President Clinton's impeachment trial are weighing the introduction of controversial new evidence when the Senate addresses the question of witnesses next week.. Rep. Jim Rogan (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that he and the other managers are considering "some evidence within the realm of what has been referred to as Jane Doe witnesses." Rogan added, "I am very interested in what our investigation has shown may be a common pattern of conduct with respect to this president getting false affidavits signed, just as he did with Monica Lewinsky. That evidence may prove relevant to bolster her claim to prove the president engaged in a pattern of repetitive obstruction."."

American Spectator 1/20/99 James Ring Adams ".TV talking heads ignored the most delightfully ironic feature of White House lawyer Charles Ruff's defense of the President Tuesday; his constitutional argument directly repudiated one of the First Lady's proudest achievements. Shortly after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973, Hillary Rodham Clinton went to work for the Watergate impeachment task force of the House Judiciary Committee.She is widely credited with the research for the historical section of its report, which set a very flexible standard for the removal of Richard Nixon. She put the bar so low, in fact, that her work is now a major embarrassment for the White House defense team. Ruff almost explicitly disavowed it in his presentation to the Senate on January 19, instead citing as his authority the Watergate impeachment report issued by the Republican minority.."

San Antonio Express News 1/20/99 Letter to the editor ".Undue emphasis is being placed upon the importance of public opinion polls. Our Founding Fathers would have ignored such polls because, as a rule, they had little confidence in the people. .Overall, we have not fared as badly as some of our Founding Fathers had feared because the American people through the years have done a pretty good job selecting their leaders. On the other hand, the people have also exhibited a woefully inadequate knowledge of other government intricacies, including the U.S. Constitution. As a college history professor, I'll wager that no more than 20 percent of the American people know that James Madison was the principal author of our Constitution and an even smaller percentage can tell you much about the specifics of the document."

FoxNews 1/20/99 David Espo ".House-passed articles of impeachment are "flawed and unfair," President Clinton's legal team argued before the Senate on Wednesday in a finely detailed, sometimes emotional defense that challenged each claim of perjury and obstruction of justice. The allegations "do not justify the nullification of a free election," said Special Counsel Gregory Craig. Craig and Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills spliced together videotape, transcripts and even the words of House prosecutors as they challenged claims that Clinton broke the law to cover up a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. Accusing the House prosecutors of substandard legal work, Craig said at one point, "It is hard to take the charges seriously." And in an emotional summation at day's end, Mills, told the Senate the "house of civil rights will not fall" if Clinton is acquitted. Clinton's accusers say that by his actions in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, he sought to deny her civil rights.."

FoxNews 1/20/99 David Espo ".One prominent conservative Republican, Pat Robertson, conceded the president had "hit a home run" with his nationally televised speech. "From a public relations standpoint, he's won ... They might as well dismiss this impeachment hearing and get on with something else, because it's over as far as I'm concerned," Robertson said on The 700 Club television show..Republican prosecutors became more aggressive about contesting points being made by the president's lawyers. They issued a stream of written rebuttals during the day and took advantage of breaks in the trial to go before microphones outside the room and make their points in person."

Washington Post 1/21/99 Ruth Marcus ".The White House yesterday took a scalpel to the perjury accusations against President Clinton, persuasively paring away some of what it called "trivial" allegations of specific lies to the grand jury investigating his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky. But at the close of the second day of arguments by Clinton's lawyers, some of the bigger questions about the truthfulness of Clinton's testimony -- perhaps most important, the stark disparity between his account and Lewinsky's about the precise sexual details of their encounters -- remained unresolved. White House special counsel Gregory B. Craig . did not counter the House prosecutors' fundamental argument on the perjury charge: that Clinton had a clear motive to lie to the grand jury about the exact nature of his encounters with Lewinsky because telling the truth would have amounted to an admission that he flat-out lied when he was questioned in the Paula Jones civil case. Likewise, tackling pieces of the obstruction-of-justice case against Clinton, deputy White House counsel Cheryl D. Mills ..had a tougher time refuting the other part of the obstruction case relating to Currie: the president's alleged efforts to tamper with her potential testimony when he summoned her to the White House for an unusual Sunday session the day after the Jones deposition, and recited a series of false statements about his relationship with Lewinsky.."

Selected House Manager Rebuttals to White House Defense:
Claim: White House Counsel Gregory Craig today stated that the Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutional because each articles contains multiple charges . Rebuttal: .The wording of Articles I and II [of the President Nixon articles] expressly provided that a conviction could be had thereunder if supported by "one or more of the" enumerated specifications. The general view of the Committee at that time was expressed by Senators Byrd and Allen, both of whom felt that division of the articles in question into potentially 14 separately voted specifications might "be time consuming and confusing, and a matter which could create great chaos and division, bitterness, and ill will * * *." Accordingly, it was agreed to write into the proposed rules language which would allow each Senator to vote to convict under either the first or second articles if he were convinced that the person impeached was "guilty" of one or more of the enumerated specifications."

Claim: White House Counsel Gregory Craig claims that the two articles of impeachment are impermissibly vague and lacking in specificity in that they do not meet the standards of a criminal indictment. . Rebuttal:. President Clinton knows exactly what he is being charged with, as is acknowledged in the president's trial memorandum. The memorandum states in its introduction that "[t]ake away the elaborate trappings of the Articles and the high-flying rhetoric that accompanied them, and we see clearly that the House of Representatives asks the Senate to remove the President from office because he . . . .," then he lists specific charges. President's Trial Memorandum at 2. If President Clinton had suffered from any lack of specificity in the articles of impeachment, he would have filed a motion for a bill of particulars which he did not do.

