American Politics Journal -- Pundit Pap

Pundit Pap
for Sunday, October 11, 1998
by The Editors

Monday, October 12, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Topic one was, as almost anyone could predict, the House vote for an inquiry of impeachment and most of the details surrounding the decision to move forward with a full investigation in the House Judiciary Committee -- including rumblings that Democrat intend to call Kenneth Starr to testify. Additionally, the Kosovo crisis and economic problems merited attention.

But none of the Sunday shows deigned to mention a major development that undercuts allegations of a so-called "Chinagate" scandal: revelations in the Sunday-morning Washington Post that the judge overseeing the Charlie Trie case has lashed out at prosecutors for misinterpreting statutes governing political contributions by foreign nationals.

In his ruling, US District Court Judge Paul Friedman determined that citizens of other nations are only prohibited from making so-called "hard money" contributions which provide direct support to specific, individual candidates for federal office.

Friedman's ruling forces federal prosecutors to prove to the jury that Trie's contributions went into hard money accounts.

It also hobbles Congresional investigations involving foreign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection effort and makes the red-baiting, conspiratorial rantings of House Government Reform & Oversight Committee chairman Dan Burton look even more loony.

Fox News Sunday

"Will curiosity kill the GOP?" -- an unexpected question from Tony Snow at the top of FNS, and an indication from the reliably conservative outfit that there are some in the GOP worried that Congressional Republicans have overplayed their hand.

Their first guest: House Majority Whip Tom DeLay on "impeachment, the budget, and military involvement in Kosovo" -- but mostly impeachment madness. Tom DeLay started out going on the attack, but not on Presidential conduct -- he chose to deal with the President on reaching agreement over the keeping the government open for business and passing pending legislation to wrap up the legislative year! "No issue is non-negotiable [but] we'd like the President to be engaged."

"Well, he's engaged," replied Tony.

"No, he's not!" DeLay claimed that the President was too busy fundraising. Yeah, Tom-Bob, just like every member of the House up for re-election has been doing for months. The difference is, the President has been putting forward legislation while the House has been running dry-well investigations and you've been fanning rumors of high crimes by Sid Blumenthal.

"Well, how many days has the Speaker been fundraising?" asked Tony. It was priceless -- Tony putting Tom and Newt on the spot. And naturally DeLay evaded the issue -- and looked like a fool. He returned the "focus" to his spin on negotiations with the White House on finishing off the legislative year -- "This President has been sending us signals that he wants to break the agreement" -- without spelling out any of the specifics, the typical DeLay tactic of assertion without supporting facts.

Of course, DeLay's intent is to fire up core GOP support for a big November turnout. It's just that statements like this serve in the long-term to fuel the anti-GOP backlash many feel is coming in a big way.

And there was at least one choice reaction shot of Tony Snow looking at DeLay with the sort of incredulous expression he usually reserves for Charles Rangel or Barney Frank -- as if he did not believe a single word of what DeLay was saying!

What's gotten into Tony?

Brit changed gears with his first question: Is Henry Hyde running the House Judiciary Committee without the overview of the GOP leadership? "He is already doing that," said DeLay -- sounding about as ingenuous as Linda Tripp saying "I'm just like you."

"We have a real problem here," said DeLay, "we have Democrats buying into the pattern of conduct by this President, lying and covering up." This was more pap aimed at energizing GOP core voters -- but laughable to every remaining viewer. How does DeLay explain the huge number of Democrats who have decried Clinton's conduct but questioned whether it rises to a crime of state?

Will the committee deal with more than the Lewinsky affair, asked Tony, adding that on the IRS, FBI, and Travelgate, Starr did not come up with anything.

"That's not true -- he sent a letter to the House saying other referrals are coming."

DeLay then threw a sizable buffalo pattie on the fan -- he said that the House Judiciary Committee will take referrals from other House committees.

DeLay tipped the other Gingrich hand -- the GOP will ratchet up the pressure on the Prez by trying to throw everything they can against him to see what will stick, no doubt dragging the situation out as long as they can.

