DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: THE IMPEACHMENT STORY
SUBSECTION: IMPEACHMENT TRIAL Part 2
Revised 7/21/99

 

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 Senate this week. Charles Ruff, Clinton White House Counsel - Ruff, in his prior private practice, represented the Teamsters union. As part of this work for the Teamsters, his firm also reportedly received $250,000 of union funds. Mr. Ruff reportedly relayed $152,883 of that money to private investigator Jack Palladino..David Kendall, Clinton's private defense counsel - Along with Bob Bennett, David Kendall employed on President Clinton's behalf private investigators such as Terry Lenzner and Larry Potts of IGI... Cheryl Mills, deputy White House Counsel - Mills is accused by Congress of providing false testimony and improperly withholding subpoenaed evidence from Congress about Bill and Hillary Clinton's intimate involvement in the infamous White House Office Database (WHODb or "Big Brother"). Ms. Mills conduct has been referred by a House committee to the Department of Justice for investigation of possible perjury and obstruction. Gregory Craig, Clinton White House Special Counsel - Craig defended the attempted murderer of President Reagan, John W. Hinckley, Jr. While the representation of Hinckley per se is not unethical, a defense lawyer who defended an attempted assassin of the President of the United States should not be part of these proceedings."

MSNBC 1/22/99 Jay Severin ".Bumpers bonded man-to-man, man-to-woman, pol-to-pol with the assembled senators. His essential message was that this is merely about sex. And who among us -- you? you? -- can cast the first stone? His defense of the president was a seamless extension of the Cheryl Mills doctrine: you cannot remove this president because of a concern for the overall good of the country and the will of the people who elected him. Imagine, the Founding Fathers trumped by the latest Gallup poll..House Republicans -- who fell on their swords to vote impeachment -- watch with apprehension as their Senate cohorts look for the exit. So much for conservative solidarity and teamwork. There are more than a few members of Congress who would vote differently on impeachment if that vote were held today.And yet the Henry Hyde brigade, bless their Constitution-loving hearts, refuses to give up or give in..."

Augusta Chronicle 1/23/99 Editorial ".Evangelist and broadcaster Pat Robertson, who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 1988 and today is president of the Christian Coalition, has revealed himself to be more politician than clergyman, doing his cause a terrible disservice..These are the remarks of a man who sees the impeachment trial as just another partisan effort to discredit Clinton's presidency. In effect, Robertson is saying impeachment's a bust, so let's try something new to nail him. That's a narrow, selfish political view which completely misses the point. The impeachment trial is not just another tool to beat up Clinton with. It's about justice: protecting the Constitution and the rule of law.."

Los Angeles Times 1/23/99 ".Contradicting the belief among some Republicans that the GOP should ease up on President Clinton to avoid lasting political damage, party leaders at a Republican National Committee meeting here Friday stepped up their rhetoric against Clinton. National Chairman Jim Nicholson, reelected to his post at the gathering, conceded that the political atmosphere in Washington "has grown poisonous" and suffers, as former President Bush observed this week, from "a deficit of decency." But Nicholson added: "Most of the blame has to be laid at the well-guarded gates of the White House." .. "In standing up for American values, Republicans have sustained political damage, at least in the short term," Nicholson said. But he added: "In failing to stand up for basic American values, Democrats have sustained damage that goes way beyond the political and will cling to them." ."

AP 1/23/99 John Solomon ".A federal judge today ordered Monica Lewinsky to submit to an interview with prosecutor Kenneth Starr to assist the Senate impeachment trial, a legal source said today. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled that House prosecutors had no right under Ms. Lewinsky's immunity deal with Starr to force her to submit to their questioning. But Johnson ruled that Starr could force Ms. Lewinsky to answer questions from his staff and allow the House prosecutors to attend. The House prosecutors led by Rep. Henry Hyde obtained Starr's help Friday in attempting to force Ms. Lewinsky to talk to them, touching off a legal battle in Johnson's court.."

Washington Post 1/23/99 AP ".Dear Mr. Chief Justice: I am writing you on a matter of significant constitutional consequence. I ask you, as presiding officer of this Court of Impeachment, to issue an order in protection of this court's ``sole power to try impeachment'' to prohibit any questioning by or on behalf of the House Managers of any witness pursuant to the January 23, 1999, order of the District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson. Such questioning would violate the Senate's sole authority under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to try impeachments and would be a clear violation of the procedures adopted unanimously by this Senate for the conduct of this trial. It is up to the Senate, not the Independent Counsel or any Article III district judge, to determine the procedures under which the House Managers or White House Counsel may interview witnesses. .As the Independent Counsel may be interviewing Ms. Lewinsky as early as tomorrow morning, I ask that you give prompt consideration of this matter. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Tom Harkin United States Senator ."

MSNBC 1/23/99 by Trailer Trash ".Shippers will lead the debriefing. The young lady is in the air as we speak.."

National Review 1/25/99 Kate O'Beirne by Freeper Wallaby ".David Schippers, chief counsel to Henry Hyde's Judiciary Committee, was at home in Chicago when the Starr report was delivered to Capitol Hill. It seemed from media reports that the referral was "just sex," so he told friends he expected to be home for good in a couple of weeks. "I was fully prepared to review it and go back to Henry and say, 'It's over,'" he recalls. Within a month, though, the veteran Democratic lawyer (who, by the way, voted for Bill Clinton twice) was outlining 15 possible criminal counts against the president. As he helps prepare the House managers to make their case before a jury of senators, he explains, "What changed my mind was the evidence."."

Freeper yaya reports 1/23/99 FoxNews "Dick Morris has been contacted by Asa" Freeper adds ".He was to meet with someone on Monday, but they called back and said the wasn't soon enough. So, now Morris is scheduled to meet with someone on the Managers' team tomorrow.."

Nando Media/Scripps Howard News Service 1/23/99 Jay Ambrose ".White House lawyers heaped argument on argument in the U.S. Senate. They said the facts favor their man, that he isn't really guilty of perjury and obstructing justice and that, even if he were, it would be unconstitutional to oust him. That's a lot to swallow, especially for anyone who has been thinking about the case impartially. President Clinton committed perjury. He lied under oath before a grand jury not just once, but several times, House prosecutors demonstrated. The case that he obstructed justice is convincing, if not so sure a thing. And to believe that perjury is not impeachable is to ignore the history of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is to think the country's founders were either careless or stupid in crafting the Constitution and it is to shrug one's shoulders at precedent."

1/23/99 Freeper Abigail Adams reports ".Lindsey Graham just made it very clear to the Senators that if they think BC was not trying to refresh his memory with Betty Currie, that he was being misleading, then HE IS GUILTY!.."

1/23/99 Freeper arturo reports ".Ruff now making the unbelievable argument that the Prez is above every military officer and soldier with regard to the law and therefore should in essence be held to a lower standard! Totally in keeping with his statement yesterday that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the president to be treated like any other citizen. These hypocritical liberals who claim to be for the common man!.."

1/23/99 Freeper hyeduke ".Sen Lott to Managers: Should the senators take into account the views of the people? (paraphrased). HYDE:There are issues of transcendence that you have to be willing to lose your office over. Abortion is one, National Defense is another...equal justice under the law. I am willing to lose my seat any day of the week rather than sell out over those issues. The American People are HUNGRY for anyone who believes in SOMETHING. ." Adds Freeper Shethink13 ".Henry Hyde is responding to the question about popular opinion and what should happen here. First presented to WH by Wellstone. Willing to lose his seat any day on the issues of equal justice under the law. Wiping tears away as I type.."

UPI S 1/23/99 ".One of Monica Lewinsky's attorneys, Jacob Stein, complained (Saturday) about a federal judge's order that his client meet with House prosecutors and independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Stein said: ''It seemed to us that requiring Ms. Lewinsky to appear ata private meeting excluding others was putting her in a clearly partisan position. And we didn't think it was fair to her where the independent counsel is being used, it appeared to me, by the (House Judiciary) committee.'' ."

Henry Hyde Chairman news Release ".January 23, 1999 MANAGERS' RESPONSE TO JUDGE'S RULING.Paul McNulty, chief spokesman for the House Managers, made the following statement today following Judge Johnson's ruling that Monica Lewinsky must cooperate with the managers' request for an interview, in keeping with her immunity agreement: "Monica Lewinsky received extraordinary protection in exchange for her truthful testimony. Judge Johnson ruled that she has an obligation to cooperate in the search for truth. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony has never been more important than it is now. In the last four days, the White House has challenged the reliability of her testimony in a number of key instances relating to her conversations with the President and Ms. Currie. Ms. Lewinsky can resolve some of these crucial conflicts, and House Managers have a responsibility to interview her before deciding to call her as a witness. This is Lawyering 101 - any good lawyer would talk to a witness before deciding to put her on the witness stand. When the House of Representatives appointed the Managers, it also granted them the investigative authority necessary to find the truth. The White House's protests are psuedo-objections designed to divert attention from the President's behavior.".

UPI 1/23/99 Freeper andrew ".Monica Lewinsky's imminent return to Washington has tempers fraying on Capitol Hill. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., decried prosecutors' decision to seek a court order to force the former White House intern to speak with them and independent counsel KennethStarr: ''I was trying to think, 'Why would they do anything this stupid....and all I could think of was panic and desperation....All I can think is, they're losing it. I mean, maybe they're worried about the motion to dismiss (the case).'' .."

AP 1/23/99 ".FULL HYDE STATEMENT ." the views of the American people'': ``Edmund Burke was asked that once. And he said that a member of parliament owes the highest fidelity to its constituents, but he doesn't owe his conscience to anybody. We have, or we have not, a representative democracy. We're not delegates who are sent here to weigh our mail every day, and then to vote accordingly. Our work here is not an ongoing plebiscite. We are elected to bring our judgment, our experience and our consciences with us here. I have always believed (that), and I believe (that) more firmly than ever, and this experience confirms me in that belief. There are issues of transcendent importance that you have to be willing to lose your office over. I would think of several that I am willing to lose my office over. Abortion is one. National defense is another. Strengthening, not emasculating, the concept of equal justice under law. My life is devoted as a lawyer; I've been on the Judiciary Committee -- this is my 25th year -- and equal justice under the law is what moves me. It animates me. And I'm willing to lose my seat any day of the week rather than sell out on those issues. Despite all the polls and all the hostile editorials, America is hungry for people who believe in something. You may disagree with us, but we believe in something.''."

UPI 1/23/99 ".Forty-four Senate Democrats have signed a letter to House Judiciary Committee Henry Hyde, R-Ill., (Saturday), appealing to him to ''withdraw any and all requests to (independent counsel Kenneth) Starr that he assist your efforts to interview (Monica) Lewinsky.'' ..."

FoxNews Dick Morris 1/23/99 by Freeper LYNXcry ".Morris is saying that we will see an "avalanche of new witnesses" that are being deposed tomorrow. He has been called to be deposed tomorrow, along with others and Monica. As he says, the House Managers are going to find enough stuff in their questioning of these witnesses, to fill in the holes in the record with incriminating NEW evidence to prove the President is guilty. Morris said he is about fifteenth on the list of witnesses, therefore he believes there will be others talking to House Managers tomorrow and the information will be put out to the public, information that is critical to make the House case for live witnesses. He said that Byrd has put the Dems in a terrible position....in that he has made sure that the Senate is going to be split down strictly party lines now. He has made the GOP ralley together and they have the majority to press on with the trial. That means witnesses, and they will tell the truth. As he said, Monica will be testifying under penalty of going to jail if she lies, under the terms of the immunity agreement. ....."

AP 1/23/99 Tom Raum ".The two sides in the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton are marching in opposite, and perhaps irreconcilable, directions. Gone is the feel-good bipartisanship that marked the beginning of the trial. House prosecutors are working hard to bolster an unraveling case by keeping up pressure to call Monica Lewinsky and other witnesses, perhaps even trying to force the president to testify.. These votes are "likely to fall largely along party lines,'' conceded John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. Thus, simple arithmetic suggests the outcome: the motion to dismiss will be rejected and the motion to begin the process of hearing witnesses will be approved. But the votes will be telling about the eventual outcome, if the trial moves to a final up or down verdict. Unless there are major swings in sentiment, the votes will likely show what many in the political process have claimed all along: Clinton won't be removed from office.."

Nando Media/AP 1/23/99 Larry Margasak ".Amid increased pressure from Democrats to cut short the trial, the senators also heard lead prosecutor Henry Hyde make an impassioned plea for them not to "sell out" for political expediency. "Despite all the polls and hostile editorials, America is hungry for people who believe in something You may disagree with us. But we believe in something," Hyde said, defending the 13 Republican prosecutors who have been assailed for pressing to call witnesses at the trial..Noting that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr had gone to court on behalf of the House, Ruff said, "Can you imagine what that little conversation is going to look like, held in the independent counsel's office, with the people there who have the capacity to put Lewinsky in jail?" .Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., dismissed the criticism, and suggestions Lewinsky would be mistreated. "The White House counselors do not want to talk about the facts, the obstruction of justice. Just like in the house, they want to talk about the process, everything but the obstruction of justice," he said. "Every time the president tried to talk to (Oval Office secretary) Betty Currie, I don't think the president invited the independent counsel in. ... I didn't necessarily expect him to," said Hutchinson, one of the House prosecutors. Hutchinson also disclosed he had made contact with the lawyer for presidential friend Vernon Jordan, seeking to see whether he would agree to testify.."

The New York Times 1/24/99 Blaine Harden ".Rubbing salt in last week's wounds, as people here perceive it, was that "show business" State of the Union speech that polls said Americans loved so much, along with the endless broadcasts of the president's lawyers attacking the House case against Clinton. About two-thirds of voters here and across South Carolina disapprove of Clinton and want him removed by the Senate, according to an early January poll by Richard Quinn, a Republican political consultant. "South Carolina is immune to Bill Clinton's charms," said Quinn, whose office is in Columbia, and who has done presidential polling here since 1980. "We know him too well. He is seen by voters here as the prototype of the Southern con artist." ."

The New York Times 1/24/99 Don Van Natta Jr. Jill Abramson by Freeper praise ".This time last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton described, in a now-famous appearance on the NBC News program "Today," how a "vast right-wing conspiracy" was trying to destroy her husband's presidency. As it turns out, some of the most serious damage to Bill Clinton's presidency came not from his high-profile political enemies but from a small secret clique of lawyers in their 30s who share a deep antipathy toward the president, according to nearly two dozen interviews and recently filed court documents.."

New York Times 1/24/99 Jill Abramson ".Opening arguments have been heard; the Senate has asked its questions. President Clinton's impeachment trial is now twisting toward its most unpredictable phase: the decision on whether to call witnesses. If the Senate votes this week to take depositions, the first step toward public testimony, command performances are expected from at least three people, Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie, the president's personal secretary, and Vernon Jordan, his friend. The House members who are prosecuting the case would also like to hear from some White House staff members, like chief of staff John Podesta and senior aide Sidney Blumenthal. And they want the Senate to invite the president to testify, though his appearance is thought to be unlikely. The White House doesn't want witnesses at all. But the president's lawyers have hinted that if Ms. Lewinsky is summoned, they may wish to call some witnesses themselves, Linda Tripp, Ms. Lewinsky's former friend, Lucianne Goldberg, the New York book agent and Tripp confidante, and maybe even Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who has been investigating Clinton for nearly five years.."

Freeper Cchauchat 1/23/99 ".In answering Kennedy's softball question about telling the truth and 'the children,' Greg Craig said "the President was wrong when he did not tell the truth." I have not heard the President's counsel admit so openly before that Clinton in fact did lie. I am tremendously disappointed that Craig's statement to this effect wasn't immediately followed up on, and Craig forced to enumerate specifically when it was that Clinton failed to tell the truth.."

Freeper truthkeeper 1/23/99 on FoxNews ".WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! Alert, Alert! Carl Cameron on Fox said when Lindsey Graham made his "If you want to go down that road (of witness intimidation), then we'll go down that road" speech, he was HAVING A STARE-DOWN CONTEST WITH ROBERT BYRD!! Cameron: "He was very deliberately and directly looking at him, saying it is BILL CLINTON who's been intimidating witnesses and who's the one who's been impeached for Obstruction of Justice." "It was a very tense and dramatic moment," Catherine Crier added. JIMINEY CRICKET!"

Exegesis (via NewsMax.com) 1/23/99Steve Myers Freeper incognito ".I have a long memory. I remember when the President of the United States wasn't part of the criminal underground, didn't deal in drugs and whose surviving friends didn't wind up in jail, fleeing the country or pleading the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid testifying against him in court.."

Henry Hyde to Tom Daschle ".I am in receipt of your letter of today expressing your concern with the House of Representatives' request to interview Monica Lewinsky. .. The House of Representatives has not violated S. Res. 16. When the House passed H. Res. 10 appointing the Managers, it authorized that the Managers may "in connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may include * * * sending for persons and papers . . . ." Implicit in this authority is the ability to conduct interviews and gather additional information relevant to the articles of impeachment.."

Fox News Channel 1/23/99 Freeper imdoug reports "Clinton announces that he will NOT answer questions submitted from the Senate." Freeper polly g adds ".I'm shocked. Greg Craig said the President would do this. Now Clinton won't. I wonder why. I heard Trent Lott say they were working on the questions this weekend. Pakistani Lanny (Davis) said he thought it would be a good idea for the President to do this. Wonder what's going on.."

Washington AFP/ MSNBC Opinion Bulletin Board 1/23/99 ".Outside the chamber, Democrats hoping to dismiss the first such trial in 131 years erupted angrily over the managers' effort to hold an 'informal' interview with the former White House intern. "Why would they do something this stupid?" Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy asked rhetorically in a sharp attack on the managers, whom he said violated the Senate' procedural agreement. .."We are going to defeat the Byrd resolution," Republican Senator Phil Gramm promised after a party meeting ahead of a second day of senators' questions of defense and prosecutors. "The motion to dismiss will not pass," agreed Senator Don Nickles, the number-two Republican, who added "all of us are weary of this thing and we'd like to see it terminate before too long."..But if the Senate votes to take depositions, lawmakers could call individual witnesses to testify. The White House and its Democratic allies have strenuously opposed any new testimony. .."

Freeper top of the world ma 1/23/99 ".In one of his tirades this afternoon, Greg Craig said it was an abomination that members of the House of Representaatives were taken over to the Ford Building to view documentation about salacious material that was not in the Starr Referral. They then voted for Impeachment. I am no attorney, but I have oftentimes heard that a comment like this from opposing counsel "opens the door" to the other counsel to bring in evidence that otherwise would not come in."

1/23/99 AP ".A Republican Senate official claimed ``remarkable unity'' among the GOP rank and file against a Democratic bid to dismiss charges, expected as early as Monday. Henry Hyde, the lead prosecutor, gave an impassioned defense of prosecutors. ``There are issues of transcendent importance that you have to be willing to lose your office over,'' Hyde said. White House Counsel Charles Ruff assailed House prosecutors for seeking to interview Ms. Lewinsky without Senate permission and accused Starr of exceeding his authority by intervening in the impeachment trial... ``What are they afraid of?'' Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., asked of the president's lawyers.."

AP 1/22/99 Text of Starr's Motion for Lewinsky ".Ms. Lewinsky's counsel's other suggestion - - that a debriefing would be contrary to Senate rules -- is equally without merit. Senate Resolution 16 states, in relevant part: ``If the Senate agrees to allow either the House or the President to call witnesses, the witnesses shall first be deposed and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify, pursuant to the impeachment rules.'' Although it is plain that depositions may not be conducted absent a vote of the Senate, nothing in this resolution restricts the ability of the House to debrief witnesses in a non-deposition setting. Indeed, it would be strange for the Senate to prohibit the House and the President from doing the investigation necessary to determine whether they wish to call witnesses and which witnesses to list in their motions.."

The Washington Post 1/24/99 Page A17 Guy Gugliotta Juliet Eilperin ".He's been vilified, ridiculed, undercut and sometimes ignored, but if Rep. Henry J. Hyde has made anything clear in recent days, it is that he wants a full impeachment trial complete with witnesses - and will never give up until the Senate either grants him one or slams the door in his face. The Illinois Republican "is on fire to make sure" the trial comes to an up-or-down vote on the articles of impeachment," said Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the 13 members of Hyde's prosecution team. No early dismissal, no adjournment, no shortened case. "He believes this president trashed the rule of law, and he's unshakable that this case be heard. He's always been our compass." It is said on Capitol Hill that one cannot get in the face of the U.S. Senate, peopled by 100 legislative demigods who never take advice, and who detest lectures by anyone but themselves. But Hyde and his House "managers" appear unwilling to show such deference, and if the prosecution cannot convince 67 senators to throw Clinton out of office, it will not be for lack of trying. Virtually from the moment the House passed two articles of impeachment Dec. 19, the managers have fought like wildcats for a full airing of their case, and Hyde has been at the helm for the entire voyage.."

Steve Wampler 1/21/99 Steve Wampler of the Right On! a conservative talk radio show ".One of the most egregious abuses of presidential power during Watergate was the establishment of a "secret police" called the Plumbers, who broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg to check on the leak of the Pentagon Papers, among other illegalities. Now 25 years later, during the Clinton Administration, there is clear and compelling evidence that a "secret police operation" is up and running - to "protect" an American president from facing the law for his alleged crimes. There is much evidence, amazingly already in the public record, that operatives working on behalf of this president have threatened, intimidated and harassed witnesses to prevent the public and the courts from learning their stories. This is a gross abuse of power that rises to the level and beyond of Watergate. In at least three separate stories in the New York Post, ex- Clinton adviser Dick Morris has discussed the "secret police operation," including Oct. 1 when he wrote he had warned the Clinton administration "the activities of their secret police force will get out of hand and might bring this presidency down." Liberal Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff also spoke bluntly in January when he wrote: "It has become brutally clear that any former object of his lust who threatens his presidency should be put into the Witness Protection Program." As senators you will consider two articles of impeachment - article one, perjury before a grand jury; and article two, obstruction of justice, one of the same articles levied against Richard Nixon in 1974. Mr. Clinton's "secret police operation" should and must be considered within the boundaries of this second article, which charges he has "prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice." The words and fears of the people who have had to testify about Mr. Clinton's alleged crimes speak volumes. Monica Lewinsky, at one point, bluntly stated that she would not cross Bill Clinton or his people for fear of her life.."

1/24/99 Washington Post A17 David Von Drehle ". the chief justice read aloud. "Can reasonable people disagree with the conclusion that, as a matter of law, he must be convicted and removed from office?" Graham rose from the prosecution table, struck his usual friendly, boyish stance at the lectern and answered: "Absolutely." From there he meandered a bit. He insisted the perjury charge against Clinton is not trivial. He reckoned that obstruction of justice is surely a "high crime." "But I would be the first to admit that the Constitution is silent on this question about whether or not every high crime has to result in removal," he said. "And if I was sitting where you're at, I would probably get down on my knees before I made that decision. . ... And you got to consider what's best for this nation." ..Like Hamlet, Graham has registered as a very human figure in a tragedy full of schemers, blowhards, stalking horses and madness. Like Hamlet, his on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand speeches may grow exasperating. And, like Hamlet, he is the character who keeps surprising. The Democrats snapped up the olive branch and began whapping their opponents on the head with it... "I sleep well having voted for impeachment," he said. "I think he's a perjurer and he obstructed justice and he did it in a mean way." And he feels strongly that the Senate should allow witnesses to be called; otherwise, "you'll never get the flavor of what he did, how mean it was - planting lies about his consensual lover - how calculated, which goes to the question of whether he should be in office." .."

The Wall Street Journal 1/23/99 AP ".With party lines hardening, Majority Leader Trent Lott announced late Saturday afternoon that Senate Republicans would submit written questions to Mr. Clinton as early as Monday to resolve "some of the inconsistencies" in the case. Within an hour, the White House said its lawyers -- not Mr. Clinton -- would respond.."

New York Post 1/24/99 Allen Salkin ".Former White House adviser Dick Morris said he expects to be grilled today by impeachment prosecutors about presidential efforts to silence Monica Lewinsky in January 1998... The conversations that might most interest prosecutors occurred Jan. 22 and have already been extensively chronicled in the Starr Report, Morris said. Morris, who is a columnist for The Post, had gotten a call from a reporter telling him that on the Monica Lewinsky-Linda Tripp tapes, Lewinsky told of an incident in which she was having a sexual encounter with the president while he was supposedly on the phone with Morris - who was simultaneously having sex with a prostitute. Although it turned out there was no such passage on the tapes, Morris, who knew the alleged incident never occurred, was ready to blast Lewinsky publicly, saying that if she was lying about this, nobody should trust anything else she said. On Jan. 22, Morris called the president, who was initially enthusiastic about Morris having a Lewinsky- bashing press conference the next day, Morris said. "But then an hour later, the president called me back and said, 'I've been talking to my advisers and we think it wouldn't be a good idea for you to have a press conference attacking Monica because there's still a chance that she isn't going to talk to Starr and we don't want to alienate her,'" Morris said. "The reason House managers attach importance to it is they feel it tends to indicate the president was trying to get Monica not to testify truthfully to Starr or the public by not alienating her and hopefully getting her to stay with their cover story."."

New York Post 1/24/99 Steve Dunleavy ".CHARLES Ruff, the brilliant White House counsel, yesterday took a brief departure from sanity. In the well of the Senate, he virtually told the country that rain isn't wet. "No one has ever, the president or his aides, has trashed, maligned Monica Lewinsky, no one," he said. In that case, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal better take a quick dash to the Maldive Islands. Because if Charles Ruff is representing the truth, Blumenthal is liable to be charged with perjury."

FoxNews 1/24/99 Freeper crackpot ".Morris says he told managers the following: 1)President's attorney's lied about the President's "lack of concern" about gift issue. President expressed concern to Morris about gifts to Monica on January 23rd..2) Spent a lot of time talking about the "we just have to win" conversation between President and Morris on Jan. 21st. Morris polled, and 60% said Clinton should be thrown out for perjury and obstruction. Morris claims the President was untruthful to Congress when he testified that he "did not recall" saying "we just have to win" to Morris...3) Morris says he was going to hold a press conference to attack Lewinsky, and the President was ecstatic about that idea. An hour or two later, the President called back and told Morris to hold off on the attack just in case Lewinsky was going to end up in the tank for Clinton.."

CNBC - Russert Show 1/24/99 Paraphrased from CNBC Freeper SFConservative ".Sen Harkin says there is perjury and there is perjury; presumably quoting his Catholic school teacher Father Delahante (sp?). He said that lying is excusable if the Gestapo came to your door and you lied about your neighbor being Jewish.."

1/24/99 AP David Espo Walter Mears ".With party lines hardening, Majority Leader Trent Lott announced at day's end that Senate Republicans would submit written questions to Clinton as early as Monday to resolve ``some of the inconsistencies'' in the case. Within an hour, the White House said its lawyers -- not Clinton -- would respond. . . . .Lott told reporters at day's end about the plan to seek written answers from the president. He did so after Clinton's attorney, Gregory Craig, said during the trial session, ``Now we would be happy to take questions and get responses to you, consult with the president and Mr. Ruff, if you'd like to submit them.'' . . . .Lott dispatched his spokesman, John Czwartacki, to tell reporters that an early morning closed-door meeting had produced ``remarkable unity'' against a Democratic bid to dismiss the charges and in favor of deposing witnesses. The trial, he said, appears to be entering a ``phase which may be partisan.''. . . ."

AP 1/24/99 Larry Margasak ".After an interview of nearly two hours, all three said the session was productive. ``I believe she would be a witness that would help them determine the truth,'' said Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark. Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., said Ms. Lewinsky ``might be a very helpful witness to the Senate if called.'' Ms. Lewinsky's attorney, Plato Cacheris, said his client ``was candid, forthright and extremely truthful'' and ``added nothing to the record that is already sitting before the Senate right now.'' ."

Universal Press Syndicate Uexpress 1/24/99 John Leo ".Historians will note that the impeachment of President Clinton could not have occurred without the help of the feminist establishment. Feminists pushed hard for a 1994 law that allowed harassment lawyers to rummage around in the sexual histories of accused men and grill them about whatever they find. It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. But without that law, President Clinton could not have been questioned under oath about Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case. No Lewinsky, no need to lie about Lewinsky, no impeachment.."

CNN 1/24/99 by Freeper LYNXCry ".CNN just reported that Kathleen Willey is on the witness list right now.....and that could cause the vote on the list to fail. They interviewed John Chaiffe (R) and he said, "if she is on the list, I will vote against witness, that is opening up something that is not in the articles"..."

LA Times 1/24/99 Doyle McManus ".After two long weeks of trial proceedings, the Senate is right back where it started: unwilling to remove President Clinton from office but uncertain how to bring the impeachment juggernaut to a dignified end--and dividing on sharp partisan lines. If the only question were a verdict--conviction or acquittal--the task would be easy: The prosecution camp is still far short of the 67 votes required to convict and getting no closer. Among most senators, Republican and Democratic, a rough private consensus exists on the merits of this case: Clinton appears guilty of at least some of the charges against him, but his offenses don't necessarily warrant removal from the White House. "Impeachability is what I'm struggling with," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), a crusty conservative patriarch. "We're all still struggling with it." ."

Freeper Tommydale on Sunday Talk Shows (All) 1/24/99 "."She's already been called 22 times. Why should she be called for a 23rd time?" This line has been used on every single "Sunday Talking Head Show" today by the Democrats.."

CNN--Late Edition 1/24/99 by Freeper MrMatt ".The esteemed Sen Kerry of Mass. is starting to lay the groundwork to justify holding their ground even if some new information is gleened from today's House Manager interview of Monica. He even went so far as to say that Obstruction of Justice is not a removable offense because the underlying matter is private. So...now the Demo party line is even if there is proof of obstruction, they will keep him in office."

NOW Web site 4/22/98 ".No boss should get away with making unwelcome sexual advances and threatening a woman's job status, even if he doesn't actually carry out his threats when she refuses. Sexual misconduct hurts women in the workplace; the boss who paws, propositions and warns of retaliation takes away a woman's dignity . . . even if he doesn't take away her job. He denies her respect. . . even if he doesn't deny her a promotion or a raise..."

