Fox News Sunday

The voice of Tony Snow opened with these two questions: "Did Bill Clinton commit perjury? Will the House Judiciary Committee take up articles of impeachment this week?"

Well, Tony, in answer to your first question, it's now clear that Bill could not have committed perjury because bonehead IC Ken Starr had the wrong officer of the court swear him in for his Grand Jury testimony!

That's right, political junkies -- as Tony, the Murdoch-Ailes lynch mob, and their pals at the other networks continue to try playing the "guilty of perjury until proven innocent" card in their continued assault on Clinton, there is a major monkeywrench in the works they don't want you to know about.

So, just to set the record straight, let's review: first, it is a fact that anyone can use the tactic of deceptive answers to poorly worded questions in a deposition concerning a civil suit they feel has been brought fraudulently and/or politically -- that ain't perjury, and, in fact, is a legitimate defense technique which has been upheld by the judicial branch. Second, it is also a fact that a person must lie on a point material to the suit -- and Lewinsky was ruled not material to the Jones suit, which got laughed out of court on summary judgment anyway.

Third (and here's the monkey wrench), the person accused of perjury must be sworn by a duly appointed officer -- something that did NOT happen in Clinton's Grand Jury deposition when the wrong individual administered the oath (it was mandated to have been an officer of the Grand Jury; it was not).

Let's say that Starr or, should he be in jail or stripped of his law license because of his own misconduct, his successor charges Clinton with perjury in January 2001. We predict that if events get that far, the charges will be laughed out of court within a matter of weeks if not days.

The opening donnybrook on FNS featured a quartet of contentious House Judiciary Committee members "debating" the impeachment issue: Zoe Lofgren(D-CA), Charles Canady (R-FL), Marty Meehan (D-MA) and Asa Hutchinson (R-AR). But before the pols were allowed to commence with their pap, Tony ran a number of results from Fox's always-weirdly-skewed "Opinion Dynamics" polls.

On the question of whether the President should "testify in his own defense," Lofgren replied, "He has a standing invitation [but] I would advise him not to come due to the circus act" -- her description of the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. Charles Canady, the Republican equivalent of one of those midget clowns whoclimbs out of the miniature car in the center ring, blamed the Democrats for the circus act.

Meehan was asked point-blank by Tony, "Did he lie under oath?" "It is very difficult to prove..." replied Meehan -- and indeed, given the circumstances and the lack of definitive corroboration, lying (let alone perjury) is difficult to prove. " I think he misled people under oath," Meehan said, adding that he does not feel that hiding a sexual relationship is an impeachable offense.

Tony Snow read an excerpt from "Federalist 65," a document written by our slaveholding, duel-mongering, anti-suffragist founding fathers, then continued with his barrage of "Did Clinton lie" line of questions.

Hutchinson made mention of the fact that during the course of Judiciary hearings he had asked Dershowitz if lying to the Grand Jury could cost him his presidency, and Dershowitz said it could -- a calculated mischaracterization of Dershowitz's complete remarks.

Lofgren interjected that "I have listened to the American people and they always get it right... the right wing wants to take out this President [which] would gridlock our government for years to come [and possibly] tank our economy" -- the best summary of what a specious impeachment attempt might well do, and not even in the worst-case scenario.

Canady, sounding like the closed-minded schoolmarmish scold he is at heart, kept claiming Clinton demonstrated "a repeated pattern of lying under oath", conduct he claims "subvert[s] respect for the rule of law... what message does it send?"

We would tell Canady that his own words send a message that the Judiciary GOPers have no respect for the rule of law in that they have refused to establish what constitutes an impeachable offense, and their own conduct is an subversion of the law and the Constitution itself, with the aid and abettment of the "get Clinton" faction of the extreme right wing, with their illegal tapings, their collusion to tie the phony Paula Jones case to the Starr investigations, and their efforts to dig up or buy dirt on Clinton, with the financial largesse and encouragement of billionaire arch-wacko Richard Scaife behind them.

Canady should look in the mirror and ask himself who is really subverting respect for the rule of law.