He also gave the Democrats plenty of ammunition to bolster their argument that a GOP Congress would rather investigate than legislate.

Brit ignored DeLay's cow pie, saying "Starr MAY send you referrals -- you're splitting hairs."

DeLay responded so as to imply that he expects more referrals, even hinting that Congress may investigate "Teamster collusion" with Democrats.

Brit: "It could go on for two years." Yes, it looked as if Brit was prompting DeLay to say that there would be more accusations of Administration wrongdoing -- but it had the opposite effect of reinforcing DeLay's actions shepherding a party of investigation, not legislation.

Tony introduced his next guest, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), by mentioning that he was one of 31 Democrats who joined the GOP in voting for their version of a bill authorizing an inquiry of impeachment As is usual, Brit Hume joined in the questioning.

In response to Tony's question about whether "the President should come up and explain himself," Moran replied "....when he waved his finger and said there was no relationship... this has to be brought to closure" -- a careful choice of words implying that some Democrats see this as a means to resolve the Lewinsky controversy and move on.

Tony: "Henry Hyde said he would not want to see the President called. Will Democrats call him?"

Moran: "We do him a disservice not to give him an opportunity... the sooner, the better... We need to get back to substantive issues." Moran knows that this would afford yet another opportunity for Clinton to use his telegenic capabilities to nuke the spin doctors and naysayers.

Brit mentioned that Democrats want to call Starr; Moran replied that "both sides of the aisle have a lot of questions that he could clear up." When Mara mentioned that "Starr's motives have been called into question," Moran detailed Starr's dragging out the investigation until he "got" something on Clinton -- a key point which the Democrats will be pounding away at through and beyond election day.

Brit harped on the Starr report, saying that "the White House has confirmed the substance" of some of the Starr report. Talk about spin doctoring -- all we could think of were allusions that the report made to substantial exculpatory testimony not detailed in the report! Moran: "He has been punished... He's done a terrific legislative agenda and it's all been clouded by the scandal. I can't imagine a worse punishment."

Brit's snide comeback: "A suspended sentence for a first offender." Are we the only people left with the impression that Brit has been waiting to spring this obnoxious sound bite on a Democrat who opposes disproportionately severe punishment for the President?

The Fox News posse "quadruple-teamed" Ann Lewis -- Mara Liasson and Juan Williams joined Tony and Brit in what was some surprisingly softball questioning. Usually Tony et al are plenty tougher on White house staffers. Were they showing a little mercy -- or worried that Lewis, one of the quickest-thinking White House spokespersons, on the Sunday circuit, official or otherwise, might turn the tables on her (and our) favorite pundits from the vast right-wing conspiracy?

It looks like the latter -- when Juan commented that the President "is his own best witness," Lewis segued to the fact that the House Judiciary Committee has not spent any time working out the rules on who will testify, nor have they figured out how witnesses would be called. Juan asked if the President might go before the American people again; Lewis replied, "Her has, he has apologized, it's out of his hands" -- virtually encapsulating the President's very words, and sending a heads-up to the press not to expect much from the President unless and until he appears before Congress.

Mara was the first pundit of the week to fall victim to the Department of Redundancy Department syndrome by re-asking Juan's question: will he testify? Ann reiterated that "It is premature to decide without rules being decided upon."

And Tony, who usually shows more forethought than other pundits, chimed it with "They decided on Rodino rules."

BZZZZZZZZ!!! Lewis pointed out that decisions were made on partisan lines, Congress released massive amounts of documents and tapes publicly, there were no deliberations and no standards.

More like McCarthy rules, we say.

Tony went on to ask about "facts you will dispute." Um, Tony, they're not facts; they're uncontested evidence, assertions and allegations (a favorite ploy of Clinton-bashers: characterize the content of the referral report and evidence as "facts"). Lewis replied with the official White House reply of record: Starr brings a report to Congress saying Congress should impeach the President when there is nothing in the report that rises to an impeachable offense.

