MPundit Pap for September 20, 1998

Monday, September 21, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Not exactly a thrilling week on the pundit circuit. Topping the agenda was speculation over the release of Clinton's grand jury testimony and the not-so-bipartisan goings-on in the House Judiciary Committee.

Surprisingly, there was not as much talk of the revelation in Salon that Henry Hyde had an affair three decades ago. Not surprisingly, the press, seeking to make the most of the story and continue their assault on Bill Clinton, did their best to fan rumors that the White House and/or Sid Blumenthal was behind it.

Fox News Sunday

Again, it was not a particularly excellent week for FNS. Most of the problem centered on the fact that Tony Snow and the usual gang -- Brit Hume, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams -- were bogged down in the one story on everyone's mind (which Tony insists on referring to a "L'affaire Lewinsky").

The first guest on Fox News Sunday was GOP presidential wanna-be Steve Forbes, fresh from an appearance at the Christian Coalition convention. Forbes was his predictable, unelectrifying self, but with the personality transplant he seems to have gotten since cozying up to the religious right. He reminded us of one of the pod people from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

Forbes repeatedly asserted that the House Judiciary Committee should expand their impeachment hearings into Whitewater, Filegate and Travelgate; there was plenty of mention of the term "pattern of abuse." Forbes is playing up the right-wing "spin" that all of the Clinton "scandals" converge into one -- this despite the fact that the word "Whitewater" appears less frequently than "cigar" in Ken "Porno" Starr's referral report. He predicted that "impeachment hearings will take on a life of their own... when people see the pattern."

Gee, Ken Starr doesn't seem to have mentioned such a pattern involving all of these scandals in his report -- do the words "no there there" mean anything to you, Steve?

Forbes sounded downright goofy when he said "It is incumbent on Republican leaders to go forward with a massive tax cut and a ballistic missile defense system."

Great. This was about the only vision of the future that Forbes offered -- less taxes, more missiles. One Cold War was more than enough, Stave, thanks. Another massive tax cut for the rich and a windfall for big business. Anyone else here suspect that Forbes is more worried about his readers and subscribers than the "serfs"? Oddly, Forbes did NOT use the magic words "flat tax."

The weirdest part of the interview was Brit Hume, asking Forbes about the release of the Starr Report from what was undoubtedly a "devil's advocate position for Brit -- mentioning "unseemly haste" and
"overkill." Forbes's replies -- "...to see everything so they can make their own conclusions" and "under the circumstances they had no choice" -- parroted the spin lines we've heard all week from Starr's defenders.

But the best question came from Juan, who said that " the Christian Coalition convention looked like a Clinton hatefest" -- does this hurt the GOP?

Forbes, who looked like he was nearly overdosed on Prozac, sounded nearly like a conspira-wacko, mentioning "a train of abuses... who were the President's accomplices?... Those responsible should be held to account.... a pattern of abuse that goes all the way back to when he took the oath of office... It crystallizes the conclusion.... Once those hearings start, he's doomed."

Um... right, Steve. Funny how over fifty million was spent and all Starr could come up with was sex.

We also had a laugh when Juan mentioned the "scorched earth" theory of modern politics and asked "anything you want to tell us?"

His reply: everyone will have to do some soul-searching in 2000.

Forbes steered the subject back to his pet "vast abuses" theory when Brit asked if calls for Clinton to resign might be a better path; instead of directly answering, Forbes asserted that even if the President resigns there should be hearings to investigate "what were the abuses, who were the accomplices." Tony then asked if Forbes thought Gore was complicit; Forbes replied "I think we need to look into the 1996 campaign funding."

Of course, if Reno expands her probe, Republicans are as sure to fall under scrutiny as Democrats, and at least one party under accused of alleged campaign abuses involving the Clinton-Gore reelection -- Maria Hsia -- had six of the charges against her dropped, with one remaining, and the legal commentariat saying it's no slam-dunk case.

Forbes's final prediction: Clinton "will be removed from office with full bipartisan support."

The second segment featured Reps. Maxine Waters and James Rogan, both on the House Judiciary Committee.

Waters was feisty -- when Tony asked her "Do you think [Clinton] is telling the truth?" Waters replied "How can you ask that? We don't have the facts!"

Tony: "Yes we do."

Rogan then said, "We should presume innocence until all the facts are in... I've seen the testimony."

Tony: "Does he contradict his Paula Jones testimony?"