Newsmax 1/23/99 Carl Limbacher ".Though the young African-American lawyer won media accolades for her performance, the substance of her argument is undermined by the facts of Bill Clinton's actual record, especially as it relates to his own treatment of black people. Take the example Mills used to explain the genesis of what is said to be the President's remarkable sense of racial tolerance: "Bill Clinton's grandfather owned a store. His store catered primarily to African-Americans ... he taught his grandson that the African-Americans who came into his store were good people, and they worked hard, and they deserved a better deal in life. The President has taken his grandfather's teachings to heart and he has worked every day to give all of us a better deal, an equal deal." Clinton's maternal grandfather, Eldridge Cassidy, did indeed own a grocery store in the black section of Hope, Arkansas. And Clinton spent much time there as a toddler. But just after his fifth year, Clinton's widowed mother, Virginia Blythe, married Roger Clinton and he moved the family to Hot Springs -- leaving young Clinton with a good deal less contact with his reputed role model during his formative years. But the move brought another man into the picture. Young Bill became the favorite nephew of his new uncle, Ray Clinton. Uncle Ray was wealthy, well connected and employed the future president's stepfather in his Hot Springs Buick dealership. According to Clinton biographer Roger Morris, there was "convincing evidence" that Bill Clinton's Uncle Ray was linked to the Ku Klux Klan. . According to a statehouse reporter quoted in Morris' Clinton biography, "Partners in Power", well into his governorship, Clinton regularly referred to his Klan-connected uncle as "the most commanding male presence in his life." .."

AP 1/24/99 Larry Margasak ".The House team focused on issues at the heart of obstruction of justice allegations against Clinton, according to a source familiar with the interview - the job search for Ms. Lewinsky and retrieval of presidential gifts from the former intern by Oval Office secretary Betty Currie. Ms. Lewinsky also disclosed new information to prosecutors - that Mrs. Currie made calls from the White House to Ms. Lewinsky prior to going to Ms. Lewinsky's apartment later in the day to pick up the subpoenaed presents, another source said. The calls apparently were not logged. The former intern and Currie disagree over which of them initiated the pickup and, before Sunday, House prosecutors only had a record of a one-minute cellular call from Mrs. Currie to Ms. Lewinsky to substantiate Ms. Lewinsky's account. Presidential lawyers have suggested that the one-minute call was too short a time to have arranged the pickup.."

Newsweek 2/9/98 Michael Isikoff Evan Thomas Mark Hosenball Karen Breslau Daniel Klaidman ".Meanwhile, the spinners went to work portraying Lewinsky as a stalker and a temptress, not deranged, maybe, but, as one columnist put it, echoing conservative critiques of Anita Hill -- "a little nutty and a little slutty.".."

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 2/2/98 ".But the Animal House president has messed up big time again, and he must be dragged back from the precipice by the bimbo patrol. So far, it's been mostly a whispering campaign against Monica. But some Clinton supporters are whispering awfully loud. "That poor child has serious emotional problems," Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said Tuesday night before the State of the Union. "She's fantasizing. And I haven't heard that she played with a full deck in her other experiences.".. So if the presidency hinges on "he said, she said," the first lady won't hesitate to supervise the vivisection of the former intern. Lewinsky, after all, is expendable..."

Heads Up #119 1/24/99 Doug Fiedor by Freeper Roscoe Karns "."William Jefferson Clinton is not guilty of the charges that have been preferred against him. He did not commit perjury." said Charles Ruff, White House counsel, opening the defense of the impeached liar. Ruff's presentation went down hill from there. Millions of Americans saw the tapes of Clinton committing perjury. There is no doubt Clinton committed perjury. Therefore, the whole of Ruff's presentation may be discounted."

AP 1/24/99 ".Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but believes the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. "I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess,'' Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. "But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold.'' ."

FOX news 1/24/99 Freeper LYNXCry reports ".Catherine Crier of FOX was interviewing a Whitehouse reporter LIVE just now and he said something very revealing...He said "they were discussing Betty Curries testimony regarding Clinton 'coaching' her , ie ...we weren't really alone were we Betty"..and a Democratic Senator leaned over to a Fox reporter and said "YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THAT HE WAS REFRESHING HIS MEMORY DO YOU" .."

Detroit News 1/24/99 Editorial Freeper machman ".But in the main, there remains a strong circumstantial case of perjury and obstruction of justice. It is typical of such cases that the evidence is mostly indirect and thus subject to different interpretation. What a jury must consider is the overall pattern - does common sense tell us that wrongdoing was committed? On that score, we have only to remember that almost a year ago this president looked the American people square in the eye and growled: "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Is this a man incapable of perjuring himself before a mere grand jury?."

AP 1/24/99 Deb Riechmann ".Forty witnesses provided the Perry Mason moments at President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in 1868. Congressmen, a postmaster, military officers, journalists - even the Senate's keeper of stationery - took the stand for and against his removal. .Eventually, 24 witnesses appeared for the prosecution and 15 for the defense. One more, President Johnson's secretary, William Moore, was called by both sides. ."

St. Louis Post Dispatch 1/24/99 Jon Sawyer Freeper rface ".Amid all the partisan back-and- forth, the message from Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., was: Chill out. The only reason Democrats are kicking up this procedural dust storm, he said, is to divert the public from the impeachment case the House has made...As for himself, Bond said, the contradictory accounts he has heard so far make the decision on going to the trial's next phase - the deposition of witnesses - a slam dunk...."The White House has made a very persuasive case," he said, "that we need to have witnesses." ."

Chicago Tribune 1/24/99 Steve Chapman ".It's a mystery why congressional Democrats have been so determined to rescue Clinton from the consequences of his own lechery and lying. It's not as if he ever did anything for them. True, he won back the White House, but the victories were strictly for Clinton, not his party. And after being elected, he managed to do something that even Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter at their most unpopular couldn't do: to deliver both houses of Congress to the Republican Party not once but three straight times. More victories of the sort Clinton provides, and the party will soon be extinct... Democrats in Congress could have been eager to abandon the president as soon as he gave them half a reason. Unlike Clinton, whom they neither like nor trust, the vice president is a well-regarded veteran of both the House and the Senate who can be relied on to work with them and keep his promises-- not to mention that he leaves the interns alone. "Al Gore in the Oval Office?" they might have asked. "Please don't throw me in that briar patch!" ..Democrats, meanwhile, have heroically volunteered to excuse conduct that is appalling and contemptible. Not many of them went into public service for the glory of rationalizing presidential lies and deceptions. But there they are, doing exactly that..."

New York Times 1/25/99 Francis Clines Don Van Natta Jr. ".And minutes after that interview ended Sunday with the departure of three House prosecutors in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, Monica S. Lewinsky told a close friend, "I gave them nothing." ."

Washington Times 1/12/99 Balint Vazsonyi Freeper Walkin Man ".Much speculation surrounds the matter (rather prematurely) of how history might view this presidency. Right now, my overwhelming impression is that it corrupts everything and everyone who comes in contact with it. The number of prominent, decent and respected Americans who have publicly abandoned truth, decency and integrity represents a tragedy for the world yet to be assessed accurately.. "

Greg Pierce Washington Times 1/25/99 Russert's NBC Meet the Press reaction to the finger wagging denial ".Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, South Carolina Democrat: Nobody believed him then. Nobody believed him then. The country's found him guilty. They know. He didn't come into the presidency under good behavior, he came into the residency under misbehavior.."

Greg Pierce Washington Times 1/25/99 Russert's NBC Meet the Press reaction to the finger wagging denial ".Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat: It did. And that statement caused a lot of hurt and anger and disappointment in the president's personal behavior and from all of us who respected him from that point.."

Greg Pierce Washington Times 1/25/99 Russert's NBC Meet the Press reaction to the finger wagging denial ".Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, Maine Republican: Well, I'm concerned, and I think we were all upset, by the fact that the president deliberately lied to the American people, because what it did was undermine the office of the presidency. It did represent a serious breach of trust, and I think we're all going to have to pay the price in some way, collectively, over the years ahead to rebuild the confidencenot only in the office of the presidency but in our governmental institutions, because people, having watched the president of the United States directly lie to the American people. And I think that's the tragedy of it all."

Greg Pierce Washington Times 1/25/99 Russert's NBC Meet the Press reaction to the finger wagging denial ".Sen. Slade Gorton, Washington Republican: That clip, that statement, was a clear abuse of the power of the presidency of the United States, and it was designed as exactly that. I think it's extremely serious, and it did undercut the presidency and did undercut the United States of America.."

Greg Pierce Washington Times 1/25/99 Russert's NBC Meet the Press reaction to the finger wagging denial ".Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican: The first article for Richard Nixon was that he lied to the American people. That's what the House said. That was the first article of impeachment. Bill Clinton lied to the American people. Richard Nixon resigned. This president stuffed it in our face. That's what he thinks of the presidency, and that's a tragedy for this country.."

1/25/99 Foxnews AP ".With President Clinton's Senate impeachment trial at a crossroads, Republicans and Democrats struggled Monday to decide whether to seek a swift end to the proceedings without a partisan struggle over witnesses. Republicans rejected a plan to end the trial this week. Democrats backed a proposal for final votes on the articles of impeachment on Friday, with no chance of witnesses. But Republicans "summarily rejected" the idea during a closed-door meeting, according to John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Majority Leader Trent Lott. Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles, R-Okla., said of the plan supported by the Democrats, "I'm sure that there would be an objection if it precludes witnesses, and it does." ...The Senate was scheduled to debate two rival motions beginning Monday - one sought by Democrats to dismiss the charges, the other sought by the House prosecutors to depose witnesses. Democratic leader Tom Daschle told reporters of an "alternative scenario" that would scrap those two votes. He set out a schedule for final arguments and Senate deliberations that would culminate in a vote on the articles of impeachment themselves on Friday... "

Richard Carelli AP ".The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 2000 census cannot use statistical sampling to enhance its accuracy, a decision making it more likely millions of people will be left out. The 5-4 ruling requires the traditional nose count to determine how many members of Congress each state should have. Left in doubt, however, was whether the sampling the Clinton administration favors will be used to determine state-by-state eligibility for $180 billion in federal money each year of the coming decade -- or for drawing election districts at all levels of government. That may depend on whether the Republican-led Congress provides enough financing for the Census Bureau. The nation's highest court ruled that a 1976 federal census law ``directly prohibits the use of sampling in the determination of population for the purposes of apportionment.'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart called the setback for the Clinton administration a ``limited decision'' and noted that the justices did not say sampling is unconstitutional. That means Congress could decide to amend the 1976 law and support the method. But such action by Congress seems remote since Republicans oppose statistical sampling. The Republican majority in Congress also is expected to resist efforts to let the Census employ two differing methods in counting the population. ``The administration should abandon its illegal and risky polling scheme and start preparing for a true head count,'' said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. ."

1/25/99 Jim Abrams AP ".As senators struggled with the question of witnesses, a senior Democrat today introduced a motion asking the Senate to dismiss the charges against President Clinton and end his impeachment trial. House prosecutors strongly opposed the idea while the president's lawyer declared, ``It is time to end it.'' .``I ask you to consider the harm he caused, the indignity he brought to the institution of the presidency,'' Rep. Charles Canady of Florida said in arguing against the long-anticipated motion by Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. Senate Republicans predicted they had enough votes to defeat the motion. Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., added his plea that senators not end the trial just ``because you do not think there are presently enough votes for conviction.'' But Nicole Seligman, one of Clinton's private lawyers, urged senators to dismiss the ``defective'' and ``deeply troubling'' impeachment articles accusing Clinton of obstruction of justice and perjury. She said Clinton's efforts to conceal his affair with Monica Lewinsky did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. ``We submit to you that the moment has arrived where the best interests of the nation, the wise prescription of the framers and the failure of the managers' proof all point to dismissal. You have listened, you have heard. The case cannot be made. It is time to end it,'' Ms. Seligman argued. She added that, ``impeachment was never meant to be another weapon in the arsenal of partisanship.'' ."

AP 1/25/99 Excerpts from Senate impeachment trial ". .``He made the choice to violate the law. And he made that choice repeatedly. He knew what he was doing. He reflected on it. Perhaps he struggled with his conscience. But when the time came to decide, he deliberately and willfully chose to violate the laws of this land. He chose to turn his back on the very law he was sworn to uphold. He chose to turn his back on his solemn oath of office. He chose to turn his back on his constitutional duty.'' -- Canady..``Such lawless conduct by the president does immeasurably more to subvert public respect for the law than does the misconduct of any federal judge or any other federal official.'' -- Canady..Tell us what's right. Tell us what's wrong. Give us some guidance. Under our Constitution, you don't impeach people at the ballot box. You trust the United States Senate. And I am willing to do that. Rise to the occasion for the good of the nation.'' -- Graham.."

AP 1/25/99 David Espo ".The Senate closed its doors Monday to debate a Democratic attempt to dismiss all charges against President Clinton and bring his impeachment trial to an end. House prosecutors pressed their case for testimony by Monica Lewinsky and a shortened list of additional witnesses. Senators deliberated into the night in a rare secret session as the White House, confident of Clinton's ability to win eventual acquittal, announced it would ignore a written list of questions submitted by Majority Leader Trent Lott and other Republicans. An attempt by two Democrats to open the debate to the public was rejected, 57 senators voting against it and 43 for it. A two-thirds majority was needed to pass.."

1/25/99 FoxNews O'Reilly by Freeper MrMatt ".Tonight on the O'Reilly factor Dick [Morris] talked about his thoughts regarding the House Manager's strategy. 1) He thinks that managers see Currie as the week link in the Prez's defense. 2) One of his conversations with the Prez indicated to him that the Prez was very concerned about the gifts. 3) He is of the opinion that THERE IS NO WAY THAT CURRIE DECIDED ON HER OWN TO PICK UP THE GIFTS. 4) The managers' strategy is to have Monica re- affirm her testimony that Currie called her to suggest that she picks up the gifts. 5) IF CURRIE DOES NOT CHANGE HER STORY AND GIVE UP THE PREZ ON THE GIFT PICK UP ISSUE, STARR WILL INDICT CURRIE FOR PERJURY."

1/26/99 New York Times Frank Bruni Lizette Alvarez ". Over the weekend, Monica Lewinsky had come to town, setting off agitated scrums of reporters and gawkers that foretold the commotion if she were to testify in the Senate. Partisan tempers had flared, reminding senators that their hold on dignity was tenuous. And two trusted ambassadors of bipartisanship -- Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. -- had sketched a scenario for a denouement, passing the plan on to party leaders. But that glimmer of hope died quickly in the Republican caucus Monday, and the reason boiled down to the same sticking point that had proven most vexing from the outset of the proceedings: namely, witnesses. The Gorton-Lieberman plan did not allow for them, and many Republicans remained steadfast in their desire to call at least a few. "It is hard for me to envision, as a trier of fact who has taken an oath, judging this case without seeing the most important witness or witnesses," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, after his party's two-hour caucus Monday. "It is not so much a question of, 'Will this witness testify to new things?' The issue is for the fact finder to have the full benefit of the facts."..From certain perspectives, the tenacity of the Republican demand for witnesses is extraordinary.."

Investor's Business Daily 1/26/99 ".With few exceptions, the impeachment trial has shown the vacuum in leadership in Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike have forsaken principle in favor of political expediency. And the rule of law will suffer for it. First, the exceptions. The 13 House managers. Led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., they have pressed their case in the face of unrelenting attacks by the White House, an indifferent public and appalling timidity by their Republican colleagues. But as Hyde said on Saturday on the floor of the Senate: ''There are issues of transcendent importance that you have to be willing to lose your office over.'' We would suggest, as the managers do, that upholding the rule of law is one such issue. But it's hard to find such adherence to principle elsewhere in Congress.."

The Washington Post 1/26/99 Steve Twomey Page A10 ".Matters had just gotten started when they stopped. Out through the double doors of the Senate chamber came Christopher S. Bond, a Republican from Missouri, and with him came a short explanation of what was holding up yesterday's session of the trial of the president. "Apparently," Bond said with a hint of bemusement, "Senator Harkin's delaying again." Tom Harkin, a three-term Iowa Democrat of liberal sentiments, has become objector-in- chief in the historic proceedings unfolding in the Senate, offering both blunt denunciations of the charges and motions that would thwart Republican wishes.."

www.reagan.com 1/25/99 Rep Barr ". U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7), an impeachment trial manager, released the following statement in response to an announcement by U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) that he will offer a motion to dismiss the charges against President Clinton as soon as Monday:. "Our President has violated numerous federal laws. The laws he has violated -- perjury and obstruction of justice statutes -- are some of the most important and basic bulwarks of our legal system. The Constitution requires a full trial by the Senate, a process which should not be allowed to be short-circuited in response to polls. "It would be a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Senate to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House without a yes or no vote. Such a step would not bring about the kind of 'healing and reconciling' Senator Byrd seeks. Rather, by casting aside precedent, facts, and common sense, it would only heighten division and doubt." ."

1/22/99 www.reagan.com mmostert@originalsources.com Freeper sunshine ".On Friday, Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, pulled the same "elder statesman" trick in trying to influence the outcome of a vote that he pulled in voting against. the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He used his power and prestige to support a Democrat position, and tried to make it look like a matter of principle. He did the same thing on Friday with his statement in which he announced his intention of offering the motion to dismiss the case against William Jefferson Clinton......Why the change of heart in 1991 towards Clarence Thomas? He said, "I believe Anita Hill. I believe what she said. I watched her on that screen intensely and I replayed as I have already said her appearance and her statement. I did not see on that face the knotted brow of satanic revenge. etc... "

NY Times 1/25/99 The Associated Press ".Prosecutor Kenneth Starr has asked a judge to bar an indicted figure in the Kathleen Willey investigation from disclosing secret investigative materials her lawyers receive in preparing for her trial, saying the release of the materials could seriously jeopardize his ongoing probe. Starr requested the protective order in the case of Julie Hiatt Steele, a Richmond, Va., woman charged with obstruction of justice and making up a false story that cast doubt on Mrs. Willey's allegation of an unwanted sexual advance by President Clinton. Ms. Steele was indicted earlier this month and denies the charges. ``The government still has pending criminal investigations related'' to the Monica Lewinsky controversy, Starr told the court in seeking the protective order. ``Disclosure of some of the discovery materials the government may provide poses a substantial risk of impeding and influencing those investigations.'' ."

1/25/99 House Judiciary Committee ".A motion to dismiss that asserts the House has not proven a case of perjury and obstruction of justice is not supported by the evidence. To the contrary, the evidence presented by the House supports the conviction and removal of William Jefferson Clinton from the office of the President of the United States. However, if there are questions about the inferences and conclusions the House have drawn from the evidence, we submit that the only way to resolve these questions is to bring forth witnesses to provide live testimony, as this is the standard method for making a determination of credibility... The House believes the case against President Clinton for obstruction of justice and perjury is clear and compelling. When viewing the charges against President Clinton, it is important to keep in mind the context in which the illegal acts occurred and the totality of the facts..In December, 1997, the President made another decision. He decided that in order to prevent the world from discovering his wrong decision to have an affair, he would have to frustrate the efforts of Paula Jones to proceed with her lawsuit. In order to prove her credibility, Ms. Jones had requested information from the President regarding other women with whom he had sexual relations, a request that was granted by the judge in her case because it was deemed relevant by the court, and the President was ordered by the court to provide that information. He had a decision to make. He had tried every legal means available to prevent the suit from proceeding and those had failed. Now he had to decide whether to switch to illegal means, or to tell the truth and risk personal embarrassment. What would he put first: his personal and political interests, or the law? He made the wrong decision."

The American Spectator 1/25/99 Wiady Pleszczynski ". No wonder the Democrats went gaga over the performances of Cheryl Mills and Dale Bumpers. The Republican managers were killing them in a genuine way, and it was time to correct this latest historical injustice. They thought of inflating Charles Ruff's opening speech into a profile of courage, but apart from the choked-voice denouement it relied too much on legal substance to be the stuff of liberal legend. Gregory Craig's and David Kendall's presentations were even worse -- technical and petty even beyond a Lanny Davis's imagination. Let it be said the Democrats knew what they were doing when they insisted on no rebuttal time for Republicans after the Clinton defense team was done. Of course, knowing the Senate Republicans as well as some of us do, I wouldn't doubt that most would have spent their rebuttal time paying homage to Mills and Bumpers.Retired Sen. Bumpers played saintly country bumpkin' to Mills's amoral urban smoothie. Unluckily for him, someone posted his farewell address to the Senate from last October on the internet's Free Republic site. It contains many of the same lines, whines, and anecdotes that went into his apologia for the president, thus confirming suspicions that Bumpers chose a good time to retire.."

The American Spectator Byron York 2/99 ".Jordan testified that he had little contact with Lewinsky in the last days of December. She remained in a state of continuous anxiety about her job search and the Jones case, but Jordan tried to calm her down by telling her that the job might take a little time and that she was in good legal hands with Frank Carter. Jordan took some time off for Christmas; as he had for several years, he had the Clintons to his house for dinner on Christmas Eve. Prosecutors asked few questions about this time period, but Bienert had one query that seemed to come out of nowhere. "Did you ever have breakfast or any meal, for that matter, with Monica Lewinsky at the Park Hyatt Hotel?" he asked during one of Jordan's first times before the grand jury. "No," Jordan answered. "But I have breakfast at the Park Hyatt very often, as the records that you have subpoenaed from the Park Hyatt will show you. I have a corner table there and I have breakfast there all the time." "But not with her?" "I've never had breakfast with Monica Lewinsky."."

New York Post 1/26/99 Dick Morris ".Throughout the proceedings, defense lawyers Ruff and Cheryl Mills have shown about the same regard for the truth as their famous client..Some of Ruff's lies are laughs - like his earnest contentions that the DNA test had nothing to do with the president's belated decision to come clean about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Particularly humorous was his straight- faced statement that Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones not because he was guilty but because he didn't have the time to deal with a case that had already been dismissed. In Ruff's shamelessly duplicitous argument before Congress, he deliberately lied about Betty Currie's status in the Paula Jones case. House Manager Asa Hutchison skillfully exposed that lie.. Ruff's co-counsel Cheryl Mills claimed that Betty Currie's testimony about retrieving the president's gifts to Lewinsky was consistent. That depends on what the word ''consistent'' means. Hutchison demonstrated that Betty Currie was actually inconsistent. Only four weeks after she had actually retrieved the gifts from Monica on Dec. 28, 1997, Currie told the FBI that she had picked them up about three months earlier, distancing that event from the Jones subpoena for those gifts in December. Later, she moved it back even further, claiming that it was in the fall of 1997. Finally, Currie admitted that it was sometime in December, 1997. In this White House, that is what passes for consistency.."

Washingtron Times 1/26/98 Bill Sammon ".President Clinton's defenders already are planning to position him as the vindicated victim of right-wing extremists who are the real villains in the impeachment drama. "Obviously, an acquittal -- a refusal to convict -- is a vindication," said one Senate Democratic operative. "Republicans will look even more extreme, particularly these 13 prosecutors who have almost become a caricature of all the public relations problems that face the Republican Party. These are 13 mean-spirited, very negative, vindictive-seeming white guys.".. "If you thought the last six years were something, we're going to see the biggest propaganda machine in American history working 24 hours a day in an attempt to rewrite the history of this president," said Mark Levin, president of the conservative Landmark Legal Foundation. "I'm not saying whether it will succeed or fail. I'm just saying it's going to happen."."

Boston Globe 1/26/99 Michael Kranish page A16 ". House managers consider it the closest thing to a smoking gun in the impeachment trial: a recently discovered cellular telephone record that the prosecutors believe proves President Clinton obstructed justice. As House managers see it, the cellular phone call from the president's secretary, Betty Currie, to former intern Monica S. Lewinsky shows that Currie was acting at the president's behest to pick up Clinton's gifts at Lewinsky's apartment. But Clinton's defense lawyers say the records prove the opposite, that Currie called Lewinsky after she picked up gifts at Lewinsky's request. This one-minute phone call is one of the factual disputes that could be a turning point in the impeachment trial. On Sunday, House managers questioned Lewinsky, who reportedly provided new information that Currie made several calls before picking up the gifts. House managers said the dispute over the phone record is a key reason to call Lewinsky and Currie as witnesses.. The House prosecution team, which relied mostly on evidence from the Starr investigation, recently discovered the telephone billing record that seemed to back up Lewinsky's description by showing that Currie called Lewinsky at 3:22 p.m. on Dec. 28, 1997. The House managers, in a written report, said the record is a ''key piece of evidence that Ms. Currie's fuzzy recollection is wrong... [It] proves conclusively that Ms. Currie called Monica from her cell phone several hours after she had left the White House.'' ."

NewsMax 1/25/99 Tony Snow ".Last week, with the impeachment trial proceeding and his political life on the line, Bill Clinton made a fateful choice. He threw off pretensions of being a New Democrat and used his State of the Union Address to make the case for adventurous, big-government liberalism. Depending on how one does the calculating, he proposed anywhere between 75 and 85 new programs. He crammed so much into the talk that the White House distributed a 23-page small-print summary of what served as the basis for the president's 16-page, regular-type speech. The president clearly views government as an instrument of salvation. He considers no personal crisis too small to command some share of Uncle Sam's time or the people's money. In that spirit, he proposed large things, such as ironing out the business cycle and putting a damper on global warming, and small stuff, such as producing "rapid response" teams to sweep into a town whenever a business shuts down."

Savannah Morning News 1/26/99 Editorial ".TWO WEEKS of decorum gave way to chaos last weekend in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. The rancor over whether or not to call witnesses was inevitable; it was preceded by a veneer of calm only because the Senate unanimously voted at the beginning of the trial to put off the issue. As the car repairman on TV said, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. At some point the Senate was going to have to confront the witness dilemma. That time is now. The decision was complicated by Sen. Robert Byrd's announcement last Friday that he would move to dismiss the trial on Monday. The venerable West Virginia Democrat may have thought he was being a statesman. Instead, he lit a fuse .."

NewsMax 1/26/99 Linda Bowles Freeper hope ".We need guardians who will protect the people against a rogue president capable of usurping power, undermining the Constitution and positioning himself beyond the reach of the law. We need guardians who agree with Judge Robert Bork that we are in a defining cultural war, and we can't give up, no matter how great the personal risk and no matter how overwhelming the odds.."

AP 1/26/99 Laurie Asseo ".The last thing Monica Lewinsky wants to do is give House prosecutors dramatic new information for their case against President Clinton. She would risk losing her immunity from prosecution if she changed her story about her relationship with the president, lawyers say.. That compelling interest, other lawyers said, is avoiding the risk of saying something that might lead Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to try to revoke her immunity agreement. Last July, Ms. Lewinsky promised to testify before a federal grand jury or any ``congressional proceedings'' such as an impeachment trial. In exchange, Starr promised not to prosecute Ms. Lewinsky over her testimony or her affidavit in which she denied an affair with the president. Starr can ask a court to cancel the immunity agreement if it determines Ms. Lewinsky ``has intentionally given false, incomplete or misleading information.'' ."

AP 1/26/99 ".House prosecutors have decided to ask the Senate for permission to call three witnesses at President Clinton's impeachment trial - Monica Lewinsky, presidential friend Vernon Jordan and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, The Associated Press has learned. The prosecutors made the decision today at a meeting, said a House source, speaking on condition of anonymity.."

House Judiciary Committee 1/26/99 ".Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully submits to the United States Senate its motion for the appearance of witnesses at a deposition and to admit evidence not in the record in connection with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. The House moves that the Senate authorize and issue subpoenas for the appearance of the following witnesses at a deposition for the purpose of providing testimony related to the Impeachment Trial: -Monica S. Lewinsky; -Vernon Jordan; and -Sidney Blumenthal. Further, the House moves that the Senate admit into evidence the following material not currently in the record: -the affidavit of Barry Ward, Law Clerk to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas; -the sworn declaration of T. Wesley Holmes, and attachments thereto; and -certain telephone records which document conversations between Monica S. Lewinsky and William Jefferson Clinton, including a 56-minute exchange on December 6, 1997. Additionally, the House petitions the Senate to request the appearance of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, at a deposition, for the purpose of providing testimony related to the Impeachment Trial."

House Judiciary Committee 1/26/99 "..House Judiciary Committee chief spokesman Paul J. McNulty responded to two issues raised in White House counsel David Kendall's arguments today against the calling of witnesses. On the issue of "fact witnesses" not appearing before the House Judiciary Committee: "The White House and House Democrats protested vehemently during the charging phase of the impeachment process that fact witnesses were absolutely necessary before the House went forward with its charges. Now that we are in the trial stage, when live witnesses are normally a given, the White House is terrified of the idea." On the issue of giving the White House weeks for discovery before depositions: "Before anyone is tricked into thinking that there is evidence hidden away somewhere that would be helpful to the President, we should remember that we have been down this road before. House Democrats -- who were closely allied with the White House -- searched through the Committee's records for months for exculpatory information. They were also given access to additional materials in the possession of the Independent Counsel. In all this time, no information was found that exonerated the President."."

AP 1/26/99 Laurie Kellman Freeper TxTruth ".Republicans said Tuesday they have staved off defections and will muster enough support to extend President Clinton's impeachment trial with witnesses, setting up two votes that Democrats said could damage the bipartisan spirit of the proceedings.."

MSNBC 1/26/99 Freeper yikes reports ".During an interview with Senator Charles Schumer (NY) tonight, Brian Williams stated that "new damage will be coming out about the president within the next few days". Guess all those phone calls worked. Schumer was not a happy camper tonight for a host of reasons, but when apprised of the Williams statement, he looked more forlorn and just said that he would continue to defend the president.."