Claim: Mr. Craig has attempted to create the impression that the President's deposition testimony is irrelevant because the House of Representatives rejected a proposed article of impeachment which exclusively addressed the President's deposition testimony..Rebuttal: .Article I states that the President "willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following... (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him."

Claim: White House Counsel Gregory Craig has reiterated a false legal proposition that was also made in the White House Trial Memorandum. He stated that a perjury prosecution should not be based on a "oath against an oath." And in support of this proposition, he cites the Supreme Court case, United States v. Weiler (323 U.S. 606, 608 (1945)), in which the Court reaffirms the applicability of the "two-witness rule" in perjury prosecutions. Mr. Craig and the Trial Memorandum imply that the "two witness rule" applies to perjury prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 1623, the statute which directly addresses grand jury perjury..Rebuttal:. In fact, 1623 was passed by Congress in 1970 (25 years after the Weiler case relied on by Mr. Craig) and provides: "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary of other type of evidence." 18 U.S.C. 1623(e). The legislative history of 1623 indicates that it was passed specifically for the purpose of eliminating the strictures of the two-witness rule. See Dunn v. U.S., 442 U.S. 100, 108 n. 6 (1979)..

Claim: In his presentation on January 19, White House Counsel Charles Ruff suggested several times that the Managers' case was misleading. ("prosecutorial fudgemaking,," "witches' brew of charges," "be wary of the prosecutor who feels it necessary to deceive the court."). .Rebuttal: .Last month, Mr. Ruff took the position that reasonable people can disagree. This month, Mr. Ruff takes the position that those who disagree with his defense, those who believe the President gave false testimony, are guilty of "prosecutorial fudge-making," "deception" "witches brew." Such a statement is an insult to the House of Representatives, and more importantly, to the American people.

Claim: White House Counsel Greg Craig asserted that President Clinton should receive special treatment and that the past convictions of judges under identical circumstances is not relevant..Rebuttal: .The Democratic Watergate staff in 1974 agreed: Does Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states that judges "shall hold their Offices during good behavior," limit the relevance of the ten impeachments of judges with respect to presidential impeachment standards as has been argued by some? It does not ... [T]he only impeachment provision ... included in the Constitution ... applies to all civil officers, including judges, and defines impeachment offenses as "Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (1974 Judiciary Committee Report, page 17)."

New York Times 1/21/99 William Safire ".Last week the House managers presented a persuasive case that the President of the U.S. had systematically lied under oath to support an obstruction of justice. Though his removal by the Senate gained little ground, the impeachment by the House gained respectability. Hutchinson, Graham, Rogan and Barr are future senators and governors. This week the President's lawyers -- whose contemptuous answers to 81 House questions triggered Clinton's impeachment -- demonstrated that artful lawyering can cast doubt on any set of facts. Clinton's lead counsel, Charles Ruff, was at his most effective in countering the charge that Vernon Jordan's sudden burst of activity in getting Monica Lewinsky a job was caused by a Jones court decision that could have required her to testify. He was least effective, however, in pressing Clinton's claim that he was "not paying attention" when his Jones deposition lawyer, in his presence, unwittingly misinformed a Federal judge that no sex had been engaged in "in any way, shape or form." The prosecution's videotape of Clinton, his eyes first riveted on his lawyer, then switching to the judge, proves him to be lying about "inattention" on a central matter. In necessarily coming to grips with the House's charges, the President's lawyers were forced to defeat their own aim of avoiding the calling of witnesses. When grand jury testimony is in conflict, as Clinton defenders insist some to be, the Senate must decide for itself who is telling the truth. That means that next week the Senate will have to deal with the Witness Issue.."

The Heritage Foundation 1/21/99 Hon. Dan Quayle ".The last time America had an impeached President, back in 1868, it didn't have the slightest effect beyond our shores. We were recovering from a Civil War; Europeans thought we were crude and primitive and didn't take our views seriously. Today, it's the opposite: We're the world's undisputed Superpower--the one country to which the entire world looks for leadership. That's what the world expects from America, and from its President. But they're not finding it. Today there is a leadership crisis. Major issues have been ignored. The standards have been lowered. There is a sinking feeling that the greatest nation on earth simply lacks the will and the credibility to lead. It's quite a reversal from seven years ago: America had just emerged from the Cold War. Our political, economic, and military influence was unequaled. Our economic system had been exported to much of the world, leading to the broadest prosperity in history. We faced no global rival or significant hostile alliance. The Presidency was every inch a position of moral leadership.."

Claim: White House Counsel Greg Craig asserted that President Clinton did not lie to White House subordinates he knew would be called to testify before the grand jury investigating his misconduct..Rebuttal. The President, after admitting to the grand jury that he knew his aides would be called to testify before the grand jury, made the following statement to the grand jurors: "I said to [my aides] things that were true about this relationship" President Clinton GJT, 8/17/98, pp. 105-06 The President did not tell his subordinates the truth about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He told Sidney Blumenthal that he had "not done anything wrong," that "Monica came at me and made a sexual advance on me," and that "he rebuffed her." (Sidney Blumenthal GJT, 6/4/98, p. 49.) He told John Podesta that "he had not had a sexual relationship with [Monica Lewinsky], and that he never asked anybody to lie." (John Podesta GJT, 6/16/98, p. 85)."

ABC Nightline by Freeper George S 1/20/99 ".Last night at the close of Nightline George Stephanopoulus started the attack on Senator Byrd. When asked by Ted Koppel if he thought there would be a problem with Democratic defections due to Senator Byrd voting with the Republicans, George Steph. stated that he did not think so because Senator Byrd is more of an "idiosyncratic vote".."