When talk turned to the budget "impasse" and what the FNS gang tried to characterize as a realistic possibility of a government shutdown (about as realistic, we think, as Starr saying "There is a vast right wing conspiracy"), Tony said in his finest Louis Reynaud fashion "I'm shocked, shocked!" that the matter was still not resolved, getting laughs from Lewis and the entire paned.

Toward the end of the appearance, Tony asked "Will [Clinton] cancel his fundraising appearances?" Lewis was evasive, but Tony was obviously on to something -- later on Sunday, Clinton curtailed some campaign appearances in Florida to deal with the budget standoff.

At the end of the segment, Juan said "Carville has been all over the airwaves..." failing to mention that he is plugging his book "And the Horse He Rode In On," a scathing expose of Ken Starr.

Lewis skewered Juan, replying that "Mary Matalin has far more control over James than the White House does -- if she can't keep him under control, do you think the White House can?"

We laughed at that one through the ADM commercials.

Tony then welcomed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to discuss the Kosovo situation. Tony's question about "who would be involved" produced one of the most interesting answers of the weekend: McCain replied that the alliance (NATO) would be, "but the US will do the bombing, Germany will not be involved." He also said that there is "significant jeopardy" for American pilots, the Serbs have a very good air defense system, and there is a possibility the US may lose some pilots. He also brought up the possibility that there may be a "garrison situation" as we have in Bosnia.

When asked if "there was no plan" on the part of the Administration, McCain said the Administration has not stated the objectives. Of course, McCain did not mention that such a plan mandates input from Europe and NATO countries -- and they can't seem to reach a consensus on what to do. He also characterized Kosovo as "a product of neglect on the part of this Administration" -- again neglecting that Europe has let this fester in their backyard and that in fact the US has decried the human rights abuses there.

Tony, typically, had to ask if this was a "Wag the Dog" situation -- tying yet another international crisis to Lewinsky. We saw that question coming from the top of the segment.

Suddenly, it was Panel Time! We couldn't believe Juan saying about the President, "I'm surprised to see how condemning of the Democrats the public is" -- while entirely neglecting the fact they're far more condemning of Starr and the GOP-controlled dumping of pornography into the public domain.

Brit's first comment: "If you see Republican gains [in the House and Senate] you will see an emboldened Congress" in going aggressively for an impeachment trial in the Senate. But will the Senate vote to impeach? We say they would fear the inevitable and rigorous backlash.

Juan then initiated the most important exchange of pap in a while by saying that "there is talk" that Henry Hyde may call people around the government, including military officials, to see if they have lost confidence in this President. Brit followed up by saying that "There is some cause for seeing if the military has lost confidence."

Cause for what, Brit? A coup d'etat? Destruction of our Constitutional system? Juan and Brit were treading on dangerous territory by putting out this red meat for the Clinton-haters, creating a false assumption that such a "groundswell of no confidence" exists in the first place. That's not the way our government works, Juan and Brit -- this isn't Peron's Argentina.

And people wonder why we're so tough on the punditocracy -- when they start to flog fascist scenarios, allowing the military to in effect dictate policy, there's good reason to worry.

This Weak With Sam & Cokie

Dick Armey was his usual seedy self. We won't bother with any of his insignificant commentary short of one choice moment, when Armey deigned to hold up a card showing "President Clinton's Record on Education" citing five bills the President vetoed in an attempt to make the President look weak on education. Kudos to Cokie, who correctly pointed out that those bills were vetoed because of ultra-conservative legislation the GOP attached to each bill -- a favorite GOP tactic for killing popular legislation.

Reps. Lee Hamilton and Vic Fazio, who voted differently on the GOP impeachment inquiry bill, were the next guests, and Sam Donaldson tried early on to drive a wedge between them, saying to Hamilton "You voted differently on the move to an inquiry for impeachment."

Hamilton replied "I voted against [because] the American people want to move on." Fazio followed up by saying "We could have had the same bipartisanship we had in Watergate" but the GOP wanted this sort of split vote on the Hyde bill because it would drive a wedge between Democrats [which it plainly hasn't] and put those in tough races in a disadvantageous position [we'll wait for the polls to judge this one].