Meehan then set the record straight: "We have not heard from a single material witness in this case." Tony: "So do you call the President?" Meehan -- despite Canady's trying to cut in -- reinforced his comment on the failure of the GOP to call a witness in the President's so-called wrongdoing, adding that Monica Lewinsky herself has not been afforded an opportunity to give the full story under cross-examination.

Canady said that Democrats have had an opportunity to depose Lewinsky -- a ridiculous assertion, in that the GOP has done everything in their power to stop the Judiciary Democrats from doing anything that might help their case. Hutchinson kept flogging "perjury."

Lofgren, who has rather obviously had it with the Judiciary GOP-DeLay coup attempt, provided her own vision of what an impeachment might bring in terms of internecine party warfare: "This is going to make shutting down the government look moderate."

Tony asked a ridiculous question: if the President is not impeached, should he issue an executive order essentially letting perjurers off the hook? Tony should know better than to ask a question that belies his assumption -- that the President has been tried in absentia by Fox news and found guilty of perjury.

Canady blathered something about "another attempt to distract from the underlying facts in the case," which is another lie -- the underlying facts have never been established. Does the word "hearsay" mean anything to you, Charlie?

Canady looked like a cretin responding to Meehan's comment that Newt lied 13 times under oath to the Ethics Committee, petulantly shouting "That is not true!"

But it is... and Canady knows it. Gingrich admitted as much himself -- forever tainting his political record.

Tony then asked the "money" question: is censure an option? If so, should the President be fined and how much? In a nutshell -- Lofgren: Yes, but a bill of attainder creates problems. Meehan: Rep. Solomon is wrong when he says that we cannot have a censure vote. Canady: Censure is a bad idea, and I agree with Lofgren on the bill of attainder Hutchinson: Father Drinan was right when he said censure was not a good idea.

Father Drinan? That was Watergate -- and we don't even know the full facts in Monicagate!

Rep. Tom DeLay was the second guest, with the entire panel of regulars (Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams) joining in the feeding frenzy.

What is the best estimate, asked Brit, of Republicans against impeachment? DeLay said he knows of 5. Dems for impeachment? About 5 or 6, said DeLay. "Speaker Gingrich" may call a special session, but will defer to Livingston, and they "may bring impeachment directly to the floor without debate."

Amidst the post-Newt power vacuum, DeLay has become the chief stringpuller in Congress, pressuring the Judiciary Committee to finish its work and vote out articles of impeachment -- and pressuring House Republicans to vote for a Senate trial. He thinks he is going to "get" Clinton. He would be wise to listen to Republican Governors who want Congress to lay off, end it quickly and quietly.

But it is obvious -- DeLay is not a wise man. And he may end up being blamed even more than lame duck Gingrich for what will befall the GOP if they continue the impeachment course. Many Republicans in the House now regret not having opposed his re-election as Minority Whip more vigorously.

What about censure? "The rules of the House do not anticipate censure as part of the Constitution..." Nor does the Constitution preclude censure. "It's a deplorable idea.. a bunch of liberal democrats participating in a pattern of conduct... a terrible undermining the separation of powers." Great. DeLay characterizes Democrats using their right to express an opinion as a "pattern of conduct." What next, Tom? Abuse of power? DeLay attempted and failed to make the case that the House cannot censure the President (it is NOT an undermining of separation of powers if the President agrees to censureship), so now the Whip has to "whip up" a pattern of conduct, only succeeding in feeding more red meat to Clinton haters.

Mara said "So any moderate who wants to punish the President should vote for impeachment?"

DeLay said impeachment is "not punishment" -- a lie, because in fact it is punishment, personal, embarrassing and humiliating.

And DeLay lit into the President's reply to Henry Hyde's inflammatory "81 questions" letter, saying it "continues the spin operation... they don't want to get at the truth..." Then DeLay recycled one of his old spin lines, claiming that the White House was engaged in "the spin, the whole spin and nothing but the spin..." What a hypocrite.

Williams told DeLay his posture is pushing the committee toward impeachment -- and DeLay replied by complimenting Hyde on his leadership, and claiming that "for six years, [the White House has engaged in] a pattern of covering up and demonizing their enemies."