Washington Times - Inside the Beltway John McCaslin 1/21/99 Freeper wyopa ". "What a transparent, pathetic, syrupy wallowfest in political pabulum we have just witnessed," writes Allen Kelly, an electronics engineer from Troy, Ohio, referring to President Clinton's State of the Union Address. "I can never recall, in my entire 41 years, any person, child, teacher, employer, subordinate, boss, salesman, huckster, fortune teller, parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, cousin, thief, sociopath, psychopath, infomercial or sweepstakes entry with so little integrity that has ever promised and at the same time decreed so much to so many ... "God help us all for having to be a national 'halfway-house' for a president who is delusional, dishonest, arrogant and thinks us all his fools and for the number of people in it who likely are." ."

WorldNetDaily 1/21/99 Joseph Farah ".Half-watching the State of the Union address, I was suddenly struck with two starkly contrasting images illustrating just how low America has fallen. The first image was the one captured in the famous portrait of George Washington, our first president and, truly, "the father of our country," on his knees humbly beseeching the Lord on that cold winter's day at Valley Forge. The second image was one we have never actually seen, but one it is difficult to shake each and every time I glimpse at our current president -- a star-struck young intern down on her knees servicing Bill Clinton..."

Washington Times 1/21/99 Harry Summers ". The litany of testimony by the prosecutors from the House of Representatives exhaustively detailed how Mr. Clinton had corrupted everyone within his grasp, from his own secretary to his White House staff to his lawyers and closest advisers. And it had become apparent in the course of the trial that his web of corruption had spread to the once honorable Democratic Party as well, as formerly respected party leaders from the vice president to the House Minority leader on down debased themselves and their party in a pathetic partisan political effort to defend the indefensible.."

Chicago Tribune 1/21/99 John Kass Freeper JeanS ".That was some State of the Union speech the other day. With the impeachment thing bothering him, President Clinton delivered. He dug deep into the budget surplus bag, the one stuffed with our tax dollars, like a kid trying to keep his friends happy.."

newsmax 1/21/99 Bill Murchison ".No wonder the outcome of impeachment -- despite all the House managers' eloquence -- looks relatively dim for them, relatively bright for their target. The Clinton impeachment is in large part an attempt to shame the shameless. The president of the United States is without visible shame: without, that is to say, capacity for embarrassment or remorse on account of wrongful actions. The words of his varied apologies don't rise to the level, as they say in Washington, D. C., of his decision to deliver the State of the Union address to the House that just impeached him and the Senate now trying his cause.."

Freeper pb struve on Chris Matthews 1/21/99 ".Chris Matthews asked pointed question to Rogan about Jane Doe #5 and Kathleen Willey. Rogan responded that all witnesses have to be approved by a simple majority of Senators. Rogan also said the House managers have not amde any decisions yet. Rogan said that the only reason that somebody like Jane Doe #5 would be called is if the House Managers decided to go after a sepcific angle; that is, pattern of false affidavits."

Washington Bulletin: National Review's Internet Update 1/21/99 John Miller Ramesh Ponnuru ". Last fall, at the conclusion of a two-year investigation into possibly illegal White House efforts to integrate its computer database with that of the Democratic National Committee, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight charged Mills with perjury and obstruction of justice. According to the report, based on an investigation spearheaded by Rep. David McIntosh's Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee, Mills clearly withheld a key document potentially incriminating Clinton in these activities just six weeks before his 1996 re-election. Then, alleges the report, she perjured herself in explaining why the document was not produced even when it was obviously requested. In September, McIntosh referred the case against Mills to the Justice Department for prosecution. Although few expect Attorney General Janet Reno's politicized office to take any action, Justice still has the referral under consideration. That means Mills lectured the Senate on obstruction of justice even though she has a potential prosecution on these grounds (plus perjury) hanging over her head.."

CNN All Politics 1/21/99 Dana Bash ".Sen. John Breaux (D-Louisiana) is floating a plan to bring the articles of impeachment up for an early vote in an effort to bring an end to the Senate trial of President Bill Clinton. The plan is similar to one promoted by Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts). It would involve pushing for a straight up or down vote on the two articles of impeachment before the Senate begins to deal with the possibility of calling witnesses on Monday. Breaux said he has discussed his plan with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) and is encouraged by what he has heard.."

Jay Severin 1/21/99 ".TEAM CLINTON has decided the best defense is a good offense. Greg Craig says "He didn t do it -- and if he did, it isn't impeachable." Cheryl Mills follows by saying that even if if it is impeachable, it isn't impeachable -- because we cannot abandon this hero of civil rights. In a flash, Democrats have abandoned the sharp lawyering, the tedious and contentious legal hair-splitting that characterized their earlier efforts. You might wonder what Bill Clinton's civil rights record has to do with lying to the American people, perjury, and obstruction of justice. The answer is: absolutely nothing.."

AP 1/21/99 Terence Hunt ".After six days of rehearsed speeches, the Senate trial of President Clinton now plunges into uncharted territory. No one knows what will emerge from 16 hours of unscripted questions from senators, beginning Friday. After that, there will be unforeseen twists and turns in partisan debate over witnesses, Senate secrecy and motions to dismiss, acquit or convict. Will Clinton be called or invited to testify? How long will the trial last? The uncertainty is risky for both sides.."