Hamilton turned talk away from impeachment by making it clear that the top issues among Democrats are in education and health care; Fazio added that the GOP is "beginning to see a backlash over a failed Congress that did not deal with HMOs and tobacco issues."

On the matter of Kosovo, Hamilton stated "If we do not get from Milosevic what we want, force will be used... Air power is certainly contemplated and will be used in phases... Ground troops would be used for monitoring [including] NATO forces."

And Fazio skewered some myths about the GOP and Democrat versions of the impeachment inquiry bills: "The two bills were not terribly different," with both approving an inquiry but with differences in methodology and the democrat bill mandating time limits -- not to mention "there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict the President."

The roundtable took up nearly a full half hour of the show -- are our friends at ABC having trouble getting A-list guests, or do they actually believe that their "round table" of political hit men has that much pull in the real world?

Dream on!

In response to George Stepahanopoulos' statement that House Democrats want to put Linda Tripp and Lewinsky on the witness stand in an effort to investigate the Starr investigation, Sam said "They are going to make every effort to obstruct this committee." Sam, parroting his right-wing pals, continues to dismiss the real need to investigate prosecutorial abuses and a pattern of questionable, corrupt-looking moves on the part of Ken Starr to merge his investigation with the Paula Jones case.

Bill Kristol characterized Henry Hyde as "an attractive and responsible figure." We guess that Kristol has never looked into the questions surrounding Hyde's involvement with a failed S&L in Illinois on which he served as a board member -- we think that if Kristol would take the time to do so, Hyde would look about as attractive as, say, Bert Lance.

When the discussion turned to education -- which Democrats are playing up as a campaign issue -- George Will ridiculed Democrats arguing that "the quality of education is directly related to the amount of money you spend."

Tell you what, George -- try that argument on communities, school boards and teachers where they can't afford to fix physical plants, buy updated textbooks or fill vacancies for lack of money, and see what kind of a reaction you get. Good education, public or private, costs money, and generally the more that's spent, the better the quality. We're going to skip This Weak for a few weeks after the great time we had watching...

Face the Nation

Bob Schieffer is far and away the most fair of the political anchors. He asks tough, frequently devils-advocate questions, but comes across as far less agenda-driven than the other talking heads.

House Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) was Bob Schieffer's first guest. "Great to be back," he said "it gives me a break from the [budget] negotiations... It seems to me that the areaswhere we can reach agreement are obvious... but it's been slow."

Wow. Lott sounding conciliatory and compromising. The President is supposedly fighting for his political life, yet seems to have the upper hand in these negotiations, getting most of what he wants. So, naturally, Lott's response to "Why the slow negotiations?" -- "The White House seems distracted."

Don't believe it. Yes, the Lewinsky flap has been disruptive, but the GOP is scared that a lack of resolution to the budget negotiations -- and government shutdown it might well cause -- will work to the great advantage of Democrats, emboldening their base to get out and "throw the bums out.' Lott was spouting 99 44/100% pap. If any party is distracted right now, it's the GOP -- they're champing at the bit to get out of town to campaign, but can't! Lott added, "I assume they were distracted by the vote in the House to go forward with hearings... the extreme left in the House was irate in going forward with hearings."

"Extreme" left? We almost got a hernia, we were laughing so hard! The liberal wing of the Democrats has moved significantly to the center -- mostly out of the need for survival.

We know how those "extreme liberals" irk Lott with their nagging demands for such things as decent public education, health care, protection of the social security system, accurate census methodology, and even tax breaks for lower-income families. You'd almost think they were Communists.

Gloria Borger, Schieffer's co-questioner, mentioned to Lott the Democrat "consensus that Kenneth Starr should appear before the House Judiciary Committee. Lott: "I don't think they need a lot of witnesses to reach a conclusion... Ken Starr will have a chance to defend himself."

What he was really saying: "Why did we ever allow the possibility that Starr might be put under the microscope? There goes our impeachment coup right down the terr-let! God forbid the Democrats begin asking the tough questions -- my patrons might be neck-deep in the brown sauce!!"