Washington Times 1/27/99 Mark R. Levin ".First, the House Democrats attempted to rewrite the United States Constitution by insisting that the president can be censured in lieu of impeachment. For weeks they demanded a vote on censure. The Senate Democrats still hope that censure will win the day. Now, it's the Republicans' turn. The same Senate Republicans who reject censure as unconstitutional are flirting with what I characterize as "affirmation without removal," i.e., finding the president guilty of certain offenses without removing him from office. Like the Democrats, the Republicans are ducking their constitutional duty. They want to be perceived by the public as doing something serious about the president's offenses when they're not.."

CSPAN 2 c-span.org/ Phil Gramm (R-TX) Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".Tomorrow we will reject the Byrd resolution which would end this trial; tomorrow we will vote in favor of deposing witnesses...Every impeachment trial in American history has gone the distance to a verdict, and this one is going to go the distance to the verdict...the case has been overwhelming...the Democrats will break ranks on those two votes...I don't believe that they can hold their people...to suggest that somehow the White House is going to blackmail us by doing what they desperately don't want done, what they don't believe in their interest, is simply an insult to our intelligence...their threats are meaningless...the last thing they want is facts. The last thing they want to talk about is evidence.."

Washington Post 1/27/99 Michael Kelly ".Bill Clinton must have grinned Tuesday when the prosecutors in his impeachment trial requested only three witnesses to make their case -- and Betty Currie wasn't one of them. The president knows that his secretary can testify to a truth he most devoutly wishes to hide. It is this: Clinton coached Currie to agree with his lies about the Lewinsky affair after he learned that independent counsel Kenneth Starr had launched a criminal investigation he must have known would certainly call Currie as a witness. Indeed, a subpoena had been issued for Currie at the time of this coaching session, although she had not yet been served.."

Chicago Sun-Times 1/27/99 Dennis Byrne ".``Why are we here?''--Rep. Lindsey Graham (R- S.C.), a House impeachment manager. Sadly, Graham had to explain it again on Monday: We're here in the Senate trying President Clinton because he had so little faith in the American system of justice that he did whatever was necessary to subvert it. Graham is proving to have one of the clearest minds and most eloquent voices in the Senate chamber, including those hide-bound senators who prattle on about their superior dignity. To those who insist the president didn't lie or obstruct justice, Graham asked: Do you really believe the president's story that his memory was so poor that he had to ask his secretary twice if he actually had been alone with Monica Lewinsky?."

WorldNetDaily 1/27/99 Joseph Farah ".There's a good reason personnel are screened for sensitive security positions in government with checks on their sex life, basic honesty, deep-dark secrets, personal idiosyncrasies. It's not because a bunch of sex police like prying into the "personal lives" of would- be government employees. It's because those personal lives can compromise the employee -- and thus compromise national security. That's just one of the many reasons -- regardless of whether the impeachment counts of perjury and obstruction of justice are proven to the Senate beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that Bill Clinton must be turned out of office. It's the right thing to do for the country. It's the only thing to do for the country. Even some Democrats seem to get it. It's just too bad none of them appear to be serving in the U.S. Senate at the moment.."

New York Post 1/27/99 Richard Johnson w/ Jeane MacIntosh Kate Coyne Freeper Donna ".ON Capitol Hill - where the question lately is, who's next? - sometimes you don't even have to wait for Larry Flynt. In explaining why Republican stalwart Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) has decided witnesses aren't necessary in the Senate trial of Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh said on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday: "I hear he may have a Larry Flynt problem."."

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 1/27/99 Freper I'm Peach".HERE'S THE latest compromise being offered those senators and jurors looking for an easy way out of their constitutional responsibility to try a president of the United States: Issue a "finding of fact" that sounds awfully like a conclusion at law, namely that William Jefferson Clinton is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. But don't remove him from office. ..There's nothing there about finding the president guilty and not guilty, convicting him by a majority vote and acquitting him because two-thirds of the senators do not concur. There's nothing there about impeachment lite or censure heavy. Ladies and gentlemen of the United States Senate, you have been given a clear map in the language of the Constitution. Follow it to its destination--guilty or not guilty--and the Constitution will lead all of us home, as it always has. Or as daddy used to say, keep it on the road, will you? ."

AP 1/27/99 ". Poised to call Monica Lewinsky and two others as witnesses, Senate Republicans today discussed a timetable that could end President Clinton's impeachment trial within 10 days. The White House said it was concerned Republicans were trying to ``put a blindfold on us.'' John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Trent Lott, said the proposed schedule to end the trial by Feb. 6 would be set back if the White House asked for -- and the Senate allowed -- defense witnesses for Clinton. Under the GOP plan, depositions of Ms. Lewinsky, presidential friend Vernon Jordan and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal would begin as early as Thursday. Each deposition would last six hours, equally divided between the White House and House prosecutors with two senators sitting in as mediators. The videotaped sessions and transcripts would be distributed on Monday, with votes Tuesday on whether to permit live testimony in the Senate.."

Conservative News Service 1/27/99 Rear Admiral Mark Hill, Jr. "..The polls, they say, show that among the people at large, the president has overwhelming support and that we should leave him alone to "get on with the people's business." "Getting on" is very big with Clinton and his followers.. Opinion polls measure emotion during a moment in time and are shallow, failing to measure depth of commitment or passion. Thus, they're deceptive of the will of the people unless the people have been adequately informed and have had time to truly reflect upon their desires and preferences and distill them into popular wisdom. ."

AP 1/27/99 Larry Margasak ".Senate Republicans are ready to make Monica Lewinsky a witness in President Clinton's impeachment trial, dashing even some GOP hopes for ending the case this week. But the Senate's Republican leader suggested today the end is in sight. Republicans were expected to muster party-line majorities today to defeat a Democratic motion to dismiss the impeachment case and approve witness depositions. At the same time, Democrats were ready to demonstrate the strength to block the two-thirds majority that eventually would be needed to oust Clinton from office. In remarks before today's votes, Majority Leader Trent Lott said, ``There is a point when we will complete the work we are involved in and I believe it could be within the next 10 days, two weeks at the most.'' ."

Los Angeles Times 1/27/99 Alan Miller ".The three witnesses the prosecution has chosen for subpoenas--presidential confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr., senior White House advisor Sidney Blumenthal and former intern Monica S. Lewinsky--all figured prominently in episodes in which prosecutors allege that Clinton subverted the legal system to try to keep his illicit relationship with Lewinsky from being discovered..."

AP 1/27/99 Larry Margasak ". Poised to call Monica Lewinsky and two others as witnesses, Senate Republicans today discussed a plan that could end President Clinton's impeachment trial within 10 days. The White House said it was concerned Republicans were trying to "put a blindfold on us.'' ..Senate Democrats reacted warily to the GOP plan but left open the possibility of further negotiations. "We're not going to rush to any conclusion,'' Minority Leader Tom Daschle said. ."

New York Post 1/27/99 Dick Morris ".The impeachment snowball isn't in meltdown, it's rolling down Capitol Hill, gaining heft with each rotation. .The deposition of witnesses is merely the next step in a process that, inevitably, will go the distance, with each step justifying the previous one until a full trial has run its course. The depositions will likely lead to live testimony and then to more witnesses and more testimony. Will the president's solid phalanx of support crack? That depends on two people: Webb Hubbell and Betty Currie..."

Reuters 1/27/99 John Whitesides ".The issue of witnesses had bitterly divided the trial, with Democrats arguing it would needlessly prolong the proceedings and the White House warning it would need to go through mountains of evidence held by House investigators that they have not seen yet.."

WBAL 1/27/99 Ron Smith Freeper Michele Shelton ".I've been so wrong so many times in the last year that there's more egg on my face than on a newborn chick's. Last January, it seemed to me inevitable that if the president had done what was alleged with Monica Lewinsky he would have no choice but to resign. Ha. Then, I believed if he had lied to the American people in his finger-wagging denial of "sexual relations with that woman, Ms., Lewinsky," he would never be forgiven. Ha, ha! Finally, for him to lie under oath to the grand jury in his televised testimony was a burden that would crush his presidency. Ha, ha, ha. So, my record in predicting what's likely to happen at each stage of this scandal is very poor, and I acknowledge that Dick Morris may in the end prove to be right in his suggestion that Clinton can be brought down one step at a time. Still, the dichotomy between how official Washington views the Lewinsky matter (with disgust and disdain for the president), and how the folks in the hinterlands look at it (with disgust and disdain directed at the entire political class, but more at the Republican inquisitors than the Clinton defenders), puts a considerable burden on the shoulders of those who would oust the man from office. Some of my listeners are upset that I've lost some interest in the Senate proceedings. If the Morris prediction comes true, I'll regain it. I'm sure.."

Associated Press 1/27/99 ".In newly unsealed court papers in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, Kenneth Starr says the White House and defense lawyers -- not the prosecutor's office -- were the prime suspects in a flood of leaks to the news media. Starr's court papers focus on the sharing of sensitive information between attorneys for key witnesses and the Clinton White House starting in the initial stages of the Lewinsky scandal.."

Judicial Watch Press Release 1/27/99 Larry Klayman ".A federal judge yesterday granted the request of President Clinton's personal attorneys to delay a status conference scheduled for Thursday, January 28 until February 16. David Kendall, the President's personal attorney, claimed the press of Senate proceedings as reason for the requested delay. The case at issue is Dolly Kyle Browning's RICO suit against Mr. Clinton and others alleging a series of threats and other actions designed to prevent Mrs. Browning from telling the truth about her relationship with Clinton and from publishing her fictionalized account of her life story, "Purposes of the Heart." Mrs. Browning is represented by Judicial Watch.."

AP 1/27/99 Pete Yost ".Bittman's newly unsealed declaration from last February says that "Lawrence H. Wechsler, private counsel to Ms. Currie, told me'' he is "a longtime friend of Charles F.C. Ruff, White House counsel'' and that "Mr. Ruff referred Ms. Currie to Mr. Wechsler when she "consulted with Mr. Ruff about getting an attorney.'' Bittman said Wechsler "confirmed to me that the president's defense attorneys had been provided the substance of Ms. Currie's information in advance of the publication'' of the Times article. In the newly unsealed court papers, Starr asserted that "this White House previously has employed a concentrated strategy of leaking harmful material to the media at an early stage to reduce long-term damage. ... There is a strong prima facie case that the president and his agents ... are responsible for many of the alleged `leaks.''' Kendall replied in court papers of his own that Starr's office "is trying to deflect attention from itself.'' Kendall added that "assuming only for the present that the White House was privy to the Currie information in the (New York Times) article, the White House had no interest in early disclosure of the information.''."

The Weekly Standard 2/1/99 ".White House special counsel Gregory Craig, in turn, launched a lengthy, exquisitely subtle disquisition on how oral sex (still) isn't really sex. Craig then abruptly reversed field, apparently without realizing it, and spent a good bit of time deriding the significance of any fine-tuned distinctions among sex acts. The president, you will recall, acknowledged to the grand jury that Monica Lewinsky had performed fellatio when they were alone together, but denied - defying common sense and Lewinsky's testimony - that he had ever touched her breasts or genitals. The president also insisted to the grand jury, in order to exonerate himself of witness-tampering charges, that he told his aides only "things that were true" when the scandal first became public. Except that White House aide John Podesta has testified that Clinton explicitly ruled out oral sex with Lewinsky. Any way you cut the evidence, it would seem, Bill Clinton has lied under oath in a federal criminal probe. Gregory Craig called this allegation, felony perjury by the president of the United States, "immaterial," "insubstantial," and "trivial." But no senator laughed at him, either. .."

The Weekly Standard 2/1/99 ".Cheryl Mills says that the crime of witness tampering is not a crime at all unless the alleged tampering takes place after a relevant judicial proceeding has already begun. That is not true, and if she is the brilliant, rising-star attorney all the newspapers tell us she is, Mills knows it's not true - but she's saying so anyway. Cheryl Mills says no crime of witness tampering can be committed without some "threat or intimidation." That, too, is a bald-faced misrepresentation of federal law. Cheryl Mills says that when the president had his infamous "We were never alone, right?" interviews with the sainted Betty Currie, witness tampering was the furthest thing from his mind; Clinton was only trying to prepare for a Lewinsky-related media onslaught prompted by Internet gossip Matt Drudge. And that, too, is a lie..."

The Weekly Standard 2/1/99 ".Bill Clinton finished his perjurious Jones-case deposition on the afternoon of Saturday, January 17, 1998. When he got back to the White House, he called Currie at home and asked her to come to work the next day, Sunday, for the first of their questionable conversations. At the time he made this appointment, Matt Drudge's Web site had not yet so much as alluded to Lewinsky's existence. By Monday, January 19, on the other hand, Washington was abuzz with talk of the intern. And by Tuesday night at 9 o'clock, the White House had been fully informed by the Washington Post's Peter Baker about the blockbuster story that paper intended to publish in its Wednesday late editions. Senior White House aides spent the next few hours huddled in Charles Ruff's office, waiting for further news. While they were there, Betty Currie called Ruff to say she'd just been served a subpoena by Ken Starr's grand jury. Sometime later still that Tuesday evening, Clinton called Currie at home to tell her what the next morning's headlines would be. And it was after all this had happened that Clinton and Currie had their second little "We were never alone, right?" chat. By which time the president not only knew he was the subject of a federal grand jury probe, he knew Currie was subpoenaed witness. The president is guilty. Guilty, guilty, guilty.."

Investors Business Daily 1/28/99 Daniel J. Murphy ".President Clinton's likely acquittal by the Senate in his impeachment trial won't end the debate over the possible consequences of his misconduct..The president's critics have made some unflinching conclusions. ''It seems to me that (Clinton's trial) is a major battle in the cultural struggle for the soul of America,'' commentator and former GOP presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan said. Buchanan ignited a mini-firestorm at the 1992 Republican National Convention when he declared that the U.S. was in the midst of a ''cultural war as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself.'' .''We're in for at least another generation of dealing with (the Clinton scandal's) consequences,'' said Hilton Kramer, editor of the cultural monthly review The New Criterion. Many observers fear that the broken trust at the center of the scandal has had an immediate impact on American governance. Men and women who have served in the military have pointed to the double standard apparently afforded their commander-in- chief..Clinton-ordered missile attacks in August and December raised further questions about his motives for launching the attacks at what may have been his most vulnerable moments..A few weeks later, during the impeachment trial, Lott asked Clinton lawyer Gregory Craig whether the president would answer questions posed by the Senate. Craig said the president would do so. Lott and nine other senators then sent Clinton 10 questions. The president refused to answer them, saying Craig had been misunderstood. Such an atmosphere has left Senate leaders longing for a graceful way to exit the trial..."

AP 1/27/99 John Solomon ".WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the uncertain world of witness testimony, President Clinton's legal team has a single mission in the finale of the impeachment trial -- maintain Democratic opposition to his removal. o that end, presidential lawyers may skip their own witnesses if prosecutors don't break new ground, advisers said. hile reserving their options, White House lawyers have discussed calling no witnesses and demanding no new evidence if three conditions are met: the prosecutors fail to elicit significant new testimony from Monica Lewinsky and two others, the Senate decides against live testimony and the GOP scraps an idea that Clinton could be found guilty but not removed, officials said.."

Yahoo! News Politics Headlines Reuters 1/28/99 Freeper sunshine ".The U.S. Senate Wednesday showed President Clinton faces virtually no chance of removal from office, but its failure to stop his impeachment trial left senators scrambling to find an end game strategy. . ``Effectively this trial for impeachment has ended,'' Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said after the Senate showed it could not reach the 67 votes needed to convict the president. At least 12 Democrats would have to break with Clinton if he is to be convicted on two articles of impeachment. Only one Democrat, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, voted with Republicans.."

NY Post 1/28/99 Ed Robinson ".Quit while you're ahead. That was the advice many lawyers and other experts had yesterday for President Clinton. His best strategy, they said, is wrap things up quickly rather than call his own witnesses. "He has the votes to defeat the Republicans and remain in office," said Professor John McGinnis of Manhattan's Cardozo Law School. "Why delay, even if you think that you can respond to their witnesses?" .He also feels it's risky to call Monica Lewinsky. "She's a wild card," he said. "She's more like a defense witness. I think they're playing for any moral victory they can get." McGinnis still thinks that though the prosecutors appear to be losing, they're still doing a good job. "They should continue doing what they've been doing - making a vivid case for perjury and obstruction," he said. "They're doing what any trial lawyers should do." ."

Chattanooga Free Press 1/28/99 Editorial ".It was quite surprising when President Bill Clinton's lawyers in the Senate trial of impeachment charges indicated a few days ago that Mr. Clinton would be willing to answer new written questions. The surprise resulted from the fact that Mr. Clinton's big troubles have been occasioned by his answers to previous questions. He swore to tell the truth, but didn't, in answering questions in the federal court deposition in the Paula Jones case. He swore to tell the truth, but didn't, in his grand jury testimony in the Monica Lewinsky case. Those performances led the House of Representatives to ask him 81 questions. And his tricky answers to them assured the votes for his impeachment. In the latest instance, it didn't take long for Mr. Clinton to overrule his lawyers and declare he will answer no more questions.."

New York Post 1/28/99 David Gelernte ". Furthermore: Impeachment has given Republicans their first authentic hero since Ronald Reagan. Henry Hyde has accomplished something extraordinary. What made him do it? He knew he would be mocked, hissed and threatened. He stood to gain nothing for himself and nothing (most likely) for his party, and knew he would probably fail in the end - that the Senate was unlikely to convict. Why has he pushed forward?.And the outcome of the trial (despite what people say) is not foreordained and never was. The president will not be tossed out of office. But when justice operates, the most important outcome is not the verdict but the trial itself. The verdict decides one man's fate; the trial represents the community coming to grips with the truth. ."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 1/28/99 Tom Baxter "."If more than 34 Democrats vote for dismissal, this now becomes (Majority Leader) Trent Lott's case," Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois told reporters in a basement hallway before the vote. In other words, prolonging the trial after a clear demonstration there are not enough votes to remove Clinton from office puts the responsibility for prolonging it in Republican hands, in the eyes of the Democrats. "In a sense, it becomes the majority party's trial," echoed Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) at the first-floor elevator..."

Judicial Watch Press Release 1/28/99 Larry Klayman ".JudicialWatch today responded to news that Republican and Democratic Senators are conspiring, behind closed doors, to let President Clinton off the hook for his serious felonious behavior in the Lewinsky matter. "The Carville-Flynt-Clinton threats and intimidation have worked. The FBI files, the private investigators, and the Clinton White House smear machine ensured that the Senate will not convict and remove this President for his criminal conduct," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel. "The latest plan being floated by Trent Lott - a finding of 'fact' that actually never mentions perjury or obstruction - shows that this whole trial has been a sham from the start," Klayman continued. "This has been a 'Potemkin' trial - the veneer of investigation on the surface, cover-up, corruption, and successful intimidation tactics behind the scenes." Judicial Watch warned that large portions of the electorate concerned about Clinton criminality will become disaffected and permanently alienated..."

FoxNews AP 1/28/99 Larry Margasak ".The White House and some Democrats also argued strenuously against a GOP proposal that would let the Senate conclude Clinton committed some or all of the alleged offenses -- but would not remove him from office. The ``finding of fact'' would be by majority vote, while impeachment conviction and removal needs two-thirds. ``We should not be able to do by majority vote what the Constitution contemplates by a two-thirds vote,'' said Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev. ``It would be constitutionally fraught with ... peril.''.."

Reuters 1/28/99 Freeper hope "."A highly partisan process damages both parties and after a bipartisan beginning, the trial has become more partisan in the past few days,'' said Karlyn Bowman, an expert on public opinion with the American Enterprise Institute......``The Democrats risk becoming the party of perjury and obstruction of justice,'' .."

wwva am radio: Paul Harvey 1/28/99 Freeper Rudder reports ".Thursday's Paul Harvey News reports that a woman from North Dakota, upset with the skewed polls regarding egregious support for Clinton, called (didn't catch the name) Polling Organization to query. The woman was told, "Oh no, we don't poll the conservative states. There are eleven conservative states (including N. Dakota) we don't poll." (That's all I managed to capture...Anyone else hear this? .."

WorldNetDaily 1/28/99 Admiral Mark Hill Freeper Michele Shelton ".The argument of the president and his henchmen is that by insisting upon following the proscription of the Constitution and actually trying the case now before the Senate, a senator sitting as part of the court of impeachment attacks the Constitution if he insists upon seeing that a full case is presented. If he will not fold under White House pressure, they say, he is attempting to overthrow an elected president which the Constitution forbids. ."

Rush Limaugh 1/28/99 Freeper arturo reports ".Rush mentioned on his show today that the Packwood ethics trial included 262 witnesses and over 1000 hours of debate and testimony. If this is a fact, why haven't any of the Republicans been using this as part of their talking points? Rush also pointed out that several times yesterday, the President's defenders, including spokesman Lockhart, whined about the President having basic rights that need to be protected.an obvious opening for a comparison to Paula Jones that was never taken advantage of.." Freeper SamAdams76 asks ".Yeah. Why no comparison to Bob Packwood? Seems the Democrats and the NOW gang spent months driving Packwood out of office for sexual misconduct. Behavior that was much more tame compared to that of Bill Clinton. And I don't believe Packwood committed perjury about it either. If he had, I have no doubt they'd have put him in jail. If Clinton get off, does Packwood get his job back? ."

Reuters 1/28/99 ".The White House Thursday denounced a proposal being discussed by some U.S. Senate Republicans that would cite President Clinton for alleged offences in the Monica Lewinsky scandal without removing him from office. The Republican plan would allow the Senate to reach a ''finding of fact'' that would outline Clinton's alleged offences. But this "finding of fact'' would be considered separately from votes on whether to convict the president on two articles of impeachment and remove him from office. This proposal would allow the Senate to deliver a mixed verdict on the president's conduct, finding that he abused his office but choosing not to oust him... Clinton, after he was impeached by the House of Representatives on Dec. 19, had said he would not be opposed to some form of rebuke short of removing him from office. But White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said Clinton did not envision the plan under discussion now. "The Constitution doesn't allow it,'' Lockhart told reporters..."

The Washington Times 1/28/99 Donald Lambro ".Democrats who attacked Republicans for "governing by polls" in the 1994 battle over the "Contract With America" agenda are questioning the GOP now for its defiance of the polls in President Clinton's impeachment trial. "The very same Democrats who were decrying the use of polls in 1994 are now using them as a weapon against Republicans in 1999," said GOP pollster Frank Luntz. "They're hypocrites," said Mr. Luntz, whose polls on a long list of popular issues were used to design the 1994 campaign agenda that helped the GOP win back control of the House.. Now the situation is completely reversed, with Republicans single-mindedly pursuing Mr. Clinton's impeachment in the House and his trial in the Senate in defiance of every poll. Democrats and some pollsters have warned the GOP could lose congressional seats and possibly its majority control because of the impeachment trial. "The Republicans are driven solely by principle. It's something to be proud of," Mr. Luntz said.."

EIB Network 1/28/99 Rush Limbaugh Freeper report Freeper newsman ".With several dozen reporters in attendance at the White House's daily press conference, Press Secretary Joe Lockhart answered a couple questions in a way that left him wide open to a trouncing by the media. Not one reporter caught Lockhart's blunder. But Rush Limbaugh, incredulous at the reporters' ineptitude, did. And on his show this afternoon he said some things about them. Lockhart, whom Limbaugh views as arrogant, left himself wide open when, in response to a question about Clinton's impeachment trial, he made this statement: "We have made our views known, and we believe at the end of the day that the president has some fundamental rights, as part of his defense, and those ought to be protected. Everyone on the White House legal team and the White House political team want to end this quickly in a way to protect the president's rights." "The president's rights! The president's rights! We must protect the president's right...," retorted Limbaugh. "O yeah, we should, I agree, [but] too bad Paula Jones was not granted the same degree of fundamental fairness. That's why we are here. The president attempted to fix the Paula Jones' case. He tampered with an American citizen's fundamental rights! And now today he sends his press secretary out to demand fairness" and protection of his fundamental rights in his Senate impeachment trial...Limbaugh also explained that the reason for the panic he sees in the Clinton defenders' faces and hears in their voices, while watching them on television, is their failure -- so far -- to work out a deal with the Republicans to end the trial with a censure. So their panic rises because, if censure is ruled out, the Democrats will soon have to go on record as voting not to convict Clinton. And aware that the president, after his term ends two years hence, will likely be indicted and stand trial on some charges, they will -- with their "not guilty" votes on record -- look like fools if he is subsequently found guilty in a court of law. ."

Congressional Record 106th Congress (Thomas) Freeper SamKeck 1/6/99 Cong. Serrano and Cong.Shays ".H. J. RES. 17 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty- second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.."

CNBC 1/28/99 Freeper Patriot ".Tonight on several talk shows the Democrats interviewed keep saying the trial is overall. But when asked if clinton lied that can't answer the question. Sen Reed from RI on Hardball will not change his mind even if something new comes out of the interviews. The Democrats now must explain Clintons behavior and they can't..." Freeper Dwhite adds ".Yep! I saw him spit and sputter on answering that question. Now let them explain why they knew the man is a liar and disgusting yet they choose to leave him in office. History will prove the democrats would not allow the first felon to be removed from office. Republicans will not come out of this as badly shaken as some I have heard predict they will be."

AP David Espo 1/28/99 ".Brushing aside Democratic objections, Senate Republicans on Thursday opened the door to public broadcast of Monica Lewinsky's videotaped testimony as they muscled through rules governing the balance of President Clinton's impeachment trial. In a rapid-fire series of roll calls, majority Republicans also crushed a Democratic call for an immediate vote on Clinton's fate and an alternative set of rules that would have barred any public viewing of the questioning that Ms. Lewinsky is to undergo early next week.. On another key point, Republicans left room for a vote on "fact finding" that would state formally that Clinton had committed offenses, even if he wasn't to be removed from office. The Democratic scenario would have prevented Republicans from even submitting such a document for a vote. The White House accused the Republicans of "power politics." "It's clear the spirit of bipartisanship evaporated today, and that this has become a Republican impeachment trial," said spokesman James Kennedy. "The plan that was adopted is vague and it has no certain end. It appears to contain trap doors that could significantly extend this trial." ."

Reuters 1/28/99 ".The White House Thursday night lashed out at what it called the "Republican impeachment trial" being conducted in the Senate against President Clinton and complained that the spirit of bipartisanship had evaporated. ..Abandoning the normally measured comments he has made about the proceedings, Kennedy complained that "Republicans missed an opportunity to bring bipartisan closure to all of this." "It seems clear that while the Republicans do not have the votes to end this presidency, they do have to votes to extend this trial and they are using this power to their advantage," he said.."

Washington Times 1/29/99 Donald Lambro ".Public disapproval of the way Democrats have handled the Senate impeachment trial has risen by 9 points, challenging their claim that people are only displeased with the Republicans. At the same time, a new survey by independent pollster John Zogby that asked likely voters who they would support in the 2000 congressional elections found that Republicans and Democrats were "dead even." Mr. Zogby's findings, based on two days of interviews this week with 1,011 likely voters nationwide, countered Democratic claims that many voters are angry with Republicans and that the GOP is losing political support across the country because of the impeachment trial.."

WorldNetDaily 1/29/99 Alan Keyes Freeper Lex ".For all of these reasons, conservatives who really understand our agenda will realize that right now there is nothing more important going on in this country than deciding whether we are going to put a stamp of approval on the most depraved president in our history. We must seize this opportunity to demonstrate that we still understand that in order to sustain self-government, we must sustain the character that it takes to be free. A people that can accept the continuation in office of a man like Bill Clinton is not, in fact, fit to be free.."

Wall Street Journal 1/29/99 Paul Gigot ".The bongos and cigars are already being assembled for the White House Vindication Tour. Which is all the more reason to force California Democrat Dianne Feinstein to face up to Monica Lewinsky and Sidney Blumenthal in the well of the Senate. Blumenthal, the writer turned Clinton acolyte, is dismissed by some as a peripheral witness. But in fact his testimony goes to the heart of why the president deserves removal. House impeachment managers think this ultimate loyalist will reveal his boss's criminal coverup in all of its anti-woman nastiness.... Mr. Blumenthal's testimony reveals a president doing much more than hiding an affair. He was using the powers of his office to create a false story that would destroy Ms. Lewinsky. he intern was known as a "stalker," Mr. Clinton told his believing aide on Jan. 21, 1998. "Monica Lewinsky came on to me and made a sexual demand on me." After the president "rebuffed her," Monica had "threatened him" and was prepared to lie because "if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the stalker any more.perhaps GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison might explore how this accords with current sexual harassment law. Is it merely "consensual" and "private" for a boss to falsely smear a subordinate as an oversexed, blackmailing liar? This sure sounds like a man exploiting an imbalance of power. Of course, if none of this really matters, maybe we should just repeal harassment laws as a political sham.."

Wall Street Journal 1/29/99 Douglas Kmiec ".Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." By its express terms, this provision appears to allow for a lesser penalty than booting a popular but flawed chief executive. Obscuring this legal epiphany has been Article II, Section 4, which mandates that "the President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The two articles are irreconcilable as they stand--unless that is, the Framers contemplated impeachment (but not necessarily removal) for offenses that fall short of a "high crime."."

National Post 1/29/99 David Frum ".After the 1992 election, Mr. Blumenthal carved out an uneasy relationship as both The New Yorker's Washington correspondent and the Clintons' main adviser on the press. He drew particularly close to Mrs. Clinton, who shared with Mr. Blumenthal a faith in conspiracy theories and a confidence that hardball was the right way to deal with the press. It was on the advice of Mr. Blumenthal -- then still at The New Yorker -- that Mrs. Clinton and her staff devised their now-notorious plan to pressure the Washington Post into ordering its White House correspondent to lay off the Whitewater stories. (The details can be read in Spin Cycle, a book about the Clinton press operation by Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media critic.) Mr. Blumenthal's coziness with Mrs. Clinton embarrassed his press colleagues.. in August, 1997, he formally joined the White House staff, leaving behind a cloud of jokes about how the Clintons owed him five years' back pay. At the White House, Mr. Blumenthal took on a series of weighty and worthy assignments: the first lady's millennium initiative, a White House summit of academics and intellectuals, etc. But he was suspected of having a more important function: He was believed to be the chief disseminator of muck on the Clintons' opponents. It should quickly be said that nobody has ever proven that he did this. Nevertheless, among Capitol Hill Republicans it's nearly universally believed that it was Mr. Blumenthal who brokered the revelation of Henry Hyde's 30-year-old sexual affair via the Internet magazine Salon.. Sidney Blumenthal is the White House aide to whom Bill Clinton gave the fullest account of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.."