Well, why? Vince Foster's death? Spun as an "assassination" by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife -- a lie. Travelgate? Flogged as a "crime" by right-wing hate radio, who made fired travel office official Billy Dale -- a shady character whose conduct raises a huge number of ethical and legal questions -- their poster boy. Filegate? Omigod, the Clintons were rifling FBI files on upstanding Republicans!! WRONG! Whitewater? A story botched by the New York Times from the get-go. DeLay's "pattern of covering up?" Buffalo chips -- try fighting a bunch of trumped-up fake scandals who were demonizing the Clintons.

Tony asked DeLay if he went to Republicans to urge them to vote for impeachment? DeLay said "No, that is untrue... it is a vote of conscience... information to make an intelligent decision."

This is an out-and-out lie. DeLay has been twisting arms all week. The good news is that many moderate Republicans resent DeLay for doing this.

And DeLay continued to flog the possibility of impeachment, saying in response to a question from Tony "I don't know how many [GOPers will vote against impeaching]... it's not the 20 to 40 they say... if we voted today, the President would be impeached.... they're looking at the rule of law, the Constitution, not the rule of polls."

DeLay added "The White House ought to start talking about the evidence... that the President didn't lie under oath... use Vernon Jordan and others... not all this peripheral stuff."

DeLay must not have read what corroborable evidence there is -- he again dragged Vernon Jordan's name through the mud despite the preponderance of evidence that Jordan did nothing wrong.

Juan called DeLay a hardball player, then asked if he had fear of a backlash. DeLay: "I don't see myself as a hardball player..." then he changed gears: "This President has decimated our foreign policy [where the hell did THAT assertion -- which he failed to support with any examples -- come from?] ... I feel strongly about the Constitution, people who try to violate the Constitution." Right -- just as long as they're Democrats that he hates.

The funniest answer came in response to the question "What is more catastrophic -- impeachment or doing nothing?" DeLay's hilarious answer: "Our last congress was one of the most productive."

Yep -- it produced a referendum that lambasted the Congress for doing nothing but chasing Monica mania, and lost the GOP seats in the House.

As the segment closed, Tony ran clips of the Judiciary impeachment hearings with the Abbott & Costello "Who's on first" routine emanating from the distinguished gentlemen's mouths. Even we laughed.

First panel time -- Tony asking "Censure's dead. isn't it?" Brit claimed "It's extraconstitutional, no teeth in it."

EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL? There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents censure. The Constitution lays out the basic government structure and specific actions and tasks branches can and -- more often -- cannot do. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Congress cannot censure the President.

Brit looked and sounded the fool -- and sounded even dumber when he brought up the scenario of a possible agreement between Starr, DOJ and the President -- which Juan shot down. Williams said the President would be "dismayed" if he were censured and "dragged into the well of the Congress."

Things got contentious and insubstantial as Juan and Brit ended up debating history -- Andrew Jackson, Tyler, the whole litany. Dull.

Mara made a good point when she said that it sounds like the Republicans think there will be no political fallout if they go forward with impeachment -- and also mentioned (as a slam at the Democrats) that the Dems prefer to bring in panels of experts instead of "substantial witnesses" -- but forgot to mention that the issue is whether the President's peccadilloes are impeachable in the first place.

Brit mentioned the 81 questions: "When they asked him if he were the Chief Law Enforcement Officer he could have said yes."

Well, he would have been incorrect if he said yes, Brit. Another thing the Constitution does NOT specifically say -- and those slaveholder-written Federalist papers you seem to love so much refer to the Attorney General as the nation's top enforcer of the law.

Brit also claimed that moderate GOP voters might forgive "don't impeach" GOP Congress, but the hard righters would not. He neglects the flip side of the coin -- Americans will not cotton to impeachment, and the GOP will pay.

Following the commercial break, Tony went "Multicultural," kicking off a discussion of the controversy surrounding New York City elementary school teacher Ruth Sherman's using the award-winning book Nappy Hair, a book for children by a black author encouraging self-esteem, in the classroom -- and the protests by black parents against the use of this book. Juan said the issue of hair -- including dreadlocks and cornrows -- was in fact a big issue in the black community (with its roots in America's racial divide), and when you talk about "nappy hair" in the black community it is taken as a slight -- despite the fact that the book is uplifting and has a positive message about self-esteem!