Rogan: "We have to review all the evidence." Waters added, "All the testimony before the grand jury is hearsay... the media is dumping" Starr's evidence into the public.

There was a little talk of bipartisanship -- or lack thereof -- when Tony decided to ask Waters specifically about the latest "sexcapades" scandal: "Does the Hyde story make you mad?"

Waters: "It's none of my business[and] the wrong path to go down." She was surely referring to Clinton as well as Hyde.

Lately, Tony has managed to tick us off at least once a week with a cheap-shot question, and this week proved no exception. He asked Waters which was more pornographic -- the Starr report or the President's life?

Waters's reply: the American people expect fairness. Take a hint, Tony.

The final guest was the ubiquitous Clinton-bashing "liberal" attorney Jonathan Turley. He "explained" the ins and outs of impeachment -- insofar as he managed to sneak an awful lot of prejudgment and less-than-complete information regarding alleged perjury by the President. Tony "framed" the discussion with some of those out-of-whack Fox Opinion Dynamics polls whose numbers seem to indicate that America just plain doesn't like Clinton -- results at odds with every other scientific poll out there.

Turley brought up the tantalizing possibility that Clinton might be "impeached but not removed." Yes, it could happen -- but it's about as likely as Pat Robertson putting in a guest appearance at a Marilyn Manson show.

There were some uncharacteristically cautious answers from Turley. Mara brought up the issue of Congress nullifying results of two elections; Turley responded that "Any impeachment nullifies an election," so "we have to be careful." (What's with the "we"? Joining Starr's staff or something?) Turley also brought up the scenario of Clinton testifying directly to Congress as "a way for honest or honorable acquittal... by exposing himself to removal, he may regain office."

This sounds about as ingenuous as Orrin Hatch's assertion that if the President would apologize, it would calm the calls for resignation and impeachment.

Brit's reply to Turley: "Isn't that a little romantic?" Turley replied with something about a "difference between spiritual and constitutional redemption.... It's ultimately our choice."

Of course, if the Christian jihad succeeds in taking over, it'll have to be "spiritual" by their definition. Given Starr's apparent evangelical predilections and political support, such talk only serves to underline the undercurrent of religious extremism in the present crisis.

Turley sounded even weirder when he said the President should try to present himself more sympathetically, a sort of "prosecutorial null case." Of course, he will be on political, not legal, trial should articles of impeachment pass the House -- which nullifies Turley's "null."

The only humorous moment came at the end of the segment, as Tony previewed the upcoming panel time segment, with footage of the Clinton-Lewinsky public "hug" for about the ten thousandth time -- to the sound of Frank Zappa's classic "Give Me Your Dirty Love."

Our own Dave "Doctor" Gonzo has been waiting three weeks for FNS to do just that. Rock on, Tony!

Panel time arrived: the Monday broadcast of the Clinton grand jury testimony tape was the topic.

Brit mentioned that Monday was a High Holy Day, and in those households Jewish viewers will not be tuned in; we're not so sure.

Juan pointed out why this will be the top story not only on Monday night but throughout the week: "You go for sensation if you're the news director." True, Juan, especially if the President is involved and the network owners loathe the man!

Mara made the prediction that "soccer moms won't turn out for democrats" -- neglecting the fact that most voters don't turn out for off-cycle elections. Of course, this could change if public outrage at Congress and Starr continues to build; every poll short of Fox Opinion Dynamics indicates mostly people don't want impeachment by a wide margin.

Tony made the biggest stretch of the week, claiming that a Democratic consultant told him that rumors of scorched earth make it easier for democrats to "dump this stuff" and Republicans will blame the White House!

What? This is more preposterous than Turley's claim of "impeachment but no removal."

The panel seemed to go out of their way to avoid naming Henry Hyde specifically; Brit finally said "Hyde has not been hurt among his constituents." Don't be so sure, Brit.

Brit was, however, more on the money when he pointed out Monica Lewinsky's "photographic detail" in her testimony -- implying but not saying that it begs an awful lot of questions.

Juan: "Do you believe Monica Lewinsky ? How did she remember all this?" -- about the only time we have heard any of the alpha pundits pose this question openly.

McLaughlin Group

What's with John's hair? It's getting awfully long in the back! Trying to relive his reckless youth, we guess...

Issue 1: Washington -- A City or a Cesspool? The long opening video segment commenced with a BBC TV news report, The Sun (London), British tabloid headlines, The Economist's "Unwanted" cover, and a litany of worldwide anti-Clinton editorials and headlines. Commentator from The Guardian (London) offered the possibility of a "time of a power vacuum that could be dangerous."