Borger followed up by saying the Democrats want to call Lewinsky and Tripp. Lott: "What's behind this is Do they want an expeditious hearing?"

Certainly more so than Henry "Mister" Hyde, who is stonewalling public hearings until after the elections. 'Twould be a pity if any facts emerge that might provoke outrage over Starr's conduct and the GOP's cooperation!

When Schieffer said" You ripped in to the White House, saying you've had all the demagoguery you can take" on education issues, Lott replied "It was misrepresented by the White House... the White House wants money to 'dribble down,' we want money to go directly to the parents, educational savings accounts..."

Of course, any moron knows that money SHOULD 'dribble down' through state governments that have at least some handle on where the money should go -- and that " we want money to go directly to the parents" are weasel words for "we want to take tax money AWAY from public schools and pay private Christian Taliban schools."

White House Special Counsel Greg Craig was their second guest. Craig made it clear form the outset that the issue is bigger than Clinton: "The presidency is in grave danger... [we must] defend the institution of the Presidency from those who would endanger it." he also lashed out at Gingrich: "We were promised a fair and impartial process by the Speaker and we did not get it." Schieffer asked if Craig wants attorneys for the President involved; Craig replied that "The President has an institutional interest in the process and should have a place at the table."

Craig was more evasive on which witnesses should be called: "This has yet to be determined, we want to discuss this."

We'll send him a copy of our open letter to Abbe Lowell!

Gloria got down to brass tacks, asking about talk that Ken Starr would go before the committee. "What is the White House view?"

Craig cited articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, and even speeches before Congress questioning whether Kenneth Starr violated the Independent Counsel statute.

Her question as to whether the President would appear got a variation on the predictable answer: "As an attorney representing a client, I would not want him appearing without established and fair rules. Can we elevate the discourse to what it should be?"

We think Craig may have said more than he should when the topic turned to whether the President committed perjury; first, he correctly pointed out that "[t]he more important question is whether such an act WOULD rise to an impeachable offense," but also said that the question is whether the President's testimony is "as illegal as it maybe is."

Very bad choice of words.

Borger: "Are you admitting he did something illegal?"

Craig: "No, I'm not, the issue is whether this rises to an impeachable offense."

He should never have gotten off the subject of the presidency. Jeez.

The McLAUGH-IN Group
"NEW MORALISM" EXPOSED!

John McLaughlin, true to form, began with a ridiculous clip of Henry Hyde (admitted adulterer) giving some sickeningly sweet comments to a friendly crowd about how difficult it was to move for an Inquiry of Impeachment (Destroy the President).

McLaughlin made a big deal that 31 Democrats had to vote with the GOP -- in order to save their seats in their home districts. He claims that the vote was really 429-to-5 favoring the impeachment inquiry, but of course he's nuts. Even Pat Buchanan had to explain this to John: "November 3rd is the crucial vote," said Pat, correctly -- Election Day. Democrats had no choice but to put forward their own proposal for impeachment inquiry -- knowing that it was limited to the Starr Report, and knowing full well that after the "investigation" the President would not be impeached.

McLaughlin asked whether articles of impeachment will be delivered to the senate before January 1, 1998. Pat pointed out that this House and Senate may not bind the new House and Senate. Eleanor Clift was also unsure and thought there was no way Democrats would vote to impeach in the Senate.

Gingrich's Aussie buttboy, Tony Blankley, thought nothing. The creepiest of all pundits, Chris Matthews of CNBC's Hardball, made a big network this weekend with his appearance on McLaugh-In's show. Chris thought that maybe 15 House members will vote for impeachment in the end and 218 votes to impeach in the House will be tough. However, Matthews talked about "new" indictments coming from Starr that could tip the scale. McLaughlin says that Hyde's January 1st target is totally "optimistic."