Reuters 1/21/99 David Wiessler ". President Clinton's lawyers closed his defense Thursday, saying the Senate should reject the impeachment case against him because it was based on myths and endangered the constitutional system.. Most Democrats do not want to call witnesses, saying that would just prolong the process. Thursday Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama said he was not persuaded that witnesses were needed. Asked if other Republicans were not convinced witnesses were needed, he said ``I don't think I'm alone.'' Talk like that prompted some Democrats to hope that enough Republicans were shifting their positions and want to get the vote over with so Congress can get to work on other issues. But Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who heads the House prosecution team, warned against shutting off the process too soon. ``I think it would be a mistake to rush to judgement simply because, as people keep repeating, never tire of saying, this is one of the most important votes you'll ever make,'' Hyde said.."

MSNBC John Gibson by Freeper truthkeeper ".Today on MSNBC's "Internight," John Gibson reported the House managers were "starting to get mad" at the Senate. The Democrat Senators have been meeting with the White House lawyers TO FORMULATE THE QUESTIONS for the question-and-answer session, and the Senate Republicans HAVE NOT made any effort to get together with the House managers to do likewise. ."

Investor's Business Daily 1/22/99 Daniel Murphy ".Now that both the House of Representatives' trial managers and President Clinton's lawyers have presented their sides in Clinton's impeachment trial, a new, possibly more dicey, phase starts Friday. Until now, the senators have been silent jurors. But they'll spend Friday and Saturday asking questions of both the House prosecutors and the president's defense lawyers. How they're answered might well determine whether witnesses are called - and how the trial might unfold.."

AP 1/21/99 ".House Majority Whip Tom DeLay told a conservative gathering Thursday night the Republican Party could benefit from moving forward with the impeachment of President Clinton. "There is a difference between right and wrong, and there is a clear choice between justice and corruption,'' the Texas Republican said in a keynote dinner speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.."

Sacramento Bee 1/21/99 Scott Lindlaw AP ".U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday said flatly that after hearing the White House defense of President Clinton, she would not vote to oust him from office.. "Based on the case I've heard today, up to this point, I would acquit," Feinstein said in a telephone interview minutes after retired Sen. Dale Bumpers closed out the White House's opening defense argument to his former colleagues..But Feinstein said she was one of at least 34 Senate Democrats who were ardently against removing the president following his impeachment in the House.."

10/18/91 Senator Joseph Lieberman Freepmaster Jim Robinson ".Letter from Senator Lieberman explaining that sexual harassment is a serious offense and is the reason why he voted against Judge Clarence Thomas for Supreme Court. "Sexual harassment is a serious offense that goes directly to the issue of personal character -- an issue that is, for me, of vital importance in evaluating a Supreme Court nominee." ."

Drudge 1/21/99 Freeper Prince Charles ".Just when the White House believed momentum had shifted towards a swift dismissal of all impeachment charges in the U.S. Senate, startled staffers were preparing to field questions about misleading information given by Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills -- information that threatens to ignite new doubts about White House credibility and sincerity! .. "It appears that Ms. Mills misled... whether on purpose or not is unclear at this time," said one concerned insider late Thursday night. .Controversy is swirling around Mills' dramatic defense of President Clinton's motive for calling his secretary Betty Currie in for a rare Sunday meeting in the Oval Office after his Paula Jones deposition. According to Ruth Marcus of the WASHINGTON POST, Mills claimed that "Clinton was not seeking to coach a witness but was trying, as he told the grand jury, 'to get the facts and trying to think of the best defense we could construct in the face of what I thought was going to be a media onslaught.' Mills suggested the Clinton-Currie meeting was initiated to respond to a DRUDGE REPORT item about the Lewinsky affair, but she failed to note that Clinton had in fact set up the session with Currie immediately after his Jones deposition." Unfortunately for Mills -- and all those who are rooting for quick dismissal -- Clinton's move on Currie came hours before the DRUDGE REPORT exclusive breaking the story was issued! The revelations in the DRUDGE REPORT about the President's affair with a White House intern could not possibly have been Clinton's motive in calling Currie that evening, because the phone call was placed shortly after 7pm ET on Saturday. Clinton's call to Currie was placed MORE THAN FIVE HOURS BEFORE the first public report of the Lewinsky Affair went out on the Internet -- after midnight.."

Washington Times 1/22/99 Editorial ".Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills delivered an exceptionally smooth performance Wednesday. She spoke most eloquently in defense of President Clinton. Indeed, so polished was her presentation that The Washington Post couldn't help but gush in its headline: In the City Of Legal Stars, Another Is Born. But however slick her brief for the president might have been, Ms. Mills remains an odd choice for the role of public presidential defender. You see, Ms. Mills herself stands accused of perjury and obstruction of justice.."

Washington Times 1/22/99 Wes Pruden "."Maybe he's white trash, but trash is good enough for a president." This sums up the argument of President Clinton's very own lawyers, and for $500 an hour, the president probably imagined that he could expect something a little more respectful than a litany of insults. Whatever works. But with friends saying things like this, who needs Clinton-haters? "You are free to criticize him, to find his personal conduct distasteful," Charles Ruff, his White House lawyer -- one of the lawyers paid for by you and me -- told the Senate, reprising earlier remarks that reasonable people could reasonably conclude that the president is a liar.He [David Kendall] read Monica Lewinsky's testimony that "no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence." And then he asked, "Is there something difficult to understand here?" He did not read the rest of Miss Lewinsky's answer: "I knew what he meant." Is there something difficult to understand here?.."Oh, colleagues," he [Dale Bumpers] cried. "You have such an awesome responsibility." As a recently retired senator, he knows how senators like to have their secret and unmentionable places (ego, vanity, pride, conceit) scratched. He denounced the president as a cad and a cheat, a scoundrel and a bounder, a bum guilty of "a breach of his marriage vows" and a purveyor of a "terrible moral lapse," of inflicting pain, suffering and humiliation on his family."