National Post Mark Steyn 1/29/99 ". Speaking of questions, one of the most revealing in this pseudo-trial was the joint softball lobbed by all the Democratic ladies in the Senate bar one (Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas): "Has Ms. Lewinsky claimed her affair with the president was anything other than consensual?" Answer: no. But, in posing the question, these five senators were signalling that, as feminists with impeccable track records, they considered this a "victimless crime."."

Washington Times 1/29/99 Donald Lambro ".P ublic disapproval of the way Democrats have handled the Senate impeachment trial has risen by 9 points, challenging their claim that people are only displeased with the Republicans. At the same time, a new survey by independent pollster John Zogby that asked likely voters who they would support in the 2000 congressional elections found that Republicans and Democrats were "dead even." Mr. Zogby's findings, based on two days of interviews this week with 1,011 likely voters nationwide, countered Democratic claims that many voters are angry with Republicans and that the GOP is losing political support across the country because of the impeachment trial. "I don't see any damage done to the Republicans or to the Democrats," Mr. Zogby said Thursday. "We're right where we were since the 1998 elections." A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll showed Thursday that 45 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Senate Democrats have conducted themselves in President Clinton's impeachment trial -- up significantly from the 36 percent disapproval score the poll reported in the first week of January. The poll showed little change in the way the public grades the Republicans, with their disapproval scores at 57 percent compared with 54 percent in Gallup's Jan. 8-10 survey.."

Chattanooga Free Press 1/29/99 Editorial ".The Constitution of the United States clearly imposes upon the United States Senate the duty to try impeachment charges against the president. It should be distressing to the American people that 44 senators have tried to dodge that duty by seeking to cut short the trial of President Bill Clinton in midstream. Fortunately, 55 Republican senators and one Democrat (Russell Feingold of Wisconsin) saw their duty and voted to continue the trial -- although that count indicates it is most unlikely that the necessary two-thirds of the senators will vote to convict the president and remove him from office.."

New York Post 1/28/99 Dick Morris Freeper dwhite02 ".PRESIDENT Clinton got word that Kenneth Starr was investigating his relationship with Monica Lewinsky 12 hours earlier than was previously thought. The president first learned of the Starr investigation late on Tuesday afternoon, Jan. 20, 1998. This revelation is significant because it casts into new light the presidents conversation with his secretary Betty Currie on that date. In this meeting, the president did what he had said two days before on Sunday, Jan. 18 - asking her leading questions in what House impeachment managers say was an attempt to structure her testimony. Impeachment investigators have wondered why the president felt it necessary to repeat himself and have the Tuesday meeting with Currie.. The new revelation has come to light - and is reported here for the first time - through an examination of an off-hand statement made on Feb. 7, 1998, by then-White House deputy spokesman Joe Lockhart. Seeking to rebut the accusation that the Sunday Clinton-Currie meeting was to coach her testimony, Lockhart noted that the White House learned on Tuesday afternoon about Starrs investigation..."

New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/29/99 Vincent Morris Brian Blomquist Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "A videotape of Monica Lewinsky's sworn deposition will...be played for the world at...Clinton's impeachment trial...the public should see the expressions of witnesses as they answer questions...."The Democrats are desperately, horribly frightened that there will be a human face on this trial," said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas)....White House aide Sidney Blumenthal will be interviewed under oath on Monday. Lewinsky will be interviewed Tuesday, and first pal Vernon Jordan on Wednesday...House GOP prosecutors...want to first ask Blumenthal about Clinton's portrayal of Lewinsky as a rejected stalker - a term she hates - before talking to Lewinsky herself....The Senate will review the depositions, then vote on whether to show the video at trial...to replay video clips of Lewinsky, showing her expression as she tells of sex with Clinton and efforts to cover it up...."

World Net Daily 1/29/99 David Limbaugh ". A preliminary vote on the "finding of fact" as to whether Clinton is guilty of the charges, it is contended, would force the senators to reveal the basis of their second vote, if necessary, on whether to remove. Plus, a finding that he is guilty of the offenses, even if he is not ultimately removed, would allow senators to condemn Clinton's conduct so that he will have less to party about in the event of his acquittal. As to these arguments, several points are in order. First, whether and how robustly Bill Clinton decides to party following an acquittal is certainly a legitimate matter for people to be repulsed about, but it should not guide the Senate's decision as to how to proceed in this case. That is a matter to be dictated solely by the Constitution. Secondly, Democrats will only endorse this two- vote plan if the first vote -- the finding of fact -- is crafted in very general and virtually meaningless terms..."

House Judiciary Committee Home Page 1/26/99 ". The House respectfully moves that the United States Senate admit into evidence the sworn declaration of T. Wesley Holmes, one of the counsels for Paula C. Jones in the case of Jones v. Clinton. Attached to the sworn declaration of T. Wesley Holmes is a photocopy of a subpoena issued to Betty Currie on January 22, 1998, and served on her on January 27, 1998. Also attached is a supplemental witness list filed in the case of Jones v. Clinton, containing the name of Betty Currie. His declaration and the photocopy of the subpoena and supplemental witness list will prove that: T. Wesley Holmes was retained as counsel for Paula C. Jones in her suit against William Jefferson Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton. During his January 17, 1998, deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton, President Clinton made a number of references to Ms. Currie, his Personal Secretary. In effect, the President was suggesting that Ms. Currie, in certain instances, could corroborate his testimony. (OIC Referral, H. Doc. 105-310, nn. 386-89, p. 190) It therefore became clear to Mr. Holmes that Ms. Currie was an important potential witness, and that she should be called to testify in the case. The resulting subpoena for Ms. Currie, issued on January 22, and the supplemental witness list, become highly relevant in light of this factual background. Counsel for the President has repeatedly argued that Ms. Currie was not a potential witness in the Jones case and therefore that the President's January 18, 1998 statements to her were not intended to influence her anticipated testimony.."

Washington Bulletin 1/28/99John J. Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru Freeper Nick Danger "."I have to say, as one U.S. Senator who is going to vote on how to dispose of this matter in a fair and just fashion to all concerned, I do not want to base my vote on a stack of papers." That's what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) said about deposing witnesses--in the Packwood case in 1995.."

UPI 1/29/99 Freeper Brian Mosely ".White House press secretary Joe Lockhart admitted (Friday) he did not check the facts when he said last week that White House lawyers did not review in advance the speech given during President Clinton's Senate impeachment trial by former Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark. After Bumpers described exactly such a meeting with White House lawyers to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Lockhart denied any White House officials had misled him, and instead said it was his fault for not fully checking the facts before answering.."

Reuters 1/29/99 Thomas Ferraro Freeper Lou in Mass. ".Despite public opposition to the Republican-led impeachment of President Clinton, the Republican National Committee again raised more money last year than its Democratic counterpart, according to reports sent Friday to the Federal Election Commission.."

MSNBC 1/30/99 Jay Severin Freeper Texas Mom ".BIPARTISANSHIP IS ALL well and good when it's a two-way street. But in the spin game of the past few weeks, Democrats have been beating Republicans like a rented mule. Somehow, Republicans awoke from their stupor and remembered they have more votes than the other guys. Then they decided to go out and actually use their political muscle. It took much longer than it should have (lab rats catch on more quickly) but Republicans have finally realized that Democrats and their accomplices in the news media will call them "partisan" and "mean-spirited" no matter what they do. So, as long as there is no way out of the battle, why not stand up and fight? At least you save your political base (in politics, you need them like you need lungs), not to mention your self-respect. This must frighten Democrats, who have become accustomed to having a handy Republican doormat on which to wipe their boots. And now they have to wonder whether the GOP is serious about forcing a "finding of fact" vote, one that says Clinton is guilty, but can remain in office...Meanwhile, the big question is how hard the newly-buffed GOP will press for that dual vote, one on guilt, the other on removal. The second one will almost surely fail - Clinton's not going anywhere. But the first one, that the Republicans can pass on their own, if they have the guts. And that very special form of censure, deeply feared by the president, would cause him immediate and lasting political damage; provide a political rationale for criminal prosecution 20 months from now; deprive him of the opportunity to blame impeachment on a rogue House. It would also score big political points for Republicans with their hardcore voters.."

David Wastell 1/31/99 Freeper BP2 "...PROSECUTORS in President Clinton's impeachment trial have identified Vernon Jordan, his golfing partner and trusted adviser, as the weakest link in the chain of allies protecting him before the Senate.. Mr Hutchinson, impressive during earlier stages of the senate trial, is expected to focus on discrepancies which have come to light since Mr Jordan last testified to the grand jury on June 9. In the weeks that followed, evidence was given by the White House secretary Betty Currie, by Miss Lewinsky and then by the President himself. The points on which he will press Mr Jordan include: - - Did he help Miss Lewinsky draft her false affidavit in the Paula Jones trial, denying her affair with Mr Clinton? -- Did he have breakfast with Miss Lewinsky in the Park Hyatt Hotel on December 31, 1997, and when told of notes from her to the President, tell her to "go home and make sure they're not there", as she says he did? He denied instructing her to destroy evidence, but he also denied the meeting with Miss Lewinsky, for which there is evidence in the form of an itemised receipt. -- Did he really not know of the improper sexual relationship between the President and Miss Lewinsky before January 18, when the story first became public? Miss Lewinsky said she had a discussion with him the previous month in which she hinted strongly at an affair with the President, and Mr Jordan suggested she was "in love" with Mr Clinton. -- Did he know about Miss Lewinsky's subpoena by lawyers in the Paula Jones case when he met her on December 22 to discuss her hunt for a job? He previously said they did not discuss it, but Miss Lewinsky said one reason for the meeting was to find out whether he had informed the President of her summons.."

NewYork Times 1/31/99 Don Van Natta Jr. ".The independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, has concluded that he has the constitutional authority to seek a grand jury indictment of President Clinton before he leaves the White House in January 2001, several associates of Starr said this week. While the President's legal team has fought in the Senate chamber for the President's political survival, Starr and his prosecutors have actively considered whether to ask a Federal grand jury here to indict Clinton before his term expires, said Starr's associates, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. But these associates emphasized that Starr had not decided whether, or when, to ask the grand jury to charge Clinton with perjury and obstruction of justice in the Monica S. Lewinsky matter.Those in favor have cited a view held by some prosecutors in Jaworski's office that "a failure to indict the incumbent President, in the face of evidence of his criminal activity, would seriously impair the integrity of the criminal process," a Starr associate said. ."

Associated Press 1/30/99 Connie Cass ".The more the Senate balks, and the less likely conviction seems, the harder the 13 House prosecutors dig in and push. They are an unapologetic, self- proclaimed ``annoyance'' to the senators deciding President Clinton's fate. Rep. Henry Hyde and his band of congressmen-lawyers charge ahead despite skittishness among fellow Republicans and polls showing most Americans oppose ousting Clinton. Hyde says their motivation is simple: ``We believe in something.''.The impeachment trial has turned once-obscure congressmen into national names - even conservative heroes. They see themselves as defenders of the honor of the House of Representatives, more importantly the Constitution itself..In a less guarded moment, when asked about some Republican senators' search for a graceful end to the trial, Hyde told a Washington Post reporter: ``I'm glad those people weren't at Valley Forge or the Alamo.'' ."

Daily Oklahoman 1/31/99 Freeper RR ".SENATE Republicans do not want Bill Clinton lighting up a victory cigar or staging another Rose Garden pep rally should there not be 67 votes to convict him of grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice.."

New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 1/31/99 Brian Blomquist Adam Miller Freeper A Whitewater Researacher ".EXCERPTS: "...House prosecutors prepped yesterday to question Sexgate's star witness - Monica Lewinsky - vowing their questions would focus on perjury and obstruction of justice...Lewinsky is the first to be questioned in the "witness phase" of Clinton's impeachment trial this week.... The trial will end Feb. 12, unless the Senate authorizes the prosecutors to call additional witnesses or bring other evidence....House prosecutors meanwhile say they don't plan to pursue a private investigator's claim that he was hired by a friend of the president's to snoop on Kathleen Willey...The prosecutors don't believe the allegations surrounding Willey are within their scope of inquiry...The prosecutors don't plan to pursue the Willey matter because independent counsel Kenneth Starr didn't include Willey's grand-jury testimony when he sent his impeachment report to Congress...Starr is investigating the Willey charges himself....The videotape of Lewinsky's deposition could be shown to the Senate as soon as Thursday...."."

AP 1/31/99 Lauri Kellman ".Republican senators on Sunday said some of their colleagues may vote against removing President Clinton from office. House prosecutors, meanwhile, prepared to question Monica Lewinsky in a last-ditch effort to strengthen their case.. ``A number of senators who believe that the president lied under oath but that his wrongdoing in that area does not constitute perjury because of the legal definition of perjury,'' said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. One prospective presidential candidate issued a stern warning from conservative circles to Republicans up for re-election next year who vote against the articles of impeachment. ``Senators who vote to acquit just naturally will end up facing primary challengers,'' conservative activist Gary Bauer said on NBC.."

Human Events 1/27/99 Ann Coulter ".In her opening argument for the defense, Clinton Counsel Cheryl Mills leaned heavily on Betty Currie's testimony before the grand jury. But in about 800 pages of testimony from January through July 1998, Currie's testimony is all over the map, with wildly inconsistent statements. As one of the grand jurors asked Currie, -- "Mrs. Currie, which testimony should we be believing?" If anyone is going to call the president's long-serving pimp to testify before the Senate, it is hardly surprising that it will have to be the defense. Betty Currie saw what went on between Clinton and Monica. She did not log phone calls and written messages between the intern and the president. She smuggled Monica through back entrances to trysts with Betty's boss. She placed calls to Monica for Clinton so he would not have to go through the White House switchboard. She instructed Secret Service officers not to log all of Monica's many visits to the president. In the most famous sexual encounter of the century -- the day Monica was wearing a blue Gap dress -- Betty waited for 20 minutes in the dining hall area off the Oval Office while Monica earned her presidential kneepads.."

FOX Newswire AP 2/1/99 Larry Margasak ".President Clinton's lawyers on Monday offered Monica Lewinsky an apology "on behalf of the president" for the difficulties the impeachment investigation has caused her. They turned down the chance to ask any questions during sworn testimony forced by House prosecutors.. Her testimony closely tracked her earlier account to a federal grand jury, according to sources familiar with the testimony who commented only on condition of anonymity.. Bryant himself would not discuss the substance of the questioning, which lasted far less than the eight hours set aide by the Senate, but he said he "felt it was a productive session." ."

Senate Resolutions and NY Times 2/1/99 Freeper Thanatos observes ".According a New York Times Article, "A battery of lawyers, lawmakers and aides attended the questioning of Ms. Lewinsky on Monday. Officials familiar with the session, who spoke on condition that they not be identified..." These Officials are in Direct Violation of Senate Resolution 30, Section 205 Which States: "SEC. 205. The depositions shall be videotaped and a transcript of the proceedings shall be made. The depositions shall be conducted in private. No person shall be admitted to any deposition except for the following: The witness, counsel for the witness, the Managers on the part of the House, counsel for the Managers, counsel for the President, and the presiding officers; further, such persons whose presence is required to make and preserve a record of the proceedings in videotaped and transcript forms, and Senate staff members whose presence is required to assist the presiding officers in presiding over the depositions, or for other purposes, as determined by the Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader. All present must maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings."."

MSNBC 2/1/99 Jonathan Broder ".LONG BEFORE the impeachment trial, Republican leaders targeted Blumenthal as the source of stories that embarrassed several GOP lawmakers last year for their past sexual indiscretions, though his accusers cited no proof to buttress their charges. .. But as he prepares for his deposition before House prosecutors on Wednesday, the president's communications director now has a different burden of proof: Demonstrating that his boss did not use him to obstruct justice. House prosecutors allege Clinton used Blumenthal to spread false stories about Lewinsky to destroy her credibility. .."She threatened him," Blumenthal told the grand jury. "She said that she would tell people they'd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it, and if she had an affair or said she had an affair, then she wouldn't be the stalker anymore." ."

AP Wire 2/1/99 David Espo ".GOP Rep. Peter King of New York has written some constituents that ``threats were made against me by the Republican leadership'' in connection with his vote on an impeachment-related roll call in the House last year. ``I regret that Congressional Republicans were so blinded by their opposition to President Clinton that they voted to impeach him rather than stand by the traditional principles of their party,'' the independent-minded New York lawmaker wrote recently. ``I also regret that threats were made against me by the Republican leadership in an attempt to keep me from voting my conscience.'' ."

AP 2/1/99 Freeper Theresa on OIC response "."We are deeply troubled by yesterday's New York Times report. This office has no desire to inject itself into the constitutional process under way in the Senate. We are launching an internal investigation to determine whether anyone in this office improperly disclosed the information to the Times. The announcement of this investigation should not be taken as confirmation of anything in the article." ."

ABC 2/1/99 Josh Gerstein ".It's starting to seem like dj vu all over again in the White House briefing room. With each twist and turn in the Senate impeachment process, the White House complains about unfairness, makes dire predictions and then quickly moves on after it doesn't get its way. In early January, the White House denounced as "manifestly unfair" the possibility that the impeachment trial could go forward without clear rules for calling witnesses. The specter of a long, drawn-out trial was raised..When it became clear that even Senate Democrats weren't going to give the White House much time to prepare, the president's lawyers simply moved the goal posts once again. The latest White House objection: the possibility that the Senate might vote separately on the president's guilt and the issue of whether he should be removed. With a number of senators working for such a split vote, the president's aides once again threatened a scorched-earth response. Clinton advisers warned that if a separate vote on the facts is scheduled, then all bets are off and the White House might call a whole bunch of witnesses to defend the president. All these threats seemed a bit hollow to some observers, including lawyers friendly to the president, who said a long list of defense witnesses could too easily backfire on the president.. What riled reporters was Clinton's suggestion that he has no control over his encounters with the press, implying that his schedule is ordained by God or some other authority. In fact, Clinton has used this construction on at least four other occasions since his admission in August that he had an intimate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.. "

Insight Magazine 1/22/99 Jamie Dettmer ".Back in the fall when appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Independent Counsel Ken Starr called for an "orderly legal process" to deal with his Monica Lewinsky findings. What the lawyerly Starr had in mind is the kind of procedure the federal and state courts across this country follow day in and day out -- a procedure developed and honed over nearly three centuries of U.S. legal history, stretching back through the mists of time to even older traditions of justice and advocacy. The process in the Senate as it has unfolded hardly is orderly, what with its accompanying cloakroom maneuvering, closed sessions and senatorial huddles designed not to establish guilt or innocence but to identify privately an exit strategy or provide camouflage for one political group or another.. Winging it, making up the rules as the senators go along to get along, has turned this trial into a mockery every bit as grim as the rigged procedure followed by the Chinese judge in Richard Gere's recent movie Red Corner. The prejudicial judge in that film got to select witnesses, too.."

WSJ 2/1/99 Robert Bork ". The impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton is producing grotesque versions of constitutional law at a record pace. Some Republicans, understandably frustrated, indeed enraged, by the Democrats' countenancing of perjury and obstruction of justice, appear to be considering the idea of one vote convicting the president and a second refusing to remove him from office but imposing some lesser penalty. A variant would have the Senate vote on "findings of fact," which imply the president's guilt but carry no sanctions. The effect in either case would be moral disapproval of crimes but without any real consequences. Frustration and rage are poor guides to constitutional interpretation, however, and these notions are preposterous readings of the Constitution as well as utterly impractical. As do many fanciful theories of the Constitution, these come from legal academics: Prof. Joseph Isenbergh, a tax expert at the University of Chicago, first developed the idea, and Prof. Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University endorsed it in an article on the opposite page Friday. Their difficulty is that Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution provides that "The President [and other civil officers] shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, . . high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Not much ambiguity there; the president shall be removed. The professors' Clintonesque evasion of the plain meaning depends on what the definition of "shall" shall be.."

Reuters 2/1/99 ".Lawyers for President Clinton Monday accused Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr of leaking material about the impeachment case and said they would file a motion in court over the leaks. ``The Office of the Independent Counsel has once again engaged in illegal and partisan leaking,'' said the president's attorney, David Kendall, referring to an article in Sunday in The New York Times.."

New York Post http://www.nypostonline.com/ 2/1/99 Deborah Orin Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "A key Senate Democrat - Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut - yesterday said he's open to Republican proposals for "findings of fact" that could state that... Clinton lied to the American people about Sexgate...the idea...would cast an official stain on Clinton's place in history...Findings of fact "may be a way to bring us together" to end Clinton's Senate impeachment trial in a bipartisan way, Lieberman said..."'I don't think we should just walk away from it."...a mistake to allow the end of Clinton's trial to be..."exoneration or vindication or acceptance of the president's behavior."...necessary for the Senate "to make a statement of the way this president has violated our commonly held values."...."Findings of fact"...more toughly worded than a censure of Clinton and... passed by the Senate before...the vote on whether to convict Clinton...If "findings of fact" were passed before...it would be harder for the White House to portray an unsuccessful vote to oust him as an acquittal or exoneration..."

Washington Times 2/1/99 Greg Pierce Freeper Liberty ".".I am repenting my sins, returning to my Democratic roots, and seeking solidarity with my progressive brethren," Stuart Taylor Jr. writes in the National Journal. "I hereby commit myself to the Democratic credo. I'm not interested in those old, annoying questions: What did the president know and when did he know it? Or what did he do and why did he do it? Or anything else at all. Just don't wanna know," Mr. Taylor said. "Don't wanna know if he lied under oath. Or how many times.. "Don't wanna know what the Constitution and precedents really say about whether such things are impeachable. Don't wanna hear any nasty old witnesses -- don't want to be confused with the facts. ... "I feel better already. I'm a Democrat again!" ."

Conservative News Service http://www.conservativenews.org/ 1/29/99 Ben Anderson Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...a CNS survey of Republican state party leaders indicates grassroots support for the impeachment process....Asked about the message local party members are sending to the state party leaders about the Senate impeachment trial, South Carolina Republican Party Executive Director Trey Walker said, "We hear it from our grassroots Republican leadership all the time. They're a very conservative group of folks here in South Carolina and they want the Republicans to drive forward and to push forward, as required by law, the process."...South Carolina Republican Rep. Lindsey Graham enjoys massive support as one of the... House (prosecution) managers..."They're hesitant about compromise," Walker said. "They're hesitant about doing anything other than pushing for what is right."...Mimicking Clinton's familiar tone, Walker said he has yet to hear someone say, "We've got to stop this impeachment, it's killing the Party....But I ain't hearing it out here. Especially not from conservative Republicans,"..."

Fox News Sunday 1/31/99 Freeper WhyTwoKay ".SNOW: Should the public see those tapes? HATCH: Well there's no question about it. It's been kind of ironic that the very people who have been arguing for open deliberations, jury deliberations, now want to close it off to the public on something that's as important as these final witnesses. Now, back to this other thing. Just think about it. One of the reasons that a lot of us are concerned is we know that the people in the White House have been shameless on some of these things. And we know that if there's just a straight vote on acquittal or on conviction, that they'll play it as an acquittal or an exoneration. There may not be a champagne party like the pep rally on the south lawn after he was impeached, but it will be basically the equivalent of that. And we would not have accomplished anything when we know the facts are here for serious criticism. That's why I think a motion for adjournment deprives them of the argument of an acquittal or of an exoneration, while at the same time, allowing the president to stay in office for the remaining part of his term, but basically saying, look, we're not going to say that perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses. To me, that's a pretty important thing. And also saying that the House managers who have really done a great job here, they've presented a compelling case, and they've stuck with it. They've done it as a matter of principle because they've been right in their eyes.. SNOW: Well, Henry Hyde doesn't completely share your view... HATCH: Who doesn't? SNOW: Henry Hyde, he took a shot at senators last week. He said I'm glad these people weren't at Valley Forge or the Alamo..LIEBERMAN: Now, look, everybody is responsible. You know, human nature, we're all imperfect.."

National Review 2/1/99 W.F, Buckley, Jr. Freeper Rudder ".The arguments in favor of impeaching President William Jefferson Clinton... 4) The objection that the American people are opposed to impeachment ignores culture lags of historical frequency, including general opposition to the liberation of the slaves, to full participation in the war against Hitler, and to the need to take action against Iraq in 1991. ."

Union Leader 2/2/99 Linda Bowles ".When Christian Coalition leader Pat Robertson waved the white flag of surrender and Sen. Orrin Hatch suggested that maybe the Senate should just adjourn and get the trial over with, their reasons had nothing to do with the merits of the case against Bill Clinton. They lost heart and perhaps a little faith when faced with a phalanx of Democrat senators who are hopelessly partisan, hopelessly prejudiced against a fair and open trial, and hopelessly committed, no matter what, to the defeat of Republicans..What is now clearly in view is that the Democratic members of the Senate have acted not as impartial jurors and judges engaged in a quest for the truth but as dedicated members of the President's criminal defense team. From the very start, their minds were hopelessly entrapped in twisted ideological and moral wreckage from which no rhetorical "jaws of truth" could pry them loose.."

Anchorage Daily news 2/2/99 Loren Dircks, Letter to Editor ".This whole Clinton thing is not really about Lewinsky or perjury or obstruction of justice. It is about whether character counts. It is about whether we want honor or dishonor. It is about whether honesty, integrity, reverence, respect and the like mean anything in this great country, as we enter the 21st century... As they get bolder, fueled by all of these ridiculous polls, one begins to see. On "Crossfire" the other night I was shocked to watch Bill Press and Charlie Wrangel extol the virtues of Fidel Castro. Their true souls start to show in public..We have Caligula in the White House, and 75 percent of the nation doesn't care?."

Atlanta Constitution 1/31/99 Cynthia Tucker ".After President Clinton foolishly and recklessly became involved with a starry-eyed young woman named Monica Lewinsky, he went on to make a series of dumb decisions that only made matters worse.. He was not only selfish, which may have been expected, but he was also stupid, which was not expected. His vaunted political instincts deserted him. Clinton forgot that the conservative-led campaign to remove him from office was much more a political matter than a legal one. A lawyer himself, he surrounded himself with other shortsighted lawyers (including his wife, whose instincts in this matter were understandably off-base) who made legalistic decisions that served the president poorly..There's a telling sign that the reservoir of good will that Americans have shown him is shallow: a steady creep upward in the number of polled Americans who think Clinton should resign.. And if by chance the president is holding out against a quick end to the trial because he hopes more investigation will exonerate him for the history books, then he deserves to be kicked out of office. History will make the only judgment it can make: He recklessly put his presidency at risk and diminished the moral authority of his office. It is too late to reverse that truth."

Washington Times Jerry Seper 2/2/99 Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "House prosecutors asked Monica Lewinsky yesterday about previously undisclosed White House telephone calls...The phone calls were received by Miss Lewinsky on the day Mr. Clinton's personal secretary, Betty Currie, retrieved gifts he had given to Miss Lewinsky. House prosecutors believe they were part of an effort by Mr. Clinton and others to obstruct justice in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit...Miss Lewinsky also gave further explanations of a false affidavit she signed in the Jones lawsuit denying a sexual relationship with the president, Mr. Clinton's role in counseling her to conceal gifts he had given to her, comments she made under oath that no one directly asked her to lie to cover up the relationship with the president, and a job search arranged for her by the White House...Nicole Seligman, one of Mr. Clinton's personal attorneys, read a statement apologizing to Miss Lewinsky, "on behalf of the president for all the trouble the investigation and impeachment trial had caused her."."

Washington Times 2/2/99 Inside Politics Freeper Thanatos ".Vernon Jordan is everywhere you don't want him to be, at least if you are credit card giants Visa and Mastercard. Mr. Jordan, who is scheduled to give a deposition today in the Senate impeachment trial, is on the board of American Express and even tried to get Monica Lewinsky a job there before the scandal broke. Now it turns out that the Justice Department is suing Visa and Mastercard for supposed antitrust violations, a suit cheered on by archrival American Express. And guess what? Back in 1997 Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Mr. Jordan to an advisory panel -- on antitrust policy.."

CNN 2/2/99 Freeper williams ".In an interview with CNN, Byrd said Clinton's false testimony may not constitute perjury in the "strict legal sense," but he added, "For the chief executive to give false testimony under oath willingly, knowingly and intentionally and repeatedly, certainly to me gets awfully close to abusing and violating the public trust and trust in the judicial system." ."

Press Conference 2/2/99 Freeper Commomsense reports ".Hatch talks after viewing Lewinsky video. Says it was helpful to him, found her very credible. Says the public should at least see the video. Says "its not over", regardless of what the polls say and what 44 Democratic senators say. Defends Ken Starr.."

MSNBC 2/1/99 Sharron Freeper MiSh reports ".Chip reported this and said it may or may not be something going on ...that there were no messages on their faces to suggest the meeting was sad or glad. It appears, since the Dem senators who sat in on the Jordan deposition were there then it may have something to do with something in the depo. It could be that senators are deciding that the 2 people deposed could be called to testify in the Senate. We just don't know right now.."

Boston Herald 2/2/99 Don Feder Freeper hope ".But at every stage of the process, Democrats have been a rigged jury. In 1974, all but four House Republicans voted in favor of a ``resolution of inquiry'' into Watergate. In 1998, only 31 House Democrats approved a similarly open-ended inquiry of Clinton's criminal misconduct. Following a debate in which they carried on like temperamental tots (actually whining because the majority would not allow a vote on a resolution of censure, as meaningless as it was unconstitutional), with the exception of five brave souls, Democratic representatives voted against the articles of impeachment, then scurried to the White House to applaud the vice president when he called the perjurer in chief one of our ``greatest presidents.'' After taking an oath to fairly consider the evidence and reach an impartial verdict, Democratic senators immediately betrayed it by opposing a real trial. Two days of abbreviated presentations followed by a vote on adjournment was their preferred scenario. It took the Democrats decades to arrive here, to reach the point where they would gleefully shred the Constitution to save their president.."