McLaughlin opened the second segment with the idiot lawyer for the GOP -- David Schippers, a supposed "Democrat." Conspiracy was his best NEW felony. McLaughlin did not mention that Schippers dropped all of the abuse of office charges. Chris said Schippers is "very impressive." He added that all he has to do is tie in the President to Lewinsky's affidavit and then they "have the conspiracy." Tony said this is dangerous for the President because Lewinsky's actions are automatically imputed to the President under conspiracy laws. Pat reported that the GOP is moving away from Starr to Shippers, from Lewinsky to other women like Willey, and taking away the Democrat trump cards. Eleanor pointed out that the only criminals involved here were Jones, Tripp, and their lawyers.

McLaughlin then talked about the supposed White House "Secret Police" -- the latest b***s&*# charge. He points to Lindsey Graham's remarks that if this "police force" -- formed to "fool" with people's reputations -- really existed, he would vote to impeach, but not if it were just about Lewinsky. Of course, Graham already knows the GOP will "construct" a police force even if one did not, in reality, exist. He will attempt to make the obtaining of FBI files a foundation for same.

But who should worry about FBI files if they were so clean?

McLaughlin said all you have to do is look what the Clinton's did in Arkansas. Eleanor reminded him that all this hocus pocus flowed from Dick Morris -- Judas extraordinaire -- and right-wing press accounts which hold no water. McLaughlin then brought up the punishment for military personnel and the "double standard." Of course, no one points out that the President is NOT a member of the military subject to the military code of conduct and that he was ELECTED to his position.

McLaughlin is now capping the NEW MORALISM which marks the movement you now see in Conservative America.

Next was the 34 member FIREWALL which Senator Torricelli and four others were pushing in the Senate last week. Torricelli, Breaux, Dodd, Rockefeller and others were pushing to gather 34 Senators to sign a resolution that would send a clear message to the House that it would not vote impeachment no matter what occurs in the House. McLaughlin tried to paint this as some kind of PLOT to FIX THE JURY (the Senate) when, of course, this is merely a legal and open attack on the GOP which is not a PLOT but a strategy.

McLaughlin then turned to the rumored NEW CHARGES that Starr seems to be talking about in a letter recently sent to Henry Hyde (admitted adulterer). McLaughlin tried to make this the smoking gun, but fails. Clift pointed out this is just another tactic -- in the style of Lawrence Walsh -- to scare Democrats just before a cornerstone election.

At the end of the broadcast we remained stunned by "The Reverend" Mc-Laugh-In's open embrace of the New Moralism displayed by Republicans who seem to want the country run by the like of Pat Robertson.

Americans, who prefer to keep their moral and religious tenets at home, are not amused -- and the polls are screaming to Republicans that they are committing political suicide.

Meet the Press

Tim Russert, chief protagonist of the Get-Clinton Pundit Faction, opened the Witch Hunt Hour with "For only the third time in history, a president confronts impeachment."

Russert's guests were Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) -- a solid twosome for an upscale discussion.

Orrin Hatch, one of our favorite GOPers, said this is not a matter for the polls, but added we have to consider the "continuity of Constitutional law." Their duty means following the constitutional process. Hatch said there are not 67 votes for impeachment in the Senate now. He said that under the circumstances the House Judiciary Committee was doing a pretty good job.

That was a left-handed compliment.

Senator Torricelli felt that the Senate thinks that more time needs to go by -- but as of now there are not 67 votes, and won't be unless something unexpected occurs. Torricelli admitted there was discussion about circulating a letter to get 34 signatures against impeachment to foil the House from the start. Torricelli and friends had had to drop this effort because some senior Democrat members had opposed moving against impeachment so quickly. Hatch, who had promised to stand by the President if he poured his heart out, said that Clinton somehow failed to show a sense of shame by continuing to "Hit the Political Trail" and snipe at the GOP. Russert asked what the President should do to satisfy him. Hatch wanted Clinton to get rid of the Paula Jones suit, face the Kathleen Willey allegations one way or the other, and stop the "legal parsing." Hatch said he is glad to see the White House pulling back the attorneys. Hatch then launched into the differences between the White House in the education bill and the patients bill of rights. Torricelli brought up the months of waste over the Lewinsky affair.

