DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: THE IMPEACHMENT STORY
SUBSECTION: IMPEACHMENT HEARING – PART 1
Revised 7/21/99

 

 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS


AP 11/05/98 ".Text of questions submitted by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde to President Clinton regarding his affair with Monica Lewinsky: .The enclosed requests for admission are for purposes of the inquiry of impeachment only and the responses you provide shall not be considered to have any bearing or effect on any subsequent or prospective action by the Executive or Judicial branches of the United States that may be related to this matter.."

1. You are the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America?

2. Upon making your oath of office that you swore you would faithfully execute that office of President of the United States and would to the best of your ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

3. Pursuant to Article II, section 2 of the Constitution you have a duty to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed?''

4. You are a member of the bar and an officer of the court of a state of the United States, subject to the rules of professional responsibility and ethics applicable to the bar of that state?

5. You took an oath in which you swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition conducted as part of a judicial proceeding in the case of Jones v. Clinton on January 17, 1998?

6. You look an oath in which you swore or affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, before a grand jury empaneled as part of a judicial proceeding before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 17, 1998?

7. On or about October 7, 1997, you received a letter composed by Monica Lewinsky in which she expressed dissatisfaction with her search for a job in New York?

8. You telephoned Monica Lewinsky early in the morning on October 10, 1997, and offered to assist her finding a job in New York?

9. On or about October 11, 1997, you met with Monica Lewinsky in or about the Oval Office dining room?

10. On or about October 11, 1997, Monica Lewinsky furnished to you, in or about the Oval Office dining room, a list of jobs in New York in which she was interested?

11. On or about October 11, 1997, you suggested to Monica Lewinsky that Vernon Jordan may be able to assist her in her job search?

12. On or about October 11, 1997, after meeting with Monica Lewinsky and discussing her search for a job in New York, you telephoned Vernon Jordan?

13. You discussed with Monica Lewinsky prior to December 17, 1997, a plan in which she would pretend to bring you papers with a work-related purpose when in fact such papers had no work-related purpose, in order to conceal your relationship?

14. You discussed with Monica Lewinsky prior to December 17, 1997, that Betty Currie should be the one to clear Ms. Lewinsky in to see you, so Ms. Lewinsky could say that she was visiting with Ms. Currie instead of with you?

15. You discussed with Monica Lewinsky prior to December 17, 1997, that if either of you were questioned about the existence of your relationship you would deny its existence?

16. On or about December 6, 1997, you learned that Monica Lewinsky's name was on a witness list in the case of Jones v. Clinton?

17. On or about December 17, 1997, you told Monica Lewinsky that her name was on the witness list in the case of Jones v. Clinton?

I8. On or about December 17, 1997, you suggested to Monica Lewinsky that the submission of an affidavit in the case of Jones v. Clinton might suffice to prevent her from having to testify personally in that case?

19. On or about Dec. 17, 1997, you suggested to Monica Lewinsky that she could say to anyone inquiring about her relationship with you that her visits to the Oval Office were for the purpose of visiting with Betty Currie or to deliver papers to you?

20. You gave false and misleading testimony under oath when you stated during your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton on January 17, 1998, that you did not know if Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify in that case?

21. You gave false and misleading testimony under oath when you stated before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, that you did know, prior to January 17, l998, that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify in the case of Jones v. Clinton?

22. On or about December 28, 1997, you had a discussion with Monica Lewinsky at the White House regarding her moving to New York?

23. On or about December 28, 1997, you had a discussion with Monica Lewinsky at the White House in which you suggested to her that she move to New York soon because by moving to New York, the lawyers representing Paula Jones in the case of Jones v. Clinton may not contact her?

24. On or about December 28, 1997, you had a discussion with Monica Lewinsky at the White House regarding gifts you had given to Ms. Lewinsky that were subpoenaed in the case of Jones v. Clinton?

25. On or about December 28, 1997, you expressed concern to Monica Lewinsky about a hatpin you had given to her as a gift which had been subpoenaed in the case of Jones v Clinton?

26. On or about December 28, 1997, you discussed with Betty Currie gifts previously given by you to Monica Lewinsky?

27. On or about December 28, 1998, (sic) you requested, instructed, suggested to or otherwise discussed with Betty Currie that she take possession of gifts previously given to Monica Lewinsky by you?

28. You had a telephone conversation on January 6, 1998, with Vernon Jordan during which you discussed Monica Lewinsky's affidavit, yet to be filed, in the case of Jones v. Clinton?

29. You had knowledge of the fact that Monica Lewinsky executed for filing an affidavit in the case of Jones v. Clinton on January 7, 1998?

30. On or about January 7, 1998, you had a discussion with Vernon Jordan in which he mentioned that Monica Lewinsky executed for filing an affidavit in the case of Jones v. Clinton?

31. On or about January 7, 1998, you had a discussion with Vernon Jordan in which he mentioned that he was assisting Monica Lewinsky in finding a job in New York?

32. You viewed a copy of the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky on January 7, 1998, in the case of Jones v. Clinton, prior to your deposition in that case?

33. You had knowledge that your counsel viewed a copy of the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky on January 7, 1998, in the case of Jones v. Clinton, prior to your deposition in that case?

34. You had knowledge that any facts or assertions contained in the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky on January 7, 1998, in the case of Jones v. Clinton were not true?

35. You viewed a copy of the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky on January 7, 1998, in the ease of Jones v. Clinton at your deposition in that case on January 17, 1998?

36. You had knowledge that your counsel viewed a copy of the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky on January 7, 1998, in the case of Jones v. Clinton at your deposition in that case on January 17, 1998?

37. On or about January 9, 1998, you received a message from Vernon Jordan indicating that Monica Lewinsky had received a job offer in New York?

38. Between January 9, 1998, and January 15, 1998, you had a conversation with Erskine Bowles in the Oval Office in which you stated that Monica Lewinsky received a job offer and had listed John Hilley as a reference?

39. You asked Erskine Bowles if he would ask John Hilley to give Ms. Lewinsky a positive job recommendation?

40. During your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton on January 17, 1998, you affirmed that the facts or assertions stated in the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky on January 7, 1998, were true?

41. As to each, you gave the following gifts to Monica Lewinsky at any time in the past?

42. When asked on January 17, 1998, in your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton if you had ever given gifts to Monica Lewinsky you stated that you did not recall, even though you actually had knowledge of giving her gifts in addition to gifts from the ``Black Dog''?

43. You gave false and misleading testimony under oath in your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton when you responded ``once or twice'' to the question ``has Monica Lewinsky ever given you any gifts?''

44. On January 17, 1998, at or about 5:38 p.m., after the conclusion of your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton you telephoned Vernon Jordan at his home?

45. On January 17, 1998, at or about 7:02 p.m., after the conclusion of your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton, you telephoned Betty Currie at her home?

46. On January 17, 1998, at or about 7:02 p.m., after the conclusion of your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton, you telephoned Vernon Jordan at his office?

47. On January 17, 1998, at or about 7:13 p.m., after the conclusion of your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton , you telephoned Betty Currie at her home and asked her to meet with you the next day, Sunday, January 18, 1998?

48. On January 18, 1998, at or about 6:11 a.m., you learned of the existence of tapes of conversations between, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp recorded by Linda Tripp?

49. On January 18, 1998, at or about 12:50 p.m., you telephoned Vernon Jordan at his home?

50. On January 18, 1998, at or about 1:11 p.m., you telephoned Betty Currie at her home?

51. On January 18, 1998, at or about 2:55 p.m., you received a telephone call from Vernon Jordan?

52. On January 18, 1998, at or about 5:00 p.m., you had a meeting with Betty Currie at which you made statements similar to any of the following regarding your relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

53. You had a conversation with Betty Currie within several days of January 18, 1998, in which you made statements similar to any of the following regarding your relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

54. On January 18, 1998, at or about 11:02 p.m., you telephoned Betty Currie at her home?

55. On Monday, January 19, 1998, at or about 8:50 a.m., you telephoned Betty Currie at her home?

56. On Monday, January 19, 1998, at or about 8:56 a.m., you telephoned Vernon Jordan at his home?

57. On Monday January 19, 1998, at or about 10:55 a.m., you telephoned Vernon Jordan at his office?

58. On Monday, January 19, 1998, at or about 1:45 p.m., you telephoned Betty Currie at her home?

59. On Monday, January 19, 1998, at or about 2:44 p.m., you met with individuals including Vernon Jordan, Erskine Bowles, Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills, Charles Ruff, and Rahm Emanuel?

60. On Monday, January 19, 1998, at or about 2:44 p.m., at any meeting with Vernon Jordan, Erskine Bowles, Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills, Charles Ruff, Rahm Emanuel and others you discussed the existence of tapes of conversations between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp recorded by Linda Tripp, or any other matter relating to Monica Lewinsky?

61. On Monday, January 19, 1998, at or about 5:56 p.m., you telephoned Vernon Jordan at his office?

62. On January 2l, 1998, the day the Monica Lewinsky story appeared for the first time in The Washington Post, you had a conversation with Sidney Blumenthal in which you stated that you rebuffed alleged advances from Monica Lewinsky and in which you made a statement similar to the following? ``Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me.''

63. On January 21, 1998, the day the Monica Lewinsky story appeared for the first time in The Washington Post, you had a conversation with Sidney Blumenthal in which you made a statement similar to the following in response to a question about your conduct with Ms. Lewinsky? ``I haven't done anything wrong.''

64. On January 21, 1998, the day the Monica Lewinsky story appeared for the first time in The Washington Post, you had a conversation with Erskine Bowles, Sylvia Matthews and John Podesta in which you made statements similar to the following? ``I want you to know I did not have a sexual relationship with this woman Monica Lewinsky. I did not ask anybody to lie. And when the facts come out, you'll understand.''

65. On or about January 23, 1998, you had a conversation with John Podesta in which you stated that you had never had an affair with Monica Lewinsky?

66, On or about January 23, 1998, you had a conversation with John Podesta in which you stated that you were not alone with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, and that Betty Currie was either in your presence or outside your office with the door open while you were visiting with Monica Lewinsky?

67. On or about January 26, 1998, you had a conversation with Harold Ickes in which you made statements to the effect that you did not have an affair with Monica Lewinsky?

68. On or about January 26, 1998, you had a conversation with Harold lckes in which you made statements to the effect that you had not asked anyone to change their story, suborn perjury or obstruct justice if called to testify or otherwise respond to a request for information from the Office of Independent Counsel or in any other legal proceeding?

69. On or about January 21, 1998, you and Richard ``Dick'' Morris discussed the possibility of commissioning a poll to determine public opinion following the Washington Post story regarding the Monica Lewinsky matter?

70. You had a later conversation with Richard ``Dick'' Morris in which he stated that the polling results regarding the Monica Lewinsky matter suggested that the American people would forgive you for adultery but not for perjury or obstruction of justice?

71. You responded to Richard ``Dick'' Morris's explanation of these polling results by making a statement similar to the following: ``(w)ell, we just have to win then''?

72. Do you admit or deny the past or present existence of, or the past or present direct or indirect employment of individuals, other than counsel representing you, whose duties include making contact with or gathering information about, witnesses or potential witnesses in any judicial proceeding related to any matter in which you are or could be involved?

73. Do you admit or deny having knowledge that Terry Lenzner was contacted or employed to make contact with or gather information about witnesses or potential witnesses in any judicial proceeding related to any matter in which you are or could be involved?

74. Do you admit or deny having knowledge that Jack Palladino was contacted or employed to make contact with or gather information about witnesses or potential witnesses in any judicial proceeding related to any matter in which you are or could be involved?

75. Do you admit or deny having knowledge that Betsy Wright was contacted or employed to make contact with or gather information about witnesses or potential witnesses in any judicial proceeding related to any matter in which you are or could be involved?

76. You made false and misleading public statements in response to questions asked on or about January 21, 1998, in an interview with Roll Call, when you stated ``Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. But because the investigation is going on, I don't know what is out -- what's going to be asked of me. I think I need to cooperate, answer the questions, but I think that it's important for me to make it clear what is not. And then, at the appropriate time, I'll answer to what is. But let me answer -- it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means.''

77. You made false and misleading public statements in response to questions asked on or about January 21, 1998, in the Oval Office during a photo opportunity when you stated ``Now there are lots of questions that I think are very legitimate. You have a right to ask them; you and the American people have a right to get answers. We are working very hard to comply and get all the requests for information up here and we will give you as many answers as we can as soon as we can at the appropriate time, consistent with our obligation to also cooperate with the investigations. And that's not a dodge, that's really what I've talked with our people. I want to do that. I'd like to have more rather than less, sooner rather than later. So we'll work through it as quickly as we can and get all those questions out there to you''?

78. You discussed with Harry Thomasson, prior to making separate statements in response to questions asked by the press in January 1998, relating to your relationship with Monica Lewinsky, what such statements should be or how they should be communicated?

79. You made a false or misleading public statement in response to a question asked on or about January 26, 1998, when you stated ``But I want to say one thing to the American people -- I want you to listen to me. I am going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?''

80. You made false and misleading public statements in response to a question asked on or about January 26, 1998, when you stated ``... I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never''?

81. You directed or instructed Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal, Nancy Hernreich and Lanny Breuer to invoke executive privilege before a grand jury empaneled as part of a judicial proceeding by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1998?