John: Can Clinton regain international credibility?
Pat Buchanan (even more "protectionism" than usual this week): It's an internal matter; Clinton cannot redeem himself
Eleanor Clift: We don't take order from the Brits; other countries wonder why we're twisting ourselves into a pretzel; Republicans are holding up business of government.
Clarence Page: Le Figaro also mentioned the "New McCarthyism."
Fred Bergsten: I'm not sure how much of an effect the president has in the first place: look at the power of Greenspan, the fact that he is in his last two years anyway, and that he was already late to come in to deal with the international economic crisis.
Pat: The idea that what foreign people think should determine whether we get rid of the president is preposterous.
John (this one came from somewhere out of left field): The president should call for a tax cut to help stabilize the world economy! (Hey, John, while you're at it, pull in your pal Steve Forbes to sell Pat on a nice missile defense system!)
After a little more banter, John had his customary last word: "The elephant is in the living room" -- the damage is being done, it needs to be resolved. The use of the word elephant was not lost on anyone.

This led into a second piece featuring a litany of what the scandal has led to -- John rattled off thirty or forty items including "late-night monologues, t-shirts, novels, battery-operated products" and that the ridicule over the scandal is substantially damaging.

We were thoroughly disappointed that he did not specifically mention the "Linda Tripp / Transsexual Judas" bumper stickers you can buy right here on the APJ web site -- and don't forget, they make a great gift!

Clarence: This country can heal, as it did after Nixon, who even had success on the world stage after he left office.
John: There are two videotapes in the pipeline -- Grand Jury and Jones deposition!
Eleanor: That plus a 67% approval rating for Clinton will lead to a backlash against Republicans.
Clarence: Republicans want Clinton to stay, weakened, and twist in the wind.
Fred: Let's say a war broke out. The president would be in control, the world would rally. Economic issues are not as much under the president 's control.

Issue 2 -- Risky Business! John fanned the flames of political blackmail, saying that Clinton and Lewinsky talked phone sex over unsecured lines -- he pointed to a conversation on March 29, 1997 in which the president allegedly told her he suspected that his phones might be tapped -- and that she should say it was a put-on. It was one of John's most paranoid and far-fetched scenarios in quite a long time.

John: Who found out?
Clarence Page: FBI
Pat: He may have thought she'd blab -- "he's reckless almost to the point of being insane." (This from a guy into isolationism and pitchforks.)
Eleanor: It doesn't affect affairs of state.
John: NSA -- and the Chinese may have known! (John has been playing up the "sinister" Chinese for the last couple months).
Eleanor: If there is evidence of blackmail, then Starr should come forward with it!

Wrong case, Eleanor -- if you want blackmail, go to the attorneys for Paula Jones, especially on that matter of two million dollars.

This Week

A snoozer this week. The first prolonged segment, featuring House Judiciary Committee members Asa Hutchinson (R-MO) and Marty Meehan (D-MA). The segment was mostly a yawner, with highly predictable questions from Sam and Cokie. Meehan did have some an interesting comment, though, when Cokie turned the questioning to bipartisanship and what exactly happened to it on the Judiciary committee:

"I have to tell you -- I'm one member of Congress who has worked in a bipartisan way. Chris Shays, the Republican from Connecticut and I just got a campaign finance bill through the House. Jim Hansen and I have the major tobacco bill. Bob Franks and I have been working on manufacturing issues. I know what bipartisanship is -- it is give and take, it is discussions back and forth, it is joint decision making. What we experience in the Judiciary Committee was not joint decision making. I've never seen such partisanship and partisanship has to be two-way. Chairman Hyde wrote a letter without even informing the minority or the full committee -- wrote a letter to the judge in the Paula Jones case to get that videotape as well. That's not the way you go about getting evidence. "

Interesting that Meehan is making a point of Hyde expanding purview into the dead-yet-trying-to-be -revived Paula Jones evidence, especially when combined with calls by many Republicans for Hyde to expand impeachment hearings into Starr's dry wells of Whitewater, Filegate and Travelgate.

And George Will's questioning of both guests about a possible backlash yielded notable answers.

Hutchinson: "I've seen the videotape. I've reviewed the transcript. And I think it certainly has more value as evidence than entertainment."

Evidence of what? It may have more value of evidence of abuse of power by Starr than evidence of high crimes of state.