Hatch got angry. He started in on how many days the President has been out of the Oval Office this year. Of course, Hatch knows well that every President hits the political road to help members of his party during election years. Every president is the titular head of his party. Republican presidents have done and will continue to do the same.

To Russert's question of whether the President should come before the House Judiciary Committee, Torricelli said yes, but that Mr. Starr must also come before the Committee. Torricelli implied that Starr, representing the Government, must have also disobeyed the rules of law embodied in the Constitution.

Hatch called Torricelli's remarks a game -- "no one could have done this perfectly." Hatch thought Starr could hold his own very well.

But we know this is not true -- Starr will be crucified by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Hatch called the President's parsing of "sexual relations" a real problem. Hatch worried about the office of the Presidency when asked about whether Clinton should appear -- a clear signal that the GOP is worried about what a Clinton appearance would do to shake confidence in the Republican Party.

Even if they did not say so explicitly, Torricelli and Hatch both think an agreement between Senate Democrats and Republicans can settle this matter if the President settles the Paula Jones case and the Starr report is heard more fully in the House. Hatch did not deny this. The "Breakfast Club" -- leadership willing to meet to solve this matter -- will meet, and we are convinced that the Senate has already decided this thing has gone too far.

Bob Bennett, the President's attorney in the Jones case, was the next target of Russert. Bennett wrote to the court that it should not rely on his statements made during the President's deposition -- in short, he told the Jones court that the President had lied. Hatch said this was important for Bennett to do. Hatch said that Torricelli is right that we have problems all over the world with the President's reputation (Torricelli did not exactly say this, but said nothing).

Russert asked whether this November election will be a referendum on Bill Clinton. Torricelli said it should not be, because women would vote in a Congress against child care, welfare, abortion and other matters important to women. But he is fearful that it will be. A month ago, said Torricelli, he was worried about the Democrats -- now he is not so sure. The Democratic party has the high ground on education, health care, tobacco and campaign finance reform. We had lost the high ground, said Torricelli. Hatch blamed the President for not getting those problems solved.

Both are correct. But was it the President's fault that after five years of continual harassment and $50 million in taxpayer money spent the Independent Counsel finally found something, anything that could be viewed by the GOP as impeachable?

Hatch said he would support the President if he orders bombing of Kosovo, but not ground troops "with a weak president." Torricelli jumped on that and Hatch, rightfully, backed off and said this should not be made part of the Clinton scandal issue. We are again impressed with Orrin Hatch, and urge our readers to write him and tell him you support his efforts at fairness and closure to this sad affair.

Russert then moved to GOP attack dog Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AK) and asked when the hearings will start and who will be called. He mentioned Starr, but said we have to look to the President's conduct. He shied away from calling Monica Lewinsky. Rep. Tom Barrett (D-WI) said the Judiciary Committee must hear from Ken Starr and examine his relationship to Paula Jones -- what Ken Starr did was relevant, and while the hearings should not be on Ken Starr, his role is relevant. Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA) said he wants to hear from Monica Lewinsky and to test the credibility of all the witnesses mentioned in the Starr Report. He pointed out, however, that there are hundreds of witnesses, but this would take most of 1999 -- that's why the Democrat alternative was important. He did not say the hearings will go on for that long, but is worried they might. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said this scandal is about BOTH sex and the law: "Is there any good reason to lie before a federal grand jury?" Graham equated lying before a grand jury with a high crime or misdemeanor -- but he would still step back to consider whether impeaching Clinton was good for the country in the total context. Graham has become the Orrin Hatch of the House -- he looks to be a rising GOP star.

Russert asked whether censure is in the mix. Hutchinson said we must follow the constitution -- of course, he neglects to mention that nothing in the constitution mandates much of anything with regard to impeachment hearings. He slid around the question. He said part of the goal is to get this thing over. He would not admit that he would vote to impeach now, and added that he would like to hear from the President who must answer questions surrounding his grand jury testimony more specifically. But he is clearly uncomfortable with calling the President before the Judiciary Committee -- no doubt for fear Clinton would turn the nation against the GOP.