Reuters Yahoo! News Politics Headlines John Whitesides 1/22/99 Freeper sunshine ".The jury of 100 senators, who have sat silently through six days of legal presentations, will get a chance to unload their pent-up questions beginning Friday before the trial reaches its first crucial showdown next week..Anyone trying to gauge where the trial will head next is engaging in ``pure speculation,'' said New Hampshire Republican Sen. Bob Smith. ``I don't think you're going to know anything until you move down the road, and the next road is the questioning.'' .. Either legal team may object to any question, with Rehnquist ruling on the issue. A simple majority of the Senate can overrule Rehnquist's ruling. Some procedure for follow-up questions is expected to be allowed. But when the questions conclude, probably Saturday, the real uncertainty begins. Under an outline for the trial reached unanimously by the Senate two weeks ago, the first order of business Monday would be an expected Democratic motion to dismiss the case, which would require only 51 votes for approval...Some Democrats have discussed substituting a motion for an up-or-down impeachment vote for the motion to dismiss, but that would require the unanimous consent of all 100 senators to change the agreed upon trial procedures. ``That isn't going to happen,'' Hatch said. The vote on the motion to dismiss would be followed by a debate and vote on whether to subpoena witnesses requested by either side for closed-door depositions... If the witnesses are approved, the trial would recess while they testified at closed-door depositions. After seeing the deposition transcripts, senators would have to vote again on whether to call the witnesses to give live testimony in the well of the Senate. Democrats have said there is no need to call witnesses, and said Thursday they believed the one-two punch of the White House defense arguments and Clinton's State of the Union address had taken the wind out of the impeachment drive. ``There is a diminished interest in prolonging this,'' North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad said... But many Republicans said the question of witnesses was still up in the air. ``My perception is this is a very wide open question right now,'' Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl told reporters.."

New York Post 1/22/99 Dick Morris ".SENATE Minority Leader Tom Daschle screwed up on Monday and the White House spin machine has been in overdrive ever since. The South Dakota Democrat spilled the beans that witnesses were virtually inevitable..Don't believe the White House line. This trial isn't going away anytime soon... Some want witnesses, some don't. But all recognize that the only way to keep the impeachment process alive is through calling witnesses, so witnesses it will be. Among the Democrats, former Majority Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia is likely to vote for witnesses and against ending the trial..After three days of the defense case, the case for witnesses is stronger than ever:..Even those GOP senators who would rather not proceed with impeachment will have to see it through. The daunting prospect of moving forward is a lot less threatening than the threat of partisan Republicans back at home to eat them alive if they don't.."

NY Post 1/22/99 Brian Blomquist pg 35 ".Republican senators said yesterday they plan to go forward with the impeachment trial despite the OK from Pat Robertson to drop it. The Christian Coalition founder jolted his TV audience on the "700 Club" by announcing Clinton had hit a "home run" with his State of the Union address and that the GOP should throw in the towel. "They might as well dismiss this impeachment hearing and get on with something else because it's over as far as I'm concerned," Robertson said. Republican senators were stunned. "It was like being hit in the stomach," one top GOP leadership aide said. But the Republicans publicly vowed to forge ahead. "I don't even worry about that," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). "You cannot come at this [trial] based on the up-and-down of the polls, based on what Pat Robertson says, or based on what Mickey Mouse says." ."

New York Times 1/22/99 Charles Norman & Gerald Solomon ".Although the nation and the Senate seem to want a quick end to the impeachment trial, Henry Hyde and the other House managers of the trial are still holding out fo r testimony from witnesses. They say that this would not slow down the trial and that it would be a simple matter to call a few witnesses, hear their testimony and then be done with it. ."

American Reporter 1/22/99 Joe Shea Vol 5 No 990 ".In all probability, President Clinton's popularity will erode with the vote; Americans are an honest people, and given incontrovertible facts they will usually accept them, and expect politicians to accept them. A lot of Democratic "No" votes on a matter of conscience where the facts are pretty clear can only help the Republican cause, as it helped Johnson's Radical Republican foes put a rest to his grand dreams for Reconstruction following the Civil War. The truth is that at some point, Americans will see the need and necessity for Bill Clinton to go back to private life, and they will live with it, unhappily. Whether the Democrats are ahead of or behind that curve will determine the outcome of the Year 2000 elections.The probability of electing a Democrat in 2000 will be greatly increased by a "Yes" vote to convict, because it will give them back their self-respect and accord them honesty in the eyes of Americans. But self-respect and honesty are something the Republicans who brought us to this pass will never see again. Andrew Johnson's pillow will vex them to their dying days.."

USA Today 1/22/99 Wendy Koch ".President Clinton's impeachment trial moves into uncertain territory this weekend as senators of both parties say they are looking for a quick way to end it. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said five to eight GOP senators have told him they want to conclude the trial ''as rapidly as possible and will take the necessary steps.'' But he warned that senators have to think ''long and hard'' about precluding witnesses..."

Washington Post 1/22/99 Helen Dewar Guy Gugliotta pg A1 ". With no sign the Senate has the votes to remove President Clinton from office, senators of both parties have launched informal, behind-the-scenes efforts to find a strategy for ending the impeachment trial - but no consensus has yet developed on how to do it. ..But there is also a downside for both parties. Many conservative groups with strong influence in the Senate GOP are pushing for Clinton's conviction and removal. And Democratic sources have said some Senate Democrats are reluctant to appear hostile to the idea of hearing any witnesses or to let Clinton escape without any punishment. If the 45 Democrats hold ranks solidly against witnesses - which itself is uncertain - it would take six Republicans to provide the simple majority needed to end the trial without calling witnesses.."