AP Larry Margasak 11/5/98 Chicago Tribune ".The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee announced today that prosecutor Kenneth Starr would be his only major witness in impeachment hearings, and that he asked President Clinton to ``admit or deny'' facts about his conduct with Monica Lewinsky..``This, of course, is up to the president and his advisers,'' Hyde said. ``But we intend to continue as long as it takes, to vindicate the rule of law and to follow the truth, wherever it leads us.'' Starr is scheduled to appear before the committee Nov. 19 and ``is anxious to testify,'' Hyde said. .During Starr's testimony, he might also answer questions about other parts of his investigation of Clinton, such as the firing of the White House travel office staff or the misuse of FBI files by White House staff, Hyde said. Starr is a witness primarily sought by Democrats, who want to focus on the prosecutor's conduct rather than Clinton's affair..Starr could soon send Congress additional information on potentially impeachable conduct, possibly on allegations by former White House aide Kathleen Willey of an improper sexual advance by Clinton. While the president has admitted improper conduct with Ms. Lewinsky, he has denied Mrs. Willey's accusations. Hutchinson said the committee should tell Starr, ``We've got to conclude this matter. The public wants Starr to wrap this matter up as well. It is critically important that if he has anything, to send it over immediately.'' "

DRUDGE 11/5/98 ".In a new twist to the impeachment investigation, Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde asked President Clinton in writtens whether he had knowledge that private investigator Terry Lenzner "was contacted or employed to make contact with or gather information about witnesses or potential witnesses" in any case involving Clinton. The same question was asked using the names of another investigator, Jack Palladino, and a Clinton staff member when he was Arkansas governor, Betsy Wright.."

Washington Post 11/6/98 Juliet Eilperin and Peter Baker ". The House Judiciary Committee asked President Clinton Thursday to admit that he gave ``false and misleading testimony under oath'' about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky and that he tried to help her get a job at the same time she was being sought as a witness in the Paula Jones lawsuit. As Judiciary Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., unveiled plans for a scaled-back impeachment inquiry, his staff delivered to the White House a list of 81 specific ``requests for admission'' asking the president to confirm or dispute evidence collected by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr during his eight-month investigation into the Lewinsky matter The inquiries included in the 10-page questionnaire ranged from relatively straightforward matters, such as acknowledging telephone calls already documented by White House records, to more challenging requests that he ``admit or deny'' lying in a Jones deposition and subsequent appearance before Starr's grand jury. In a cover letter, Hyde said the answers would be under oath but would ``not be considered to have any bearing or effect'' on any other legal proceeding, an effort to assuage concerns that Clinton would be putting himself in jeopardy in the Jones case or any possible Starr prosecution.."

WorldNet Daily 11/6/98 David Limbaugh ".Many on both sides of the political aisle were convinced the election results had stolen Henry Hyde's resolve to proceed with the impeachment process when they heard he was planning to call Ken Starr as the sole witness. Democrats were quietly rejoicing and Republicans were frantic with despair. Both sides grossly underestimated Mr. Hyde. The initial news story let only one of Henry's shoes drop. Today the other one stomped, as it was revealed he had submitted 81 questions to President Clinton to be answered under oath for the purpose of narrowing the issues and expediting the hearing. Democrats have insisted that the hearings be concluded quickly, contending that Clinton's admissions to the essential allegations make an extensive hearing unnecessary. Chairman Hyde's decision to submit requests for admissions to the president is a masterstroke because it finally forces him and his House Judiciary Committee accomplices to either put up or shut up. If there are no material facts in dispute then Mr. Clinton will be able simply to admit them. If he refuses, witnesses will have to be called.. Clinton now has four options: 1.to admit the allegations; 2.to deny them; 3.to admit some and deny others; 4.to refuse to answer some or all of the questions and try to spin his way out of another one. If he chooses any but the first, he will force the Republicans to conduct thorough evidentiary hearings because it is inconceivable that in the absence of his admissions they will impeach on the Starr Report alone. Indeed, Mr. Hyde has made it clear that as "the president is free to dispute, of course, whatever he wants," it is solely up to him whether the hearings will be brief and whether it will be necessary to call many witnesses. Mr. Hyde is committed to "vindicating the rule of law and to follow the truth, wherever it leads us.'' Democrats will protest Hyde's maneuver as unfair and partisan when in fact it is the essence of fairness. He is empowering the president to avoid protracted, uncomfortable and distracting hearings.."

AP 11/6/98 ".White House lawyers on Friday said they were working on answering rapidly and ``in a good faith manner'' a list of questions from the House Judiciary Committee that focuses on possible perjury and obstruction of justice. Gregory Craig, a White House attorney and coordinator of impeachment responses, said the questions that committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., sent to President Clinton on Thursday were doubtless part of ``a political process.'' Nonetheless, he said, ``We're working our way through the various requests and trying to respond to each one in a good faith manner. And we're trying to do this as rapidly as possible, because we share the chairman's view this process should be expeditious.'' Craig would not estimate when the White House would finish its response to Hyde's letter, which asked Clinton to stipulate assertions in prosecutor Kenneth Starr's report to Congress, including that some statements Clinton made under oath were false or misleading. ``It's important that we get it right,'' Craig said.."

WorldNet Daily 11/6/98 David Bresnahan ".Recent reports from sources close to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigative team claim he is preparing to dump more evidence on the committee any day. They also claim that Starr does not wish to give everything to the House, because he would like to indict both Clintons once they are out of the White House.."

SPINTERNET.COM / AP 11/8/98 Pete Yost ".In his first remarks on President Clinton's troubles since the Republican upheaval, the leading contender to succeed Newt Gingrich as House speaker said Congress must take into account the public's view that the presidential affair and cover-up do not warrant impeachment. ``I don't know if he's home free or not,'' Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., said on television Sunday, the eve of a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on what constitutes an impeachable offense. ``The charges are that he ... lied under oath. And I think that is very serious.'' Livingston said he would vote for impeachment ``if the evidence is there.''."

Washington Weekly 11/8/98 Marvin Lee ".A road map for the impeachment inquiry set to get underway in the House Judicial Committee today was provided by 81 questions Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) last week submitted to Bill Clinton. The scope of the questions make it obvious that the impeachment inquiry will focus on three charges: perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice. In the two latter categories are questions number 72, 73, 74, and 75. They all deal with the employment of individuals whose duties include "making contact with" witnesses or potential witnesses. "Making contact with" in this context can mean one thing only: bribery or intimidation to suborn perjury.. The questions submitted by Chairman Hyde have put President Clinton in a precarious situation. Responding "yes" to almost any of them would mean admitting a crime. Even though the Senate is likely to conclude that such a crime is not impeachable, Clinton is unlikely to admit to anything. Responding "no" would be an invitation for the Committee to call witnesses to contradict the President. Refusing to answer would slow down and impede the work of the Committee, an invitation to drag out the hearings into next year.."

Daily Republican Newspaper 11/8/98 Howard Hobbs ". Congressman Henry Hyde(R) of Chicago, told reporters on Friday, the Committee, "... has a clear Constitutional duty to complete its work in a fair and expeditious manner. Our duty has not changed, because the Constitution has not changed." Henry Hyde has it right. There are gigantic problems in the Clinton White House with larger significance for the government than the outcome of Tuesday's general election and Newt Gingrich's subsequently announced resignation as House speaker and departure from Congress in January. Those appalling election returns are a chasm of rejection and a popular vote reflecting a complete indifference to the rule of law in the popular will that would give Mr. Clinton a "pass" on his admitted perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering charges which have brought the nation to the perilous brink of this administration's impeachment crisis.. So on Sunday, when Wall Street called for Americans to recognize the danger posed by ignoring the Clinton scandals people started remembering again and began wanting the set things right for themselves and for the future of their children. That is why Congressman Hyde has been painfully remembering what his duty is. That is why Mr. Hyde will ask judge Starr to bring indictments of the Clinton administration forward this week. For the best of reasons, the worst government scandal in American history can no longer be ignored, nor allowed to be forgotten. The House should take up the issue as soon as possible and on an affirmative vote, send a bill of Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton to the Senate for trial, as required by our duty to ourselves and to our posterity, under the protections provided for all through the power and the limitations of it contained in the U.S. Constitution.."

AP 11/9/98 ".The chairman of a House panel that has opened hearings on the background of impeachment says the evidence against President Clinton makes it clear that he is "guilty of impeachable offenses." Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., used a sharply worded attack on Clinton that rejected arguments that conduct in a private lawsuit can't be grounds for impeachment. The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will hear testimony from nearly two dozen legal scholars on their interpretations of the appropriate standards to use in an impeachment case. The full House Judiciary Committee will open hearings against Clinton on Nov. 19.."

Reuters 11/9/98 ".U.S. House Republicans, embroiled in a leadership fight and staggered by election losses, pressed ahead Monday with impeachment proceedings that polls show most Americans do not want. Members of the House panel carrying out the inquiry against President Clinton heard advice from scholars on what constitutes an impeachable offense and clashed often on how and whether to proceed with the inquiry. But Republicans made it clear the impeachment proceedings would not be easy to derail. ``By any reasonable interpretation, the evidence presented to the House by the independent counsel, if it remains unrebutted, establishes that the president is guilty of impeachable offenses,'' said Rep. Charles Canady, a Florida Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee that conducted the hearing...Rep. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Clinton should not read the election results as meaning he will get a free ride. ``If he believes that's the message of this election, he is really going to overplay his hand,'' Graham told reporters. However, he admitted that ``a totally partisan vote probably does not have any historical credibility.'' .``It is either impeachment or nothing,'' said Gary McDowell, director of the Institute for U.S. Studies of the University of London. Other panelists said lying about your sex life was not the sort of grave violation viewed as impeachable by the founding fathers, and suggested it would be better left to the criminal courts to indict Clinton once he left office if the case needed to be pursued. Hyde said protecting the rule of law was crucial and suggested Clinton could have either refused to answer questions or taken the Fifth Amendment during his grand jury testimony about his relationship with Lewinsky. ``I really believe in the notion 'no man is above the law','' he said..."

UPI 11/9/98 ".A spokesman said President Clinton will respond to some of the 81 questions in the investigation of his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky referred to the White House by the House Judiciary Committee. "Yes, questions will be answered. I don't know anything beyond that, " said Lockhart, who earlier said lawyers still were reviewing the questions related to the submission of independent counsel Kenneth Starr that has become the basis of impeachment proceedings on Capitol Hill..Lockhart, however, indicated the presidential response may be limited, as he singled out some of the questions as objectionable, including one: "Does the president know he's the president? I think he does." The spokesman said White House attorneys could have a response ready by the end of the week.."

Judicial Watch Press Release 11/9/98 ".Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman expressed concerns today that most House Republicans, including many on the House Judiciary Committee, are prepared to use Kenneth Starr as a lightning rod and sweep the impeachment proceeding under the carpet after Starr, who is currently the only witness scheduled to testify, is thrown to the Democrats next week. "We've expected most Democrats to want to cover up the Clinton crimes in Monicagate, Filegate, and Chinagate. But to see Republicans, the opposition party, now express a willingness to give President Clinton a pass on all the felonies he has committed is outrageous. On the Sunday talk shows, key Republicans prepared supporters for their plans to 'roll over' and close the impeachment proceedings, without even looking at more serious scandals such as Chinagate and Filegate," said Klayman. "Though there are a few signs that the House Judiciary Committee may actually try to hold Clinton accountable, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates most Republicans will, for political reasons, join the Democrats in covering up President Clinton's high crimes and misdemeanors," noted Klayman. "I call on the next Speaker of the House, Bob Livingston, to uphold the rule of law."

New York Times on the Web 11/10/98 Francis Clines ".Fresh from his nuanced dissertation on whether President Clinton's sex-and-mendacity scandal merits impeachment, the Rev. Robert F. Drinan put his House committee statement in laymen's terms as he hurried off to the cafeteria. "This thing here is fluff," said Father Drinan, a former Congressman, darting amiably down a Capitol corridor, confirming that he remains as much heartfelt Democrat as soulful Jesuit. "This is nothing compared to very serious charges we had against Nixon," he declared, looking as lean and eagle-eyed as he was a generation ago when he was part of the Judiciary Committee vote to impeach President Richard M. Nixon.."Yeah, I've seen that," Barr said when asked about the growing reluctance of Republican members to push the impeachment issue since the voters spoke last Tuesday with stinging effect on House Republicans. "Polls are becoming the currency of the political realm. The whole issue of impeachment has not been explained to the American public.".

Wall St Journal 11/10/98 Jeffrey Taylor David Cloud ".Despite concerns among some Republicans about the public's disapproval of impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee vowed to press ahead aggressively with its inquiry. "I don't interpret the election as a veto of our efforts," said Committee Chair Henry Hyde (R., Ill.). He added that the Republicans are considering calling president adviser Bruce Lindsey as a witness. The panel's Democrats, meanwhile, attacked the process with new vigor, emboldened by turmoil in the Republican leadership and public opinion polls showing no appetite for ousting the president. But Mr. Hyde and other committee Republicans made it clear that they don't intend to let political pressures or academic opinions derail their inquiry. Rep. Charles Canady, a Florida Republican, opened Monday's hearing with a harsh attack on the president. "He must be called to account for putting his selfish personal interest ahead of his oath of office and his constitutional duty," Mr. Canady said, asserting that the evidence suggests the president did lie under oath and obstruct justice. Republican committee members who favor impeachment and the professional investigators employed by the committee to make the case are counting on Mr. Starr to sustain the effort by submitting to Congress additional allegations of White House misconduct. Lawyers working for Mr. Starr say they continue to investigate allegations made by witnesses before the grand jury and may take further action."