Barrett talked about the issue of proportionality -- the "crime" in the totality of the atmosphere created by Ken Starr. Russert turned to Delahunt and asked him about his call for an investigation of Ken Starr. Delahunt said he was concerned that Starr's conduct was not adequate to restore America's confidence in the government. Russert then turned to Graham and asked the same question since he had called for the President's resignation or impeachment last year over campaign finance issues. Graham said he felt he can be fair, and mentions censure in his longish answer -- interesting to us.

Russert said the four of his guests have gotten together informally, and asked Hutchinson how he thinks this thing will turn out. He evaded the question. Barrett said that several Democrats might vote for impeachment -- but he had not seen evidence of that happening yet. He thought that up until now this has not been a fair procedure. Graham wanted to get a result that will stand the test of history, and said he represents a district where constituents want the President thrown out by a 2-to-1 margin, but if he felt otherwise he will not hesitate to vote the other way. We hope he is telling the truth.

Russert, in a last-ditch effort to mess with the President, invites geriatric mouthpiece of the GOP Bill Safire and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin to discuss "impeachment" and other topics for which both are unqualified.

This Sunday Safire even used the scandal in his tiresome New York Times Magazine column on use of the English language.

Safire attacked President Ford's censure suggestion as "bad idea, good man.... The Congress cannot punish a president, they can only remove a president."

Of course, this is totally false.

Safire turns to the "founding fathers" and their brilliance over separation of powers. He called censure -- somehow -- a takeover of presidential powers.

Safire definitely needs a few years on "the couch."

Goodwin said the problem with censure is that Congress must censure for disgracing the institution of the presidency but not for the violations. He can face them later -- after his term is over and through potential indictment.

Of course, the next president would pardon him -- so she is wrong there.

Safire said this is no time to amend the constitution without amending it.

Heavy.

Safire wants to see Clinton "rolled" and has been writing in favor of dumping him for years. It is his only hope for "resurrection" from the shame he now faces among colleague columnists -- and it won't work.

Safire claimed this is a "majestic" process -- "you can't have a deadline." Here we are at the start of the process, "we don't know what additional criminal or Asian connection charges may come up." Hilarious -- Safire is still grabbing at straws even as Chinagate rumors are melting down with court decisions going against the prosecutions of Charlie trie and Maria Hsia. Safire thought Starr would send up more, and maybe the charges would not touch the President himself, but perhaps the First Lady. Oh brother.

Russert brought up the fact that Hillary Clinton helped draft the methods of impeaching Nixon -- about the 56,000th time we've heard this from the pundits.

Safire called the next election a referendum. Ha! Won't he be surprised at what happens to his party.

Bill Safire did not disappoint us -- he is still a snide, self-important jerk, a has-been coasting on his conservative bona fides, still longing for the glory days of his hero Richard M. Nixon.

Cue Dr. Kevorkian... please!

OVERLOOKED

The Dow Jones and other US stock markets remained volatile this week, closing with mixed results, and the US Dollar lost some 15% of its value against a number of currencies this week -- two important economic stories that were virtually ignored in favor of impeachment micromanagement. A couple of the Sunday shows made note of a gay-bashing incident in Wyoming that left a college student in a coma -- we would learn later in the day that Wyoming lacks of hate-crime statutes in the state.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Our winner this week -- Bob Schieffer. Bob ended Face the Nation with a surprise -- he made mention of a story in USA Today that got lost on the radar on the "impeachment" radar: the Supreme Court having a terrible record on hiring minorities. He ran footage of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia being confronted by a CBS video crew, refusing to answer their questions about minority hiring practices. Why wouldn't he answer their questions? "Because you're annoying me," Scalia snapped, apoplectic and out of control. "Do you know how many have applied to me?" he asked with a snarl in his voice? The reporter replied that those numbers are not made public -- and we would add that the court refuses to make these statistics public. "Then you have no basis for making any charge against me!" he whined.

Schieffer's comment on the confrontation: "Sorry for the inconvenience, Mr. Justice, but it explains a lot. It really does."

As Dave "Doctor" Gonzo would say, 'nuff said.

-- The Editors