Brit called the protests by black parents "outrageous behavior", but Juan corrected him by stating (correctly, we may add) that the school system in New York City is in fact white-controlled and the black parents, protesting from the narrow point of view that teaching of the book was a racist slight, were only attempting to assert their power, misinformed though they were. Mara added that the situation was far more complicated than a mere "political correctness" flap.

Interesting note: the fact that some of the protesting parents were not in fact parents of students who had read the book -- and that some of them use racial epithets and physically threatened Sherman -- went completely unmentioned, as Tony and the gang took the high (though right-of-center) road in dealing with the issue and not the handful of troublemakers who discredited their protestations with personal threats.

Tony ended the program by using the Ruth Sherman incident to bash multiculturalism, bringing up such bogeymen (and women) as "reparations" and "Tawana Brawley." He also decried the "mob" that "drove Ruth Sherman out."

A shame he can't seem to see that the hard-right "mob" out to impeach Clinton will do in his own wing of the conservative movement.

This Weak

"Washington has woken up to the fact that President Clinton could be impeached," said Cokie at the beginning of an unusually dull This Weak. Correspondent Linda Douglass pointed out that four moderate GOPers are "leaning toward impeachment" -- a "fact" disputed by other news outlets later on Sunday. None of them mentioned that the entire push is being orchestrated by the ethically tainted Tom DeLay, whom Douglass called "a ferocious opponent of the President."

Cokie asked "what is making it safe" for GOPers to vote for impeachment -- Douglass mischaracterized polls and public opinion by saying that the constituents of GOP congressmen support impeachment and "the majority of Americans believe the President lied under oath." The majority of Americans would probably do the very same thing in the same circumstances.

Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL) was guest one -- "Compelling evidence shows the President committed perjury, [which is] as serious as witness bribery." Ridiculous. Compelling evidence? Try uncorobborated slop. As serious as witness bribery? In a nuisance civil suit that got tossed out? We think McCollum has been spending too much time with Bob Barr on Planet Remulak.

Despite Shays' presence, it was Clinton-bashing all the way. we won't bore you with too many of the details. McCollum hammered away at the spin point of "Perjury is the same as bribery -- it is the same cloth", and basically sentenced the man he called the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country and Commander-in-Chief" without a trial.

Shays replied, "We should not be in the scarlet letter business... A number of members of Congress could vote their conscience either way."

And isn't it odd that if Congress were handing out scarlet letters, the first few would go to Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, O.J. Watts, among other House GOP leaders?

McCollum started flogging "a series of facts that show obstruction of justice and nobody has come forward to dispute this" -- as if the President has been afforded any real opportunity to respond.

And McCollum too was asked about the possibility of fallout. His reply: "I don't believe there will be fallout. I believe he did commit high crimes and misdemeanors -- what are the consequences of not voting for impeachment?"

Avoiding the wrath of the electorate and the destruction of the GOP, for starters.

The most interesting guest of the lot was New York Governor George Pataki, who was dropping major hints to GOP right-wingers in Congress to put the brakes on impeachment: "It's obviously serious, but on Friday, seven GOP governors sat down with Livingston and the subject of impeachment didn't even come up... I would hope for...Congress to act on this quickly and move on." Sam kept pressing Pataki about impeachment, but Pataki wanted to talk about the federal budget and moving forward to "deal with our agendas, our positive agendas."

Will: "Like it or not, it is.. have you read the Starr Report?... How would you vote?"

Pataki: "The vote establishes an important precedent -- is perjury a high crime? It's hard... because it deals with the President personal life; if it was concerning China missiles or campaign cash it would."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the DeLay-Barr-Gingrich strategy, if you ask us.

Here's what Pataki was really saying: "These Deep South GOP hicks are idiots for trying to turn anyone's personal life into a national crisis. We, not they, are driving the agenda now, and they would be wise to back off and let us take the wheel, otherwise the GOP will get hammered two years down the line."

Will the asked about devolving power to the states: should the Federal government be in the education business?" "We don't want the President to be a national school superintendent" -- we want federal support that recognizes state-to-state different needs.

In other words -- we still want the money, but don't tell us how to use it.

The big news about the Pataki appearance -- he has emerged from behind D'Amato's shadow and has shown himself to be a far more pragmatic and less conservative Republican that his so-called "mentor." But the buzz from the Albany state house for the last couple years has been that Pataki is far smarter and savvier than most people in the New York and national political establishment have given him credit for.