Worldnet Daily 1/22/99 Alan Keyes ".There was bad news this week from an unexpected quarter in the wake of President Clinton's State of the Union Address. Pat Robertson has lent his voice to those who are eagerly counseling moral conservatives to despair of convicting Bill Clinton. Calling the State of the Union "a home run," Robertson said that "From a public relations standpoint, he has won. They might as well dismiss this impeachment hearing and get on with something else, because it is over as far as I am concerned." These remarks show a decided lack of judgment and leadership. The speech was not a home run; it was a bin of socialist garbage. It was delivered in his usual plodding and pedestrian way, and was aimed chiefly at buying off every core constituency Bill Clinton has. Bill Clinton is not a good speaker -- he is unfocused, vapid, and rarely gets to the point. Praising his speaking ability is like praising the speaking ability of a used-car huckster. Nor is the fact that Clinton stood before the American people and offered the usual Santa Claus garbage something that a solid moral conservative leader should regard as a home run. Clinton did exactly what anybody in his right mind would have expected him to do, once Congress handed him the opportunity to prejudice the environment -- he sought to bribe everybody. And he is using our money to bribe us, of course, pointing us down the path to renewed government expansion and control.. Pat Robertson should have realized that the days after the speech Tuesday night were a critical time for the morale of moral conservatives. It should have been obvious to him going in that the bad guys were going to do everything in their power to turn the State of the Union address into a weapon to rout the forces of decent conservatives in America. Robertson's remark came at the moment when it could do absolutely the most harm, and he should have known better."

Publius Press 1/22/99 Freeper reports ".In the BIG news this week, worried that some Democrats in the Senate night actually vote their consciences, Mr. Clinton's legal defense team changed tactics from "he's guilty, but it was just sex," to "it's nothing more than a "he said, she said" case. This maneuver makes a compelling case for calling witnesses. ."

Laura Ingram Show 1/22/99 by Freeper LYNXcry ".Lindsey Graham said today that Cheryl Mill's comment that Bill Clinton's record on womens civil rights is "unimpeachable" has just opened the door for them to prove that his treatment of women is less than impeachable. He was hinting that they are prepared to enter the evidence of the Jane Does into the record..Predictions by Graham.... "their motion to dismiss case will be defeated....we will have witnesses, we will have a vote on whether he committed crimes....and he will be removed from office. "Any witnesses you hear will reflect directly on the crimes he committed, they have made it relevant to call witnesses to show how he obstructed justice....stay tuned". ."

WorldNetDaily 1/22/99 Joseph Farah Freeper gulfwind ".Remember when this story first broke? Even George Stephanopolous and Dee Dee Myers asserted on network television that, if the allegations of having sex with a White House intern proved to be true, Clinton would likely be impeached -- if he didn't do the honorable thing and resign first....I don't know how many times I heard even Clinton's most devoted supporters in the House and Senate say that if it turned out that he lied in the Paula Jones deposition that he would be finished. Sex with an intern was one thing. Perjury was another... OK, OK, his partisans said, lying about sex in a deposition in a civil rights case is one thing, but lying to the grand jury would be another.. His loyalists took a new tack. Nothing is proven. There is no physical evidence. They are merely accusations. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Then the DNA tests came back..,And yet, his defenders say it is still not enough. Now the debate has shifted once again. The new line of defense is that even if he is guilty, the Senate must decide if it is in the best interests of the country to remove him from office... Now the only excuse left is that they are reluctant to overturn an election...I have come to the conclusion that there are probably enough Democratic senators who would refuse to vote to convict Clinton of a high crime or misdemeanor if he committed murder on national television. And that conclusion is scary.."

AP 1/22/99 Larry Margadak ".Democrats were buoyed by Thursday's speeches on the president's behalf, but Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., said today he is counseling fellow party members not to become smug and declare victory. ``I think we need to give our Republican colleagues a dignified retreat out of this case,'' he said on NBC's ``Today.' Democrats generally oppose witnesses. Most would likely vote for an expected motion to dismiss the case without voting on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice regarding Clinton's efforts to cover up his affair with Ms. Lewinsky... "

AP 1/22/99 Larry Margasak ".With Democratic support for President Clinton holding firm at his impeachment trial, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott today suggested a closed-door meeting of all senators to discuss guidelines for the balance of the proceedings...Lott denied he was seeking an exit from the trial under pressure from some Republican lawmakers who fear that a drawn-out proceedings would inflict long-term political damage to their party, as numerous Democrats have said in recent days..."

1/22/99 Senate Impeachment Trial ".REHNQUIST: Senators Helms, Abraham, Ashcroft and Stevens direct this question to the president's conspector -- direct this question to the president's counsel. "President Clinton testified before the grand jury that he was merely trying to refresh memory when he made these statements to Betty Currie. How can someone refresh their recollection by making statements they know are false?" .MILLS: I think as one of the things I tried to address in addressing what the president's testimony was with respect to his conversation with Ms. Currie was obviously he was understandably concerned about the media attention that he knew was impending. And, in particular, as he walked through the questions, he was thinking about his own thoughts, and seeking, as I think I talked about, concurrence, or input, or some type of reaction from Ms. Currie. I think, in making those statements, he was asking statements to see what her understanding was based on some of the questions that had been posed to him by the Jones lawyers, because some of them were so off-base. And so, he was asking from Ms. Currie, essentially, what her perception was, what her thoughts were. And I think as you walk through each one of those questions, he was expressing what his own thoughts and feelings were with regard to this, and was seeking concurrence or affirmation from her. I think he was agitated, I think he was concerned. he knew what was going to happen, and I think that is why he posed the questions in the way that he did. ."