Judicial Watch 11/10/98 Letter To Henry Hyde ".Yesterday, during hearings on the Constitutional standards for impeachment, you stated: "God, I'd like to forget all of this. I mean, who needs it? ... We paid attention to the polls and the elections."..In fact, in statement after statement, both before and after the elections, you have boasted repeatedly about how you plan to scale back the hearings, with apologetic statements, such as the one in the first paragraph of this letter, that you and your Committee regrettably have to uphold the "rule of law." Indeed, your latest plan is to limit the inquiry to only the Lewinsky scandal, and then only call Judge Starr as a witness, effectively throwing him "to the lions." The New York Post reported yesterday that Democrats on your Committee intend to use the opportunity to accuse Judge Starr of threatening women. As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the American people expect more from you.. The American people deserve to know your position on Chinagate, Filegate, IRS-gate, Trustgate and related Clinton scandals to determine if both political parties intend, for political reasons, to sweep them under the carpet -- as previously occurred in the Thompson Senate Campaign Finance Hearings last fall.."

Washington Times 11/11/98 Frank Murray ".The House Judiciary Committee legal staff has concluded that the crimes independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr charged to President Clinton are impeachable offenses. The staff's official printed report outlined "clear guiding principles" that make it more likely the full House will vote on the accusations against the president. The committee staff conclusions directly contradict earlier arguments by the president's lawyers and by some of the 19 constitutional scholars who debated the issue for 10 hours Monday at a contentious congressional hearing. A copy of the report was obtained yesterday by The Washington Times. It concluded that impeachable offenses include "false statements ... under oath," a lesser crime than perjury and easier to prove because intent is not an element. The 94-page committee document declared that articles of impeachment can involve personal or professional misconduct that need not be criminal, and said the constitutional standard for judges and presidents alike is meant to be identical. "There isn't much doubt that he did willfully misstate the facts under oath. It's pretty clear," Mr. Hyde said in a pre-election interview, seemingly accepting as fact a charge that his staff now says is an impeachable offense. The report was quietly distributed as a guide to the decisions by the committee's 37 members, just as a similar document guided the hands that wrote the 1974 articles of impeachment against President Nixon. White House spokesman James Kennedy argued that impeaching an elected president is far more disruptive to the continuity of government than impeaching one of hundreds of appointed federal judges. "So they've fallen short of constitutional standards, they've departed from past precedent and they've broken with past Republican precedent on that issue," said Mr. Kennedy, who said he had not seen the document..Mr. Watt charged that the title pages implied it was the bipartisan product of the committee, rather than simply the majority staff. "I don't think the criticism is appropriate," Mr. Hyde responded to Mr. Watt. He said Democratic staff members were given a copy before it was printed and asked for input. "They came forth with nothing," Mr. Hyde said, adding that Democrats put out three analyses in 1973 and 1974 without ever consulting with GOP committee members. Mr. Watt replied, "Two wrongs don't make a right" and contradicted the assertion that minority staffers had a chance to respond before the printing date. "I keep hoping that we will rise to the level of statesmanship here, rather than lowering to the standard that somebody who did something that was not justified in the past did," Mr. Watt said."

Washington Times 11/11/98 Frank Murray Text of conclusion to the detailed staff study on impeachment standards ".Our nation's recent experience with impeachments under the United States Constitution provides a number of clear guiding principles for those who must conduct future impeachment inquiries, draft future articles of impeachment, and vote on those articles: First, in most instances of impeachment since 1974, making false and misleading statements under oath has been the most common compelling basis for impeachment -- whether it is before a jury, a grand jury, or on a tax return. Second, the constitutional standard for impeachable offenses is the same for federal judges as it is for presidents and all other civil officers. Third, impeachable offenses can involve both personal and professional misconduct. Fourth, impeachable offenses do not have to be federal or state crimes. The research conducted by the staff in 1974, and this update, are meant to provide guidance and background to members as they prepare to undertake this constitutional responsibility of determining whether or not any acts allegedly committed by the president rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Impeachment is a unique and distinct procedure established by the Constitution. Each member must decide for himself or herself, after the conclusion of the fact-finding process and in the light of historical precedents, based on his or her own judgment and conscience, whether the proven acts constitute a high crime or misdemeanor."

Media Research Center CyberAlert 11/11/98 ".On FNC's Fox Report David Shuster checked up on the questions submitted five days ago by Henry Hyde to Clinton and learned the White House has yet to decide what to do. Shuster explained the quandary facing Democrats on the Judiciary Committee: "For committee Democrats each passing day seems to raise the possibility that they will be placed in a box. If Mr. Clinton denies that he lied under oath Democrats would have a difficult choice -- either contradict the President, saying in effect that he continues to mislead, or support Mr. Clinton's version of the facts. But that would require calling witnesses and stringing out hearings that Democrats said should end quickly."."

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 11/11/98 Editorial ". Much of this debate over impeachment continues to say less about the president's guilt or innocence than about the standards of those debating it. And their prejudices. The gap between the warring scholars may reflect not only their political leanings but how important they think respect for law to be in a president and in government in general. But scholars only study constitutional history. Not far away in the capital, the Supreme Court of the United States was making it. Even as these assorted experts were testifying, the court rejected a couple of the president's more whimsical attempts to fend off prosecution.. In the long discussions of impeachment before that House subcommittee, and in the short but definitive decisions out of the Supreme Court on the same day, the basic issue was much the same: the rule of law in this country and whether it should be upheld even against a popular president. With a couple of exceptions, the justices of the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative Monday. It may be a while before it becomes clear how the House of Representatives will answer that same, basic question. In the end, our representatives' response will say less about Bill Clinton's attitude toward the law than their own.."

Freeper reports ".Let them know about Barbara Battalino in California She lost her Government Job, lost her right to practice medicine, she was fined, she is under house arrest for 6 months She was prosecuted because of PERJURY in a civil case Why a double standard?

Associated Press 11/11/98 Larry Margasak ".Reflecting Republican divisions, Sen. Arlen Specter suggested Wednesday that Congress halt the impeachment inquiry and leave President Clinton to the criminal justice system after his term ends. The leader of the inquiry rejected the idea. Specter, of Pennsylvania, told reporters he has shared his idea with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and the likely House speaker in the next Congress, Bob Livingston of Louisiana. Both were noncommittal, Specter said, adding that he would discuss his idea with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde. Hyde said in Wheaton, Ill., that hearings scheduled for Nov. 19 would go on, as would subsequent committee deliberations on articles of impeachment. ``Senator Specter's always ahead of the curve. But he'll get his chance to express himself authoritatively, ultimately, I suspect,'' Hyde said. Articles of impeachment, similar to an indictment, would become a matter for the Senate and Specter if approved by the full House by majority vote. If the Senate conducts a trial, a two-thirds vote would be needed for conviction -- unlikely with a 55-45 GOP majority.."

Press Release 11/11/98 ".Statement of Gary Aldrich:"Ken Starr has been accused of having a blind spot when it comes to politics. He's a judge, so his apolitical stance is as it should be. But today I must strongly encourage Mr. Starr to present all evidence in his possession to Congress, regarding FBI Filegate, Travelgate, or other important matters that bear on this president's fitness to serve as our nation's commander in chief. Bill Clinton may be a "brilliant politician" but he has a seriously flawed character and can't be trusted with our nation's future!. "Reviewing the evidence with Congress regarding Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky will tell us something about his character, but we will never know the true depth of his corruption at our White House. And make no mistake. This Clinton corruption is ongoing, and unless all of Starr's evidence is revealed now - nobody including our Congress will be able to make an informed decision. Starr's facts should be for the benefit of all Americans - and his facts rule. We cannot be "led" by the 700 or so people polled from day to day, who have indicated their preferences through a highly questionable polling process."."

Reuters 11/11/98 Alan Elsner ".Republicans seem aware they are taking a big risk in moving forward with the impeachment inquiry into President Clinton but they seem trapped by the process and unable to find an easy way out. ``They are playing with fire but they can't seem to turn back. There's no quick and graceful exit,'' said Mark Rozell, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania.. ``The American public have certainly indicated in the polls that they don't see it an impeachable or dismissible offense and that would have to be considered in the political arena,'' said Louisiana Rep. Bob Livingston, who is almost certain to become House Speaker in January.`Facts are stubborn things and there is now a sufficient amount of incontrovertible evidence that ought to lead to the impeachment of President Clinton,'' wrote William Bennett, a leading conservative polemicist, in the Wall Street Journal.``You can interpret the election results all you like but the law is the law and no man is above the law,'' said Republican consultant Keith Apell."

Cincinnati Enquirer 11/12/98 Larry Wheeler Gannett News Service ".Although the House Judiciary Committee has yet to hear from a single player in the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal, it is apparent the panel's Republican majority is planning articles of impeachment similar to those brought against President Richard Nixon in 1974. In documents and statements this week, GOP lawmakers telegraphed their intentions in no uncertain terms. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a devout Clinton antagonist, was the most blatant, circulating a "draft" article of impeachment resembling the first of the three Nixon impeachment articles approved by the Judiciary Committee 24 years ago. Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., mentioned a "deposition perjury article of impeachment" in his comments at a hearing of constitutional scholars. And sitting quietly on the Judiciary Committee's Internet Web site is a newly minted staff report that spells out exactly where the majority is going...Drawing directly from the Nixon documents of a quarter century ago, Mr. Barr's draft called for Mr. Clinton's impeachment, trial and removal from office for "deceits under oath" and for "conduct calculated to corrupt justice." While the measure is only a draft, it is a conspicuous signal of the kind of product the GOP-controlled panel probably will produce sometime after it hears from independent counsel Kenneth Starr next week. Mr. Starr is to appear before the Judiciary Committee Nov. 19 and could be the only major witness called before the panel..Committee Republicans appear willing - as their predecessors did in Watergate - to accuse Mr. Clinton of undermining the judicial process, just as Mr. Nixon was accused of undermining the democratic process, said John McGinnis, a Yeshiva University law professor who once clerked for Mr. Starr when Mr. Starr was an appellate court judge. Mr. McGinnis was among several scholars who told the Judiciary panel Mr. Starr's allegations against Mr. Clinton - if proven to be true - amount to "classic impeachable offenses." Another constitutional scholar, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law, said he was caught by surprise at the determination Republicans showed this week. "Going into this, I thought the Republicans were looking for a nice way out in light of the election results," Mr. Presser said. "But instead, I had a very strong feeling there are a number of lawmakers who regard this as an extremely serious procedure that has to go to its logical and inevitable outcome," Mr. Presser said.."

Newsweek 11/12/98 Juliet Eilperin and Guy Gugliotta ".House Speaker-to-be Bob Livingston (R-La.) is talking tough about President Clinton's behavior, but privately he has suggested he has little interest in pursuing an impeachment inquiry during his speakership. With House Republicans seemingly split over whether to seek the impeachment of the president, Livingston has yet to take an active role in bridging the differences.. In his private conversations with other House members, Livingston has made clear that "he is leaving the whole thing to Hyde," one source said. "There is a very widespread feeling [among House Republicans] and amongst much of the leadership that they want this off the table for the new Congress," said one leading GOP lawmaker. "It is my clear perception that there is nothing the new speaker would want more than to start the next Congress with a clean slate." "Bob's a pragmatist," said Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), a close associate of Livingston's. "I think he's going to want to work through things as quickly as possible. You're not going to see Bob moralizing on the issue or letting the issue divide the House." .In a lunch with reporters yesterday, House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said that he expects Republicans to bring an impeachment resolution to the floor next month. Gephardt refused to predict the outcome, but he criticized the GOP's handling of the process. "We've done a lot wrong now and it's hard to put the thing back together again," Gephardt said. "The problem now is that we're out of time. . . . I still think it's very important to get it over with by the end of the year." .."

Manchester Union Leader 11/12/98 Richard Lessner ".The Republicans' near-death experience in the recent election changes nothing: Perjury remains perjury, obstruction of justice is still a crime. Doubtless the GOP's poor showing has caused some wobbly Republicans to reconsider impeachment -- and the National Embarrassment is casting the election result as public vindication -- but the objective facts of the Monica Lewinsky scandal remain unchanged. We have checked and have failed to find a single word in the Constitution's relevant articles on impeachment about polls, public opinion, ballot referenda, the health of the economy, the state of the weather, Geraldo Rivera's gaseous emissions or any other mitigating circumstances: If there is evidence that the President committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then he must be impeached in the House and tried in the Senate. The election did not relieve Congress of this constitutional duty..At this very moment people languish in prison for committing perjury. Is the President above the law, or will he be held to the same standard that applies to all Americans? This is the challenge the Clinton impeachment poses to the nation. In the end this is less about Bill Clinton than it is about what kind of a people we Americans are and aspire to be.."

Judicial Watch 11/12/98 ".Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman today had strong criticism for House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde's failure to respond to the public interest law firm on whether or not evidence provided to the Committee in the Judicial Watch Interim Report will be acted upon in the upcoming impeachment hearings.. Klayman added that recent public statements by leading Republicans have shown a strong indication that they are looking to sweep the Clinton scandals under the rug. "By focusing almost solely on the Lewinsky sex scandal, Ken Starr and Congressional Republicans have ignored the hard evidence of far more serious crimes," Klayman said. "The knee-jerk reaction to the very disappointing Republican showing on Election Day has been to throw in the towel on the issue of impeachment. It's clear in Hyde's stated reluctance to whole-heartedly pursuing impeachment. It's clear in Senator Arlen Specter's ludicrously unworkable `post-term-prosecution-instead- of-impeachment-now' bait and switch. "Judicial Watch intends to make it just as clear to our political leaders that the American people expect them to do their duty," Klayman concluded. "Justice must be served. Congress may try to run from its responsibility, but it can't `Hyde' from the American people." ."