And Pataki was not pleased to be wasting his time talking about impeachment, given the subtle but distinct nature of his replies.

Sam asked the big "P" question twice -- Pataki for President? Pataki replied that "you need a positive message" and the GOP governors have a positive message -- and he wants "to have an important role in forging a positive message."

A pretty definite "maybe" if you ask us.

The roundtable segment was a waste. We'll ignore it, short of two moments.

The first was Bill Kristol predicting that "in 10 days, the House will vote for impeachment... 6 or 7 Democrats will vote for impeachment."

If this is anything like his midterm election predictions, it's good news for Democrats again.

The second was a topic only ABC (and the too-little-watched CNN Reliable Sources) covered this weekend in any depth -- the innocent verdict in Mike Espy's trial and accusations of overzealous prosecution by Donald Smaltz; Cokie asked "Is this the Democrats reaping what they sowed?" A ridiculous question -- which George Stephanopoulos, now sporting a more grown-up do, showed when he pointed out that "even the jurors spoke out against [Smaltz]." Kristol jumped in and made a safe prediction, though adding his spin: "Clinton and Reno wanted the Independent Counsel statute renewed in '94, now it will be overturned."

Reliable Sources

Two interesting topics this week:

Howard Kurtz asked "Did the press rush to judgment in the Mike Espy case?" The interesting comparison -- to Reagan Labor secretary Ray Donovan, who had asked after he was found innocent where he would go to get his good name back. Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune said that he and perhaps one person from CNN were the only major news organizations covering the story. Slate's Jodie Allen decried the failure of the press to cover all the facts. Deborah Orin, a shrill conservative who writes for the New York Post, said that the press was not consistently beating the story, and then recycled the accusation that Espy took illegal gratuities -- a misrepresentation of the facts typical of Orin's slanted and selective reporting in the Post.

Kurtz did point out that some magazines did write articles critical of Smaltz. We wonder if he's counting this journal's articles!

Topic two was the sudden coverage of Chelsea Clinton; Orin decided to have it both ways by saying that the press should be careful when dealing with children of celebrities, but that "this was a legitimate story... Chelsea Clinton went to the mental health clinic... his father's behavior was affecting his personal life... " -- again misrepresenting facts which she knows third-hand at best. "If she were getting engaged, it would be a legitimate story" -- as if this justifies reporting that Ms. Clinton broke up with her boyfriend.

Bernard Kalb said, "It is an act of journalistic sanity not to get involved in an invasion of privacy."

And we don't think he was talking about just Chelsea.

During the final segment of the program, Kurtz made mention of the departure of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC. Olbermann's The Big Show was about the only island of sanity in MSNBC's lineup since the Lewinsky flap broke, and Olbermann's merciless asides about -- and clear distaste for -- the entire story ("We'll be beating that dead horse again this evening... round up the usual suspects, it is, God help us, day 301 of the Clinton-Lewinsky investigations") made the show a nightly "must-watch" for political junkies.

We'll miss the guy. He's going to Fox Sports.

If the Fox network were smart, they'd lose the terse Brit Hume and put Olbermann on FNS. yes, Olbermann would be dragged in kicking and screaming, but he'd make the only consistently entertaining Sunday "public affairs" show even better.

Somehow, we doubt it will happen.

The McLaughlin Group

John McLaughlin might be the most boring excitable pundit host in history. To hear him yell, you might think that what he said is profound. We remember him most for sitting in front of the round bar at the same hotel where Lincoln spent his last night on earth.

McLaughlin began his show with the usual "Issue One!!!! Mother of All Votes!!" -- the vote of a lifetime. On what? Why, the impeachment of the President of the United States, of course. McLaughlin predicts the vote on the issue 21-16 in the Judiciary Committee for at least one article of impeachment -- lying under oath.

McLaughlin wanted to know what combination of votes will yield passage. Pat Buchanan said that for every Democratic defector, Clinton needs a Republican. He said there are 4 Democrats who will vote with Hyde. Of course, he doesn't know anything, and neither does his mentor -- Tom DeLay, the most loathed man in Congress (save Newt Gingrich who is now on permanent vacation).