Meehan was not exactly jumping on the backlash bandwagon: "Those people in America that really don't like the president will think the president looks terrible. I think that people who like the president or are neutral -- I don't think it will have a great positive or negative effect. I think the president comes across answering some difficult questions. He does reasonably well. I think there has been much ado made about this."

Our spin-terpretation -- the tape is boring. You expect a nation with attention deficit disorder to be able to digest this stuff on their own?

Meehan also brought up the possibility that some republican candidates would use the testimony in campaign commercials -- a tactic we believe will backfire badly.

The second segment was far and away the most entertaining of the pundit weekend. Sam and Cokie welcomed Sid Blumenthal's attorney William McDaniel . Sam began by recycling charges that Blumenthal "in fact, has spoken to reporters about this type of rumor."

He has, Sam -- to tell you bozos to stop passing them around.

McDaniel in effect has put the press on notice to "stand and deliver" -- check out this exchange that took place early on:

Sam: "ABC News reported and we've talked to two individuals who have told us that Mr. Blumenthal discussed the Henry Hyde story with them. Are they lying?"

McDaniel: "Do you have their names? If you do, I would like to write them down and talk to them face to face."

Sam (giving the predictable answer): "We have their names and we promised them confidentiality as we had to when they spoke to us. We’re putting the faith of credibility of ABC News behind what we just said to you."

Of course, with the company ABC News keeps -- George Will, Bill Kristol, Jackie Judd -- it's no darn wonder we have to laugh when Sam puts "ABC News" and "credibility" in the same sentence.

McDaniel: "I have read every store about this that I can find and I have yet to see anybody who says 'I talked to Sidney Blumenthal.' It's always 'I talked to somebody who talked to Sidney Blumenthal, and I won’t tell who that person is.' I would like that person to come forward and say 'I talked to Sidney Blumenthal and he told me these things'—because it is false."

Cokie made the mistake of continuing on the same like of questioning: "In an article in the Nation magazine, Doug Ireland wrote about Sidney Blumenthal and the prosecutors and said 'Three members of the media have confirmed to me that Sidney Blumenthal, the White House media counselor, had indeed been spreading such stories.' They heard him do it. These were stories that members of the Starr team were gay."

McDaniel: Yes. He didn’t name any of those people. Again, it is this anonymous thing: “Someone said this. I’m not going to tell you who they are. But somebody said this.” And that’s false. And I would like to know the names of those people too. The prosecutors took Mr. Blumenthal to the grand jury and they didn’t ask him one question about that, whether he was spreading salacious stories about them. They put stuff in the newspaper about that’s what they were interested in."

Note that McDaniel managed to nail both the press and the Starr team in one hard-hitting reply, spelling out how they work together to attack the White House. He may have been smiling, but you could hear the last sentence dripping with anger.

Then he aimed his fire directly at a member of the This Week team:

Cokie: "Don't you think it is strange that all the rumors come back to Mr. Blumenthal?"

McDaniel: "I don’t know why it is, but I know what the facts are in these matters -- I’ve carefully investigated the facts in these matters. Mr. Will reported on this show two weeks ago, and he said it just as though he knew it were true that Mr. Blumenthal was doing this. Mr. Blumenthal didn’t talk to Mr. Will about it, Mr. Will didn’t call Mr. Blumenthal, he didn’t call the White House, he didn’t ask Mr. Blumenthal about it. What Mr. Will did was relied upon somebody else. I don’t know who he relied upon because he didn’t say and he probably won’t say today. What you get is this type of innuendo, and Representative DeLay engaged in the same thing: you get character assassination by innuendo."

Glad to see George and Tom the Bug-man are both such sticklers for fact-checking!

The entire segment was entertaining, especially when George Will and McDaniel got into the subject of a letter to ABC News -- and ABC's letter reply "parsing words":

Sam: "You have to look through what the meaning of this? What is meaning of 'brought to the attention?' You’re saying he discussed the story with Henry Hyde but only when reporters ask him about it?"

McDaniel: "Yes, he told them 'I don’t think you ought to publish this and I don’t want to be part of it.' That letter doesn’t say you have any information to the contrary."

Stick to your day job, Sam, you're no Perry Mason.

We skipped the round table -- we practically fell asleep.