11/12/98 Letter to John Conyers from Henry Hyde ".I am in receipt of your letter of November 11th proposing that the Committee take the unprecedented step of ruling on the Referral from the Office of Independent Counsel under some notion of demurrer or summary judgment. It appears that you have already made up your mind and that you believe a rush to judgment is appropriate without any airing of the facts or thoughtful consideration of the evidence. However, that directly contradicts the approach that the Committee has taken in past impeachment inquiries. As you recall, in the impeachment of President Nixon, the staff report prepared for the use of the Committee concluded: Delicate issues of constitutional law are involved. Those issues cannot be defined in detail in advance of full investigation of the facts.John, let me remind you of how you interpreted our duty under the Constitution when you led the inquiry of impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in 1988: The goal of the subcommittee's inquiry was to provide to the House all of the facts necessary to make an informed and fair decision about whether Judge Hastings should or should not be impeached. In your letter, you seem inclined to view this impeachment inquiry in any context except a factual one. You cite your views of what the polls mean and the views of some scholars. However, in the impeachment of Judge Hastings, you so aptly stated: An impeachment decision must be based upon the facts. It would be inappropriate, in my opinion, for any Member of Congress to make factual determinations based upon polls or letter received or calls coming into one's office or from any other secondary matter..."

11/13/98 Drudge ".Independent Counsel Ken Starr will not present Congress with any new information from any of his ongoing investigations when he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee next week, it has been learned. According to sources in and out of government, Starr is preparing to offer testimony only on information and evidence included in the impeachment referral on events surrounding Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton. [Deep Washington rumors that Starr is immediately preparing to deliver a new report to the panel of judges that appointed him appear baseless.] ."

11/12/98 Bob Barr ".U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7) today blasted Senator Arlen Specter's (R-PA) suggestion of "holding the president accountable through the criminal process after his term of office expires." "The suggestion that a person prosecutable as a felon should be allowed to occupy the White House severely undermines the foundation of our democracy. How can we have equal justice under law if the person responsible for faithfully executing our laws is allowed to flout them openly and with impunity? "As any attorney knows, there are times when following the law may not be politically expedient. However, we cannot chose to ignore our Constitution based on congressional vote counts, polling data or election results. "If our governing process is altered for this President, future occupants of the office will use that precedent to further damage the presidency. Regardless of its ultimate outcome, this process must move forward so that future presidents know they will be held accountable if they violate the law. "As a practical matter, the President will not be prosecuted after he leaves office. As anyone who has worked for, or is familiar with, the Department of Justice knows, no United States Attorney in the District of Columbia or Arkansas would issue an indictment of a perjurious President the House has refused to impeach. "If any Member of Congress believes the President has not committed impeachable offenses, they should simply step forward and say so. This is a yes or no question, not a multiple choice test. Inventing complex explanations or novel "punishments" undermines the procedure for addressing abuse of power in our Constitution: impeachment."

Wall Street Journal 11/12/98 Editorial ".Led by Chairman Henry Hyde, Judiciary Committee Republicans are showing a remarkable seriousness in their impeachment inquiry.. This creates a huge opportunity for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who is no doubt preparing the testimony he will present starting next Thursday. The restraints the law puts on any prosecutor have kept him from replying to the White House spin offensive against his person. But, as nearly everyone now agrees, an impeachment inquiry is a political forum; the committee is not deciding whether to send Mr. Clinton to jail, but whether he is fit to hold the nation's highest office. By law and honor, Mr. Starr is bound to help them make this momentous decision, to give them the facts and insights they need.What the committee most needs, it follows, is what evidence the counsel has gathered on whether the lies and perjury in the Lewinsky episode were an isolated incident or part of a pattern. In fact it is clearly the latter, as those of us who are steeped in the events immediately recognize."

Wall Street Journal 11/12/98 Editorial ".We reprint [below] Article I of the bill of impeachment that led to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. It is an example of high political standards being applied-- the list of offenses included using the powers of his office to impede investigations, refusing documents to officials entitled to them, telling lies to the American public. These may not have been crimes, but they were a breach of the trust needed to conduct the office of the Presidency. These are the same standards the Judiciary Committee should now apply to President Clinton, and to this end it is Mr. Starr's duty to share with them the full fruits of his investigation.In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.."

AP 11/13/98 John Solomon ".Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr today secured a new indictment against presidential friend Webster Hubbell and sent evidence to House impeachment investigators involving the Kathleen Willey matter. A federal grand jury in Washington charged Hubbell with 15 felony counts, accusing the former presidential golfing buddy of lying and engaging in fraud during federal banking regulators' investigation of many of the original Whitewater allegations. Jay Apperson, an associate independent counsel in Starr's office, said Hubbell was accused of making false statements and committing mail fraud and perjury in connection with his testimony about many of the matters that have been under investigation by Starr in Arkansas for four years. Among the matters that federal bank regulators investigated was work performed by the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, where Hubbell and Hillary Rodham Clinton were partners, for the failed savings and loan owned by the Clintons' Whitewater partners. Apperson said the indictment involved those transactions and other matters as well. Impeachment investigators have been waiting to see what action Starr might take in the matter to see if it would affect their inquiry. The fresh evidence sent by Starr to the House Judiciary Committee does not amount to a formal referral accusing Clinton of wrongdoing, as the one Starr sent in September did. Instead, it allows the committee to determine whether Mrs. Willey's allegation of sexual impropriety against the president should be included in the inquiry, according to sources familiar with the transmittal who spoke only on condition of anonymity."

The Washington Times 11/13/98 Frank Murray ".House Judiciary Committee Democrats have suddenly abandoned their staunch demands that a "constitutional standard" be defined for impeaching President Clinton and have proposed that each member apply his own standard. The concession was part of a failed plea-bargaining proposal intended to pre-empt next week's public hearing, but Republicans flatly rejected the request for a separate vote on standards in a reply letter Thursday. "It appears that you have already made up your mind and that you believe a rush to judgment is appropriate without any airing of the facts or thoughtful consideration of the evidence," Chairman Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican, wrote to Democratic leaders on the committee Thursday In effect, the president's supporters are betting that, "given any definition of impeachable offense or combination of definitions, it's perfectly logical and perfectly reasonable that a majority of the committee would not find he had committed an impeachable offense," Mr. Jordan said.."

Rep Bob Barr 4/25/1997 to Mrs. Clinton ".In February 1974 the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a report produced by a group of lawyers and researchers assigned with developing a scholar memorandum setting forth the "constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment." You were a member of that group of lawyers and researchers, barely, I am sure, able to conceal your dislike for President Nixon. Within the year, Nixon would leave office disgraced , having witnessed articles of impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee, based in part on your report. I must give you and your colleagues credit.. You also-quite correctly-noted then that the constitutional draftsmen chose the terms describing the circumstances under which a president could be impeached very carefully and deliberately. You noted that "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not denote criminal offenses in the sense that prosecutors employ such terms in modern trials. Rather, in your well-researched memorandum, you correctly noted that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" as substituted for George Mason's less precise term in an earlier draft of the Constitution: "Maladministration" (page 12 of your report). Not only that, but your further research led you to quote Blackstone's "Commentaries o the Laws of England" in support of your conclusion that "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant not a criminal offense but an injury to the state or system of government (page 12). I applaud the extent and clarity of your research. You even note that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding questions of intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and misdemeanors" not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them (page12 once again). Magnificent research! Even Alexander Hamilton finds a place in your research. You quote from his Federalist No. 65 that impeachment relates to "misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust" that is "of a nature . . .political [emphasis in original]" (page 13 of your report).."

Judicial Watch 11/13/98 ".Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman today announced he has received a belated reply to his November 10th letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde..The following is the text of the Hyde reply to Judicial Watch: "Your letter of November 10th arrived this afternoon shortly before your scheduled press conference at 1 p.m. Judicial Watch's Interim Report, and Evidence and Documentation Contained Therein, has been received by the Committee and forwarded to our chief investigator, David Schippers. I am advised by Mr. Schippers that every page of your submission has been reviewed by him and his staff. At this time, no decision has been made as to whether to call Judicial Watch as a witness before the Committee. If the Committee should so decide, you will be notified immediately." "Judicial Watch and its millions of supporters intend to hold Chairman Hyde to his word," Klayman concluded. "To ignore the substantial and compelling evidence of presidential wrong-doing in the scandals that have come to be known as `Chinagate,' `Filegate,' `IRS-gate' and `Trustgate,' and not include it in the impeachment inquiry, would amount to a dereliction of duty on the part of Congress. While we appreciate the belated response, actions speak louder than words." ."

Time 11/14/98 Chris Taylor ".Thanks a lot, Ken. Just as beleaguered House Republicans are debating the quickest exit route from the impeachment process that grew out of his earlier referral, Judge Starr has passed along a whole bunch of new evidence this time, concerning presidential accuser Kathleen Willey. But unlike the Lewinsky report, the latest data dump contains no official accusation of wrongdoing. Starr is merely offering documents that suggest Clinton may have committed (you guessed it) perjury when asked about his relationship with Willey. And right now, that's the last thing the GOP needs. "Republicans on the Hill look on the Willey charges as a poison chalice," says TIME congressional correspondent Jay Branegan. "There's a strong desire to get impeachment over with quickly yet if they look like they're not considering it carefully, it hurts them with the core supporters."

AP 11/14/98 Nancy Benac ".And so, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is to be the first witness Thursday at the first presidential impeachment hearings in a quarter-century, set in the same high- ceilinged room where the Nixon debate played out during Watergate. Democrats are sure to pounce on Starr as the independent counsel makes his first public accounting for a 10-month, $4.4 million Lewinsky investigation that has made Starr one of the most unpopular public figures in America. Plotting counterstrategy, Republicans put together a memo on "positive points'' about Starr to be stressed during the hearings. Beyond Starr's testimony, there is enormous uncertainty about how the impeachment drama will unfold, even if few can conceive that the president will actually be ousted. Hyde, R-Ill., hopes to finish the hearings by year's end but says he plans to wait until after Starr testifies before deciding on additional witnesses. The committee's top Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, wants an early vote on whether the main charges against Clinton are impeachable, hoping to halt the inquiry in its tracks. The White House, emboldened by the Democrats' strong showing in this month's elections, is sounding less amenable than in the past even to lesser punishments than impeachment, such as a formal censure and fine. In theory, the impeachment hearings should be a matter of law, not politics. The questions hinge not on the propriety of Clinton's liaisons with Ms. Lewinsky, but on whether his efforts to conceal their relationship amounted to perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Beyond those questions is the issue of whether any of the alleged offenses are worthy of impeachment. In his 445-page report to Congress, Starr laid out 11 possible grounds for impeachment; the Judiciary Committee staff boosted the number to 15.."

house.gov/judiciary/111398.htm 11/13/98 U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, today remarked on the delivery of additional information to the House by the Office of the Independent Counsel: "Today the Office of the Independent Counsel (OIC) notified the Committee on the Judiciary that certain investigative materials relating to the OIC's September 9th Referral were now available for the Committee's review. This notification was made in response to a letter sent by Mr. Conyers and me on October 2, 1998, which inquired as to whether the OIC intended to send additional information stemming from its investigation. Pursuant to Committee rules, the investigative materials have been received in executive session by the Committee. Until such time as the Committee votes to release the materials from executive session, House rules prohibit the disclosure of information describing the contents of the materials.".."

New York Post 11/14/98 Deborah Orin ".President Clinton is paying off Paula Jones because he suddenly got the jitters that an appeals court would brand him a liar - and give new life to next week's impeachment hearings. Now, with the case settled, Clinton could be ready to cut a deal to end the impeachment proceedings by admitting, sort of, that he lied about Monica Lewinsky to Jones' lawyers. Just last week, Clinton lawyer Bob Bennett - emboldened by the election results - dramatically yanked the president's $700,000 final offer to Jones off the table, saying she wouldn't get one cent. It looked as if Paula had blown it. But Clinton flip-flopped yesterday and agreed to pay her $850,000. Why? Well, a federal appeals court was actively considering Jones' bid to revive her suit. Sources say the court had just asked for a few additional documents - including Clinton's sworn deposition...It doesn't take a genius to realize that when the judges asked for a copy of the president's deposition, his legal team knew he was in danger of having the Jones case revived. In that context, $850,000 is a small price to pay. Clinton won't be paying any of it out of his own pocket, anyway. The money is irrelevant. Somebody else will fork it over - he'll go to Hollywood or hold a few fund-raisers, said presidential scholar Stephen Hess.."

Capitol Hill Blue 11/14/98 ".As he prepares to face hostile questioning in the House impeachment inquiry, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is coming up with a few unpleasant surprises for President Clinton. Starr obtained an indictment accusing presidential friend Webster Hubbell of committing 15 felonies in order to conceal his and Hillary Rodham Clinton's work on failed Arkansas land deals that benefited Hubbell's father-in-law, Little Rock businessman Seth Ward. Starr also turned over new evidence for House investigators to decide whether they should expand the impeachment inquiry to include allegations against Clinton by former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey. Democrats were furious at Friday's developments. Starr is engaging in ``a transparent attempt to change the subject'' of ``the Judiciary (Committee) hearings next week,'' said Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J.."

Fort Worth Star-Telegram 11/15/98 Mark Davis ".It's a frenetic scramble. Members of Congress are struggling to come up with something -- anything -- to get President Clinton's head out of the impeachment guillotine. Funny thing is, they're Republicans. GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee still seem willing to undertake their constitutional duty, but outside the committee room, many of the president's critics are jumping off the impeachment train. The coal isn't getting stoked as it was a couple of months ago. Remember the day of the impeachment vote in the full House? Many Republicans, and even a Democrat or two, rose to passionately argue for the need to press on with the impeachment process despite public distaste. But with the elections over, it's as though Monica Lewinsky were never born. It's as though the highest office in the land were never defiled by its current occupant. It's as though Clinton were a decent man who deserved to get back to work. None of those is true, of course, but reality is now seen through the cracked prism of polls and politics. Add to this the enormous gift of a scuffle with Iraq, and the Clinton White House seems home free for now.Few believe that the votes exist for a Senate conviction. But shame on us if political bean-counting douses our will to do what the Constitution requires. If Clinton survives a Senate ordeal, at least he will have been placed before the nation with the obligation to directly answer for what he has done. That is what the process requires -- a timid Congress and a disinterested public notwithstanding.."