Tony Blankley -- GOP operative -- said it will pass by 224 votes! Hilarious. What a moron.

Eleanor Clift was surrounded and ineffectual. McLaughlin needed a sharp-tongued Democrat to balance his show. He had a snotty CEO type -- Lawrence Kudlow -- who sat around, legs splayed, pontificating and sounding like an absurdity.

McLaughlin himself tried to balance the show. He showed the Ken Starr interview with Diane Sawyer, a performance which made him look so ludicrous that we know people who had to turn it off. Starr looked like he was on mega-Prozac and appeared more feminine than Mr. Rogers himself!

"Can you say, 'I will have to refresh my recollection,' kids? Sure you can!"

The issue being discussed was "Why are Republicans committing 'hara-kiri'?" Buchanan claimed "the manifest contempt" by the President in his 81 answers -- to 81 accusatory questions. McLaughlin pointed to Lindsey Graham as a bellwether of moderate Republican views and his switch to Impeach Yes.

However, we happen to know that Tom DeLay's people strong-armed Graham's staff so viciously that Graham had to move to the right or lose whatever status he had in the House.

McLaughlin then brought up the two shills -- Parsons and Battalino, both convicted perjurers recruited by Hyde to gain emotional support for the pitiful claim that there is no difference between perjuries. Of course, the entire sideshow was a sham which manipulated both women, one an unceremoniously outed lesbian basketball coach and the other a sham doctor who was fellating a patient in the VA hospital. What this has to do with Bill Clinton refusing to be candid about his relationship with Lewinsky we don't know. The funny thing was that the media played along with Hyde, pretending that these "poor" women were somehow victims of their own self-loathing. Now they're victims of Hyde.

McLaughlin then turned to the topic of censure. Buchanan calls DeLay "The Hammer" and said Tom won't allow a censure vote before an impeachment vote. "Impeachment is Censure," croaked Buchanan.

Clift rightly pointed out, "Great... and let the Republicans go down... in history as defeated by attempting to impeach one of the most popular president in 50 years." All the panel members think it is likely that the House will vote impeachment, save Clift who still thinks it's slightly less than 50% that this will happen.

Until DeLay lost his mind this week, we thought that Hyde has invented a very neat exit strategy. To be honest, we were disappointed: nothing could be better for Democrats than an impeachment vote by the hard-right-controlled House, which will surely guarantee the end of Republican rule in both houses in 2000. We lament the folly of an impeachment trial which will paralyze the nation and hurt the Clintons even more than they have been already -- but the fact remains that the future of the Democratic Party is at stake, and nothing better could happen for it than the circus of a protracted impeachment, especially if the DNC and the White House do their jobs. That job will be to make every non-right Republican despises their own party, divide the GOP and conquer the White House, the House and the Senate.

We can assure you that this is exactly what will happen, no matter what the result of the impeachment trial is -- because there are two scenarios here: first, that the Senate will fail to convict; and second, that the President may resign in order to stop the madness and give Al Gore a jump up in the Presidential race.

If the House sends the impeachment to the Senate, we think that Mr. Clinton will resign -- and leave the country in a fury about the manner in which he was steamrolled out of office, so much so that contributions to Democrats will soar and Democrats will turn out in droves to vote in 2000.

McLaughlin then turned to Clinton and the Middle East. On a diplomatic credit scale: Buchanan -- a lot, Clift -- a 10 , Blankley -- 5, McLaughlin -- 10, and Kudlow -- 5.

He then brought up the Mobil-Exxon merger. Kudlow said it was an enormous plus for consumers.

Sure! Especially those consumers who will lose their jobs because of it.

We had to laugh at the GE commercial which claimed they have a new ultra-sound technology that allows one to see a baby -- IN 3D! -- while still unborn. Shown to the tune "Take Good Care of My Baby," the camera moves to the image which is impossible as ever to make out. We think the GE commercial would be much more impactive if the image was that of Sigourney Weaver lying in the office and watching in horror as the ALIEN shows up on the monitor!

Will Newt be in the Speaker's Chair at the time of the Impeachment Vote? Everyone said yet but Eleanor Clift.