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde http://www.house.gov/judiciary/ 2/2/99 Freeper A Whitewater Researcher "....HYDE: ...I think we accomplished our goals so far, and we have one more to go...To advance the cause of impeachment; conviction....we never felt we needed any bombshells to have a compelling case. What we need is to validate the record that already exists under oath about obstruction and about perjury and that is being accomplished....QUESTION: Will you be pursuing live these three people or other people live on the Senate floor?...HYDE: It is our intention to request live witnesses. We think that's the highest and best evidence, and that will be our firm request....QUESTION: Will you stick with the original three that you are deposing this week?...HYDE: I know of no other witnesses beyond these three that we would ask to testify live on the floor of the Senate....

AP 2/2/99 Larry Margasak "..Jordan, a Washington power broker, testified that President Clinton was directly behind his efforts to find Ms. Lewinsky a job. Jordan also altered his account of a breakfast meeting with the former intern that prosecutors have highlighted in their obstruction of justice inquiry. The presidential confidant testified last spring he never had breakfast with Ms. Lewinsky, but the former intern testified she had such a breakfast on Dec. 31, 1997, at a Washington hotel. She said she remembered it in part because at that time Jordan suggested she should destroy drafts of her love letters to the president.In his first grand jury appearance, in March, Jordan stuck to his account about Mrs. Currie. But in later appearances, he conceded that "I do believe that'' the president told Mrs. Currie to ask for the job help and that Clinton "knew that I had gotten her a job, he knew that I had gotten her a lawyer. ... He was interested in this matter. He is the source of it coming to my attention in the first place.'' House prosecutors are hoping such evolutions or changes in testimony will bolster their case as they make one last-ditch effort to persuade senators to call witnesses for live testimony in the well of the Senate before the trial ends.."

The Weekly Standard 2/8/99 David Frum ".So Henry Hyde and his Republican colleagues had no conscientious alternative. President Clinton's unapologetic defense of his crimes left them with no choice but to impeach or acquiesce. As the republic's only line of defense against a lawless president, they were duty-bound to impeach and accept the consequences.."

New York Times 2/2/99 Tom Squitieri Jessica Lee ".In another sign that prosecutors are not giving up, Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., said they could decide Wednesday what motions to take to the Senate for votes Thursday. Those motions could include having Lewinsky, Jordan and Blumenthal testify on the Senate floor, either publicly or behind closed doors; playing their videotaped depositions in the Senate, publicly or not; or taking additional testimony from other witnesses, Hutchinson said. Some prosecutors will push to have Oval Office secretary Betty Currie and at least one of the ''Jane Doe'' witnesses from Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against Clinton called as witnesses, people with knowledge of their strategy said.."

Associated Press 2/3/99 ".Jordan, a Washington power broker, testified that President Clinton was directly behind his efforts to find Lewinsky a job. Jordan also altered his account of a breakfast meeting with the former intern that prosecutors have highlighted in their obstruction of justice inquiry.. Democrats have demonstrated in several votes that they have the strength to keep the Republicans well short of the 67 votes needed.."

Washington Times 2/3/99 Greg Pierce Freeper Lance Romance ".Gossip columnist Cindy Adams, who seems to have good sources in the White House, says presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal has been given his "talking orders" for today's impeachment-trial deposition. "The man has been programmed to be feisty. Go the 'Give 'em hell' route," Mrs. Adams said. "Heavy on the 'How dare you,' 'This is privacy infringement,' 'No high crimes and misdemeanors in letting our nation down,' 'Embarrassing us around the world,' 'Twice elected and selected,' 'Clinton's high approval rating,' etc., etc.."

Wall Street Journal 2/3/99 Op-Ed ".The good Senators can't understand why the Members didn't do the "sensible" thing of ducking their Constitutional responsibilities. If the Senate had allowed the House managers to present their case, they would talk to Ms. Currie, among others. But in the context of the Senate's limit, Mr. Blumenthal was an easy pick; he was a pivotal witness in moving the House itself toward impeachment. In particular, Rep. Lindsey Graham, once considered a doubtful Republican vote on the Judiciary Committee, became an effective advocate of impeachment after colleague Mary Bono called his attention to the Blumenthal testimony. As he explained, "[T]he President of the United States, I believe, planted stories that were false. And shortly after those stories were planted, the White House operation went into effect notifying the press that if you ever hear anything about this witness, you need to know she's unreliable, she's a stalker, she's basically not a responsible person." Rep. Graham added, "that is far more like Watergate than Peyton Place..We know that none of this is true; the President has after all confessed to "a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate." Fortunately, Linda Tripp, who had seen the current White House operate before being exiled from the Counsel's office, advised Ms. Lewinsky to retain the semen- stained dress that forced this confession. Otherwise she would be known today as the Stalker.."

Augusta Chronicle 2/3/99 Editorial Freeper newsman ".Talk about bipartisanship; Nunn is the embodiment of such consensus. The Georgia Democrat and former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman is still held in the highest respect on both sides of the aisle. But unlike his former Democrat colleagues, Nunn does not buy into the absurd notion that a president's private conduct cannot impact his official decision-making. In fact, it is not the perjury or obstruction of justice charges growing out of l'affaire Lewinsky that most concerns Nunn. Rather, it's the potential damage to national security that grabs his attention. In a recent CNN interview, Nunn was asked if he believes the U.S. is at greater risk with Clinton in the White House. ``I think there is a heightened risk,'' he responded. ``I've thought that for several months.'' For people to say ``the president -- allegedly -- having telephone sex is strictly private (and) has nothing to do with official duties,'' notes Nunn, ``means they've never been acquainted with the world of espionage... and blackmail..."

Washington Times 2/3/99 Frank Murray ".Mr. Blumenthal's testimony also is expected to portray the president as a cad, instead of a missionary, in his treatment of the former intern. "You'll have character assassination on top of everything else," said a staff member working with the House of Representatives prosecutors, referring to press portrayals of Miss Lewinsky as a troubled woman and sexual "stalker." Mr. Rogan told the Senate last week the president's attack on Miss Lewinsky's character "to exculpate himself" is an important part of the Article II charge that he obstructed justice.. Mr. Blumenthal told grand jurors the president quoted Miss Lewinsky as telling him some labeled her "the Stalker" and saying, "If I can say we had an affair, then they won't call me that." Mr. Clinton said she threatened him unless they had a sexual relationship, according to Mr. Blumenthal, who conceded that he neither recorded that startling fact anywhere nor reported it to anyone. "Is that consistent with White House policy, not to report threats on the president?" he was asked before the grand jury. "This wasn't a physical threat," Mr. Blumenthal said.."Had it not been for that blue dress, they would have tore her to pieces," Mr. Graham said, referring to Miss Lewinsky's dress with semen stains matching Mr. Clinton's DNA.."

Washington Times 2/3/99 Editorial ".Why are Senate Democrats so obsessed with President Clinton's sex life? They keep talking about the need to censure the president, in the words of Sen. Robert Torricelli, to "make clear our level of discomfort with the president's actions." But exactly what are the actions that cause Mr. Torricelli and his colleagues such discomfort? It can't be lying under oath in a civil suit. According to Senate Democrats nothing of the sort has been proved. Nor can it be lying under oath before a federal grand jury, nor witness tampering, nor obstruction of justice. According to Senate Democrats, none of those charges has been proved. What, then, is left to base censure on? As it happens, all that's left is the sex.."

Washington Post 2/3/99 Peter Baker & Helen Dewar "."But while he [Jordan] said notes may have been mentioned, he vehemently denied telling Lewinsky to destroy them, the sources said. "He was indignant in his denial," said one person in the room, who quoted Jordan saying, "I'm a lawyer, but I'm not a fool. I would never suggest" that." ."

Montgomery Advertiser 2/3/99 AP ".Jordan, a Washington powerbroker, testified that President Clinton WAS DIRECTLY behind his efforts to find lewinsky a job. Jordan also altered his account of a breakfast meeting with the former intern that prosecutors have highlighted in their obstruction of justice inquiry."

National Review 2/2/99 Ramesh Ponnuru John Miller Kate Dwyer Freeper Marcellus ".Sidney Blumenthal is planning to be a jerk at his deposition on Wednesday....[House prosecutors] will want Blumenthal to elaborate on his claim during grand jury testimony last year that President Clinton accused Monica Lewinsky of stalking him....he'll deny repeating this statement to the press if only because admitting to it would bolster the obstruction of justice charge....When...Jim Rogan (R., Calif.) arrives at this point in the questioning -- Blumenthal confirming his earlier testimony but refusing to add to it--he'll then have to call Blumenthal's bluff. If in fact Blumenthal didn't share the stalker theory with the media, after all, he should be willing to make a statement releasing reporters from any confidentiality agreements they may have with him. If Blumenthal hedges ("I can't release them because I never bound them to anything," etc.), the truth will come into clearer focus.."

National Review 2/2/99 Jonah Goldberg Freeper Marcellus ".The Fox News Channel was the only network to report that Lewinsky's lawyers and the White House lawyers exchanged knowing glances, winks, etc. In fact, Fox reported that at times White House lawyers were signaling Lewinsky to stop talking....Many of us have written about the possibility of legal (and illegal) collusion between Monica and the White House. Is this more grist for the conspiracy mill?...Another example is the Lisa Meyers interview with Jane Doe #5....we do know that the White House put considerable pressure on NBC....The New York Times story that Ken Starr is weighing whether or not he can indict the president is another example. Clearly this story has been inflammatory. Why did the Times choose to run a story helpful to the president, while NBC chose to kill a story detrimental to his interests? Where did the story come from? Why did it appear the day before Lewinsky was going to testify? .."

www.polyconomics.com/ 2/3/99 Jude Wanniski Drudge ".For the first eleven months of 1998, I was a Republican defender of President Bill Clinton. I changed my mind while watching the impeachment hearings of the House Judiciary Committee, when it became obvious to me that the President had done something so iniquitous that he should no longer be permitted to remain in office. I realized he was prepared to destroy the life of a young woman to save himself the embarrassment of admitting what he had done with her..It was Lindsey Graham's conclusion that if the blue dress had not turned up, the President would never have had to change his story. It would have been Lewinsky's testimony against his denial, leaving her for the rest of her life as the "fantasizer" and "stalker" who had put the First Family and her country through this dreadful episode in our history... It may not have been a crime. It certainly struck me as something worse. It was an evil act. It may not have been a high crime against the state, but in compounding the felonies we know Mr. Clinton did commit, it told me the President must be removed from the office he desecrated with that evil act. Not to punish him, but as Rep. Henry Hyde has said, to cleanse the office. We are all sinners, but how many of us would knowingly destroy the life of an innocent girl simply in order to cover our shame? ."

AP 2/3/99 Pete Yost ".Blumenthal's deposition, which lasted less than four hours with breaks, marked the last of three videotaped sessions conducted by Republican prosecutors hoping to bolster their case that witnesses should be called to the Senate floor. ``I believe the public will be well served and history will be well served if we can have what occurred today (at the deposition) before the public. ... Then everyone can vote their conscience and that would be a good thing for America,'' Rep. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., said after emerging from the Blumenthal deposition. ``I learned some new things,'' added Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., who led the questioning. They were barred by Senate rules from describing the testimony further..And Senate Democrats emerged from a closed-door caucus today promising opposition to both live witnesses and any Republican plan for a formal declaration of wrongdoing by the president as a prelude to a final vote on articles of impeachment.."

http://www.nypostonline.com/commentary/2689.htm 2/3/99 Dick Morris ".AT the start of the impeachment process, most observers noted the widespread disaffection with President Clinton among Senate Democrats. The list of potential defectors included Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Max Baucus of Montana, Harry Reid and Richard Bryan of Nevada, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, Bob Graham of Florida, Max Cleland of Georgia, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and New York's own Pat Moynihan. None, with the possible exception of Feingold, has materialized. What happened? The White House went to work. Not with thumbscrews or even arm-twisting, but with courting, seduction and romancing of the Democratic senators.Long, long gone is the admonition of West Virginia's Sen. Robert Byrd that the president avoid ''tampering with this jury.'' By charm and judicious invitations to elegant events, the president has let the warm rays of the White House shine on those ''jurors'' whose votes have been in doubt.."

Reuters 2/3/99 Freeper hope ".The White House, anticipating an acquittal of President Clinton in his impeachment trial, pledged Wednesday that the president would not gloat or claim victory once the trial was over. ``I now declare, in a post-impeachment era, this a gloat-free zone,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told reporters. He had been asked whether Clinton would, if acquitted, stage a reprise of the Rose Garden pep rally for Democrats that he held the day the House impeached him in December. The event drew sharp criticism from Republicans and some Senate Democrats who accused the president of arrogance, and fueled a drive by some senators to supplement an expected acquittal of Clinton with ``findings of fact'' that would detail his alleged transgressions."

UPI 2/3/99 Michael Kirkland ".A Chicago law professor credited with influencing the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton tells United Press International that if the president is acquitted by the Senate, he cannot be prosecuted for the same charges in the courts without violating the constitutional ban on double jeopardy."

MSNBC 2/3/99 Freeper M.M. ".Even as prosecutors were learning "some new things" from White House aide Sidney Blumenthal Wednesday, four Republican senators said they could see no reason why any of the three witnesses interviewed this week should be called to provide live testimony at President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. Sen. Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a proponent of live testimony, conceded that a vote to hear live witnesses is highly unlikely when the trial resumes Thursday.."

AP 2/3/99 David Espo ".Senate Democrats threatened on Wednesday to turn President Clinton's impeachment trial into a party battle if the Republicans go through with plans to vote on a declaration of wrongdoing before deciding his fate. As House GOP prosecutors questioned the third of three witnesses in the case, Democratic leader Tom Daschle said his party's rank-and-file lawmakers were solidly opposed to any live trial testimony on the Senate floor. He also raised objections to the immediate public release of Monica Lewinsky's videotaped deposition. But what sparked the Democrats' sharpest criticism was a GOP proposal for a formal finding of wrongdoing, a measure that would require a simple majority for passage rather than the two-thirds needed for conviction on impeachment.."

Fox News Channel http://www.foxnews.com/ 2/3/99 Freeper A Whitewater Researcher Anchor Brit Hume ".The Fox News Channel White House Correspondent to whom Hume was mentioning this story on the air said that the letter has not yet been officially received by the White House, but deputy White House press secretary Jim Kennedy had already commented on the letter, saying that "it is a political attempt to get the president to answer questions which the president has already addressed in hours of previous testimony".."

Freeper Cul de sac Mom 2/3/99 reports "According to FoxNews just now (reported by Carl Cameron to O'Reilly) Graham was also involved in the questioning of Blumenthal and they are considering indictment of him for his lies today before the senators. Indictment for saying he had no knowledge of any meeting or discussion regarding the trashing of Monica and that he was not involved in anything like that. Also reporting that Blumenthal is confirming that the president flat out lied to Blumenthal re: Monica to get him to reproduce those comments in his GJ testimony."

Washington Times 2/4/99 Nancy E. Roman ".Democrats came out swinging yesterday -- opposing a "finding of fact," live witnesses, further depositions and even using clips of depositions during closing arguments. "If they ram it down our throats, they will leave due process behind," said Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, who was tapped by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to serve as point man against the GOP's developing "finding of fact." Meanwhile, Republicans emerged from a closed meeting last night saying if they cannot find "a minimum of five" Democrats to support a finding of fact, they will abandon the idea.."

Jewish World Review 2/4/99 Thomas Sowell "..DOES HAVING A TAWDRY AFFAIR in the White House "rise to the level of an impeachable offense"? Of course not. Nobody believes that it does. Not Kenneth Starr, not Henry Hyde. Nobody. That has never been the issue, regardless of how many times the issue has been misstated this way by those who realize that the only way to defend Bill Clinton is to confuse the issue. The event that set off a chain of actions is not a measure of how important those actions are for now or how large the stakes are for the future. The most famous Supreme Court decision of our time -- "Brown v. Board of Education" -- was not about where one little girl in Topeka would go to school. That was what set off the dispute but, if that was all that was involved, the Supreme Court would undoubtedly have refused to take the case and confined itself to the "real work" that they had to do "for the American people." The reason the Supreme Court took the case was a principle that applied far beyond the individuals involved. The issue was the role of racial segregation in light of the Constitution's mandate of equal treatment for all.."

Sun-Times 2/4/99 Robert Novak ".Why are President Clinton's strategists so insistent that the Senate, before an impeachment vote that surely will fall short of the two-thirds needed for his removal from office, cannot and must not pass a ``finding of fact'' detailing his deplorable conduct? Don't believe the nonsense that a finding of fact would threaten Clinton with criminal prosecution after his term ends. The real reason is given by a source close to the president: ``We want to do everything we can to delegitimize the vote of the House to impeach.''."

Chicago Tribune 2/4/99 Jonathan Weismen ".With the end of the impeachment saga in sight, White House aides took pains yesterday to reassure senators that President Clinton would not stage an "unseemly" victory celebration after his expected acquittal by the Senate. The prospects for such a celebration have put a chill in Senate efforts to end the trial, with Republicans scrambling for a graceful conclusion that would not appear to exonerate the president of any wrongdoing. Senators, especially Republicans, have been haunted by the image of Clinton and House Democrats gathered on the White House lawn in December for an exuberant show of solidarity just hours after the House had voted to impeach the president."

Reuters 2/4/99 ".The U.S. Senate Thursday resumes the impeachment trial of President Clinton, with Democrats vowing an all-out war against a Republican plan to detail Clinton's offenses before voting on whether to remove him from office..But the Senate is not expected to muster the 67 votes needed to convict and remove Clinton from office, spurring many senators to question why the trial should continue. ``I had hoped that the Senate would emerge from this ... a rock of stability where fairness would prevail and where senators would not become victims of their own political passions,'' Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, told CNN's ``Larry King Live.'' Now, he said, the Senate had turned into a veritable ''snakepit.'' .."

USA Journal 2/4/99 Jon Dougherty ".But finally, after all those years of circumventing the will of the people and the rule of law, Congress collectively had the distinct honor and opportunity to not only restore key components of the Constitution, but to assure the American people that the thing was still worth the paper it was etched upon. The House member did their jobs and upheld their honor. The Senate, however, is too paralyzed by fear, intimidation, and complicity to do their sworn duty. Makes me wonder what would happen if every American - or just 50 million or so of us, for that matter - suddenly decided we didn't think following the Constitution and the rule of law was important anymore. What if Americans in large part followed the Senate's pathetic lead and decided - for some inappropriate and lame reason - that the Constitution really didn't say what it says and really meant something other than what it means?."

The Associated Press 2/4/99 Calvin Woodward ".Like just about everyone else, House Republicans want a speedy end to the impeachment process they set in motion. In the face of ominous polls and the near certainty President Clinton will survive the trial, the lawmakers see little point in dragging it out. "Almost everyone, even people who are convinced that Clinton's actions were reprehensible -- even those voters are wanting this entire matter over," said Rep. Richard Baker, a Louisiana Republican who won a seventh term in a squeaker in November. "So I think the nation has had enough." Apart from the trial managers, House members are now free from Monica Lewinsky. Republicans among them expressed no wish to second-guess those they elected to carry the fight forward. "I am extremely proud of their integrity," declared Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla..House managers, however, pressed on Thursday, pleading unsuccessfully with the Senate to allow at least Ms. Lewinsky to testify in person in what's left of the trial. The Senate rejected that idea, 70-30, with 25 Republicans joining all 45 Democrats in opposition.. "I think they're trying to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and that may or may not be politically smart," said Rep. Ernest Fletcher of Kentucky, a freshman Republican who won a narrow victory in the fall. "But I think in the long run it will be well respected by the American people and by history." ."

MSNBC 2/4/99 Freeoer MiSh reports ".HERO ROGAN DOES US PROUD AGAIN PROVING HE IS A STATESMAN OF THE NOBLEST KIND. IN RESPONSE TO THE WH WISH FOR THEM TO TURN THEIR CASE OVER TO THEM SO THEY CAN SPIN IT BEFORE THE SENATE TRIAL SATURDAY...QUOTING ANOTHER SOURCE TOLD THE KENDALL...OUR EVIDENCE IS NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS!!!."

Associated Press 2/4/99 ".In the impeachment trial of President Clinton, the Senate voted Thursday on motions to.-Begin closing arguments: Rejected, 56-44. Republicans, 55 no; Democrats, 44 yes, 1 no..-Require House managers to notify the White House which excerpts of depositions will be presented to the Senate: Rejected, 54-46. Republicans, 1 yes, 54 no; Democrats: 45 yes.."

New York Post 2/4/99 Vincent Morris Brian Blomquist Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "House prosecutors yesterday said they'll ask a skeptical Senate for live testimony, and Republican senators dared President Clinton to testify at his impeachment trial. With the blessing of Majority Leader Trent Lott, (R-Miss.), GOP senators faxed Clinton a letter inviting him before the senate to defend himself prior to the vote on perjury and obstruction-of-justice impeachment articles...."We hope you agree that your testimony will aid the Senate in fulfilling its constitutional duties," said the letter, signed by 20 Republicans, including Lott....With a veiled threat, GOPers claimed they have the power to drag Clinton to the Capitol if he says no: "We should note that...an impeached official is subject to senate process...it may be within the senate's power to compel your appearance."...Asked yesterday about the letter, top House prosecutor Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said: "It's a good letter. It's well done. It certainly persuaded me."..."

UPI S 2/4/99 ".At the National Prayer Breakfast (Thursday), Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., a past critic of the president, asked God to accept Clinton's atonement and ``lead him in a path of righteousness.'' Lieberman, the only speaker at the event who referred directly to Clinton's impeachment problems, said, ``Help us to join in healing the breach and begin the reconciliation necessary to restore the national soul.'' After his remarks, Clinton hugged Lieberman, and the senator kissed the first lady _ but Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., one of Clinton's severest critics, walked out of the prayer breakfast before Clinton spoke.."

News Index 2/4/99 Sean Peck Freeper witness ".The roles of the House and Senate are well defined. The Senate does not get to choose not to convict just because they don't want removal. The house decides the charges, as stated in the constitution Article 1, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.. SOLE power of impeachment, that means once impeached the Senate cannot rule "the charges don't warrant removal". That is not their role, it is the SOLE power of the house to decide whether a charge "rises to the level of impeachment or removal". The Senates role in this matter, too is spelled out quite nicely in Article 1, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. They have the SOLE power to try a case. Theirs is not the duty to decide whether or not a charge is impeachable, that is the SOLE POWER OF THE HOUSE The Senators are the JURY not the judge they are to hear the evidence and based on that evidence decide if those impeached have committed the acts they are accused of. Any attempt by the Senators say he committed the crimes but to not convict is Jury Nullification, and is an atrocity and an affront to all branches of our government. Any jury nullification defiles the Judiciary branch, the fact the Legislature would willingly engage in acts that undermine the laws it enacts, which is indeed what they would be doing, undermines their own legitimacy.. "

AP 2/4/99 Larry Margasak ".And Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, called the proposal ``an effort for politicians to protect themselves politically. The way out is to vote 'guilty' or 'not guilty' and live with it.'' ."

AP 2/4/99 Curt Anderson ".Vernon Jordan's admission that he had breakfast with Monica Lewinsky and discussed notes she'd written to President Clinton was one of the few shreds of new evidence disclosed Thursday by House prosecutors following three days of secret depositions.. Jordan said in his new testimony that he was ``certain that Ms. Lewinsky talked to me about notes,'' but the excerpts released by the House didn't mention whether he told her to go find them. Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., told senators that Jordan's breakfast disclosure ``goes to the credibility'' of the previous testimony and showed why it was important for the Senate to fully explore the new depositions. ``This is not all. There's much more there,'' said Hutchinson, who questioned Jordan.. In his deposition, Blumenthal corroborated his earlier statements that Clinton never recanted statements that turned out to be false about Ms. Lewinsky, even as Blumenthal was preparing for his own grand jury appearance, said Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif. While Clinton said he told the truth to aides because they were potential witnesses, Rogan said Blumenthal's new deposition ``paints a totally different picture and gives a terribly different interpretation of what the president was doing in passing along false stories to his aides.'' ."

WorldNetDaily 2/4/99 David Limbaugh ".The only hope we have left is to look to Republican senators to change course and begin to do what is noble. With the unanimously passed impeachment resolution Senate Republicans joined the Democrats in their dishonor. The resolution called for a proceeding more closely resembling a high school debate than the constitutionally prescribed, evidentiary trial. So many procedural obstacles were imposed on the managers that they have been forced to expend all their energy and all the Senate's attention on overcoming them. Predictably, senators are now long on fatigue and short on patience and have signaled an unwillingness to listen to the evidence. Republican senators are falling all over themselves to formulate some novel exit strategy to end this non-trial short of its natural conclusion. After spending the last year lecturing on the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law they seem all too eager to abandon these principles now that the they have been unable to achieve sufficient converts in the electorate to their point of view. But the height of hypocrisy is to subordinate enduring principles because of political pressure. When the 56 signers of America's Declaration of Independence put their names to this nation's inaugurating document they didn't raise their fingers in the air to determine which way the political winds were blowing. They risked everything they had for the sake of establishing a nation dedicated to the very propositions that are at stake in these proceedings.."

Freeper DonMorgan reports on FoxNews 2/4/99 ".Lindsey Graham was on Fox after the vote...he said "We would have preferred live witnesses, but you use what you're dealt. We can still make a compelling case with videotape. I want to see Clintons lawyers explain why Monica said "Betty called me for the gifts, I did not call her. You have Sidney Bleumenthal saying that the president lied to him about his affair, and you have the President testifying in the Grand Jury that he never lied to any aides to cover up the affair. I want to see the Presidents lawyers explain that. There are still a handful of votes up for grabs here, we can make a compelling arguement to show the President committed perjury, obstructed justice to cover up a series of CRIMES over a long period of time." ."

AP 2/4/99 Walter R. Mears ".House prosecutors have been complaining since the opening gavel that they've been handicapped in making their impeachment case against President Clinton at trial in the Senate, which would rather be doing something else. No witnesses, no chance to question Monica Lewinsky in person, restrictions no prosecutor in a real trial would face - the prosecutors' complaint list went on and on..''If we can't stomach to listen to inappropriate sexual conduct, then why do we put that burden on anyone else?'' said Rep. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. ''Give us this witness... ''We will try to do it in a way not to demean the Senate,'' he said.Rep. Henry Hyde, the lead prosecutor, had complained earlier that the House prosecutors were not getting appropriate respect in the Senate proceedings. He said they were riding a tiger and couldn't get off until they were done.."

Washington Post 2/5/99 Guy Gugliotta ".Since they first strode the length of the Capitol's great central hallway in early January, they have seemed like unwanted guests bringing an unpleasant task into the hallowed chambers of the U.S. Senate. Yesterday the Senate finally showed them the door. For the 13 House "managers" prosecuting the impeachment trial against President Clinton, the Senate's ringing refusal to allow live witnesses into the chamber was only their latest frustration in pressing their case, but none of the team evinced any particular chagrin. "We were asking for 10 days to two weeks to present our witnesses live," said Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Calif.), a frequently outspoken critic of the Senate's procedural mysteries. "Unfortunately, it just didn't work that way, so we'll do the best we can in the next week, and give the Senate closure on this as they so rapidly seek." ."

London Times 2/5/99 ".This is not to suggest that Mr Clinton's lawyers have produced compelling arguments that he is innocent of perjury or obstruction of justice. The managers from the House of Representatives outlined a powerful case against the President. The defence of Mr Clinton consisted of the claim that the charges he faced were "vague" and that he might have perjured himself in the original Paula Jones case but not in the grand jury appearance that is formally cited in the articles of impeachment. Beyond that, the White House has sought to contrast the gender and racial diversity of its legal team with the uniformly white, male, conservative House prosecutors - as if this had the remotest relevance to Mr Clinton's legal standing.."

The Weekly Standard 2/8/9 David Tell ".This is not your father's Oldsmobile. This is the old-fashioned, black-and-white clarity of impeachment modernized to include a variety of day-glo colors and option packages. And unfortunately, it is no improvement. The hunt for a more palatable Clinton acquittal can only make "the process" more, not less, incoherent and unprincipled. Alas, the very best the Senate probably now can do--bad as it will be--is find the president not guilty. And then leave him entirely alone.. In 1999, the Senate will likewise acquit Bill Clinton and deem him minimally worthy. But the Senate may also, at the very same moment, through a "finding of fact" or "censure," formally identify Clinton as a contemptible man or even an outright felon. A contemptible felon is a worthy president? By act of Congress? Are we to assault the standards of presidential integrity so directly and unequivocally? Please, please: no. Better that the meaning of the Clinton impeachment trial be left some fig leaf of ambiguity. Better that he be acquitted and nothing more. Yes, Bill Clinton's acquittal will bother a lot of people. All to the good. It should bother every one of us.."

Washington Times 2/5/99 Frank Murray ".Mr. Clinton formally refused a request from 28 senators to submit to a voluntary deposition, confirming Wednesday's reaction by aides.."None of your damn business," Rep. James E. Rogan, California Republican, said in responding to President Clinton's attorneys' request to know which portions would be used. His two-minute speech used battlefield language rarely heard in the Senate well.. But in the end, her recorded testimony provides "one of the clearest examples of the president's guilt of this charge of perjury," he said, citing the much-debated definition of "sexual relations" that depends on who touches whom where. "He simply said, 'I did not do that.' She says, 'You did do that,'" Mr. Bryant told the Senate. There also were promises that the testimony of both Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Jordan would add evidence of the president's guilt in "control and direction" of an effort to obstruct justice. "There is significant relevant new evidence from the Vernon Jordan deposition and from the Sidney Blumenthal deposition," said Rep. Bill McCollum, Florida Republican, in arguing successfully to put the videotape depositions on the record. "There can be nothing complete about this trial if we don't at least do that. At least do that," he said. "I can assure you we know more now about what the truth is than before we started this process," Rep. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said of the depositions taken this week.."Mr. Blumenthal, to his credit, said the president of the United States lied to him. The president of the United States did lie to him," Mr. Graham said. "The president of the United States, in his grand jury testimony, denied ever lying to an aide. That will be historically significant. It should be legally significant," Mr. Graham told the Senate. ."