Chicago Tribune 11/16/98 Naftali Bendavid ".``It's risky for both sides,'' said James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. ``It's risky for the Republicans because if Starr looks mean-spirited it could backfire. Or it could flip the other way and he could be very articulate and humane and persuasive.'' Starr has kept a low profile during his investigation -- somewhat paradoxically, given his enormous public impact. He has been vilified passionately and praised fervently. His report startled millions with its seamy details, and he frequently dominated the news this year. Yet, his public appearances have been rare and brief. Starr has proven repeatedly that he can gracefully present an argument before a panel of judges, even hostile ones, and his friends describe him as earnest and persuasive. Others find him self-righteous and his style saccharine. ``There is a grave question for both sides about how sympathetic a witness he'll make,'' acknowledged one Republican source. ``He's a bit of an enigma, but so be it.'' Elaborate maneuvering has preceded Starr's appearance. At first, it was the Democrats who vowed to summon him to eviscerate him before the cameras. Ultimately the Republicans brought him in -- and suddenly the Democrats find themselves wondering if Starr's appearance will hurt their cause. As to why the Republicans are calling Starr, they hope to wrap up the hearings quickly and Starr alone can provide a single, coherent story line. We want to establish the facts as much as possible with the fewest witnesses and most direct means,'' said Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla.."

The Washington Post (Editorial) 11/16/98 ".WHEN THE House voted in October to conduct an impeachment inquiry, it took on a responsibility that extends beyond the question of whether Bill Clinton should be allowed to complete his term. However the House members decide to vote on the impeachment issue, the Judiciary Committee and the House as a whole have a separate obligation to judge and, as part of the permanent record in this case, to characterize Mr. Clinton's conduct. The issue is not just his removal -- and not just him. If the vote is to let Mr. Clinton serve out his term, as seems likely, then what does the House mean the country to infer about the acceptable standard of behavior for public officials in the future? Do the flinching Republicans and the president's Democratic supporters mean to suggest that conduct such as his is okay? If that is not the statement, what is? They need to leave no doubt as to what they think -- and they need to find the facts in order to do so credibly. That was their duty before the election. It continues to be so now..As to the judgment, the president did not just lie. He abused the machinery of government for more than half a year to sustain the lie. He has acknowledged only the personal aspects of the wrongdoing. He does not entertain the notion that a lie under oath by the nation's chief law enforcement officer in a legal proceeding raises a question as to fitness for office. The proceeding was trivial, is his defense; the liar gets to choose. Having trashed a standard of behavior, he asks that the national standard of judgment be lowered to match. That will be the precedent set -- the legacy, you might say -- if the House walks away from this case not having somehow condemned as unacceptable the behavior already spread before it. The president, oddly enough, would strengthen the case for his retention in office were he to acknowledge the seriousness of his offense. He refuses to do it. The House has to find a way.."

AP 11/16/98 Larry Margasak ".House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde will ask lawmakers to consider additional witnesses in the presidential impeachment investigation, committee officials said Monday. Republican investigators are especially interested in a former Democratic fund-raiser, The only witness scheduled so far, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, will have two hours Thursday to lay out his case for removing President Clinton from office. Then he will take some hostile questions from Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and possibly from the president's lawyers, too. Hyde planned to meet with Republican committee members Tuesday, to see whether they support holding additional hearings beyond the first one scheduled for Thursday as well as calling witnesses for sworn interviews, said the officials, speaking only on condition of anonymity. The sources said investigators are considering calling former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang for a deposition or for testimony before the committee. If they do, it could signal an expansion of the investigation beyond the Monica Lewinsky matter. The central issue would be whether Clinton had any knowledge of a $100,000 payment to presidential friend Webster Hubbell by Huang's former employer, the Riady family of Indonesia.."

CNN 11-16-98 ".The Justice Department has dismissed many of the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Independent Counsel Ken Starr's office. But the Justice Department's longstanding review of the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) raises questions about a number of remaining charges against Starr. "We have dismissed many of the allegations as not warranting further inquiry," said Myron Marlin, a Justice Department spokesman."

Freeper SuthunBelle reports 11/17/98 MSNBC ".MSNBC just reported that Starr delivered four more boxes of evidence to the Judiciary Committee last night, presumably material Conyers had requested some time ago."

Associated Press 11/17/98 Larry Margasak ".Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr today sent House impeachment investigators material on presidential friend Webster Hubbell, who the prosecutor is investigating for receipt of possible ``hush money'' to protect President Clinton, congressional sources said.. The material includes grand jury information and Hubbell's jailhouse tape recordings, which were released earlier by another House committee.. Republican investigators have expressed a growing interest in former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang, who is cooperating in the Hubbell investigation, House sources said. Starr gained the cooperation of Huang, whose former employer made payments to Hubbell. The president has denied knowledge of the payments..House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt and White House press secretary Joe Lockhart complained that Democrats have been kept in the dark about Thursday's hearing. Gephardt said committee Democrats ``may decide not to go,'' saying they were concerned that Starr would be ``launching into materials that have never been sent to the committee...'' He said Democrats were troubled especially by reports that Starr might testify about Huang and other issues, including White House use of FBI files and firing of employees in the White House travel office.."

Reuters 11/17/98 ".Independent counsel Kenneth Starr sent impeachment investigators in the U.S. House of Representatives four boxes of evidence Tuesday related to former associate attorney general Webster Hubbell, House sources said. Starr, who will appear before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday as the key witness of its impeachment inquiry of President Clinton, has targeted Hubbell in his investigation. A grand jury indicted the longtime friend of Clinton on 15 felony counts last week. Hubbell was hit Friday on charges of fraud, lying, perjury and impeding a probe by two federal agencies stemming from Starr's investigation into the Clintons' failed Whitewater land deal in Arkansas two decades ago.."

AP 11/17/98 Nancy Benac ".Finally, the voice. Monica Lewinsky's girlish excitement and pouty petulance reverberate through the Linda Tripp tapes as she dissects her improbable relationship with the president.. From California, psychologist Robert Butterworth offered this assessment: ``It almost is like sitting down listening to 'Days of our Lives.' ... She's coming across more sympathetically and a little bit more vulnerable than I would have thought.'' The White House professed disinterest. ..At times, Mrs. Tripp comes across as a co-conspirator to Ms. Lewinsky, chortling at her schemes to rendezvous with Clinton. At other points, she is the school marm, correcting Ms. Lewinsky's grammar and voicing exasperation at her naivete. ``Oh, Monica, Monica, Monica,'' she sighs. The irony of some lines rings through on the tapes. Even as Mrs. Tripp is secretly taping her young friend, she advises Ms. Lewinsky: ``I'd be careful what I said on the phone.'' ."

AP 11/17/98 Larry Margasak ".The White House was rebuffed Tuesday in its request to the House Judiciary Committee for more time to cross-examine Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr at the first Clinton impeachment hearing. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., rejected a request by Clinton's lawyers to triple the 30 minutes allotted to them at Thursday's hearing for questioning Starr, Republican committee officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``The granting of any time to the White House illustrates our efforts to be fair,'' one official said. ``Considering each member only has five minutes to question Starr, granting the White House 30 minutes is more than generous.'' ."

USA Today 11/17/98 Major Garrett ".Fewer and fewer in the GOP, it seems, have the stomach for impeachment anymore. When California Rep. David Dreier sat down for lunch at the private 116 Club on Capitol Hill last week with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, he had more on his plate than crab cakes. Dreier had met the day before with Bob Livingston-whom Republicans expect to elect this week as the new House speaker-and he conveyed the following message: Kill the impeachment proceedings. Quickly and with minimal embarrassment. Livingston wants to start the 106th Congress with a clean slate. And he's getting no argument from Hyde. There are two options: Judiciary can nix proposed impeachment articles and close down the probe, or it can vote out one or more charges and recall departing House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the lame-duck 105th Congress to consider the issue. The new math. While several committee Republicans support impeachment, others are wavering. In light of Livingston's wishes, it's growing increasingly unlikely that even one article will survive.. Panel members say the two impeachment articles most likely to survive a committee vote will allege that Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice in the Lewinsky matter. A staff report said that Clinton's conduct was impeachable, although constitutional scholars are split. Before voting, the committee will hear this week from Starr and review Clinton's answers to 81 questions it posed. "Starr's allegations are unrefuted unless or until the president responds," says Rep. George Gekas, a Pennsylvania Republican. "A lot depends on the responses of the president." ."

U.S. Newswire 11/17/98 ".Edward Timperlake and William Triplett, two Capitol Hill investigators with detailed knowledge of People's Republic of China campaign contributions to the Clinton- Gore campaigns and their implications for the impeachment process will hold an informational briefing from 4 to 5 p.m., Wednesday, Nov. 18.Timperlake and Triplett will discuss the relationship and links between President Clinton, Democratic fundraiser John Huang, and Webster Hubbell, and why the scope of the impeachment inquiry should be expanded beyond the Lewinsky affair. The House Judiciary Committee met at 4 p.m. today to discuss expanding the scope of the impeachment inquiry to include the Clinton-Huang- Hubbell connection, according to an Associated Press report. Timperlake and Triplett will also discuss and answer questions about how Chinese campaign contributions were exchanged for sensitive U.S. military intelligence and technology."

New York Times 11/18/98 Don Van Natta ".Preparing for his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, independent counsel Kenneth Starr has rehearsed testimony that details a pattern of obstruction by the White House extending beyond the matter of Monica Lewinsky, lawyers familiar with his preparations said Tuesday. Although he has not made a final decision about the contents of his two-hour opening statement, Starr has discussed the possibility of drawing parallels between the White House's alleged coverup in the Lewinsky affair and earlier alleged attempts to thwart other aspects of the four-year-old Whitewater inquiry, the lawyers said. As one lawyer put it, Starr plans to place the allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice against President Clinton into "historical perspective." Starr is also prepared to highlight the "systematic" campaign by the White House and its loyalists to delay and undermine his office's investigation this year, lawyers said...The Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, announced Tuesday that it would call more witnesses to testify in the inquiry, and rejected a White House request for 90 minutes to cross-examine Starr, rather than the 30 minutes the committee allotted it.. At one point late last week, Starr told his colleagues, "We apologize to no one for seeking the truth."."He does not seek vindication for himself on Thursday," Bakaly explained. "But he does seek vindication of the facts and the rule of law." .."

New York Post 11/18/98 Vincent Morris, Brian Blomquist and Deborah Orin ". "You shall be confined to allegations against the president and the facts and evidence in question," Hyde wrote in a toughly worded letter to White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff. "Efforts to utilize these proceedings as a forum to inquire about non-germane matters, such as investigations into the conduct of [Starr's] investigation, that are pending before other bodies shall not be permitted." Hyde gave Ruff until noon today to respond to his take-it-or-leave-it offer. Earlier, the White House said it wants to quiz Starr - but demanded 90 minutes so three Clinton lawyers could ask questions. Hyde's letter is one more sign that he's taking a tough line and isn't swayed by polls showing most Americans want impeachment to just go away. Aides to Hyde said last night that other witnesses will likely be called - including Vernon Jordan, Clinton secretary Betty Currie and John Huang, whose name last surfaced during the funny-money probe.."

Philadelphia Inquirer 11/18/98 Raja Mishra ".House Republicans working on President Clinton's impeachment inquiry are considering expanding their investigation this week to include bribery allegations arising from the Whitewater scandal. House Democrats, charging partisanship and citing an uninterested public, countered by threatening to boycott the Judiciary Committee's hearings, which are set to begin tomorrow with testimony from independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. Later yesterday they called off the threat. As the historic hearings approach -- only three presidents have faced impeachment proceedings - - there was no evidence of the bipartisanship that party leaders had said they hoped would be the hallmark of these proceedings.."

Reuters 11/18/98 John Whitesides ".Judiciary Committee Republicans decided late Tuesday to call more witnesses in the probe, committee sources said, although the exact lineup and timetable was not nailed down. ``We're working on it,'' Hyde told reporters after the meeting. Some Republican committee members want to hear from additional witnesses, possibly including Huang, to put more evidence against Clinton on the record. ``I still believe there will be other witnesses,'' Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican and committee member, said. But Democrats reacted angrily to the prospect that the inquiry might be broadened beyond the allegations concerning Clinton's affair with Lewinsky, a former White House intern, to include Huang and Hubbell or other issues such as campaign finance, Whitewater and misuse of FBI files. House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt threatened a Democratic boycott of Starr's testimony: ``If this thing keeps going the way it's been going, Democrats may decide not to come to the hearing. This is not the way it should be done.'' But committee Democrats dropped that threat after meeting late Tuesday to map out a strategy for questioning Starr.."