We say yes -- please! What a wonderful photo-op illustrating yet another, and the last, stupid thing he did!

Meet the Press

Trent Lott opened the show, congratulating Russert for his 7th year of moralizing as host of Meet the Press. Lott thinks there will be an impeachment trial in the Senate. Russert asked "Do we have to?"

What an out-of-left-field question from Russert, who has been pushing for impeachment as hard as he can for nearly a year!

Lott claimed that the President's answers to the 81 questions were "arrogant and evasive" and "an insult" to the Republican party.

We busted a gut laughing! How could anyone insult a group so crippled by its own leadership?

Lott avoided tough questions by saying he will be "sitting as a juror" so he could not answer them. Russert asked whether Lott would consider short-circuiting an impeachment trial in favor of censure. Lott refused to answer -- except for saying that he thinks they will go forward with a trial. He claimed he combed history for an option, but couldn't find one.

What a stupid remark -- he doesn't have to. The Congress can do what it pleases. The Constitution basically said only what it cannot do.

Lott said he will move briskly. Russert asked how long such a trial will take. How does he think Lott could answer this? We can tell you: it will take more than a year!

Russert asked whether the Senate could take up any other business while an impeachment was going on. Lott said they could, but doesn't sound convinced. We wondered what terrorists will be doing while this country is frozen during this lynching.

Russert sounded worried.

He ought to be. He is a prime reason that this circus is continuing. And for what? For more money.

Lott, for the first time, will have the nation focused on his conduct. And it will be a sorry day for him.

Russert then moved to a discussion of social security. Lott said the President has to step up to the plate and bring his plan.

To which we ask: well, if Lott thinks the President will be on trial, how does he expect the President to be working with him on saving Social Security?

Lott went on to say that he thought the President wants to keep the Social Security issue unresolved to save it for Al Gore -- another tip that Lott is not serious about impeachment. Yet Russert is too stupid to pick up on this and instead asked the obvious question: "How could the President play the roles you are asking if he won't be around his 'trial'?"

Lott told Russert the GOP will lower taxes. Not again.

He added "Let's save Social Security now!"

Sure, before the trial starts.

Russert asked if it's time to call a truce and get civility back in Washington. Lott puts the blame on the "media" for "helping us."

We had to laugh at the unintended truth in that.

Russert went on to ask whether the Independent Counsel law should be shelved when it comes up for reauthorization next year. Lott was wishy-washy, but he thinks it needs to significantly altered.

At the break, the mandatory GE and ADM commercials were shown, evidencing that the two heads-up companies still control what Washington thinks about everything by control the television shows congress and the staff watch, tape and follow like hawks.

We also noticed that Xerox has also joined the gang on Meet the Press.

Russert then welcomed John Conyers. Conyers said it was quite likely that the Committee will vote articles of impeachment. Russert asked Conyers about the President's answers to the 81 snide questions that Hyde sent him. Conyers pointed out that had the President answered the questions as Hyde and the coven would have liked, he would have been indicted for several felonies.

Russert played Starr's testimony where in which Starr, trying to suppress an erection we think, recites all the "lies" that the President alleged told -- although Starr did not say "alleged," even though everything he was reciting was based on hearsay evidence from a known liar -- one Monica Lewinsky.

Conyers, of course, was too dumb to point this out. He blamed Starr for "crossing the line" from counsel to prosecutor. Russert asked the "toe the line" question: why has no one defended the President?

We'd like to know that as well. Most of the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee have done nothing to help him. It's a disgrace. Save Barney Frank, Sheila Jackson Lee and John Conyers, we think Democrat voters should oust members of the Judiciary Committee at their earliest opportunity.

Bob Livingston, said Russert, claimed that this will not be a party vote -- it will be a "vote of conscience" (the very same pap being spouted by Tom DeLay and Charles Canady all weekend). Conyers said that Livingston is lying because he will not even allow a vote on censure. Conyers, for the first time, said he will not take the lead on censure but he does not discount the possibility that he would vote for it. He does not think that Bill Clinton should be censured or impeached for the trumped-up perjury charges.

And we agree.

"The Judiciary Committee is hopeless. It's psychopathic. People want partisan blood. I've tried to tell my Republican colleagues they are digging their own graves..."