AP Pete Yost 1/22/99 Freeper Patriot ".In a concession forced by House prosecutors, White House Counsel Charles Ruff acknowledged Friday the president's legal team had mischaracterized evidence about alleged obstruction of justice in a way that favored Clinton. Ruff and deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills told the Senate earlier this week that Clinton could not have obstructed justice in his Jan. 18 conversation with secretary Betty Currie because she was never a prospective witness in the Paula Jones case. But House prosecutor Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., noted Friday that Mrs. Jones' lawyers added Mrs. Currie to their witness list and subpoenaed her within 48 hours of the Monica Lewinsky controversy erupting in the news media on Jan. 21. ``I did not accurately reflect the fact that ... the Jones lawyers indeed issued ... a long list of subpoenas,'' Ruff told the Senate. ``For that misleading statement I apologize.'' .[House Managers: ] Clinton had essentially identified Mrs. Currie as a potential witness during his Jan. 17 deposition in the Jones case when he claimed that Ms. Lewinsky's frequent visits to the White House could be explained by her friendship with Mrs. Currie."

Freeper Dan Day 1/22/99 reporting ".Canady nailed the "not specific" argument against the impeachment articles. He made an airtight case that: 1. Clinton articles are MORE specific than Nixon articles. 2. Senate impeachment rules CLEARLY state that if ANY part of an impeachment article is met, it's sufficient for conviction. 3. Hamilton, and others, CLEARLY stated that impeachment charges need not be, and in fact should not be, extremely specific.."

AP 1/22/99 Larry Margasak ".Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia issued a statement saying he would offer a motion to dismiss the charges -- a significant announcement from a senior senator who is widely viewed as a fierce defender of the Senate's prerogatives. He had publicly cautioned the White House not to lobby him to vote for Clinton's acquittal. ."

Freeper workerbee 1/22/99 reporting ".Startling admission on Craig's part. Craig said prez's testimony was evasive and incomplete. "Prez's testimony in Jones case was evasive, misleading, incomplete in his answers". Begs the question; what kind of oath did the prez take in the civil deposition? Did he swear to tell the truth, the incomplete/misleading/evasive truth? If he did, perhaps Mr. Craig's position is well taken. But a brief review of the oath prez took, shows he is obliged under the law to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth! .."

Freeper reaction to Byrd statement 1/22/99 Freeper Marty ".So much for Byrd being an elder statesman. He will be known as .a partisan without principle. I'm sickened.." Freeper ReleaseTheHounds ".Beloved Founding Fathers to Senator Byrd: You've let us down! You have no sacred honor! You will have your appropriate place in history!."

EIB Network 1/22/99 Randy Tate on Rush Limbaugh by Freeper newsman ".Pat Robertson's remarks Wednesday that Clinton's impeachment trial might as well be halted because of the public's favorable reaction to his State of the Union speech was born of frustration. It does not represent a retreat from a continuing effort to remove the president from office, Randy Tate, executive director of the Christian Coalition, said on the Rush Limbaugh Show today..."

House Judiciary Committee 1/22/99 Henry Hyde "..House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde issued the following statement today on behalf of the House Managers in response to Senator Byrd's announcement of his intention to offer a motion to dismiss: "We always knew that there would be a motion to dismiss in this process; now we know who will offer that motion. We hope and expect that the Senate will reject this motion and continue an expeditious search for the facts. History and justice demand a full record of the truth. The obvious success today of the House managers in exposing the weaknesses and inaccuracies of the White House case clearly reveals that the outcome of this case should not be prejudged." ."

FoxNews 1/22/99 AP Calvin Woodward ".They coaxed, they coached, they did not interrogate. The senators who asked questions in President Clinton's impeachment trial Friday could in no way be confused with jurors seeking a closer look at fingerprints found at the scene of a crime.. After having delivered a series of polished monologues, the president's accusers and defenders had to do some thinking on their feet. But the tone of the questions underscored the point made early in the trial by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and upheld by Rehnquist, that senators should not be called jurors in this trial. Some questions were so transparently leading that senators on both sides chuckled when they were read..."

1/22/99 AP Jonathan Salant ".Just a few days before he presented the case against President Clinton at the Senate impeachment trial, Republican Rep. Lindsey Graham mailed letters to his South Carolina supporters appealing for political donations..```Most people look upon this as a national trauma,'' said Larry Makinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that studies campaign spending. ``Apparently some members of Congress look upon this as a fund-raising opportunity.'' Graham's spokesman, Kevin Bishop, said the congressman has sent a fund-raising letter at the start of every year since he took office in 1994 and pointed out that the solicitation also refers to issues such as Social Security, health care and tax cuts. ``It's not a letter saying, 'We're impeaching the president. I'm asking for money so I can keep it up,''' Bishop said. Graham won accolades for a folksy presentation a week ago at the Senate trial in which he argued Clinton needed to be removed to restore ``honor and integrity'' to the presidency. ``Impeachment is about cleansing the office,'' he said.."

Reuters 1/22/99 ".But Texas Sen. Phil Gramm and other Republicans predicted Byrd's motion to dismiss would fail and witnesses might be needed. "To suggest that because there may not be a two-thirds vote at the end of the process to convict the president, it seems to me, is not a justification for short circuiting a constitutional process,'' Gramm said. "I do not believe this trial will be ended. I think the resolution will be defeated.'' Under procedures the Senate approved unanimously two weeks ago, a Democratic motion to dismiss the case will be in order Monday. Byrd, respected for his fierce defense of Senate traditions and the Constitution, had been thought to be a possible vote against Clinton. Democrats tried to seize the momentum after Byrd's announcement. "The time has now come for us to dismiss the case, and that is exactly what Sen. Byrd's motion will do,'' Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said. ."