Associated Press 11/18/98 Larry Margasak ".Making his case at the start of impeachment hearings, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr says President Clinton ``repeatedly used the machinery of government and the powers of his office'' to thwart prosecutors' grand jury investigation and the Paula Jones lawsuit. In remarks prepared for delivery Thursday to the House Judiciary Committee, Starr also dismissed Democratic suggestions he had no right to investigate the affair between the president and Monica Lewinsky. Obstruction of justice ``is not a private matter,'' he declared A copy of Starr's testimony was obtained late Wednesday by The Associated Press. ``The evidence further suggests that the president, in the course of these efforts, misused his authority and power as president and contravened his duty to faithfully execute the laws. That too is not a private matter,'' Starr said. The prosecutor also disclosed that his office drafted an impeachment referral to Congress on the original Whitewater allegations last year, but pulled back. The referral related to Clinton's testimony that he knew nothing about a fraudulent $300,000 loan. ..The White House dismissed Starr's statement as a repeat of his earlier impeachament referral ``in new wrapping paper.'' ``The only new thing in the statement is on page 46 and 47 in which he declares the president is innocent in the FBI files and travel office matters,'' it said in a statement..Starr charged that Clinton: --''Made a series of premeditated false statements under oath'' in his Jan. 17 deposition testimony in the Jones lawsuit. --''Participated in a scheme'' at the deposition to deceive the trial judge in the lawsuit by not correcting his lawyer's false assertion that the president did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, Starr's testimony alleges. --Used his Cabinet as ``unwitting surrogates'' to support his false story denying the affair for months. He said the president ``concocted false alibis'' to aides, who then repeated the inaccurate information to the grand jury. Starr eventually subpoenaed Clinton, who testified Aug. 17 before the grand jury. Starr said Clinton lied during that testimony, too, and again when he told the American public in a speech that night that he had given ``legally accurate'' testimony in the Jones case. Other misuses of power, according to Starr, occurred when Clinton and his administration asserted governmental privileges to conceal information from the grand jury.."

Associated Press 11/18/98 Larry Margasak ".Alluding to the graphic sexual detail included in his written report in September, Starr acknowledged some believed it was ``too thorough.'' ``We respectfully but firmly reject the notion that our office was trying to inflame the public,'' Starr stated. ``We must dispute the suggestion that a report to the House suggesting possible impeachable offenses ... should tell something less than the full story.'' .Starr's prepared statement also gave an overview of other aspects of his four-year, $40 million probe. In particular, he drew parallels between the job assistance Ms. Lewinsky got from presidential friends at a time she was emerging as a witness in the Jones case to the $550,000 in payments Clinton supporters routed to Webster Hubbell, Hillary Rodham Clinton's former law partner, in 1994 when Hubbell was under investigation in the Whitewater case. ``This rush of generosity obviously gives rise to an inference that the money was essentially a gift. And if it was a gift, why was it given? This money was given despite the fact that Mr. Hubbell was under criminal investigation,'' Starr opined. Starr said that in addition to misusing his authority, Clinton ``used government resources and prerogatives to pursue his relationship with Monica Lewinsky'' and used Oval Office secretary Betty Currie to ``facilitate and conceal the relationship.''."

New York Times 11/19/98 William Safire ".After months of complaining that Ken Starr's initial referral was "only about lying about sex," Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee now insist the impeachment hearings be limited to sex, the whole sex and nothing but the sex. When chairman Henry Hyde steered the inquiry beyond President Clinton's Lewinsky perjuries, the Democratic leader, Dick Gephardt, had a hissy fit. Stick to the sex (which turns people off) or we walk, was his message. Hyde called that bluff; the boycott threat was hastily withdrawn. Let's assume Judge Starr uses his opening time to show how Clinton exhibited a four-year "pattern and practice" of abusing his power by withholding evidence and tampering with witnesses -- from hushing up Web Hubbell to coaching forgetfulness in Betty Currie. White House lawyers and committee partisans will try to change the subject to Starr's leaks, expenses and prosecutorial hardball, as if he and not the President's lawbreaking were the impeachment issue. Although Clinton has undermined the rule of law with his repeated trivialization of the oath, power abuse beyond "lying about sex" has to be shown before a consensus could form for removal..If Judiciary is unwilling to look into this, it does not take seriously its impeachment responsibility. That's because the word in the Constitution that comes before "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a cause for impeachment is "bribery." Huang, a secret participant with Indonesia's James Riady and Bruce Lindsey at meetings in the Oval Office, knows what policy advice was solicited and how much hard and soft cash was solicited. Clinton's Justice Department has avoided questioning Huang for two years..Nor should the committee rely on any independent counsel as its only source of information. The unpublicized Select Committee on Chinagate has yet to share its secret findings with Judiciary. Before a vote is taken on impeachment, Congress should find and tie up Starr's loose ends.."

The Weekly Standard 11/23/98 David Tell ".When you are on the "winning" side of some soon to be resolved issue, you are naturally disinclined to invite detailed argument about the merits of your position. Congressional Democrats believe they have this Clinton-Lewinsky matter locked down tight. So last Monday, at the House Constitution Subcommittee hearing on standards for presidential impeachment, they felt no need to engage in any serious debate about the foreordained result..Why any of this might be true-and why they now believe it is unacceptable even to consider impeaching Bill Clinton for the crimes alleged against him-the subcommittee's minority did not say. But last week's hearing was not entirely without value, for some kind of serious answer to these questions did indeed emerge from the parade of expert academic witnesses the Democrats had called. In at least some of the exhaustively footnoted testimony, a reasonably coherent defense of the president was finally revealed-reasonably coherent, but frightening..This proposed impeachment doctrine has obvious problems of consistency. If a president may lie under oath about sex, what else may he lie about? And if there are certain things he may lie about, how might the Justice Department continue fully to enforce federal perjury penalties against all the rest of us? At the end of the day, the best that can be said for a "Lewinsky exemption" to impeachment is that it accurately reflects what is apparently a gut-level majority sentiment in America..It was once an elemental principle that the president, surely the president, must obey the law. Oddly enough, the fact that this principle has been almost forgotten-that the nation wants to keep Bill Clinton-is one of the strongest reasons he should be impeached.."

Freeper MoralSense reports on Ken Starr's opening statement 11/19/98 ".I have to post this from memory, but it'll be close. Starr, covering what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, said, "What if a President, in a civil case, were to attempt to bribe the judge, or to bribe a witness? Such an action, though not related to the conduct of his office, would seem to be clearly, textually contemplated in the Constitution." And then he proceeded to lay out all the ways in which Clinton had bribed Monica Lewinsky.."

newsday.com 11/19/98 Laurie Kellman AP ".At long last, Ken Starr spoke to Congress and the nation in a soft, composed monotone, neither his voice nor his face betraying the passion surrounding his task of investigating the president..Democrats had demanded his appearance. Republicans prepared themselves to defend him from partisan attacks. But not everyone was listening when the bespectacled Starr delivered his two-hour testimony about the probe of Clinton's conduct. The two most senior Democrats on the panel, Reps. John Conyers of Michigan and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, left the committee room before Starr was halfway finished. Others on their side joined them. On the Republican side, Rep. Charles Canady of Florida shut his eyes for a few moments at a time as Starr read his statement in a businesslike manner..It took only about 30 seconds for the impeachment hearing to lapse into partisan bickering.."

UPI 11/19/98 ".House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde chided his fractious, squabbling committee (Thursday) saying, ``I don't think this has been at all a fair procedure, and it is not the fault of the chair.'' In order to get the most out of the five minutes they were allotted to question independent counsel Kenneth Starr, the members used most of their time to make a speech, then squeezed in a list of questions, leaving Starr struggling to answer, or even remember, everything he had been asked.."

Richmond Times-Dispatch 11/19/98 Editorial "The members of the 105th Congress face uniquely tragic circumstances. The Oval Office is occupied by perhaps the most perfidious President in history at a time when the electorate may be more uninformed and amoral than ever. For that reason, Congress should ignore polls [and] behave as statesmen, not politicians. They must lead instead of follow."

CSPAN 1 11/19/98 Freeper A Whitewater Researcher reports ".For all you archivists out there, Judge Starr agreed with House Judiciary Chief Republican Investigative Counsel David Schippers when Schippers asked Starr if members of Starr's grand jury laughed at Clinton when the latter testified before them last summer. This Schippers/Starr exchange took place at 10:08 PM EST tonight during Judge Starr's House Judiciary Committee Clinton Impeachment Inquiry testimony, just a few minutes ago.Judge Starr is now getting a standing ovation at the conclusion of his questioning by David Schippers! Schippers said he was proud to be in the same profession and in the same room as Judge Starr!"

Freeper SamAdams76 11/19/98 reports ".Henry Hyde, chairman of the Impeachment Committee, announced that the committee will subpoena the following three witnesses to the impeachment hearings: -Nathan Landow -Bob Bennett - Lawyer for Kathleen Willey (The name escapes me)."

Freeper Deb 11/19/98 reports ".Anyone wanting to get the truth need only watch the last two hours when Starr took Kendall downtown and then Schippers provided one of the greatest "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" jump-to-your-feet-crying-and-clapping moments in the history of committee hearings, with his final statement. My second favorite part was when Schippers repeated the Democrats mantra that Monica said no one asked her to lie. He did what the Democrat Crime Family were incapable of doing...reading the rest of the sentence..."No one asked me to tell the truth, either." KABOOM!!!!!! ."

Freeper Big Ezy 11/19/98 reports ".He was good. I loved the mission acomplished(one c or two? it's late) bit and when he told Starr he was proud to be in the room with him it was the perfect finish to a long day.."

Freeper Dittojedd 11/19/98 reports ".One of my favorite moments was when Kendall asked Starr "Did you use private investigators [ to inquire about women that the president was rumored to have had affairs with while Governor of Arkansas]"? and referred to a $500,000 line item in the expense report of the OIC. Starr replied "Uh, no, we have never hired Terry Lenzner, David."."

Freeper jgreen 11/19/98 reports ". After wiping the tears from my face that unexpectedly started after people began to stand in acknowledgment of the incredible performance of Kenneth Starr tonight, I was struck by this simple argument. Starr(Republican), Schippers(Democrat), two men of honor working towards a common goal. Tonight, we Freepers were given an example of what can be accomplished by persons of diverging backgrounds working together on the areas in which they find commonality.."

Some Freeper reactions to the end of the testimony of Judge Starr

Aligyrl-02 "A FREAKING STANDING o!!!!!!!"

Anthem "Standing ovation for Judge Starr."

Bobsat "STANDING OVATION!!!!!!"

UncleDaddy " YESSSSSS!!!!!!!"

brundle "Starr just got a standing ovation!!"

Wil H "STARR IS GETTING A STANDING OVATION !!!"

Ivote2 "It is obvious to me that Henry Hyde has hired a suberb lawyer. The Republicans need to get up their courage and go forth. Conduct the investigation and follow all the leads. Damn the torpedos and full steam ahead! Clear the President, censure or impeach him.. but do it in the open and take as long as it needs. "

Clinton's a liar "You got it, sweetie... Standing O!"

Jwalsh07 "You have quite the sense of smell! Do you smell articles of impeachment?"

Trailer Trash "STANDING O FOR STAR! I am going to blow a gasket!!!!"

quidnunc "When Starr's testimony concluded the room erupted in applause - except for the Democrats."

Freedom_Fyter "YESSS!!! GO SCHIPPERS, GO!!!"

Prince Charles "Yeppers! Will someone shut up that damn fool from Houston?!"

Tin Man "Ken Starr is getting a standing "O"!!!!!"

RJayneJ "I'm weeping. A standing ovation!!!! And there is S Jackson Lee like a fart in church. What a creepy person she is!!!!!."

mrssmith "UNBELIEVABLE!!!"

lsucat " I'm sitting here crying my eyes out. He deserves this standing ovation more than anyone ever has. I cannot stand Bill Clinton!"

small voice in the wilderness "The most beautiful sight in the world!! Truth has just been honored."

bcjohnson "Wasn't it great? My eyes teared up and I got quite a lump in my throat. My god...THAT'S vindication, instead of villification. After I saw the Standing-O, I ran to the bathroom, and when I came back...SHE...was on the screen again! What is that jaw-flappin, martian-minded moron doing back on my TV?????? AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

Freeper Kristinn 11/20/98 reports ".Right now, 02:10 EST, it's late for me, but I wanted to let you know a Freeper was in the House at the climax of the Judiciary Committee hearing. The feeling was overwhelming as I watched Judge Starr toy with David Kendall, then blast President Clinton's disregard for the Constitution with able assistance from Mr. Schippers. When it was over, the cheering slowly started from shy, scattered applause and rose to a sustained standing ovation from the public. They were cheering the Constitution as much as they were cheering the man who had actually held up his oath to preserve, protect and defend it. The Democrats remained seated and dour, they had lost big today and they knew it.."

USA Today 11/20/98 ".The House impeachment inquiry is moving beyond President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, after an initial hearing produced a heated clash between independent counsel Ken Starr and presidential lawyer David Kendall. Starr made a grueling, 12-hour appearance before the committee Thursday, fencing with hostile Democrats and basking in Republican praise before engaging in a much-anticipated showdown with Kendall. Starr was so much in the spotlight that the facts of his impeachment referral on the Lewinsky matter barely got a mention. Before exhausted lawmakers went home, they met in closed session to extend to move the inquiry into the Kathleen Willey case and other matters. Majority Republicans approved subpoenas for Clinton's lawyer in the Paula Jones case, Robert Bennett; Daniel Gecker, attorney for Willey, a former White House aide who says Clinton groped her near the Oval Office; and an acquaintance of Willey, major Democratic donor Nathan Landow. Committee officials announced that Clinton's closest aide, Bruce Lindsey, also would be subpoenaed... ''As far as I know, there has never been a case where a person's lawyer was asked to come and testify,'' Clinton told reporters at Tokyo's Haneda airport before boarding Air Force One for a flight to Seoul, South Korea. Greg Craig, a special counsel to Clinton, summed up the hearing: ''There was nothing very much new of substance ... other than the fact the president and first lady were exonerated in two very important investigations.'' Interviewed on NBC's Today, Craig said Clinton's conduct was wrong but not impeachable. The president is still working on a list of 81 questions submitted by the committee, Craig added. ''They'll be in due course and timely fashion submitted to the committee.''."