Investors Business Daily 2/5/99 Rep Bob Barr ".Pundits, lawyers, scholars and senators of both parties have spent weeks in search of a way out of a meaningful impeachment trial. Some of the proposals are easy to debunk. Others appear sound. That's what makes them dangerous. Take the suggestion that the Senate could convict President Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice, but not remove him from office. The idea appeals to some Republicans who realize that the Senate doesn't have the votes right now to remove the president, but who can't bear the thought of seeing him walk away scot- free.. Once the Senate votes to convict, the Constitution says the president ''shall be removed from office.'' It doesn't say ''may be removed'' or ''can be removed.'' Which of these five words - ''shall be removed from office'' - don't the Senators understand? Furthermore, the constitutional ban on bills of attainder explicitly blocks the Senate from punishing individual citizens, which stops censure and other novel punishments dead in their tracks. The framers were careful to keep impeachment completely separate from the criminal process. Allowing the Senate to dish out novel penalties would land it squarely in the territory of the courts - clearly violating the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.."

Washington Times Greg Pierce 2/5/99 Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPT: "...Congressional Democrats in Rhode Island appear to be paying a high price for their defense of...Clinton, according to a Brown University poll....While Republican Sen. John H. Chafee's job-approval rating sits at 64 percent, Democratic Sen. Jack Reed's rating on the same question fell 7 points to 57 percent, the poll found....Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy's rating plummeted 13 points to 47 percent and Democratic Rep. Bob Weygand's score dropped 12 points to 43 percent from a poll taken in September....The survey of 313 registered voters was conducted last Saturday and Sunday. It had a 5 percent margin of error in either direction...."

Chattanooga Free Press 2/5/99 Editorial ".Duty has devolved into a partisan dodge. The two- thirds vote needed for conviction is not there. Neither is devotion to honest duty on the part of nearly half the senators.."

New York Post 2/5/99 Brian Blomquist Vincent Morris A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPT: "...senators agreed to let top House prosecutor Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) use snippets of the video depositions of Lewinsky, Clinton pal Vernon Jordan and Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal during closing arguments, which begin tomorrow at 10 a.m....On that vote, nine Democrats deserted their party to vote for the video - including Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (N.Y.), Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.) - while two Republicans voted no....The witness votes came as Moynihan unveiled an 11th- hour plan to briefly suspend the trial and vote on censure first...."It's the only way to get a real censure motion because if you take it up after the vote on conviction, then the amendments become endless, and you lose people on both sides," Moynihan said....Moynihan also suggested that if Clinton was censured before being acquitted, he'd have no cause for celebration...."When you have in effect not convicted, you've nonetheless censured, and there's not an ambiguity about what happened there," Moynihan said."

National Post 2/5/99 Mark Steyn ".For weeks, the House impeachment managers have tried to hold Republican senators up at the All-U-Can-Eat sizzling grill end of the buffet, but they never really had the stomach for it and yesterday, confronted with the succulent haunches of Monica, nearly half the GOP caucus bolted like a lot of Eggs Benedict Arnold and headed for the lite bite section. Like the president with his intern, this metaphor is apparently unable to reach "completion." So let me just say that the red meat of the prosecutors' case has now been drowned in senatorial yogurt... "

Boston Herald 2/5/99 Beverly Beckham ".So what, really, did we expect the fallout to be from the longest playing melodrama in political history? A deeper understanding of how Washington works? Increased familiarity with the Constitution? A grudging respect for the intricacies of law? Of course not. Our philandering malfeasant-in-chief continues to be an object lesson in how to sin and swagger. He holds his head high, looks unflinchingly into the camera and goes about his business as if he has done nothing wrong, as if turning the White House into Penthouse and the presidency into a long-running dirty joke is a trifling matter that will be resolved. It won't be. The fallout has barely begun.. "

Charleston Post and Courier 2/5/99 Editorial ".The scandal afflicting the presidency - and America - for 12 1/2 months has done more than divide and embarrass the nation. It has taken a depressing, cumulative toll on the level of logic delivered by defenders of what former Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., called "indefensible" - while he, too, defended it. Even esteemed Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., suffered a lapse in reasoning Wednesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live." Catching his host (and no doubt the White House) by surprise, Sen. Byrd said that the House charges against President Clinton "rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.". So why did Sen. Byrd introduce a resolution last week to dismiss the trial - a resolution rejected by a 56-44 margin that is now routinely cited by those who say the impeachment process must be brought to a rapid halt? Sen. Byrd: "I came to the conclusion quite a while ago that this president would not be removed." That means Sen. Byrd concluded that the president would not be removed, but has yet to conclude that he should not be removed. And he has used the first conclusion to avoid making a final determination on the second conclusion. ."

Houston Chronicle Lizette Alvarez New York Times 2/5/99 ".Since they crossed the divide between the House and Senate, the 13 House prosecutors in the impeachment trial have faced a string of hurdles before a Senate eager to shoosh them up, politely, but unfailingly. Publicly and privately, they have been lambasted for their zealousness, criticized for their political naivete and strong-armed into ditching their grandiose plans for a "full trial." A self-righteous bunch, critics say. ."We really are coming from different worlds," said Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., one of the House managers, referring to the House and the Senate. "From the very beginning we're thinking like, a real trial, and they are thinking in terms of the unique procedures.. But nick the surface, and prosecutors say it has been difficult not to smell a whiff of condescension from the well-scrubbed Senate, no matter how courtly their manner. .It was clear to McCollum that senators screen the Senate chamber, searching for breaches of decorum, just as mothers at a debutante ball might crane their necks to root out undesirables. That attitude, he said, helped stymie the prosecutors' case for witnesses, especially Lewinsky. "They just didn't want to, as White House counsel said, sully the Senate floor," McCollum said. "I didn't agree with that. It's a Senate thing, I guess." Hyde best summed up the relationship between the Senate and the 13 prosecutors, at least through the eyes of the prosecutors. "You view us as reformed alcoholics," Hyde said. "You're very proud of what we attempted to do in our lives. You just don't want us hanging out on the porch all that long.."

A Whitewater Researcher awhitewatrrsrchr@hotmail.com 2/5/99 "....I am writing to you today as a seven year Member of the National Republican Senatorial Committee/Republican Senatorial Inner Circle. My cumulative financial contributions to the NRSC/RSIC from 1993-1998 exceed $13,000....I am appalled by the Republican Senatorial Caucus agreed-to truncation of the Clinton Senate Impeachment Trial....the GOP Senatorial Caucus has little interest in exposing...the reality of Clinton's vast corruption....the GOP Senate has agreed to a set of rules which chokes off the Trial in its preliminary stages and guarantees a "Not Guilty" verdict to Clinton....I was on the U.S. Capitol steps with Republican Senators on September 21, 1994, when we all vowed to make a difference, to work tirelessly for lower taxes, less government, and honesty and integrity in government...The GOP Senate has sold out and betrayed the courageous U.S. House Prosecution Managers, led by Chairman Hyde and Congressman Barr, who, along with Judge Starr, have been the prime movers in bringing Clinton to justice."

AP 2/5/99 Curt Anderson ". Early in the questioning, Hutchinson told Jordan, ``I've looked forward to this opportunity to meet you,'' to which Jordan jokingly replied: ``I can't say that the feeling is mutual.'' ``I certainly understand,'' Hutchinson commented as those in the room laughed. A few minutes later, Jordan reacted with apparent disdain when Hutchinson asked him to define what ``making rain'' means at the 800-lawyer firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. ``I think even in Arkansas you understand what rainmaking is,'' Jordan said before defining his job as one that brings in new business.. Later, Jordan said he once charged upwards of $500 an hour but now has moved beyond billing clients. ``Not bad for a Georgia boy,'' he said. ``I'm from Georgia. You've heard of that state, I'm sure.''.."

Philadelphia Daily News 1/28/99 Don Russell ". John Shelton Reed, director of the University of North Carolina's Institute for Research and Social Science, said the South was always suspicious of Clinton. "Back in '92, he was the grand marshal at the Southern 500 stock car race - the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to show up there," Reed recalled. "He was roundly booed. A plane circled around saying, 'No Draft Dodger for President.' "He hasn't done anything to win back those voters. He vacations at Martha's Vineyard, his friends are from Hollywood." Hill added: "He's the kind of Southerner they all know. The 'Sunday Morning William' and the 'Saturday Night Wild Bill.' " It's no surprise that the thorn in Clinton's presidency is rooted in the South. In the past 20 or 30 years, Dixie erased its Democratic heritage to embrace the party of Lincoln. It is now the GOP's strongest stronghold. Credit the region's white Christian ethic for that growth. Always conservative, many Southerners felt the Democratic Party abandoned them on hot-button issues like abortion, affirmative action and gay rights. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party in the South is mostly a party of African-Americans. Ferrel Guillory, director of the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life at UNC, said the Southern GOP's strength is built on more than family values issues, though.."

Reuters 2/6/99 ". The deposition of Jordan focused on his assistance in Lewinsky's job hunt. The initial request came from Currie, but Jordan said he interpreted that as a request from Clinton. ``There is no question but that through Betty Currie, I was acting on behalf of the president to get Ms. Lewinsky a job,'' he told Rep. Asa Hutchinson, an Arkansas Republican... ``Well, do you recall the tenor of that conversation? Do you recall the flavor of it? Can you describe it the best you can, about -- was there a sense of alarm, shock? How would you describe it?'' South Carolina Rep. Lindsey Graham asked. ``I think we felt overwhelmed by the crisis atmosphere,'' he replied. ``I think he felt that the world was against him,'' he added. House prosecutor James Rogan, a California Republican, quipped in response: ``I thought only members of Congress felt that way.''."

Washington Post 2/6/99 Helen Dewar ".With President Clinton's impeachment trial drawing to a close, Senate Democrats yesterday escalated efforts to persuade reluctant Republicans to censure the president and senators of both parties pushed to open the Senate's final deliberations to public viewing.. A key question is what role, if any, will be taken by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who has expressed misgivings about censure -- but has taken no firm position. Lott has concerns about censure's constitutionality and "whether its a crass political exercise" that might wind up being repealed if Democrats regain control of the Senate, Lott spokesman John Czwartacki said yesterday. Another question arises from the procedural difficulties of bringing such a resolution before the Senate. Several senators, including Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), have indicated they might try to prevent the measure from coming to a vote. ..In Williamsburg, where he was attending the annual House GOP retreat, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (Ill.) said polls indicating his party had suffered at least short-term damage from impeachment would have no impact on House prosecution of the case. ."If Moses had come down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments and he had listened to polling, he would have gone back up the mountain, wouldn't he?" said Hyde, who received a standing ovation from his colleagues at dinner Thursday night. "This is a case of a popular president breaking the law and we don't think that's a good idea.".."

Sun Times 2/4/99 Robert Novak ". It might seem beyond the bounds of reality that 51 votes for impeachment could not be found in a Senate controlled 55-45 by Republicans. But the truth is that there are not 51 votes for much of anything today. There is not now (and never has been) a majority to call live witnesses to the Senate floor. There is most assuredly not a majority for the first article of impeachment alleging perjury (which may not even be brought to a vote). Quite apart from a deal with the White House, it is not certain that there is a majority for the second article alleging obstruction of justice. And at this writing, there is no majority for a finding of fact. Republican senators never wanted this trial, have been searching for an exit ever since impeachment arrived from the House and are whining about the injustice of it all. Impeachment was voted in the House under Hyde's leadership, not out of hatred and certainly not in quest of partisan advantage but as a matter of principle. The last question is whether House Republicans will be sunk by their Senate brethren in the political end game. It really does seem important that the majority vote for conviction. If the Democrats regain the majority in 2000 we will see term limits for the President repealed. Clinton will still be in because he will have some National Emergency going on, and we will not be rid of him.."

UPI Spotlight 2/6/99 ".House prosecutors (Saturday) are airing deposition footage that they feel puts President Clinton in the most shameful light - White House aide Sidney Blumenthal's account of the president's story that Lewinsky was a "stalker" who was pursuing him, a story Blumenthal repeated to a grand jury. "This was more than rakish behavior," said Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif. "When he used his aides as a conduit for passing false information to the grand jury, his conduct moved from the unconscionable to the illegal." ."

UPI-S 2/6/99 ".Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, says (Saturday) the House impeachment managers have made a ``devastatingly effective'' case against President Clinton using videotaped depositions of Monica Lewinsky and others. But other Republicans, anticipating that the trial will end without a conviction, are making plans to hit the president with a resolution of censure or condemnation.."

The New York Times 2/6/99 Dianne Feinstein ".Text of a Proposed Censure Resolution . WHEREAS William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House, which was shameless, reckless and indefensible; WHEREAS William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people and officials in all branches of the United States Government; WHEREAS William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, gave false or misleading testimony and impeded discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings; .."

New York Post 2/6/1999 Deborah Orin ".The heck with censure - let the impeachment chips fall where they may, and then on to the post-Clinton era! It could change again, but as of yesterday, most Republicans were ready to forget about trying to slap a naughty-naughty censure on President Clinton and just vote yes or no on convicting him.. "We've shown there are 45 Democrats who wouldn't convict Clinton if he committed a crime on video with three priests, two rabbis and a nun as witnesses," said Republican National Committee spokesman Mike Collins. "Let them go explain their votes to let him off." .The conventional wisdom says the GOP is taking a beating in the polls for impeachment. But individual GOP candidates don't seem to be getting hurt, and Republicans are running less scared.. So, suddenly the tables are turned and Democrats are fighting desperately to get a censure passed before the recess. Dems have flipflopped on their demand for a quick end and are threatening to block next Friday's Senate adjournment until a censure is passed... Some Republicans aren't even upset any more at the idea that Clinton may gloat and beat his bongos. "I pray he gloats," said a GOP strategist. "If he wants to turn this into a joke, let the Democrats explain it." ."

ABC News 2/6/99 ABC News Freeper fdcc ".Byrd: "It will be very difficult to stand and say `not guilty.' . Who is kidding whom here? I have to live with myself. I have to live with my conscience. And I have to live with the Constitution. That Constitution is just like the bible. You can't write it over." Cokie Roberts: "So will you be able to stand and say, `not guilty?'" Byrd: "Next Friday or before, we'll know."."

AP 2/6/99 ".Sidney Blumenthal's lawyer was so determined to show the White House aide never leaked a rumor about Monica Lewinsky being a stalker that he released journalists from any pact of confidentiality and challenged them to come forward. Now one has. Journalist Christopher Hitchens has sworn an affidavit stating Blumenthal several times described Ms. Lewinsky as a "stalker'' and President Clinton as "the victim'' of a predatory and unstable young woman, when they lunch in March 1998. Copies of the affidavit were being circulated in the Capitol late Saturday and was a topic of informal conversation among a number of senators, as well as others who saw it. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said the Justice Department could investigate any false testimony given the Senate, but that the assertion by Hitchens was "collateral at best'' to the overall question of whether the president should be removed from office..."

AP Pete Yost 2/2/99 Freeper joinedafterattack "."When Blumenthal heard the ``stalker'' comment from the president, he ``didn't spread it, he didn't peddle it, he didn't urge people to write about it, he didn't tell people about it, he wasn't the source for that,'' attorney William McDaniel said Tuesday. ``I don't believe such a person exists'' in the news media, ``but if anybody in their mind thinks they have a pledge of confidentiality to Sidney'' on the topic of the stalker comment, ``they're released; let them come forward and say it,'' McDaniel said Tuesday."."

FoxNews 2/5/99 Moshe Levi ".When President Clinton was impeached the Democrats staged a rally on the White House lawn and Clinton came out, wiping away fake tears to decry the Politics of Personal Destruction. For weeks, the Politics of Personal Destruction was hailed by Democrats and their state controlled Media as an evil creature of Ken Starr and right wing extemists politicians. Democrats ran out on CNN to decry the Politics of Personal Destruction as Republican after Republican was outed by the Democratic operatives.. Today's Senate presentation provided the first public evidence of the following shocking truth: Bill Clinton Personally Engineered the Politics of Personal Destruction. Recent revelations by Sidney Blumenthal and Christopher Hitchens prove that Bill Clinton planned one year ago to destroy the person and reputation of his former lover using government employees (Betty Curie, Sidney Blumenthal etc..) to spread rumors that Monica Lewinsky was a deranged stalker with loose sexual morals who was stalking him because of her broken family background. Consider the implications of what I've written above. Until Monica S. Lewinsky was outed by Linda Tripp, she was the President's "friend, lover and heartfelt mate". He even promised to leave his wife and marry her. But once Lewinsky became outed, the President decided within a few minutes of his deposition to destroy her.."

Meet the Press Transcript 11/29/98 ". MR. HITCHENS: Well, it's not true there's no crime, perhaps, in lying about sex, for one thing, because Mr. Clinton was responsible himself for the clauses of this terrible crime bill that say that a man may be examined under oath about his own sex life if he's the target of a sexual harassment suit, which Clinton was for the entire period in which he was carrying on with Miss Lewinsky. So there's that for a start. Second, the Supreme Court voted 9-to-nothing that a sitting president can be deposed. And I think that, by the way, was a very good decision. It's a great thing about the United States, the Supreme Court can say that. Clinton thinks, "Who cares about the Supreme Court? Who cares about the rights of a sexual harassment plaintiff? Who cares about any of this? I can lie my way through it as I have everything else in my political life," and the law has been up to liberal saps to say, "Well, at least I'm not Ralph Reed." Well, this really sinks below any possible level of human intelligence. Furthermore, for seven months- and this is what Mr. Starr should charge and Congress should charge, too-seven solid months of abuse of power. If it was private, as he says it was, the president says, it's the more impeachable than on what is obviously, to him, quite private business. He's prepared to employ and exploit his Cabinet, the Pentagon, the U.S. Office of the United Nations, the entire White House staff on what is not public business. MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the president should be impeached? MR. HITCHENS: I think he should be cuffed. I think he should be cuffed and taken downtown, as a matter of fact. MR. RUSSERT: And charged with what? MR. HITCHENS: Yeah, certainly with perjury, but I think he should be impeached, also, for abuse of power. Because-just on this one count. It's now absolutely plain. And Seymour Hersh's piece in The New Yorker is the most brilliantly distilled account of it. It's become plainer every day. A man who can't bear to launch a single bomb at Saddam Hussein or at Slobodan Milosevic lobbed dozens of cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan while failing to tell his joint chiefs or the CIA or the FBI about the targets or the motives for what was very plainly an attempt to change the subject. Now, that's really serious abuse of power and should shock people; it apparently doesn't. There are some of us who perhaps are too easily shocked. I don't know.."

CNN 2/6/99 Freeper EyesWideOpen ". In the affidavit, dated February 5, Hitchens described a March 19 lunch with Blumenthal and Hitchens' associate, Carol Blue. "Mr. Blumenthal stated that Monica Lewinsky had been a 'stalker' and that the president was 'the victim' of a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman," Hitchens statement reads. "Referring to Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Blumenthal used the word 'stalker' several times." Hitchens went on to say, "I have personal knowledge that Mr. Blumenthal recounted to other people in the journalistic community the same story about Monica Lewinsky that he told to me and Carol Blue." ."... Mr.Blumenthal stated that Kathleen Willey's poll numbers were high but would fall and would not look so good in a few days, " Hitchens' affidavit reads.."

MSNBC 2/6/99 Freeper free4all ".John and Mark Levin exploding the news."

Reuters 2/6/99 ".In a videotaped deposition taken Wednesday and played on the Senate floor Saturday, House prosecutors asked Blumenthal: "Do you have any idea how White House sources are associated with statements such as, 'She's known as Elvira,' 'She's obsessed with the president,' 'She's known as a flirt,' 'She's the product of a troubled home, divorced parents,' 'She's known as The Stalker'''? Do you have any idea how that got into the press?'' "I have no idea how anything came to be attributed to a White House source,'' Blumenthal replied.Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said the information was irrelevant to Clinton's trial. "What does it have to do with article one or article two?'' he asked, adding that if Republican House prosecutors tried to make it an issue they would be simply " clutching at straws.'' But Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho said the Hitchens information might be trouble for Blumenthal. "It's probably going to have a lot of impact on Mr. Blumenthal. He may be the other person who lied under oath and he may have to do the time,'' Craig said. The affidavit has been turned over to the Senate legal counsel's office, which could decide to refer it to the Justice Department or independent counsel Kenneth Starr.." Adds Freeper plain talk ".The media is all over this Blumenthal thing. Just demonstrates the double standard for Clinton vs anyone else. And Blumenthal is a liberal.." Adds Freeper PatriotNow ".Just after adjournment, I heard CNN announce that the House Managers had received many calls from journalists stating that Sid Blumenthal lied and was the source of the stalker comments. Another shoe drops..."

UPI 2/6/99 ".Journalist Christopher Hitchens is flatly refuting White House aide Sidney Blumenthal's claim that he does not know the source of news reports describing Monica Lewinsky as a "stalker." Hitchens, a British magazine writer, swore out an affidavit Friday, stating that he met Blumenthal for lunch on March 19, 1998, and was told that Lewinsky was a "stalker" and the president was "the victim of a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman."."

Washington Post 2/6/99 Christopher Hitchens ". I, Christopher Hitchens, do hereby state on oath as follows: 1. I am 49 years of age and reside in the District of Columbia and am competent to execute this affidavit. 2. I am a resident alien, and am a citizen of the European Union and the United Kingdom. 3. I have been a journalist for 26 years. 4. I am self employed and contribute articles to Vanity Fair and The Nation. 5. Sidney Blumenthal and I are social friends and journalistic acquaintances. 6. On March 19, 1998, Sidney Blumenthal, Carol Blue, and I met for lunch at the Occidental restaurant in Washington, D.C. 7. If called to testify, I would testify on personal knowledge to the following facts. 8. During lunch on March 19, 1998, in the presence of myself and Carol Blue, Mr. Blumenthal stated that, Monica Lewinsky had been a "stalker" and that the President was "the victim" of a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman. Referring to Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Blumenthal used the word "stalker" several times. Mr. Blumenthal advised us that this version of the facts was not generally understood. 9. Also during that lunch, Mr. Blumenthal stated that Kathleen Willey's poll numbers were high but would fall and would not look so good in a few days. 10. I have knowledge that Mr. Blumenthal recounted to other people in the journalistic community the same story about Monica Lewinsky that he told me and Carol Blue. ."

Clinton Grand Jury testimony ".BY MR. BENNETT: Q: Did you direct personnel, Nancy Hernreich or anyone else, to make a search for correspondence from Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky when those documents were called for in the Jones litigation, sir? Did you direct that somebody on the White House staff look for those documents? PRESIDENT CLINTON: I don't believe that I was in charge of doing that, the document search, sir. So, the strict answer to that question is that I didn't. Q: So, you sat back and relied on this legalistic distinction between your personal, which you are in control of, and the White House which, by the way, you are also in control of; is that not correct? MR. KENDALL: I won't object to the argumentative form of the question. We'll allow the witness to answer it. We're now over time, even the 30 seconds. So, this will be it. PRESIDENT CLINTON: . I did not make the legal judgment about how the documents were decided upon that should be given to the Jones lawyers, and ones that shouldn't. And, I might add that Ms. Willey would have been very happy that these papers were not turned over, because they damaged her credibility so much, had they not ultimately been turned over after she made, I think, the grievous error of going on "60 Minutes" and saying all those things that were not true. But I did not make the decision, it was not my job. This thing is being managed by other people, I was trying to do my job.."

Agence France-Presse 2/6/99 ".Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said he was "very concerned about Mr. Blumenthal's testimony ... I've been led to believe that it was not true." Asked whether he was referring to Hitchens' affidavit, Hatch said "yes, but I understand there are others."."

Freeper Cinderella 2/7/99 Cspan report ".Just caught the trial repeat on c-span. Lindsey Graham gave an orgasmic performance. "Where I come from, when you call someone at 2:30 am you're up to no good". It was met with uproarious laughter. He asked Sid if he knew how the "stalker" story got to the press and he denied knowledge. Since then Chrisopher Hitchens has signed an affidavit claiming Sid was the "WH source" and recanted the stalker story to him personally. They have proved their case beyond any doubt. IMO, the White House fumbled the ball by showing too much Monica in all her snotty glory. She looked like a hooker."

NBC Meet the Press Tim Russert 2/7/99 Freeper Anthem reports ".Hitchens was unwilling to say Blumenthal lied, says tesitmony that he does not know how White House sources were cited as spreading "stalker" rumors may not be technically false, but Blumenthal told him ML was a stalker. Also saying SB said some nasty things about Willey. Says SB has known that he (Hitchens) thinks Clinton is a crook since campaign in 92.. Several of the senators want to put Blumenthal in the lap of the DOJ to investigate possible perjury before Congress. Yeah, right. Gramm says censure is cover your... fanny. Says he will offer amendments but let others filibuster. Says "impossible" for it to be over by friday February 12.. Wow, Gramm is good! Feinstein spoke directly to Gramm asking him to respect their wishes to vote on a censure. He came back and said that Jackson censure was overturned because Congress realized it was a dangerous encroachment... on Separation of Powers. Besides censure of Jackson was ineffective, he is on the twenty dollar bill..Russert tells of Daily News article about Clinton's lack of contrition reported by sources close to him. Get's typical bluster from Senators Feinstein and others, empty threats to put nasty notes on every Bill out of Senate. Pathetic, that they think anyone takes them seriously.."

New York Daily News 2/7/99 Thomas DeFrank ".White House aides have promised there won't be any gloating when President Clinton's impeachment trial ends this week - but someone apparently forgot to tell the Comeback Kid. On the eve of his expected acquittal by the Senate, an exuberant Clinton is telling old friends and political allies that except for hurting his family, he continues to believe he has done nothing wrong in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. "This was much ado about nothing," Clinton recently assured an old pal, dismissing the impeachment process as a partisan cabal choreographed by his political foes. "I beat the odds," the President has also happily told well-wishers."

Washington Post 2/7/99 Guy Gugliotta Eric Pianin ".As they launched a final effort yesterday to revive their losing case, House GOP prosecutors in President Clinton's impeachment trial faced an added indignity: Large numbers of senators from their own party appear unwilling to support a charge that Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky. Some GOP senators say that no more than 40 of the Senate's 55 Republicans may vote for the first of the two impeachment articles, charging perjury. They believe the House "managers" have made a much stronger case that Clinton obstructed justice by covering up his affair with the former White House intern, and expressed far greater willingness to vote for the second charge.Regardless of GOP sentiments, however, Democrats remain almost uniformly dismissive of the impeachment, and senators expect them to maintain a united front in voting against both articles, ensuring that Clinton will easily escape the two-thirds majority needed to remove him from office..."

New York Post 2/7/99 Dick Morris ".ON Jan. 21, 1998, President Clinton lied to his aide Sidney Blumenthal and denied having an affair with Monica. But why did he go further and actually make up a tale designed to destroy Lewinsky's reputation? Was it just the president bolstering his denial - or was it part of a deliberate effort to obstruct justice by besmirching a potentially hostile witness? My conversation with the president on the next day, Jan. 22, suggests a less-than-benign motivation for the president's comments to Sidney about Monica. On Jan. 21 and Jan. 22, Bill Clinton believed there was an imminent likelihood that Lewinsky would turn on him and cooperate with Kenneth Starr. If this is true, it would mean that his attack on Monica - delivered to Sidney - was intended to find its way to the grand jury to counter Lewinsky's expected testimony..So Clinton was not attacking Monica the person, he was blasting Monica the witness. By attacking Lewinsky to Blumenthal, Clinton was obviously trying to blunt her testimony, should she turn on him. That sounds a lot like obstruction of justice to me.."

New York Post 2/7/99 Brian Blomquist Vincent Morris ".Wearing a black blazer and glossy pink lipstick, Lewinsky was at times wise and at other points immature, almost like a child trying to act older than her age. Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) said he thought House prosecutors Reps. Jim Rogan (R- Calif.) and Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.) "assembled their presentation in a pretty persuasive way" and said that based on the videotaped evidence, he might still vote to convict Clinton of obstruction of justice..Byrd, in an interview on ABC broadcast this morning, said he's decided that Clinton's Sexgate behavior "yes, no doubt" rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, but wouldn't say how he'll vote. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) called the Lewinsky presentation "devastating to the White House." Kerrey said prosecutors successfully raised doubts about Clinton's sworn assertion that his secretary, Betty Currie, initiated Jordan's job search for Lewinsky. "You call Vernon Jordan on the 19th of December while he's meeting with Monica Lewinsky, and then five weeks later [Clinton] says Betty Currie was in charge of all this - that's a difficult reach," Kerrey said. "As to whether or not that causes me to want to remove him from office as a consequence of that discrepancy - that's something entirely different," Kerrey said. ."

ABC News 2/7/1999 Freeper sp505 reports ".Cokie interviewed Senator Robert Byrd this morning. And Byrd said that he felt Clinton DID obstruct justice and that Clinton DID lie under oath. But he said that he could not vote to remove a President when the economy is doing so well. He said thats why he has such a problem with voting to convict..."

Drudge Reuters 2/7/99 via NewsEdge Corporation - Top U.S. lawmakers made a bipartisan call Sunday for an investigation into whether White House aide Sidney Blumenthal lied to Congress about a suspected attempt to paint Monica Lewinsky as ``a stalker.'' ``It should be forwarded to the Justice Department,'' said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. Sen. Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican, agreed, saying, ``Perjury is serious business.'' .. Sen. John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, appearing on CBS' ''Face the Nation,'' said Sunday, ``Sidney Blumenthal may have a problem.'' ``But it doesn't have anything to do with regard to the president...,'' Breaux said. ``He did not instruct Sidney Blumenthal to go out and tell everybody in America about it.'' ."