Meet the Press

Tim Russert began with White House staffer John Podesta, presenting a poll showing that nearly 50% of Americans feel that the President should resign. Podesta, quietly -- perhaps too quietly -- defended those numbers as "changing evidence" of the public sentiment. He added that the President wants to do the kind of job Americans appreciate as demonstrated by polls on the job he is doing remaining in the high 60's.

Russert then turned to the hot buzz-words "moral authority " and shows another poll which shows overwhelming negative numbers on this issue. Of course, Russert fails to point out that people tend to lie on this issue, wishing to side with God rather than common sense.

Russert asked whether Podesta predicts a backlash against Republicans. Podesta felt that the GOP has decided to do a "garbage dump" rather than a "document dump" today. Podesta thinks the 4-hour-plus videotape will show that the "complete picture" -- and will bring the public to support the president.

Then RUSSERT DID IT AGAIN -- he shows the President's "finger pointing" video where he denies having sex with Monica. It's becoming a tired ploy -- play that clip to a Clinton associate or staffer. Forget it, Tim. And remember -- the President was not pointing his finger at the public, but at the press who have enjoyed vilifying him for the past 4 years.

Podesta freely admitted the President's wrongdoing in misleading the public. He also said that the most fundamental aspect is that he admitted and apologized for it.

Russert asked Podesta why the White House cannot just admit Clinton lied under oath. Podesta does not believe the President lied under oath. Russert says "It's not just me..." and turns to a Tom Daschle quote which generally asked the President not to engage in "legal jousting."

Russert asked if lying under oath is an impeachable offense. Podesta answered that this is up to the House Judiciary Committee, but feels the President's actions were not illegal ... and that releasing the video is not to raise legal issues... but "to humiliate the President."

Russert then tried to pin the Henry Hyde revelations of his own affair on the White House, claiming that Sidney Blumenthal had dinner with publisher of Salon Magazine and then invited him to the White House where he spoke with Clinton.

Podesta said that Sid Blumenthal has adamantly denied any involvement in this story, and pointed out that anyone at the White House that engages in exposing congressional sexual "problems" will be fired -- a zero-tolerance policy.

Then Russert said the FBI is going to investigate this issue. Podesta -- rightfully -- said that it's frightening that Tom DeLay and Henry Hyde are turning out the FBI on the White House over this issue. Podesta, in answer to whether Sid Blumenthal ever spread rumors about Henry Hyde, deferred. He said that Blumenthal has never spread rumors about Mr. Hyde's personal life. Podesta said he would personally escort any White House employee out the door if such was proven.

Russert then said that The Nation has published a story by John Ireland that several reporters had told him that Blumenthal was heard spreading sexual gossip about Hyde -- the same story that Bill McDaniel was asked about on This Week. You've got to love it -- pundits hopelessly biased against the President quoting the "lefty" weekly to "get" Blumenthal!

Podesta said he had not heard this, but would look into it.

But Podesta was wrong to say this. It is "fair game" to expose the background of any man who has "lied by omission" about similar peccadilloes -- especially when he chairs the committee which will sit in judgment on the President. But we must also point out that Hyde did offer his resignation to the Speaker -- who, of course, rejected it.

Russert then brought up the Secret Service being told to shut up about Lewinsky. Podesta said it will come out that Starr's report of this is not true.

Russert then turned to the subject of Betty Currie and tried to hang her for not logging all of Monica Lewinsky's telephone calls and visits to the White House. What a great guy!

Russert asked why the President has "changed his style" -- being more contrite these days. Podesta said that on August 17th, the President was angry about the Starr witch hunt and the type of questions that Starr's people had asked him during his grand jury testimony.

Russert then asked Podesta if Podesta ever considered quitting. Podesta did not answer directly except to say he would stay with the President, that he was a decent man and has done so much for this country and has a lot more to give.

"Will he ever resign?" asked Russert. Podesta said "No," but then seemed to backpedal just a bit -- adding that he thought Clinton should not resign and that Congress should not go forward with impeachment hearings. "They have rushed to sexually explicit material and have not even addressed whether this is impeachable material."

Russert next turned to Democrat Senator John Kerry and Republican Senator John Ashcroft. "Senator Kerry, has President Clinton disgraced the presidency?" was Russert's opening shot. Kerry said that Speaker Gingrich and other leaders should come together and agree not to have these "selective evidence drops" -- and the nation is wondering where the leadership is.

That is for sure.

Russert interpreted this as the President offering a deal to the GOP leadership. Kerry did not say "no" to that idea. But he proposed that the President should come before the Judiciary Committee rapidly and to make up "our minds" through a "speedy trial." Russert, a bit surprised asked "...you believe he should appear before the Judiciary Committee?"