Newsday 11/20/98 AP To Ken Starr from Sam Dash ".I hereby submit my resignation as outside consultant and adviser to you and your Office of Independent Counsel, effective at noon today. My decision to leave has nothing whatsoever to do with the many unfounded and misinformed attacks on your conduct as independent counsel.. I resign for a fundamental reason. Against my strong advice, you decided to depart from your usual professional decision-making by accepting the invitation of the House Judiciary Committee to appear before the committee and serve as an aggressive advocate for the proposition that the evidence in your referral demonstrates that the president committed impeachable offenses.."

11/20/98 Statement by Henry Hyde "."I am grateful that the Independent Counsel appeared before our Committee yesterday and would like to point out that he was merely complying with the law when he testified. The Independent Counsel statute states: 'The appropriate committees of the Congress shall have oversight jurisdiction with respect to the official conduct of any independent counsel appointed under this chapter, and such independent counsel shall have the duty to cooperate with the exercise of such oversight jurisdiction.' (Independent Counsel Statute, Section 595, (a) (1)) At the public urging of Committee Democrats, the Judiciary Committee invited Judge Starr to testify. If he had not agreed to testify at our request, we would have been compelled to subpoena him.."

MSNBC Jay Severin 11/20/98 ".Many say the House impeachment hearing changed nothing. They are wrong; everything has changed. America is now, officially, in what historians must recall as the "O.J.-Clinton era." DURING THE "Nixon era" Gerald Ford pardoned an earlier version of criminal president, assuring us that our "long national nightmare" was over. That may have been a bad dream, but this - this - is a nightmare. In the O.J.-Clinton era, right is wrong; wrong is right; wisdom is worthless; law is denounced, duty desecrated, honor mocked. In the O.J.-Clinton era, an honest man is vilified for enforcing the law; the cop is the villain, the criminal the hero. Thus, the president of the United States lies under oath, obstructs justice, abuses his office (and, maybe, sells our enemies our secrets for campaign cash). But we don't care. Maxine Waters and Barney Frank are seriously regarded, while Ken Starr is dismissed as a zealot? I am not a religious man, but God help us. From the opening moment of the third impeachment hearing in our history, it was history stood on its head. The chief executive stands accused of vile behavior and criminal conduct, but it is the investigator that is put on trial. Not one Clinton defender defended Clinton. They did not need to. It was Ken Starr under fire. Then, the next morning, Democrat ethics advisor (an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp) Sam Dash resigns because of Starr's conduct. Classic O.J.-Clinton era stuff."

New York Post 11/20/98 Steve Dunleavy ".HE HAS a demeanor akin to a sphinx, and you get the impression that if you cut off his toes with a chain saw, he might politely ask you to stop making so much noise. He has the passion of a sun-dried rock - but facts, quiet reason and yes, robotic facts, roll off his tongue like a kid reciting his catechism or the Talmud. I think sharing a toast with Judge Kenneth Starr at the office Christmas party would be as much fun as root canal. But if you commit a federal crime in Washington, you better hope Starr won the lottery and is vacationing in Tahiti. He'll get your ass.. Truth is, the low-key conned the high octane. Starr, in a drone-like monotone, drop-kicked John Conyers back to Michigan - and all the sniping, whining Dems back to oblivion. "Many [say] the root of this allegation of perjury had nothing to do with official duties," Starr said. "It is also true that if a president committed murder or rape, it would have nothing to do with official duties, but would be impeachable - when we are talking about perjury." ..It was fascinating to hear this rather boring but lethal robocop in action - a man who will give Bill Clinton heartburn as if he was eating meatballs for the rest of his life at breakfast...Throughout the entire day, could you believe, not a single Democrat on that 37-member committee ever questioned the facts of Kenneth Starr's findings - I mean, not a single fact...This great country needs this slightly clumsily dressed human, a man who has the passion of a dried rock - a man who puts the letter of the law above the letter of lasciviousness. We need him to lead us from this dark desert of sex, lies and audiotape.."

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas reports 11/20/98 on T.V. News ".Sam Dash was pressured by the White House to quit and do it in a big public way. The White House knew yesterday Mr. Dash was resigning and begin leaking the news of a defection from Starrs' camp. I wounder what's in his F.B.I. file? At his age? ".Freeper tommydale added ".Reported by Lisa Myers, NBC and verified by several lawyers in Washington who knew about it last week!!."

MSNBC 11/20/98 Dennis Shea ".We can now officially stipulate that the Starr Report is true. Every sentence, every phrase, every footnote. All true. What other conclusions can we possibly draw from yesterday's 12-hour marathon impeachment hearing? Barely a word was uttered in the president's defense yesterday. It was all attack, attack, attack. IF THE PRESIDENT didn't lie under oath, you'd think his $500-an-hour lawyer, David Kendall, would have used his precious hour of questioning time to rebut Ken Starr's damning charges. If the president didn't obstruct justice, a felony, you'd think Democratic counsel Abbe Lowell would have eagerly presented "exculpatory evidence." And if the president didn't engage in a criminal conspiracy, you'd think the defense team of Conyers, Frank & Waters would still be shouting this truth from the top of the Capitol dome. But no. Barely a word was uttered in the president's defense yesterday. It was all attack, attack, attack, time once again to play beat up on the Ken Starr pi¤ata. And so John and Barney and Maxine continued to do what they apparently enjoy: smearing the independent counsel with a ferocity and relentlessness that would make 'Ole Tailgunner Joe blush with pride. It didn't work. Ken Starr appeared at the hearing wearing a gray suit and a blue shirt, not two black horns and a big red tail. He came across not as a sex-obsessed pervert but as a man obsessed with vindicating the rule of law. He entered the hearing room carrying not a copy of Hustler but a copy of the Constitution. Starr was not about to become an accomplice to his own character assassination. When he finally did have a chance to defend himself in a public forum, he did so with force and clarity. His anger was real, not manufactured; his passion sincere, not contrived..But that's where it ends. No matter what Henry Hyde may dig up on the Kathleen Willey incident, no matter what Bruce Lindsey or Bob Bennett may say, it's exceedingly unlikely that the full House of Representatives will go the full distance and impeach the president. To paraphrase Cuba Gooding Jr., "Show me the votes!" I can't; they just aren't there.."

MSNBC 11/20/98 Lisa Myers ".A lawyer involved in daily White House strategy began whispering to the press Thursday morning about a coming "defection" on Starr's team. The president's defenders, including former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben Veniste, were quick to capitalize.."

The New York Times 10/21/98 Jill Abramson ".On Whitewater, where it all started, Starr's testimony fell well short of clearing the president of wrongdoing. Starr said that he had prepared a draft impeachment referral on Whitewater late last year, but decided not to forward it to the Congress because he was unsure whether the credibility of the witnesses against Clinton was sufficient to make a strong case. A prosecutor's failure to bring charges is not the same thing as granting a public official a clean bill of ethical health, lawyers noted. "There is a distinction between not being charged and being exonerated," said Irvin Nathan, a Washington criminal defense lawyer who served in the Clinton Justice Department. "A prosecutor doesn't give out gold medals for good conduct." Nor are the investigations of the travel office and FBI file matters, colloquially known as Travelgate and Filegate, closed. Starr said he is continuing to investigate both matters and could pursue charges against lower-ranking officials. ."

ABC News 11/20/98 Heather Maher ".When he opened his mouth, fire didn't shoot out. And when he mentioned President Clinton by name, his head didn't spin 360 degrees on his neck. Despite all the unflattering ways critics have characterized Ken Starr -- the latest, "a federally paid sex policeman" -- and his investigation -- "an obsession" -- when he finally appeared before the nation Thursday, he looked and sounded about as threatening as a junior high school math teacher. Sitting alone at the long wooden table, rimless glasses catching the camera's lights, the independent prosecutor was the picture of unflappability. Even as Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee tried to one-up each other in their attacks on him, his expression remained placid. It was an odd sight. As Starr gazed back at his accusers, the camera recorded the face of a man who might have been watching a tennis match, instead of listening to himself being vilified on worldwide television..Referring to the binder Kendall had used in his questioning, Schippers said, "You were questioned about two lines inside of this 2 1/2-inch document, and you had to go and hunt for the answers, didn't you, judge?" At this, the independent counsel appeared slightly embarrassed. Smiling a little sheepishly, he said, "That's right." The sympathy quotient rose.At the end, the standing ovation from the audience might have been more for Starr's endurance than for his effectiveness, but there was no question it was sincere. Starr might not have even known that most of the room was on its feet, had he not turned around. The music was too loud. "How long have you been an attorney, Judge Starr?" Schippers asked, as the violins rose for the finale. "Twenty-five years," came the answer, as the woodwinds joined in. "Well, I have been an attorney for almost 40 years." The kettle drums sounded. "I want to say I am proud to be in the same room with you and your staff." "Thank you, Mr. Schippers." Cue the trumpets. And with that, Ken Starr turned, bowed slightly, and left the building.."

Lindsey Graham 11/21/98 Statement on Judiciary Hearing "."I believe I've been pretty fair to the president so far. I've given him the benefit of the doubt and withheld judgement in order to make sure this process is done in a manner that will withstand historical scrutiny. This isn't just about today, it's about whether future generations think we handled this in a manner that was fair to the president, the constitution, and the rule of law. "For over twelve hours, Judge Starr answered questions from the members, counsels, and the president's attorney. Like many members, I thought the most interesting exchange would occur when the president's attorney questioned Judge Starr. I had hoped he would try to refute the facts which the Independent Counsel had presented. Needless to say, I was disappointed. "Mr. Kendall focused on the prosecution's tactics -- not the facts which the prosecutor presented. Far from being an opportunity to clear the president of any wrong doing, it became another opportunity to try and discredit the investigation. "In my opinion, Judge Starr has presented a very compelling case regarding perjury before the federal grand jury by the president. I found his presentation to be persuasive, professional, and in-depth. "The president and his attorney should quit playing games. It's put-up or shut-up time. I would encourage the president to get serious about this process. His legal strategy yesterday may make for good political theater, but it won't make for good government or upholding the rule law. "After yesterday's hearing, the president still hasn't disputed the facts contained in the referral. In my opinion, he missed an opportunity to influence the facts. The president, nor his attorney, should not waste another opportunity."."

Washington Post 11/21/98 Nat Hentoff ".On both sides of the aisle, a feckless consensus is taking hold. The most vital decision Congress must make -- short of declaring war -- now depends on the polls. Mark Sanford, a conservative Republican representative from South Carolina, says bluntly: "The outcome is all but certain. This thing ain't going anywhere." But a daring member -- Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) -- disagrees: "I don't think we're just here to follow public opinion." The Democrats, of course, are brandishing the poll results as if they were Excalibur, King Arthur's utterly decisive sword.But even Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) has said that the result of the impeachment process must be supported by a public majority. I commend to the usually redoubtable chairman Hyde what Justice Brandeis said: "For good or ill, [our government] teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law." And if members of Congress become accomplices in the president's lawbreaking, they have subverted not only the presidency but Congress itself. "

The Washington Times 11/20/98 Wesley Pruden ".Barney Frank, the great moral exemplar from the precincts of the Massachusetts witch burners and slave traders, was beside himself most of the day, spluttering contrived rage and spraying real spittle on his papers (and his neighbors) with objections, excuses and points of order beyond number. John Conyers, obsessed with the subject as only an old man haunted by memories of used-to-be and surrounded by nubile young women can be, wanted to talk only about sex. Gerald Nadler, the thousand-pound balloon from the Macy's Christmas parade, looked about to burst, pumped up with unction and self-righteousness. David Kendall, trying to look as wise as a tree full of owls, sat waiting his turn, his face wrinkled in the permanent Baptist-deacon scowl that some $400-an-hour lawyers put on to impress credulous clients. Hidden beneath the theatrical ugliness lay the real ugliness, which escaped only when they opened their mouths to speak.."

The New York Post 11/21/98 ".The saddest thing about Kenneth Starr's impressive 12-hour performance before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday is that, in the end, it will make so little difference. It's a safe bet at this point that President Clinton will not be removed from office - in fact, it appears doubtful that the Republican-controlled House will even vote for impeachment. That's not Ken Starr's fault. Convincingly keeping his cool in the face of vicious and fiercely partisan attacks from Democrats, he calmly and methodically set out the case against the president. As former top Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos put it: ''Ken Starr made a powerful case that the president lied under oath, [that he] interfered with [Starr's] investigation - and that it matters.'' If nothing else, Starr effectively put the lie to the year-long demonization campaign that has been waged against him by the president's run-amok pit bulls..But Ken Starr is not the one who testified that his narrowly defined statements were ''legally accurate.'' Unlike Bill Clinton, Starr understood the meaning of the oath he took - to tell ''the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'' Now it turns out that Starr is under fire for having agreed to testify at all. In resigning his post, Dash charged that Starr had violated the mandated neutrality of his office by appearing before the committee as an ''aggressive advocate'' in favor of impeachment. It's difficult to see how Starr, who had judiciously held his tongue despite the onslaught against him, could have avoided testifying. Republicans were prepared to issue a subpoena if he declined their invitation - and Democrats, hot to cross-examine Starr, would have joined in. Had he refused, Starr might have found himself in contempt of Congress. Dash's assessment also falls short on the merits: Even while presenting the compelling details of his case, Starr repeatedly emphasized that it was up to Congress to evaluate the evidence and decide whether or not it meets the definition of ''high crimes and misdemeanors'' required by the Constitution for impeachment of the president.."