AP 2/7/99 Pete Yost ".Journalist Christopher Hitchens said Sunday that presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal told him and other reporters: "Monica Lewinsky was a stalker." Hitchens' televised comments, elaborating on his affidavit that House impeachment managers released Saturday, prompted several Democratic and Republican senators to demand Sunday that the Justice Department investigate whether Blumenthal committed perjury by denying he spread the story.. she's made, but they won't be so high later on." Following Mrs. Willey's televised accusations, the White House released cordial correspondence between the Richmond, Va., woman and the president from the years after the time she alleged the incident with Clinton happened.. Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California said, "I would hope that he isn't lying. I think if he is, it's serious. "I think one of the most difficult parts of this for me has been the concept of Monica Lewinsky" being called "a stalker, because that has a certain diabolical ring to it," Feinstein said. Spreading such derogatory information, she said, "isn't a nice thing to do." ."

AP 2/7/99 Larry Margasak ".With a perjury charge in deep trouble and acquittal virtually assured, senators on Sunday looked beyond President Clinton's impeachment trial to a censure resolution that could unify Republicans and Democrats in a strong condemnation of his conduct. But even censure had opposition.. When the roll is called on acquittal or conviction, likely Thursday or Friday, almost all Democrats are expected to oppose both impeachment articles. However Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, sometimes called the conscience of the Senate, would not rule out voting for conviction. "The question is, does this rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? I say "yes,'' said Byrd, who clearly was wrestling with his decision despite his earlier and unsuccessful motion to dismiss the case entirely. "I have no doubt that he has given false testimony under oath, and that he has misled the American people and ... there are indications that he did indeed obstruct justice ... '' the Senate elder said on ABC's "This Week.'' But Byrd also said Clinton has "done a lot of good things'' has the support of the public, and "in the interest of our country, I may come to the conclusion that we should not remove him.'' ."

Newsday 2/7/99 ".Panetta has urged the White House not to do anything that could be construed as a celebration this coming Friday, the day the Senate is scheduled to vote whether or not to convict Clinton. In particular, Panetta said it would be a mistake for Clinton to hold an event similar to the gathering staged with supportive aides and congressional Democrats on the White House South Lawn after the House adopted two articles of impeachment in December. "They certainly did the wrong thing with the rally at the White House," Panetta said. "That sent the wrong signal." .

Insight Magazine Sean Paige ".Blumenthal's lawyers sent out subpoenas to a range of journalists and conservative activists he apparently suspected of conspiring against him. Countersubpoenas came rattling back. The lawsuit remains in the long and revealing discovery phase, where details of Blumenthal's sworn deposition never have been revealed. Insight first sought to read copies of the depositions of Blumenthal and his wife at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but soon was told the copies on file had disappeared -- a mystery still unsolved at press time despite exhaustive searches by the clerks of the court. Undeterred, Insight has obtained copies of the depositions from other sources.. The depositions and other related court documents also reveal that Blumenthal has refused to answer questions detailing the nature of his work at the White House, claiming a sort of second-hand executive privilege, a prerogative solely of a president. He attributes this stonewalling to potential national-security breaches, as though the future of freedom depended upon the spin operations of this longtime professional polemicist.. In the depositions Blumenthal denied widely believed rumors about him and his work in the Clinton White House. He denied he shopped stories to the media about a decades-old marital infidelity on the part of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois ("It is totally false. It is a smear itself"). He denied he has served as a source for Clinton defender and CNBC talk-show host Geraldo Rivera ("I've never had any conversation with Geraldo Rivera"). He swore that he never played a part in trying to "out" members of Starr's staff as homosexuals ("a lie and a smear"). He demurred when it was suggested that he provided first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton with a road map to the "vast right-wing conspiracy" or ever uttered the phrase ("I've never made such a statement"). He denied under oath the notion that the White House keeps an enemies list ("It's ludicrous"). ."

Roll Call 2/8/99 Morton Kondracke ". The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal has been analyzed legally, politically, historically and culturally. Let's try theologically. Religious critics of the President -- such as Jean Bethke Elshtain of the University of Chicago -- find Clinton's apologies and declarations of repentance hollow and unconvincing. So do I. Elshtain said on ABC's "Nightline" last week that Clinton's major statement last September acknowledging sin was "tethered to a kind of defiance and truculence and determination to play hardball all the way." ..Despite his supposed declaration of repentance, Clinton has done nothing to stop his old aide, James Carville, from waging political "war" on his critics, or Carville's friend, Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, from trying to destroy top Republicans. Clinton himself took a dig at Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) last month - calling him "sanctimonious" -- for merely wanting to hear from witnesses in Clinton's trial..But when one former Clinton adviser suggested that Clinton ought to apologize to the country for the trouble his actions have caused, a current top aide reportedly said that Clinton "won't grovel." ."

Electronic Telegraph 2/8/99 Hugo Gordon ".A BRITISH journalist dropped a depth charge into Bill Clinton's impeachment trial yesterday, swearing in an affidavit that a top White House aide perjured himself in the President's defence. Christopher Hitchens, of Vanity Fair magazine, said that despite denying it last week, Sidney Blumenthal had indeed spread the story 10 months ago that Monica Lewinsky, the President's lover, was a "stalker" and "a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman"..But when the jury of 100 senators votes on Thursday or Friday to let Mr Clinton stay in office, it will know the defendant orchestrated a smear against the woman who supplied Oval Office sex services for 18 months...But Mr Blumenthal . claimed he retold this story to no one but his wife. "I regarded it as a private conversation in confidence, and I didn't mention it to my colleagues, I didn't mention it to my friends . . . I didn't tell anyone else. We felt very firmly that nobody should ever be a source to a reporter about a story about Monica Lewinsky's private life." Hearing this, prosecutors contacted Hitchens and secured an affidavit in which he swore that, "during lunch on March 19, 1998, in the presence of myself and Carol Blue, Mr Blumenthal stated that Monica Lewinsky had been a 'stalker' and that the President was 'the victim' of a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman . . . I have knowledge that Mr Blumenthal recounted to other people in the journalistic community the same story." Mr Blumenthal could face prosecution for perjury, the maximum sentence for which is five years in jail.."

AP John Diamond 1/28/98 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. ".While anonymous White House officials are portraying Monica Lewinsky as a flirtatious Valley girl with a crush on President Clinton, Pentagon colleagues describe her has a hard-working professional unintimidated by power. A part of the White House strategy is to raise questions about the veracity of the woman who is heard telling a friend on a secretly recorded tape that she had sexual relations with the president. The issue of whether these encounters were real or fantasy, and whether Clinton or his close friend Vernon Jordan pressured Ms. Lewinsky to deny the affair in a sworn affidavit, lies at the center of controversy.Last week when the scandal first broke, one White House official who did not work for the administration at the time Lewinsky served as a White House intern began a whispering campaign that Lewinsky was ''unstable,'' the product of a broken home. She battled a chronic weight problem, the official said, and was known in the West Wing as ''the stalker'' for the way she shadowed Clinton as he went about his daily business.."

Washington Times 2/8/99 Joyce Howard Price "."If Mr. Clinton is acquitted and allowed to walk, and a separate case is brought against Sidney, that would be a scandal and a disgrace, and, no, I would not [testify]," Mr. Hitchens said on NBC. He added: "I would rather be held in contempt ... than support such a scandalous outcome. I won't testify if it's just against him. ... The point is the president made sure some way or another that that story got into print. It was a threat against a potential witness, a very vulgar and crude one, very typical of his modus operandi."."

The New York Post 2/8/99 Steve Dunleavy ".''King Hussein's nobility came from his character - not his title.'' Those words came from Bill Clinton, which presents its own irony. Today, the nation is trapped in ''the split screen syndrome.'' From Amman, Jordan we are seeing pictures of Clinton together with three former US presidents at the somber farewell for Hussein. In Washington we'll see pictures from the Senate, where our elected leaders will wrangle over Bill Clinton's future - triggered by character or lack of character.."

Jewish World Review 2/8/99 Don Feder Freeper incognito ".We knew almost from the outset that Bill Clinton has no moral compass. What we didn't know was just how far his party would go to protect him from the consequences of his criminal conduct. Whatever the f uture holds in store for the Democrats, this will stand to their everlasting shame.."

Progressive Review 2/5/99 Sam Smith Freeper incognito ".Not since the days when W. J. Clinton's old boss, J.W. Fulbright, rose on the Senate floor and solemnly pronounced discrimination non- existent -- just a political issue raised every four years -- has the Senate's capacity for hypocritical bumfodder been so unrestrained. In fact, there is no surer sign that the Senate is about to do something awful than its redundant reiteration of solemn commitment to the Constitution, bipartisanship and civility.."

Washington Post (via International Herald Tribune) 2/8/99 ".The House managers finished putting on their case against the president in his impeachment trial on Saturday. They proved what America already knew. We have written before that this is a president who regards the truth as something to be manipulated rather than to be told. He lies, and does so most particularly when he is in trouble with regard to his own behavior and in his own defense. He has done it before; he did so in this case.."

Wall Street Journal 2/8/99 ".By the end of the day, the impression here was that we were seeing a White House defense more apt for the trial of Don Corleone than the President of the United States. At every turn, his lawyers argued, the President is separated from the charges by buffers.."

NY Post 2/8/99 Vincent Morris ".Several key Republican senators said yesterday they'd consider censuring President Clinton if, as expected, he's acquitted of perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges later this week. Although powerful Republicans - like Majority Leader Trent Lott - are quietly working to kill censure, other senators say it represents the last best hope of reprimanding Clinton, since he's certain to remain in office.. However, Sen. Phil Gramm, an outspoken Republican from Texas, has promised to fight any censure plan and will resort to parliamentary tricks, if needed, to keep the plan from coming up for a vote. He says censure is way for weak-willed senators to avoid saying "yes" to the impeachment articles. "This covering-your-fanny approach has constitutional costs," Gramm warned on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I am adamantly opposed to censure and I intend to fight it." Speaking on CNN, Sen, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) agreed: "There's no doubt that a censure resolution will be a cover-your-tail resolution." .."

Chicago Sun-Times 2/8/99 Robert Novak ".The notion that Sidney Blumenthal is peripheral in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton was dispelled Saturday morning as House Republican managers began the final presentation of evidence. Rep. James Rogan showed the senators a remarkable piece of videotape they were to see twice more that long day. The tape showed Blumenthal Wednesday in a closed-door deposition unsurpassed in demeaning the character of his chief. The president's duplicity had forced his faithful servant to describe Clinton falsely impugning the character of Monica Lewinsky in order to save himself. Democratic senators are too bonded in support of their twice-elected president to look anew at the case against him. Nevertheless, even the restricted videotaped view of witnesses shows that this is far more sinister than an adult participating in adultery and then lying about it... "

LA Times 2/8/99 Art Pine ". Shelby said of the effort to craft a censure resolution that "censure, for it to be anything, [has] got to be bipartisan, it's got to be tough and it's got to be thorough." Otherwise, "it's not going anywhere." Meanwhile, Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, an influential Democrat, said he believes Clinton's behavior constitutes an impeachable offense, but he suggested that he may oppose removing him from office anyway on grounds that doing so might hurt the country.."

WorldNetDaily 2/8/99 David Limbaugh ".This is an inexhaustive list of what a senator ought to believe in order to vote in good conscience to acquit President Clinton: ..7. Consensual sex negates a finding of sexual harassment even when there is a disparity of power positions in the workplace between the participants.. 13. That the framers would have approved of allowing a President who abuses his power by assaulting and undermining the judiciary to remain in office. 14. That the chief executive is "more equal" under the law than ordinary citizens. 15. That the president is not technically guilty of grand jury perjury because one of the following four elements weren't satisfied: a) the oath was improperly administered; b) his statements weren't false; c) he didn't intend to lie; d) his statements weren't material (keeping in mind that his only motive to lie was to cover up previous felonies). 16. Sens. Moynihan and Byrd were wrong when they virtually admitted that Clinton's crimes are impeachable. ..21. Blackstone was having a bad day when he placed perjury alongside bribery as an offense against public justice, i. e., an offense against the state.. 29. One can reasonably reconcile the fact that in the majority, if not all fifty states, convicted felons may not own firearms and may not vote, yet this felonious president can remain in the highest office to which U.S. voters can elect him and will retain the ability to launch weapons of mass destruction. 30. One can reasonably reconcile the fact the majority, if not all, state bar associations disbar their members for the commission of felonies and much less, yet they will be allowing a serial felon to remain as chief law enforcement officer and commander-in-chief of the nation. 31. The senators aren't placing their narrow, selfish political interests above the long term interests of the nation. That they are not betraying their constitutional duties in so doing. 32. That they aren't setting a dangerous precedent by raising the bar of impeachable offenses above multiple felonies.."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/sensenbrenner2-8-99.html ".The news media characterizes the Managers as 13 angry men. They are right in that we ARE angry, but they are dead wrong about what we are angry about. We have not spent long hours pouring through the evidence, sacrificed time with our families, and subjected ourselves to intense political criticism to further a political vendetta. We have done so because of our love for this country and respect for the office of the presidency, regardless of who may hold it. We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the President does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing a President to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come. This trial was not caused by Kenneth Starr, who only did his duty under a law, which President Clinton himself signed. It was not caused by the House Judiciary Committee's review of the Independent Counsel's mountain of evidence. Nor was it caused by the House of Representatives approving two articles of impeachment nor by the Senate conducting a trial mandated by the Constitution. Regardless of what some may say, this constitutional crisis was caused by William Jefferson Clinton and by no one else.."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/cannon2-8-99.htm ".Senators, we as Americans and legislators have never supported a legal system which has one set of laws for the ruler, and another for the ruled. After all, our very own pledge of allegiance binds us together with the language of "liberty and justice for all." If that is the case, if we intend to live up to the oaths and pledges we take, than our very own President, must be subject to the precedent that our nation's judicial system and this Senate body have heretofore set.."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/impeachclose.html ".I have also heard some Senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly "I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors." To state that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but some do not want to remove the President, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing Federal judges for similar offenses. So long as he is President, the only mechanism available to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors is the power of impeachment and removal. You cannot vindicate the rule of law by stating high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but leave the President in office subject to future prosecution after his term has expired. Without respect for the law, the foundation of our Constitution is not secure. Without respect for the law, our freedom is at risk... If you vote to acquit, think for a moment about what you would say to those who have been convicted of the same crimes as the President. What would you say to the 182 Americans who were sentenced in federal court in 1997 for committing perjury? What would you say to the 144 Americans who were sentenced in federal court in 1997 for obstruction and witness tampering? Do you attempt to trivialize the evidence and say: "this was only lying about sex?" I cite now the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee of one woman who experienced the judicial system in the most personal sense. The testimony of Dr. Barbara Battalino is compelling. She was prosecuted by the Clinton Justice Department and convicted of obstruction of justice because of her lie under oath about one act of consensual oral sex with a patient on VA premises. Her untruthful response was made in a civil suit which was later dismissed. In a legal proceeding,. These were the closing lines of Dr. Battalino's opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee: We all make mistakes in life. But, common frailty does not relieve us from our responsibility to uphold the Rule of Law. Regardless, this nation must never let any person or people undermine the Rule of Law....If liberty and justice for all does not reign, we - like great civilizations before us - will surely perish from the face of the earth. What you say to Dr. Battalino is important. It is important because it will help frame this debate and trial for future generations.."

AP 2/8/99 ".Amid calls for a Justice Department probe of presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal, Senate Republicans today sought to place the statements of journalist Christopher Hitchens and his wife in the record of the impeachment trial. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle objected and there was no immediate action.."

The Times (London) 2/8/1999 Damian Whitworth Freeper Marcellus ".In the august chamber of the United States Senate...the sight of two women giggling...One would scribble away, slip the message to the other and wait with a look of anticipation. Then both would dissolve into fits of giggling.Nicole Seligman and Cheryl Mills, the two women on President Clinton's defence team, were enjoying themselves. Like schoolgirls...they couldn't help but start being silly....Seligman and Mills are being hailed as the stars of the solid defence performance...they are the most famous female lawyers in America....The giggling began as Seligman, who has been dubbed "the President's Ally McBeal", relaxed after taking centre stage on the most dramatic day of the trial...."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/chabot2-8-99.htm ".But before you turn out the lights and head home, you must make one final decision. It's a decision that should not be influenced by party affiliation, by politics, or by personal ties. It's a decision that should be guided by our Constitution, by our laws, and by your own moral compass.. Now it's your turn to cast what could be the most important vote of your political career. The question is will moral fortitude or political expediency rule the day? We all know that the President's behavior has been reprehensible. President Clinton, however, refuses to admit what we all know is true. To this day, he continues to deny and distort. He continues to dispute the undeniable facts that are before the Senate and the American people. The President's attorneys have done their best to disguise the truth as well. At the beginning of this trial, I predicted in my presentation that they would use legal smokescreens to mask the law and the facts. To their credit, they produced smoke so thick that it continues to cloud this debate."

National Review 2/8/99 Jonah Goldberg ".Senator Moynihan freely concedes that the president's conduct was impeachable and that the president "started" this whole mess. Last summer he called this a crisis of the regime -- whatever that meant then and whatever that means now. And Senator Byrd! On Sunday, Senator Byrd hinted that he might even vote to convict the president. Or at least, that a vote to convict would be a hard thing for a Senator to avoid in good conscience. He also was the man who voted to dismiss this case against the president. Dismiss. This is exactly the equivalent of a juror at the outset of a murder trial simply deciding that because his fellow jurors seemed to have made up their minds, there is no point in going on. Or, if Baby Harkin wants his bottle and we have to call the Senators judges, rather than jurors -- so be it. That's an even worse prism through which to look at these proceedings. Senator Harkin, who swore to uphold "impartial justice," called the case a pile of dung before hearing the case. Imagine how quickly a real judge would be removed if a he were to pronounce a case "dung" in advance? Or, like Senator Byrd, what if a member of a three-judge or nine-judge panel argued that a trial should be stopped simply because he knows his colleagues are predisposed one way? In the totalitarian regimes that Hannah Arendt referred to, legal proceedings were decided long before the gavel struck even once. The trial of President Clinton is as close as America has ever come to a show trial. The Democratic party decided in advance that no facts would change their minds and that all presenters of fact shall be questioned for their motives.."

Http://www.house.gov/judiciary/barr2-8-99.htm ".On that date, President Reagan was speaking of a certain principle; and in so doing, he quoted another giant of the 20th Century, Winston Churchill. Specifically, President Reagan spoke of those who derided simple, straight forward answers to the problems confronting our country; those who decried clarity and certainty of principle, in favor of vagueness and relativism. He said: "They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what is morally right. Winston Churchill said that, 'the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits - not animals.' And he said, 'there is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.'" Duty. A clear, simple concept. A foundational Principle. Your duty is clearly set forth in your oath; your oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the law. ..This is not a comfortable task for any of us. But, as Martin Luther King, Jr. correctly noted, in words that hang on my office wall, and perhaps on some of yours, it is not in "times of comfort and convenience" that we find the measure of a man's character, but in times of "conflict and controversy." This is such a defining time. Obstruction of Justice and Perjury must not be allowed to stand. Perjury and Obstruction cannot stand alongside the Law and the Constitution. By your oath, you must chose one over the other. Up or down. Guilt or Acquittal. ."

Reuters 2/8/99 ".The chief House prosecutor said Monday he wants to call new witnesses and enter new evidence in President Clinton's impeachment trial to determine if White House aide Sidney Blumenthal lied to Congress. Rep. Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican, said in a letter to Senate leaders that "credible evidence'' showed Clinton "may have engaged in an intimidation campaign'' against Monica Lewinsky. That evidence, Hyde said, was two sworn affidavits from journalists saying Blumenthal described Lewinsky as a stalker to them during a lunch they had shortly after news of the White House intern's affair with Clinton broke a year ago.."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/canady2-8-99.htm ".And then to cap it all off, he went before the federal grand jury and lied. Whatever you may think about the President's testimony to the grand jury, one thing is clear: he didn't lie to the grand jury to avoid personal embarrassment. The DNA on the dress had ensured his personal embarrassment. There was no avoiding that. There was no way to explain away the DNA. The stakes were higher before the grand jury. This wasn't about avoiding personal embarrassment. This wasn't about avoiding liability in a sexual harassment case. This was a federal criminal investigation concerning crimes against the system of justice. This was about lying under oath and obstructing justice in the Jones case. And what did he do when he testified to the grand jury? He said anything he thought he needed to say to avoid responsibility for his prior crimes. The prosecutors went down to the White House. And William Jefferson Clinton sat there as President of the United States in the White House and he lied to a federal grand jury. His friends and supporters had told him he had to tell the truth. He could have invoked the 5th Amendment like any other citizen. But he didn't do that. No. He sat there in the White House and he put on his most sincere face. He swore to God to tell the truth, and then he lied. He planned to lie and he executed his plan because he believed it was in his personal and political interest to lie. Never mind his oath of office. Never mind his constitutional duty. Never mind that he swore to God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. .."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/mccollum2-8-99.htm ".No amount of arguing by White House counsel can erase one simple fact: if you believe Monica Lewinsky, you cannot believe the President. If you believe Monica Lewinsky, the President is guilty of several of the most serious charges before you. .First, at the very least you will leave doubt as a precedent whether perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors when impeaching a President.. Second, you will be establishing the precedent that the standard for impeachment and removal of a President is different of that for impeaching and removing a judge or any other official.. Third, if you believe the President committed the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice and that they are high crimes and misdemeanors, but you do not believe a President should be removed when economic times are good and it's strongly against the popular will to do so, by voting to acquit you will be setting that as precedent for future impeachment trials... Fourth, there is what happens to the rule of law. What damage is done for future generations by a vote to acquit. No military officer; no cabinet official; no judge; no C.E.O. of a major corporation; no president of a university; and no principal of a public school would remain in office no matter how popular they were if they had committed the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. To do so puts the President on a pedestal that says as long as he's popular we are going to treat him differently with regard to keeping his job than any other person in any other position of public trust in the United States of America.."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hutchinson2-8-99.htm ".But the fact is this case is not a circumstantial evidence case. On each element of obstruction there is direct testimony linking the President to a consistent pattern of conduct designed to withhold information, conceal evidence and tamper with witnesses to avoid obedience to the directives of the Federal court. .One of the foundations of our judicial system is that any citizen regardless of position or power has access to the courts. Can you imagine the shock and outrage if a major corporation in an effort to protect itself from liability, concealed evidence and provided benefits to those witnesses who were cooperative? We would rightfully be outraged and we would insist upon a prosecution by the Department of Justice. Our outrage should be no less when the lawful search for truth under the direction of the Federal court is impeded and obstructed by the President of the United States. The next argument is that: YES THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, BUT HE CAN ALWAYS BE PROSECUTED LATER? In fact, I understand a censure resolution is being circulated emphasizing that the President can be held criminally responsible for his actions when he leaves office. This is a not too subtle suggestion to the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to go ahead and file criminal charges against the President. I appreciate Judge Starr but I do not believe that is what the country means when they say they want to get this over.. "

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/rogan2-8-99.htm ".The Constitution solemnly required President Clinton, as a condition of his becoming president, to swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and to take care that our nation's laws be faithfully executed. That oath of obligation required the president to defend our laws that protect women in the workplace, just as it also required him to protect our legal system from perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power..The mere fact that a person is elected president does not give him the right to become president, no matter how overwhelming his vote margin. Votes alone do not make a person president of the United States. There is a requirement that precedes obtaining the power and authority of the presidency. It is the oath of office. It is swearing to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is in accepting the obligation that the laws be faithfully executed. No oath, no presidency. It is the oath of office, and not opinion polls, that gives life and legitimacy to a presidency. This is true no matter how popular an elected president might be, or how broad his margin of victory. The Founders did not view the oath as a technicality or an afterthought. They viewed it as the absolute requirement before the highest office in the land was entrusted to any person. The evidence shows the president repeatedly violated his oath of office. Now the focus shifts to your oath of office. The president hopes that, in this chamber, the polls will govern. We entreat you to require that the Constitution reign supreme. .From the time I was a little boy, it was my dream one day to serve in the Congress of the United States. My dream was fulfilled two years ago. I am a Republican in a district that is heavily Democratic. The pundits keep telling me that my stand on this issue puts my political fortunes in jeopardy. So be it. That revelation produces from me no flinching. There is a simple reason why. I know that dreams come and dreams go, but conscience is forever. I can live with the idea of leaving Congress. I cannot live with the idea of remaining in Congress at the expense of doing what I know to be right. I was about 12 years-old when a distinguished member of this body, the late Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas, gave me this sage advice about elective office: he said always put principle above politics; put honor above incumbency. I now return the sentiment to the body from which it came. Hold fast to it, Senators, and in so doing, you will be faithful both to our Founders and to our heirs.."

Larry King Live 2/6/99 Freeper Jeter ".GREENFIELD: I think the Democratic Party is so united that if, on Friday, the skies opened and a hand descended from the sky and a finger pointed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and said "guilty," the Democratic caucus would issue a statement supporting the separation of church and state.."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/ 2/8/99 Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".The House has come upon evidence very recently which, if true, impeaches the credibility of certain representations made by witnesses who have testified under oath in the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States....Given the objection by the Minority Leader to the unanimous consent request of the Majority Leader to admit new evidence, and because this evidence goes to the heart of the truth-seeking purpose of this Impeachment Trial, we respectfully request that you exercise your powers under S. Res. 30 to make a motion to admit new evidence and to authorize and issue subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses at depositions....This new evidence indicates that Sidney Blumenthal may have testified falsely before the Senate when he stated that he never told any reporters the false story that the President relayed to him that Monica Lewinsky was a "stalker." Credible evidence in the form of two signed sworn affidavits from reporters to whom Sidney Blumenthal told this story..."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hyde2-8-99.htm ".The legal profession, like politics, is often ridiculed, but every lawyer understands the importance of the Rule of Law - To establish Justice To maintain the Rights of Mankind To defend the helpless and oppressed To protect innocence To punish guilt - These are the duties which challenge the best powers of man's intellect - and the noblest qualities of the human heart. We are here to defend that bulwark of our liberty...the Rule of Law.. Our most formidable opponent has not been opposing counsel, nor any political party - it has been cynicism - the widespread conviction that all politics and all politicians are by definition corrupt and venal. That cynicism is an acid eating away at the vital organs of American public life. It is a clear and present danger because it blinds us to the nobility of being a self-governing people. One of the several questions that need answers is whether your vote on conviction lessens or enlarges that cynicism. Nothing begets cynicism like a double standard - one rule for the popular and powerful and another for the rest of us. .Infidelity is private and non criminal. Perjury and obstruction are public and criminal. The deliberate focus on what is NOT at issue here is a defense lawyer's tactic and nothing more. This entire saga has been a theatre of distraction and misdirection - time honored defense tactics when the law and facts get in the way. One phrase you never hear the defense pronounce is "the sanctity of the oath." But this case deeply involves the efficacy, the meaning and the enforceability of the oath..I doubt there are many people on Planet Earth who doubt the President has repeatedly lied under oath and has obstructed justice... Once in awhile I worry about the future. I wonder if, after this Culture War is over, an America will survive that will be worth fighting to defend? People won't risk their lives over the United Nations or the Dow Jones averages, but will there be enough vitality left in DUTY, HONOR and COUNTRY to excite our children and grandchildren to defend America? There is no denying the fact that whatever you decide, it will have a profound effect on our culture as well as our politics. A failure to convict will make a statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided is not all that serious. Perhaps someone can explain this to those currently in prison for perjury. We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette but only if you are the President. Whenever you avert your eyes from a wrong, an injustice, you become a part of the problem - .The mortal enemy of equal justice is the double standard, and if we permit a double standard, even for the President, we do no favor for the cause of civil rights. It has been said that America has nothing to fear from this President on the subject of civil rights. I doubt Paula Jones would subscribe to this endorsement. ..Edward Gibbon wrote his magisterial Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in the late 18th Century - in fact the first volume was issued in 1776. In his work he discusses an emperor named Septimius Severus who died in 211 AD after ruling for 18 years. Of the Emperor Gibbon wrote: Severus promised, only to betray; He flattered only to ruin; and however he might occasionally bind himself by oaths and treaties, his conscience, obsequious to his interest, always released him from the inconvenient obligation I guess those who believe history repeats itself are really onto something. .."

2/8/99 FoxNews report Freeper Ethrane ".Cameron stated that Trent Lott asked Starr to conduct a quick questioning of specific, named individuals who have knowledge of the WH taping system, I believe... He states this is important because, if the tapes exist, Starr subpoenaed them months ago...so it would add to obstruction worries..."

2/8/99 FoxNews report Freeper EarlyBird ".Carl Cameron is now reporting on the Cryer Report that Lott has sent a letter to Starr "urging" him to get immediately get to the bottom of the tape question. Sen. Don Nickels seems to have given Lott some leads and in the letter, Lott gives Starr some names of people who are in the know. Remember, this agency is run by the DOD. It may be payback time for the military? (My take) The letter is due to be mailed by tomorrow. Minor -- I mean Major -- Garrett (USA Today) is saying that it may be an underhanded way of garnering more votes for conviction.."

Reuters 2/8/99 via NewsEdge Corporation ".The chief House prosecutor said Monday he wants to call new witnesses and enter new evidence in President Clinton's impeachment trial to determine if White House aide Sidney Blumenthal lied to Congress. Rep. Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican, said in a letter to Senate leaders that ``credible evidence'' showed Clinton ``may have engaged in an intimidation campaign'' against Monica Lewinsky..Under Senate guidelines for the rest of the trial approved last week, Daschle has veto power over any formal motion to call new witnesses or enter new evidence. Hitchens' sworn statement has been turned over to the Senate legal counsel's office, which could decide to refer it to the Justice Department or independent counsel Kenneth Starr for investigation.."