Russert cut him off there so we could have the privilege of viewing more ADM commercials.

Russert next turned to Beltway arch-snot Sally Quinn and insane Nixon lover Bill Safire. He began by asking about Quinn's piece on what the Washington establish thought of Clinton -- a terribly written piece. And Quinn has been crucified for it as well she should. Russert, who has the same arrogant moralizing posture, is of course trying to "resurrect" her. Charlie Peters of the Washington Monthly said Quinn was wrong and that the shame of Washington was the attention being paid to "this Lewinsky thing." He said he was stunned that The New York Times and The Washington Post put important stories on the back pages. He gave as an example the treatment of President Clinton's Executive Order stopping HMOs from taking advantage of their subscribers by denying coverage. That story was buried in the back pages of the Times -- and was only three paragraphs in length.

Quinn claimed that she is talking about the Senate and the House, not the press, as "the establishment." Russert, who does not want to be left out, said that the press is a part of the establishment. Quinn said the media is not monolithic, but Peters said it is -- he had called the Times and he and an editor could only find five reporters who were not "out of their minds" about the Clinton scandals. Note that it was Peters that first brought to light the Gennifer Flowers matter -- so he has credibility.

Safire says, rightly, that he is a card carrying scandal-monger. We agree -- see our stories about Safire. He goes into his garbage about the oath of office. Yet, he defended Nixon to the hilt. What a hypocrite!

Russert said it appears that the Judiciary Committee will vote out at least one article of impeachment. He asked whether there is anything Clinton can do. Safire said he hates to give Clinton a good idea. But, "The legalistic approach has not worked. He should get in the car, surprise the Judiciary Committee, take the oath, and say 'I am going to put myself in legal jeopardy here. I lied under oath. If you are going to impeach me -- go ahead." That would put an end to impeachment right there.

Safire is right. But the President isn't that dumb. If the GOP is going to go forward, the President will wait to do anything like that until after the GOP has lynched itself well into the impeachment "trial."

Quinn, the pompous bitchy wife of Post Watergate maven Ben Bradley, implies that it's too late. He should have done it long ago and "spared us."

Please, Quinn, you are already one of the most hated women in Washington. Why push it? Spare us.

Morgan-Stanley/Dean Witter checks in with their first appearance as a Russert sponsor. Why? They are beginning their assault on the Social Security System. Right now, they and all the big-shot Wall Street brokerages are busy contributing to Congress like King Midas in the hope that Washington will privatize the Social Security fund -- at least in part -- and allow idiot Americans to "manage" their retirement safety nets -- the biggest scandal of the year 1999-2000, we predict.

Russert brought up Jimmy Hoffa Jr. next -- in order to seal his relationship with labor. Hoffa has just been elected President of the Teamsters, and we are glad of it. Hoffa said that we are going to see "a more militant union. Already, we are talking about issues where we are going to be proactive." Russert said that Hoffa's opposition claimed that he was going to bring the Mafia back into the union. He wanted to know if the Teamsters will back Republicans much as his father backed Nixon. Hoffa said no. "We will be bipartisan-partisan," and used Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch as an example.

Russert then asked an insulting question concerning all the Teamsters that went to jail under the Carey reign. Hoffa sidestepped the question and said he was looking to the future. Then Russert, as we knew he would, whipped out a 30 year-old Meet the Press clip of the man himself -- James Hoffa Senior -- talking about his problems with the Justice Department.

What an insolent jerk.

Russert asked if Hoffa knew what happened to his father. "The mob killed my father. They're never gonna come back to this union -- I'll see to that... The members loved him." Russert asked how he'll get along with John Sweeney. Hoffa admitted that will be difficult (Sweeney backed Carey and intervened in the Teamsters elections) but that he will open a new page for the AFL-CIO when he takes office.

And that was it.

Correct us if we're wrong in posing this question, but do you readers think that Russert is preparing his viewers for a turnabout on the actual impeachment of Bill Clinton? Maybe. We can't be sure -- but watch what he says and asks in the coming weeks. In order to keep his job, Russert will have to do something, no matter how chummy he is with NBC management -- and after his embarrassing one-hour love-fest with Rush Limbaugh last week, he'll have to work harder.

-- The Editors