Fox News Sunday 1/17/99 Tony Snow's interview with David Schippers Freeper June2 reports ".SNOW: Let me close with a very quick question. You mentioned in your final remarks before the House that there were other things that you weren't at liberty to talk about. What were they? SCHIPPERS: I'm still not at liberty to talk about them. There are other materials in executive session. ."

AP 1/22/99 Larry Margasak Freeper Thanatos ".House impeachment prosecutors obtained Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's help Friday in attempting to force Monica Lewinsky to talk to them, contending her immunity agreement requires it, two congressional officials confirmed Friday. Starr's prosecutors and lawyers for Ms. Lewinsky went to court late Friday afternoon to argue whether she had to cooperate. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson made no immediate ruling. Lead prosecutor Henry Hyde, R-Ill., wrote Starr Thursday seeking his help with Ms. Lewinsky, who rejected being interviewed by the House team. Two House sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Hyde cited Ms. Lewinsky's immunity agreement with Starr in his letter. The July 28 agreement said Ms. Lewinsky ``will testify truthfully before grand juries in this district (Washington) and elsewhere, at any trials in this district and elsewhere, and in any other executive, military, judicial or congressional proceedings.''.."

Reagan Information Interchange 5/98 Freeper Stephanie Herman ". From "Chairman Burton Takes His Case to the American People", May 1998, at the Reagan Information Interchange: "...Under questioning from a Committee attorney, White House Counsel Cheryl Mills admitted that she and White House counsel Jack Quinn had withheld from the Committee for one year an important document that related to political uses of the White House data base. The document in question was a page of notes taken by a White House staffer that indicated the President's desire to integrate the White House data base with the DNC's data base - which is not legal. This document had a direct bearing on the subcommittee's investigation. Cheryl Mills admitted that she had kept the document in file in her office for over a year based on a legal slight of hand. Her behavior in this incident was another in a long string of incidents that reflected the White House's desire to stall, and delay Congressional investigations of its alleged misconduct." ."

New York Post 1/23/99 Dick Morris ".Will the Byrd motion cause Republicans to panic and agree to the dismissal? Will six Republican senators split off from the party and give the Democrats the majority they need to carry the Byrd motion? I doubt it. Republicans don't work that way. They move as a conference and a caucus. Anyone who strips their colleagues of their majority status by bolting has a lot to answer for later on. Only Vermont Republican maverick Sen. Jim Jeffords works that way..."

New York Post 1/23/99 Brian Blomquist ".Byrd's announcement came as senators were questioning White House defense lawyers and House prosecutors in the seventh day of the trial. Earlier, he had handed in a toughly worded question directed at the White House defense team. "Putting aside the specific legal questions concerning perjury and obstruction of justice, how does the president defend against the charge that, by giving false and misleading statements under oath, such misconduct abused or violated some public trust?" Byrd asked through Chief Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist..."

New York Post 1/23/99 Deborah Orin ". The House Republicans presenting the case yesterday had an extra edge of emotion, as if painfully aware they can't win. But they made some telling points that could push the case for a tough censure. Obviously, they noted, Clinton wasn't telling the truth when he said he had to call in secretary Betty Currie to "refresh" his memory on whether he had sex with Lewinsky. The idea is, in fact, laughable - the only explanation is he was trying to tilt her testimony. Clinton's attitude was "the law be damned and anybody who got in his way be damned," fumed Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the House impeachment managers.."

New York Post 1/23/99 Editorial ".Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she was "moved to tears." Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) called it the "finest speech" he's ever heard in Congress. What could possibly inspire such hyperbole? Why, Wednesday's emotional and wholly irrelevant summation in Bill Clinton's defense by Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills. Mills argued for acquittal on the grounds, among others, that Clinton's grandfather's store in Arkansas "catered primarily to African-Americans." What on earth does that have to do with perjury and obstruction of justice? .."

The Orange County Register 1/24/99 George Reisman ".A Senate vote to acquit Mr. Clinton, despite his obvious guilt--a guilt publicly acknowledged by all those in his own party who call for a congressional censure of him rather than his rem oval from office--will signify that the President is, indeed, above the law and morality applicable to ordinary citizens. It will thus substantially add to and solidify the imperial trappings that have come to surround the office of the presidency. Future occupants of the office will know that the principle has been clearly established that they are above the law. Their prospective critics and congressional opponents will know it too. The presidency and its powers will loom even larger than they do now. I t will be harder to prevail against the wishes of a president than it is now, for he will have been more securely established than ever before as a virtually superhuman personage.."

CNS Lawrence Morahan 1/22/99 ".Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes told an estimated 1,000 conservatives Friday that the liberal agenda was based on the premise that Americans lack the moral capacity to do what is right..."We face the greatest moral crisis in our country's history," Keyes said. "The mess with [President] Bill Clinton proves that this moral crisis is threatening to the future of the very institutions we as Americans hold dear." ..Clinton is "the poster boy of moral depravity and incompetence," who is liked because of his depravity, Keyes said. "Every stand [conservatives] take on every issue depends in the end on our ability to refute the liberal argument that we as a people are incapable of", Keyes said.."

Judicial Watch 1/23/99 ".Judicial Watch today said there were troubling questions about the conduct of the lawyers who are defending President Clinton in the Se