FoxNews 2/8/99 Freeper go star go reports ".FoxNews has learned that Trent Lott may ask Judge Starr to expand his investigation into tapes that were under subpeona by the OIC. The tapes were of conversations between Monica and Bill. FoxNews has also learned that the Whitehouse Communications might have the tapes even though the Whitehouse has denied that they exist..."

CNN IMPEACHMENT SPECIAL 2/8/99 Freeper AJAY ".Senator Baker said, if he were still in the Senate, he would vote to remove Clinton from office on both counts. Senator Nunn says Clinton is guilty of the crimes in both impeachment articles--but it is not clear whether he would vote to remove.."

Washington Times 2/9/99 Frank Murray ".He [Ruff] said House managers are out of step and want to "win too badly," seeking to punish rather than heal. Mr. Hyde answered that accusation directly in a final summation heavy on literary and historical quotations. He said it is the president who wanted to win too badly. "None of the managers has committed perjury nor obstructed justice, not claimed false privileges. None has hidden evidence under anyone's bed nor encouraged false testimony before the grand jury. That's what you do when you want to win too badly," Mr. Hyde said.."

New York Post 2/9/99 Vinvent Morris, Brian Blomquist, Deborah Orin ".In an 11th-hour surprise, Senate GOP leader Trent Lott has drafted a letter asking Sexgate prober Kenneth Starr to check if there's a White House taping system that picked up Sexgate chats, sources say. "Based on press reports about an alleged White House taping system, it has been proposed to Lott that the proper authorities be engaged in finding the truth," Lott spokesman John Czwartacki told The Post last night.. One source insisted, "this isn't a fishing expedition," and said there might be specific names for Starr to contact. "There's no certainty that [tapes] exist," Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Fox News last night, adding it would be "good news for everyone" if tapes do exist because they'd reveal the truth... Any hint of a White House taping system would inevitably spark memories of Watergate, when Richard Nixon's tapes of conversations in the Oval Office destroyed him.."

Richmon Times Dispatch Freeper RR 2/10/99 ".In the House character still counts, but evidently not in the Senate. That self-righteous institution, which smugly holds itself in lofty regard for its presumed deliberate bipartisanship, seems unlikely to muster even a majority on the perjury article -- with the obstruction article nearly as dubious. And of course neither article has a cold chance of winning the 67 votes necessary for convicting William Jefferson Clinton for his unrepentant serial violations of the American rule of law.."

Judicial Watch 2/9/99 ".From day one, with a few limited exceptions, such as Bob Barr, Republicans have never wanted to impeach and convict Bill Clinton. Instead, the "conventional wisdom" was only to begin and conduct a limited proceeding -- concerning only the Lewinsky matter -- to weaken his Presidency and Party during the 1998 election cycle, and leading up to the elections in the year 2000. This explains why, despite pleas from conservatives and others, House Republicans never allowed Chinagate, Filegate and the other Clinton scandals to enter into the "equation." These scandals, if permitted to be a part of the impeachment proceedings, would have doomed Clinton's Presidency and forced him to leave office in the interests of justice. So too would have even a limited Lewinsky inquiry, if the House had allowed investigation of the various threats made by Clinton to the women, such as Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Jane Doe #5, and others who have come forward to speak the truth about the President.."

Time Daily 2/9/99 Frank Pellegrini ". Senate Democrats know the verdict they want: Not guilty, with an explanation. But when to do the explaining? The deliberations set to span the next two days will be held behind closed doors - proponents of an open session admitted Tuesday that they were six votes (and one majority leader) short of the 67 needed... For Democrats, censure remains the mother of all political flak jackets. Though they've already successfully cast Republicans as the repressive party of the Ayatollah, they're not particularly eager to be the party of Oval Office sex, either. .."

New York Post 2/10/99 Jack Newfield ".IT IS now clear that a few right-wing Republican senators are trying to block a tough censure of President Clinton. This is moral absolutism and irrational partisanship run amok. It doesn't make sense politically, constitutionally or morally. It is the kind of warped reasoning that characterizes the fundamentalist, Hezbollah faction of the GOP.."

Wall Street Journal 2/10/99 ".The plan is for the Senate to continue deliberation in closed session, then vote the two impeachment articles tomorrow or Friday. Then presumably a move will be made to get up a stiff but bipartisan resolution censuring the President for what he did. Vote against conviction, the idea runs, then you can vote to condemn. This is the kind of bait-and-switch Mr. Clinton and his surrogates have played throughout this sorry episode. Post-acquittal, a jubilant Mr. Clinton and his Senate surrogates will move quickly to prevent any censure language from asserting that he lied under oath or obstructed justice. It is common knowledge around Washington that Mr. Clinton is in denial on these two points; he isn't even close to admitting the most "moderate" reading of his guilt. There is every reason to believe that Mr. Clinton and his supporters will act after acquittal to delegitimize the House impeachment as an unprincipled, partisan vote. Senate surrogate Jay Rockefeller already tipped the strategy by referring to this week's events as a "Republican trial.".."

2/10/99 William J Bennett ".Later this week the impeachment trial will come to an end and, by all accounts, President Clinton will not be convicted and removed from office. Many people have written well about how Mr. Clinton's squalid affair and his subsequent criminal acts have damaged the nation. But this ordeal has also been deeply revealing and instructive about the state of our two national political parties, the American people and this American president. We know things about all of them that we did not know before. Profiles in Courage. We know that many congressional Republicans, particularly House Republicans, took a big political risk because of their dedication to justice. This was a noble act, even if it is not widely recognized as such. At every step in the process Republicans could have dropped the impeachment issue, won praise from the elite media, and followed the polls that suggest the American people weren't with them. Instead they decided to do their duty.."

Investor's Business Daily 2/10/99 ".The Senate is scrambling to put the best face on a likely acquittal of President Clinton. But this hasn't been a trial. It's been an exercise in timidity and raw political calculation -not an honest search for the truth. It's been easy to see the coming acquittal. The first hint was the Republicans' homage to bipartisanship. By putting off the decision on witnesses in order to secure unanimous agreement on the rules of the trial, the GOP signaled it wasn't interested in holding a trial in any sense of the word. And of course the Democrats rallied around the cry of bipartisanship to thwart any real exploration of the case against Clinton. Senators of both political parties will come to regret this course, however. Why? Because they will have to explain why they didn't conduct a full trial, with witnesses and cross-examination.."

Fox News / 'Fox and Friends' 2/10/99 Dick Morris Freeper tp77 "."...talk about irony, You've got Senator Kennedy -- sitting in judgment of Bill Clinton -- who doesn't even believe what most people consider vehicular homicide is a cause for removal from The Senate"."

Newsmax 2/10/99 Joseph Sobran Freeper hope ".This obviously isn't about saving Social Security. Clinton has become a symbol of certain cultural values, chiefly the sexual revolution. He is less a politician than a celebrity -- one of the trash celebrities of the '90s, like Pamela Anderson, Dennis Rodman, Jerry Springer and Larry Flynt. It's a fascinating phenomenon -- a yearlong Bronco chase, with cheering crowds along the freeway..."

The Washington Post 2/10/99 Freeper wife-mom Michael Kelly ".In a few days, President Clinton will be acquitted and the verdict among the Washington chattering class has been determined in advance: The House Managers, a bunch of blunderers from really not the better schools, overreached with a weak case, which the president's brilliant superlawyers destroyed, and the Senate justly disposed of the wreckage.."

WorldNetdaily 2/10/99 Joseph Farah ".Bill Clinton will not be removed from the most powerful position in the world, yet even his closest friends and political allies say he is a delusional liar who has disgraced the high office for which he is unfit. Dick Morris, his former aide and longtime friend, described Clinton as "delusional" in a conversation he had a year ago regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And that's one of the nicest things Morris has said about Clinton lately. A few weeks earlier, former White House press spokesman Mike McCurry admitted he has "enormous doubts" about Clinton's fitness for office. He described his behavior as "surely reckless" and "contrary to the way you would expect a rational human being to behave." Virtually every Democrat in the Senate, prior to voting to permit Clinton to remain in office for the remainder of his term condemned the president's behavior and judgment in the harshest terms. One of them, Sen. Bob Kerry, called him "an unusually good liar." And that from his friends.."

Drudge 2/10/99 Freeper Lunatic Fringe ".According to publishing sources who have seen the Page One, reporters James Bennet and Richard Berke take dictation from their White House sources and learn that President Clinton is "so furious" at House Republicans over his impeachment, he has personally vowed to mount an "all-out offensive to knock off many of his foes and win back the House" for Democrats in 2000! .. One Clinton aide tells the TIMES: "It will be a personal crusade. The man knows he's done wrong. But he also knows they should not have taken it to the extreme they have. He says: 'It's the unfairness of this whole process. These right-wingers who tried to undo the election.'" .."

Jewish World Review 2/9/99 Mona Charen Freeper Stand Watch Listen ".One would have hoped for some faint sign of moral life among the Democrats, but since they offered nothing more substantial than the portentous but ultimately empty words of Sen. Joseph Lieberman and the fulsome fulminations of Sen. Robert Byrd, there is now another matter to attend to: the entire Democratic Party that has shown itself adept at the instant reinterpretation of events. We all recall the tectonic shock that the country underwent during Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings..."

Seattle Times 2/10/99 Danny Westneat ".Sen. Slade Gorton has decided he will vote to remove President Clinton from office, a move that defies the opinion polls in Washington state and almost certainly will be used against him in the next election. Gorton, a Republican, was the first senator to speak yesterday in closed deliberations in the Senate impeachment trial, and he told his fellow senators that Clinton is guilty of obstruction of justice and should be removed from office. "President Clinton has debased the presidency now, and, if he is allowed to remain in office, the low level to which he has brought the presidency will continue, and that is not tolerable," Gorton said in a speech, the text of which was released afterward by his office.."

AP 2/10/99 Larry Margasak ".As the Senate deliberated privately on President Clinton's fitness to remain in office, the first two Republican senators announced today they would vote against conviction on both articles of impeachment. Sens. James Jeffords of Vermont and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said they would not support allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice. Specter, citing the laws of Scotland, said there could be ``three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, not proven.'' ``Given the option in this trial, I suspect many senators would choose 'not proven' instead of 'not guilty,''' the Pennsylvania Republican said in a statement that he planned to deliver on the Senate floor Jeffords said Clinton had committed shameful acts but his offenses ``do not reach the high standard of impeachment.'' ."

AP 2/10/99 Laurie Asseo ".The Senate is deliberating in the impeachment trial, but one verdict already is in: The lawyering wasn't always topnotch. House persecutors should have called presidential secretary Betty Currie to testify, and independent counsel Kenneth Starr shouldn't have helped prosecutors arrange to meet Monica Lewinsky before her sworn questioning, legal observers say.."

AP 2/10/99 Laurie Kellman ".Resigned to losing their case, the House prosecutors say public opinion polls made a stronger impression on senators than any evidence that President Clinton committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Lead prosecutor Henry Hyde of Illinois said he was "baffled" by polls that showed Americans consistently opposed Clinton's removal no matter what evidence the 13 Republican managers on the prosecution team presented. "We did feel that if we could get the story out in a coherent fashion the public might be informed and a change in the public's mind would reach the senators," Hyde said in an interview Wednesday as the Senate moved through its second day of closed deliberations. "It's essential, for impeachment to prevail, to have bipartisan support. We never had it," the House Judiciary Committee chairman added.."

www.theamericancause.org 2/9/99 Pat Buchanan ".At every crossroads in the impeachment and trial of William Jefferson Clinton, the Democratic Party shoveled debris onto the path of justice. And because that party worships power, Clinton has evaded conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. So, our president gets a pass and walks away. That he lied in his Paula Jones deposition to fix the trial and covered up by suborning perjury, lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice few Democrats deny, except when in front of a TV camera. There, they act like O.J.'s lawyers, railing on about Ken Starr, just like Johnnie Cochran denouncing Mark Fuhrman and the LAPD. What happened in the trial of Clinton was jury nullification, pure and simple. Senate Democrats were never going to let Clinton be convicted, guilty or not, because he is one of them. If that meant letting him walk for crimes for which they would have gladly hanged Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or George Bush, so be it.."

Drudge Report 2/10/99 "."The System worked. What a great country." ."Removal of a president in the absence of public outrage would be a Draconian mistake," notes Safire. "Impeachment was an ineradicable mark on his record; the Senate trial was public purgatory. That's a powerful warning to future presidents contemplating obstruction." .."

Wall Street Journal 2/11/99 ". In order to rescue this profligate Presidency, Mr. Byrd and his fellows will have to trade away their political conscience. For however much pain impeachment has caused House Republicans, at least they can look themselves in the mirror each morning. They will have lost, but they stood for something larger than their own careers or partisan gain. They fought for the rule of law. Senate Democrats, for their part, will have voted to acquit a man who their own draft censure resolution asserts has "brought shame and dishonor to himself and to the Office of the President" and created "disrespect for the laws of the land." A man who, Senator Byrd now concludes, has "given false testimony under oath" and committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." It's hard to believe that not one Senate Democrat will stand and say that the Presidency deserves better.We doubt that history will be kind to those Democrats who vote to acquit Bill Clinton. Once absolved by the Senate, the President will drop his feigned support for censure, which will fail. His future behavior--and all future revelations, likely to be as fulsome as those about Jack Kennedy--will only add substance to the impeachment case against him. "All institutions have been injured. A bad precedent has been set. A nightmare," says Senator Byrd. But nonetheless the President's polls are high, and the economy is good, so Democrats are asked to conclude that Bill Clinton should get away with everything. Faust would understand."

Charleston Post and Courier 02/11/99 Editorial newsman ".The fact that William Jefferson Clinton has refused to take the honorable course in the wake of incredible revelations about his sexual risk- taking in the White House speaks to the deficits in his character. The fact that he has fought so hard to keep the presidency with his credibility in such tatters says he loves the office more than he loves the country...."

WorldNetDaily 2/11/99 Craig McMillan ".Without drafting a single piece of legislation, the United States Senate is finalizing the most fundamental overhaul of justice in American history. Forty-five Democratic senators -- and some as yet undetermined number of Republicans -- are going to strip the nation's courts of their ability to place people under oath and demand a true account of those called as witnesses in civil and criminal cases. Regardless of what the statute books say, the crime of perjury will die, that Bill Clinton's presidency might live.. Rather, you will preserve the power of a corrupt, immoral, godless national whore whose influence you worship, and upon his altar will you sacrifice your lives, the dignity of your office and institution, and the fabric of trust that binds our nation in business, government, and all other institutions. Compared to you, senators, Bill Clinton, upon whom you sit in judgment, is a beacon of morality for the ship of state in the eye of the storm... You will live to see treachery, with whom you have whored, overtake this nation that you swore an oath to God Almighty to protect, yet in your lust for personal power deserted in her hour of need. And when your wretched, stinking carcass is consigned finally to the grave, you will stand before the God whom you sought to deceive with your lying oath. He will be your judge, juror, and executioner. Perhaps then you will finally have the wisdom to understand what the Father of our Country meant when he asked, "where is the security ... when the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?" ."

Judicial Watch Press Release 2/11/99 Judicial Watch ".Yesterday, Arlen Specter and two other Republican Senators stated their intention to vote to acquit Clinton in the impeachment trial. Specter gave as his reason that the House Managers had not been able to present enough evidence, because the Senate had limited them to only 3 witnesses. On "Rivera Live," Bob Barr, one of the House Managers, complained that his colleagues had kept the inquiry too narrow by not including Chinagate, Filegate, and the other Clinton scandals. To his credit, Barr had urged consideration of Judicial Watch's Interim Report by both the House and the Senate. However, an inquiry limited only to "sex, lies and videotapes," was always destined to fail.."

Washington Times 2/11/99 ".Once the tally is done, Americans will know beyond a doubt who cares about the laws of this land and who does not. For a country that is built on the fundamental premise that it is a nation of laws and not of men, this is a lesson that will be important to remember. It would, of course, have been preferable if Americans could have seen the worthy senators give their reasons -- or rationales is perhaps a better word -- why the clear-cut case presented by the House managers did not rise to the level of conviction and removal. This particularly relates to the president's own party, which has marched in lockstep against the proceedings from the opening of the impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. Complaints about lack of bipartisanship have unfairly targeted Republicans; if there was ever a solid phalanx of unwavering partisans it has been the Democrats.."

Reuters 2/11/99 ".With Republican support dwindling for the articles of impeachment, the Senate resumed its third day of closed-door debate Thursday before it casts decisive votes to acquit President Clinton. Three Senate Republicans Wednesday said they would vote to keep Clinton in office, raising the possibility neither of two impeachment counts would attract even a bare 51-vote majority, much less the 67 votes needed to convict Clinton. Republican Sens. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Chafee of Rhode Island announced they would vote to keep Clinton in office. The 45 Senate Democrats are expected to hold firm in support of Clinton.Democrats said if both articles gain less than 50 votes it would be a significant blow to the Republican-led impeachment drive..."

Reuters 2/11/99 Laurence McQuillan ".``Here is a president who has been humiliated in the eyes of the country, his family has been put through unimaginable grief, he's the first elected president in the history of this country to be impeached and he's seen his legislative agenda stopped dead in its tracks,'' said Dee Dee Myers, a former White House press secretary under Clinton. ``It's hard to say the president has won anything in this ... he survived,'' she said.. ``In way, he's been in a little bit of denial,'' said another former White House official who is close to both Clinton and his wife. ``He's been focusing on what needs to be done'' to stay in office, the former official said. ``I think he's been trying not to think about what's happened.'' ."

AP 2/11/99 Deb Riechmann ".Grudgingly resigned to President Clinton's acquittal, the Republican lawyer [Democrat David Schippers] who directed the House impeachment inquiry called the president's trial a ``sham'' and charged Thursday that House prosecutors ``were cut off at the knees'' by senators eager to end the crisis. ``I feel there was no fair trial. There was no constitutional trial in the Senate. I think that the constitutional system has been irrevocably harmed,'' David Schippers said in an interview on the eve of a vote that senators in both party agree will acquit the president of perjury and obstruction of justice..."

AP John Solomon 2/11/99 ".Disgraceful. Deplorable. Indulgent and immoral. Boorish. A disgrace upon the office of presidency. One by one, for three straight days, senators have stood in their closed chambers, where the cameras stopped rolling earlier this week, and heaped these seething words upon the president of the United States. And these are Democrats who intend to vote Friday for his acquittal. Republicans have been even more extreme. ``The most accomplished, polished liar that we have ever had serving in the White House,'' Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah said of Clinton. Such emotional, vitriolic name- calling would never be tolerated on the floor of the Senate on a normal day. Rules and decorum wouldn't allow it. But this is no ordinary Senate proceeding. And the intensity of rebuke and disdain for Clinton behind closed doors has amazed even some who have participated in it.."

http://www.nationalreview.com/ 2/11/99 Ramesh Ponnuru and John J. Miller ".Republicans still gripped by the delusion that President Clinton is ready to work with them on substantive policy issues in order to secure his so-called legacy received a rude shock Thursday morning when they read the front page of the New York Times. White House sources now claim Clinton is on a vendetta to help Democrats take control of the House in 2000. "It will be a personal crusade," says one of them.. Clinton is consumed by polls, not policy. If Al Gore succeeds him, his "legacy" will be a political one. He will have the right to claim that he made the Democrats a viable presidential party once again. Gore's defeat, however, would call this accomplishment into question (and turn the Department of Justice over to Republicans)..."

Fox News 2/11/99 Bill O'Reilly "..Earlier this week I was leaning toward acquittal. Although I'm convinced that Mr. Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice ... these actions were not enough, in my opinion, to remove him because of two things ... intent ... and the genesis of the alleged crimes... Than a strange thing happened late yesterday. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told the press that Mr. Clinton was no longer ready to embrace a censure .... a turnaround from December when Mr. Clinton said he was willing to accept censure. So ... the message I received was that because the President now realizes he will be acquitted in the Senate ... he is no longer willing to formally admit to any wrongdoing. Just the kind of double dealing we've come to expect from Mr. Clinton. Quickly, I went back to the Constitution. Article Two, Section Three says ... "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The key word here is faithfully. Before there was a reasonable doubt in my mind about Mr. Clinton's state of mind while committing his alleged crimes. But his flip-flop on censure has clearly sent me a message .... and that is .... that President Clinton does not respect or even understand the laws of this country ... therefore he is not able to faithfully execute them and has violated his oath to do so. So my vote is for removal ... and I base that vote on the Constitution and my opinion that President William Jefferson Clinton is a threat to the rule of law.."

Washington Times 2/12/99 Nancy Roman "."The president's self-indulgent actions were immoral. Disgraceful. Reprehensible. History should --and, I suspect, will -- judge that William Jefferson Clinton dishonored himself and the highest office in our American democracy," said Sen. Bob Graham, Florida Democrat..Sen. Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Democrat, said senators were on the edge of giddiness Thursday with the end at last in sight. "When the horse sees the barn, it gets a little excited all of a sudden," Mr. Kohl said.. "

The Political Review 2/10/99 ".President Clinton's Senate trial comes to an end, few individuals can be proud of their part in this charade. The president, his lawyers, his Justice Department, too many Republican senators, but most especially, Democratic senators, have much to be ashamed of. Remember Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's and the House managers' urging to consider the big picture? The evidence of Clinton's guilt is overwhelming. Even Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), has admitted the charges rose to the level of impeachment. Clinton deliberately planned and rehearsed his perjury before presenting it to a grand jury. He personally and, using members of his staff, tampered with and conducted intimidation and smear campaigns against potential witnesses. The Senate, however, led by panicking Democrats, practically tripped over itself in its haste to end the trial before anything else crawled out of the woodwork which would prevent it from leaving Clinton in office..In its unseemly headlong haste to end the trial, the Senate has only guaranteed the books will not be closed for some time. The Senate sent the matter of Blumenthal's perjury to the Justice Department. The presidential tapes have been referred to Starr for investigation.."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hyde2-12-99.htm 2/12/99 Henry Hyde ".With today's vote in the Senate on the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, this difficult chapter in our nation's history comes to a close. We have all been eye-witnesses to the genius of our Constitution which establishes a peaceful and orderly process for addressing criminal wrongdoing by the chief executive. All Americans can take great comfort in knowing that by remaining faithful to this constitutional process, the Congress has strengthened, not weakened, the ties that bind our nation together. When the House of Representatives received the referral from the Office of the Independent Counsel on September 9th, a referral required by law I might add, we faced a critical choice. We could have studied the polls and listened to the pundits and decided that following the Constitution was not in our political best interest. But we didn't do that. Instead, we studied the Constitution, reviewed the precedents, and proceeded forward according to the law. Five months later, after a trial and much tribulation, I have no regrets. We fulfilled our oath of office to discharge our duty according to the Constitution.."

Paul Gigot 2/12/99 "..This is what passes for moral equivalence in Washington, where the press corps derides the polls but follows them even more slavishly than politicians do. Only here could a man who lies under oath be equated with someone who tries to defend the value of that oath. The point is never, "What's right?" but rather, "Who won?".. Like many others, he isn't sure why. "I'm a little bewildered by the American people," says the World War II Navy man. "I just don't know if our standards have got so low that this behavior is tolerated." He acknowledges that "this was a culture war," and maybe the 1960s' generation "revels in this guy's success. I don't know." ..He says he got not a whit of cooperation from any House Democrats ever, even as those same Democrats decried "partisanship." It's as if Pamela Anderson Lee denounced cosmetic surgery. "I did everything but contortions to accommodate the Democrats. My own guys were mad at me for bending over backward. But no matter what we did we were criticized as partisan," says the one-time Democrat. Why weren't there any Democratic Howard Bakers or Bill Cohens? "The attraction of power," he says of the Democratic calculation. "Do you doubt that if Clinton were a Republican, he would have been gone two years ago?" .."

Scripps Howard News Service 2/12/99 Ann McFeatters ".Less than an hour and a half after the Senate acquitted their client of perjury and obstruction of justice charges, a retinue of President Clinton's lawyers, led by Charles Ruff in his wheelchair, left the White House for a celebratory lunch. .. But as a group of onlookers burst into applause, a car a block away honked nonstop as its occupants waved banners that read: ``It's an O.J. verdict! Shame on the cowards.'' . He did not watch the Senate vote 50 to 50 to acquit him of obstruction of justice or 55 to 45 to acquit him of perjury. His chief of staff, John Podesta, called him and told him the count on both charges and which Republicans voted to acquit and that all 45 Democrats voted with him.."

Associated Press 2/12/99 Darlene Superville "."Senators, how say you?" asked Chief Justice William Rehnquist, reading from a script rarely used in American history, used only once before to decide the fate of an impeached president. "Is the respondent, William Jefferson Clinton guilty or not guilty?" ..Then, after 40 minutes, the atmosphere turned upside down. Suddenly, senators were almost giddy. Shaking hands. Slapping backs. Congratulating each other... "It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be and he hereby is acquitted of the charges in the said articles," Rehnquist said. Rehnquist got a standing ovation. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., then presented the chief justice with a golden gavel -- a traditional token given for presiding over the Senate for 100 hours..."

AP 2/12/99 ".Paula Jones, whose sexual harassment lawsuit began the scandal that ended with Friday's impeachment vote, said she was disappointed the Senate did not remove President Clinton from office. ``I'm not happy, you know, for sure,'' Mrs. Jones told Fox News outside a school where she picked up her children. ``I just expected it because he gets away with everything.'' ."

Reuters 2/12/99 ".The Senate Friday blocked an attempt to censure President Clinton after acquitting him on two articles of impeachment alleging perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate voted 56-43 against a procedural move to delay California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's motion to censure the president for ``shameful, reckless and indefensible'' conduct, but that fell 11 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to continue the debate on censure..."

Washington Weekly 2/14/99 J. Peter Mulhearn Freeper Samizdat ".Clinton's trial demonstrated that our commitment to reason is far too weak to support the consensual government our Constitutoin envisions. A dishonest defense that did little more than recycle the president's embarrassing lies was good neough. Clinton's lawyers made no sense and it didn't matter. they invited Senators into the abyss of nihilism and most of the maccepted the invitation.."

Investors Business Daily 2/16/99 ".It would not be surprising if the Democrats up for re- election have a tough time in 2000. It's unlikely that primary challengers will raise the issue. But Republicans will no doubt force them to explain their vote to acquit an adulterer, liar and obstructer of justice. And the five Republicans who voted to acquit on both charges will no doubt face primary challengers. Indeed, the Republicans will have a tougher time, because everyone believes this was a ''partisan impeachment trial,'' so why weren't the Republicans partisan? The true partisans were Democrats, all 45 of whom fell in lockstep with the White House..Indeed, the senators in the impeachment drama seemed like understudies to real statesmen. Especially the women. When it came to adhering to principle, the rule of law or women's rights, they didn't seem interested. How Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu could excuse the cad in the White House stretches the bounds of credulity. These women, who have fought long and hard for tougher sexual harassment laws, have given a free pass to a man who uses and misuses women for his personal pleasure..."

Nando Media 2/13/99 Jay Ambrose ".While his fellow Democrats in the Senate voted to a person to keep him in office, many excoriated his disreputable, dishonest conduct. This president stands in vivid relief to Lincoln, who labored for years to repay every penny of a debt, and to Washington, whose performance in office seemed always dictated by conscience. The Republicans were not always wise and certainly not politically clever in how they handled impeachment procedures in the House and Senate, and Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, won few hearts through his prosecutorial determination. But Clinton, who finally sounded truly apologetic in a brief statement after the vote, brought this tribulation on himself..There was room for reasonable people to debate his ouster, but reasonable people could not ignore his conduct or seriously contend that it did not matter..."

Jewish World Review 2/16/99 Thomas Sowell ".NOT SINCE THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL has so much evidence been disregarded in reaching a verdict as in the acquittal of Bill Clinton. In the Simpson trial, at least the witnesses were all heard and the evidence was all presented. In the Senate impeachment trial, even that was not permitted. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made back room deals with the Democrats that prevented live witnesses and severely limited even the number who could be videotaped. You would think that the purpose of a trial was not to find out the truth and dispense justice but to "get it over with" and look bipartisan. ."

Chicago Tribune 2/18/99 Henry Hyde ". The House managers of the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton accept, without qualification, that the Senate's verdict is final. The impeachment proceedings are now over.. The impeachment of President Clinton was not a political struggle, as professor Wolfe suggests, but a historic constitutional test. A bedrock principle of democracy, first formulated by our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition in the Magna Carta, was at stake: the principle that no person is above the law. Birth, wealth and social position do not put someone above the law. Neither does public office. That, and nothing less than that, is what was at stake here. This was not a political struggle between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, the World War II generation and the Baby Boom generation. This was a constitutional test of whether the United States government remains a government of laws, not of men. That the gravity of this test was not recognized by some of my colleagues in the Congress is a cause for serious and ongoing concern. ..That not a single Senate Democrat, in a group of 45 strong, independent-minded individuals, was prepared to say publicly, at the trial's outset, that this was a matter of the gravest constitutional import and that he or she would step back from partisanship, look at the facts with an unbiased eye and then render a judgment solely on those facts irrespective of party considerations is a cause for concern..That the Senate Democrats treated this as a party-line vote is a matter of concern.. "

Wall Street Journal 2/22/99 Editorial ". For the record, the 16 Democrats who refused to sign even this mild rebuke [censure] were Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Russ Feingold, Bob Graham, Tom Harkin, Ernest Hollings, Tim Johnson, Frank Lautenberg, Pat Leahy and Paul Sarbanes..."

Freeper giotto report 2/18/99 ".The thirteen House trial managers were heckled by Senator Barbara Boxer while they were speaking during the impeachment trial, according to James Rogan. San Francisco station KSFO's Lee Rogers mentioned this today, but no other details were given. I called Cong. Rogan's offices in DC and California and was told that Rogan said this originally on a show on MSNBC several days ago. This, if true, is a serious violation of Boxer's oath to keep silent during the proceedings. I can't imagine why Judge Rhenquist didn't cite her for contempt or at least put a stop to it.."