Senator Ashcroft said the President was responsible for the 8-month delay. But then added he is in favor of an expeditious treatment of the issue, and said that if the President was willing to come before the Judiciary Committee and "tell the truth and nothing but the truth" they could proceed. "Just an appearance does not mean it would automatically happen... I
think this would be a very quick way to jump start this process." Russert reminded him that Ashcroft has already called on him to resign. Ashcroft said he has not called for impeachment as yet however, but believes that the President has acted to hurt the American people.

Kerry said that there is a distinction between the personal and the policies being pursued by that person.

Is a deal in the making?

We think "maybe" -- but don't count out the Draculian members of the ultra-right House to foil that opportunity to get this behind us.

"What about lying under oath -- how seriously do you take that, " Russert nearly sneers. Kerry said he takes that "very seriously... If all we did is suggest that impeachment was to remove anyone we didn't think conducted himself well personally we would all be in trouble."

What is happening to this president is wrong on fundamental decency, added Kerry. Kerry then also suggested the President subject himself to every question that the press has on the issue -- "every one" and then move forward.

Another good idea.

Russert said that both Kerry and Ashcroft are presidential hopefuls.

Ashcroft said he thought the President would resign. "If he continues to put the country through this agony... he will resign," said Ashcroft. This is the first time the President will tell the American people his side of the story -- in the video!

We had to laugh at that, because, of course, this video shows only Starr's side of the story and the manipulation by a prosecutor of the grand inquisition process. No one seeing this tape will hear the President's side of the story -- they will hear Starr and his toadies.

Russert then added another arrow. If he now tells the truth, won't he open himself up for prosecution? Kerry said, "He's facing that now... If Newt Gingrich has the ability to set the tone, and I'm told he is calling the shots... let's do this now."

Ashcroft said, "Let's settle this. No one is stopping the President from telling his story. I would welcome the truth and nothing but the truth as soon as possible."

The "deal" surfaces again.

Russert continued to make this a circus and not a serious attack on the presidency itself.

Next Russert welcomed Rep. Bob Barr (R-Twilight Zone) -- who was circulating an impeachment document for the last year and even before the Lewinsky matter surfaced; Republican Rep. Lindsey Graham, Democrats Rep. Wexler and Rep. Barney Frank to haggle the matter out.

All four are key members of the House Judiciary Committee and three have seen the Clinton videotape.

His first question was to Barr about Kerry's idea. Barr said it was too early. He said there may be additional material we need to look at and too early to talk about "witnesses." Barr said when American's see the tape they will see a witness who is defiant and cleverly try to weave in and out... I believe that Starr makes the point that he lied under oath and that case is prima facie." Barr's obvious effort to paint the President of the United States as "just another witness" was hilarious.

Congressman Wexler went to the framers' definition of high crimes and said misdemeanors are about treason, for example, and not about touching Monica Lewinsky. Wexler said Clinton did not tell the full truth regarding Lewinsky, but that this is not a high crime and misdemeanor. Barr then butts in that the President can perjure himself "and it's okay." Wexler said if you want to change the Constitution -- go ahead.

Congressman Graham said that this is "humorous" -- and that the tape is not devastating one way or another. He added that Clinton lied under oath in the Paula Jones matter. "Yes, I think he did lie... but his deposition was not admissible. Lindsey said he liked the idea that President would come to the Committee. "This report is full of hearsay."

Barney Frank had not seen the video. He said, "I hope they will see man who knew he did something wrong and is trying very hard to minimize his mistake" because he is embarrassed over it. "He is clearly trying very hard not to lie -- but on the other hand he knows how damaging the truth is."

Frank felt that the release of the tapes is a one-sided story -- Starr's story. Frank added, after Russert quotes him, that he does think the President should come forward, but he has already and has told the truth now. "I tried to avoid lying, but I didn't want to tell the truth either" -- is the line Frank suggests and perhaps this is a good idea.

Barr said that there probably will be impeachment hearing, and he credits himself for calling for it. Barr said there is a lot more to this situation than just Monica Lewinsky and then brings up the Secret Service cover for her visits -- supposedly "ordered" by the President -- as an example of what is NOT related to Lewinsky.

Inane as usual.

"Censure" did not seem to interest any of the four.

And that was it for Russert and Meet the Press.

-- The Editors