The Washington Post 11/21/98 John Harris ".President Clinton today said he has already punished himself in the Monica S. Lewinsky affair and called on Congress to "get beyond the partisanship" as the House decides whether to impeach him..White House press secretary Joe Lockhart, watching the tube in his own room, insisted that he clicked right past the hearing in favor of a channel featuring Japanese sumo wrestling.."

The New York Post 11/19/98 Steve Dunleavy ".GEORGE WASHINGTON and Abe Lincoln must have their angels' wings tied in knots. They are watching, from above, a man called Bill Clinton who doesn't have the guts of a toad. Any real man would have hung up his boxer shorts a long time ago and said: "Hey, you guys, you got me dead to rights." They are watching a vice president who suffers from almost terminal foot-in-mouth disease. Al Gore doesn't only beg illegal money from Asia, he has the huge intelligence to go to Malaysia and insult the populace. Today, as Washington launches the impeachment hearings, they are watching allegedly smart people, people on both sides of the political aisle, behave like pre-pubescent teens...There are battlefields fertilized by the remains of the fallen in the fight to ''have a say" in the process - from the British redcoat era on. And yet, the average registered voter would rather watch Hollywood Squares than listen to a political speech. Little wonder. .In the meantime, if I ever hear anybody else talking about what Clinton has done for the economy I will go postal. Anyone with a passing acquaintance with reality knows it is industry leaders, Wall Street and Fed Reserve boss Alan Greenspan who deserve the credit. Come to think of it, I like the sound of that - President Greenspan. Once we had a president nicknamed the Gipper. Well, lose this one for the Zipper.."

New York Times 11/21/98 Eric Scmitt ".Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent subpoenas Friday to four witnesses in the expanding impeachment inquiry, setting up possible new conflicts with lawyers over privilege claims even as panel members planned a firmer timetable that could result in a full House vote on impeachment by mid-December. Republican aides also said the panel was tentatively scheduled to vote on any articles of impeachment the week of Dec. 7. If the articles are approved, the panel could bring them to the full House the week of Dec. 14, although aides cautioned that the schedule was subject to change.The White House is assessing the likelihood of quashing an impeachment vote on the House floor, the officials said. The Judiciary Committee, after a party-line dispute in closed session, said it would subpoena four witnesses, three of whom are lawyers. The Republicans said they hoped those witnesses would shed light on whether President Clinton or his associates tried to influence the testimony of Kathleen E. Willey, a former White House volunteer who claims the President groped her outside the Oval Office. The contentious issue of whether lawyers would be required to waive lawyer-client privilege in testimony before a House committee surfaced on Thursday as the Judiciary panel ended a draining daylong hearing with Kenneth W. Starr..On addition, the committee's ranking Democrat, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, objected to Republican efforts to delve into Clinton's 1996 campaign finance practices. In a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, Conyers opposed a request from Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, the panel's chairman, for a prosecutor's report to Ms. Reno recommending she name an independent counsel to investigate Clinton and Vice President Al Gore and other fund-raisers for their re- election campaign."

Associated Press 11/21/98 Larry Margasak ".Two Republican lawmakers say dozens of their House GOP colleagues may join them in opposing removal of President Clinton if the Judiciary Committee approves articles of impeachment. Rep. John Edward Porter, R-Ill., estimated Friday that as many as 50 Republicans might refuse to support impeachment. Another anti-impeachment GOP lawmaker, Rep. Peter King of New York, put the number at 15 to 40. ``If I'm correct, the votes aren't there,'' Porter said. Republicans have only a 228-206 margin in the House, with one independent who customarily votes with Democrats. A simple majority vote would be needed to approve the impeachment articles and send the case to the Senate for trial..Republicans who have been quoted in news stories in opposition to impeachment include Reps. Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Jack Quinn of New York. If any move is made to stop impeachment before it reached a floor vote, it would have to come from incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston, King said. ``Anything that should be done should be done by Bob Livingston,'' said King, who, like Porter, favors a censure of Clinton. ``How we get there I'm going to leave up to Bob or a designee of Bob.'' Livingston has said only he wants the inquiry ended this year..Both King and Porter, political moderates, said they don't intend to rally support for their position. ``The worst thing would be for the committee to offer a resolution of impeachment and it fails (in the full House). Then the president has gotten off scot free,'' Porter said. A Republican official with the Judiciary Committee, who also demanded anonymity, said there are no cracks now among the 21 GOP committee members, but the lawmakers ``realize at some point it will be out of their hands.'' Polls taken Thursday evening, as prosecutor Starr testified before the committee, seemed to support a wedge between committee Republicans and the public. A poll by the Gallup organization asked respondents whether they would want their House member to vote in favor of impeachment and send the case to the Senate. Thirty-five percent said yes and 62 percent said no. The poll of 652 people had an error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points.."

Washington Post 11/21/98 Juliet Eilperin Peter Baker ".The Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee emerged from this week's nationally televised hearing determined to impeach President Clinton for lying under oath, according to several lawmakers, despite yesterday's abrupt resignation of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's ethics adviser. A day after Starr's marathon testimony, Judiciary Republicans pressed forward with their inquiry by issuing new subpoenas and signaled their resolve to punish the president for his conduct in the Paula Jones case when they vote on articles of impeachment in two weeks. "I don't think [Starr] moved the American public," said Rep. Chris Cannon (R- Utah), a member of the committee, "but the Republicans came out strengthened in their view that the president committed impeachable crimes." Yet the momentum among the panel's GOP caucus seemed to defy both public opinion and sentiment among their colleagues outside of the committee. Even before ethics adviser Samuel Dash quit yesterday to protest Starr's appearance on Capitol Hill as an "abuse of your office," a growing number of House Republicans were wary of evicting Clinton from office because of the Monica S. Lewinsky matter. Since House Democrats are strongly against impeachment, defections by as few as a dozen Republicans could decide the outcome of a floor vote in Clinton's favor.."

Richmond Times Dispatch 11/21/98 Editorial ".Starr disrobed the naysayers and con artists who had spent nine months and more arguing that a White House sex scandal provided insufficient grounds for im- peaching or even censuring a President. The other side gave the game away when, prior to the hearing, it said Starr shouldn't be allowed to discuss issues beyond that woman, Miss Lewinsky. Starr himself conceded presidential adultery was neither impeachable high crime nor impeachable misdemeanor. But are perjury and obstruction only peccadilloes, too? The court jesters wear no clothes.."

Freeper report 11/21/98 on CNN Franken ".He reported that GOP members who were unsure about how they would vote were recommitted following Starr's testimony. According to Rep Graham, "the evidence, as laid out by the independent counsel, demonstrates that this the most blatant case of grand jury perjury that I have ever seen". Franken reports that a vote to send the articles of impeachment to the full House appears likely. Franken also spoke with a Republican member of the House who is not on the committee (I didn't catch his name). He stated that un-named members of Clinton's cabinet are privately calling members of the House to see if there is any room for compromise on impeachment. He went on to say that he had received such a call.."

Liberty 11/98 R.W. Bradford ".The Republicans hold majorities in both the House and Senate, and the evidence is that they would prefer not to impeach the president. Certainly, they are better off with a Democratic president who is wounded so badly he cannot interfere with their legislative plans, and is so preoccupied with his own survival that he is totally ineffective in setting the national agenda -- not to mention the fact that he is liable to be a millstone around the necks of other Democratic politicians. In contrast, Democrats in marginal districts have every incentive to get the president out. He certainly isn't advancing their legislative agendas, and having him in a position of party and national leadership harms their re-election chances. So it's not surprising that most of Clinton's remaining Democratic support comes from congresspeople from overwhelmingly Democratic districts. They have no fear of losing their next election because of the president's unpopularity, and even a wounded president is able to reward his allies in Congress with pork barrel projects. Even so, I suspect the jig is up for the president. His behavior was outrageous and felonious. Over time, people will probably overcome their natural distaste for such tawdry character of the charges against the president and conclude that he has to go. Eventually, there will be enough votes to impeach him, and he will resign rather than face the ignominy of being the first president ever convicted by the Senate. And I will win my bet.

Boston Herald 11/21/98 Editorial ".Dash's ivory-tower advice is a slap in the face to Congress -- Republicans and Democrats alike. Its members have every right to question the author of such a document, to note body language, vocal inflection and everything else as they assess his credibility, honesty, judgment and approach. Sam Dash, a Democrat who had defended Starr's work up to this point, has done nobody any service by his resignation.."

AP 11/21/98 David Espo ".Republican members of the Judiciary Committee - including some who joined in the applause Thursday when Starr finished fielding the last barbed, Democratic question - appear unanimously prepared to approve one or more articles of impeachment....They have been reading the evidence that Starr provided them relating to Clinton's efforts to conceal his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky....``If the facts don't change, it is the most overwhelming case for grand jury perjury I have ever seen,'' said Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a former military and civilian prosecutor and one of a small handful of committee Republicans who had seemed to waver on impeachment...Congressional Democrats say they want to have the issue resolved by the end of the year. And while they have attacked Hyde's handling of the issue at nearly every turn, they decided tentatively last week not to press for the subpoenas of Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg and other witnesses whose testimony would delay the case...."

Fox News 11/24/98 Renee Schilhab ".As the House Judiciary Committee presses ahead with its impeachment inquiry, the new chairman of the Democratic caucus, Rep. Martin Frost, suggested on Monday that the House of Representatives may be able to resolve the impeachment issue by censuring President Clinton and having him make a statement before the House. "Clearly something needs to be done on this issue before the end of the year," Frost said in an interview. "That's why I am suggesting censure as an option.".The GOP has a 22-vote majority in the House, but Republicans admit that as many as 20 or even more GOP congressmen may vote against impeachment. With 67 votes needed for approval in the Senate, it is unlikely that impeachment would be approved by that body.."

Newsday 11/24/98 Larry Margasak AP ".With time running short for any expansion of the inquiry, majority Republicans scheduled a Dec. 1 public hearing on the consequences of perjury. Individuals convicted of the crime and federal judges are expected to testify, as committee chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., tries to focus on the core issue for Republicans: whether President Clinton lied under oath to conceal his affair with Monica Lewinsky.. . . The hearing next week is to focus on the consequences of perjury in the judicial system. Republicans have argued that perjury under oath is a crime, whether in a civil or criminal case, and no matter what the subject. Democrats have countered that lying to conceal a sexual affair should not be a standard for removing a president from office. They point out that all testimony relating to the Lewinsky matter was barred from the Jones lawsuit by the trial judge, and should not be a factor in the impeachment investigation.."

CNN/AllPolitics 11/24/98 CNN staff ".A preliminary vote count by Republicans shows that a full House vote on impeachment of President Bill Clinton would be extremely close, with articles of impeachment possibly approved by only a single vote, House GOP sources tell CNN..The uncertainty about prospects for impeachment has led to a renewed Democratic push for another, less severe way to express disapproval with Clinton's conduct with ex-White House intern Monica Lewinsky.."We shouldn't prejudge this. We ought to really wait and see what the committee comes up with," Gephardt said. "I do think it would be good to get it over with this year and not drag it into next year." There has been an ongoing debate on Capitol Hill about whether censure would be a legally and politically appropriate punishment. Censure would face significant Republican opposition. Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, for one, told CNN he will actively fight any censure motion on the House floor. Delay and other Republicans say censure is simply unconstitutional.."

Washington Times 11/24/98 Wesley Pruden ".Maybe Bill Clinton doesn't deserve any "punishment" at all. Maybe he's the perfect expression of modern America: morally depraved, and one of us. Maybe the Hot Springs flash has been "punished" enough already. "There has been a lot of suffering," Mr. Clinton, biting what's left of his lower lip, told reporters in Seoul. "That is different from punishment, although it's hard to see the difference sometimes as you're going through it. "For me, this long ago ceased to be a political issue or a legal issue, and became a personal one, and every day I do my best to put it right, personally." Lucky for him that most Americans do not have a highly developed gag reflex. Otherwise, we'd all be throwing up on the lawn furniture, the driveway, into the fish pond, on Grandma and the arborvitae bush. You will notice that Mr. Clinton, in 57 words (depending on your definition of "word"), has made himself over from perpetrator to victim, from sleaze artist to penitent, from someone we should punish to someone for whom we should not only feel pity, but find a way to reward. The poor man has suffered so much. Actually, he hasn't suffered at all. To suffer from humiliation, from mortification and embarrassment, a man must first of all be capable of shame... His Democratic colleagues, who did not question a single syllable of Kenneth Starr's catalog of accusations, say they are eager to "censure" the president, though it's not clear for what, since all he did was "only sex." Some even describe how the president would be called into the well of the House to hear the resolution read out loud, and invited to respond. Censure is the coward's way out. Even Bob Livingston, the incoming speaker with visions of returning Congress to the era of Bob Michel and Bob Dole, says so. Censure means nothing. The proof of that is that Bill Clinton is eager to take it. Henry Hyde and his friends should insist that the issue be joined and resolved with one vote, on impeachment, up or down. If the House or the Senate, or both, vote down impeachment that would be the end of it. The escape hole for the timid, the weak and the fearful would be closed. If the Republicans in the House want to do the right thing -- and to make a valid political point, as well -- they would then enact legislation to spring that black woman who was sent to federal prison in Florida for lying about her sexual relationship with a male Monica of her own. She, too, only lied about sex. Should there be one law for a white liar and another for a black liar? If so, let it be the self-righteous Democrats who say it, loud and clear.."

AP 11/24/98 Larry Margasak ".A Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee said today he will offer a resolution to censure President Clinton rather than impeach him, the first indication that the panel will have a choice when it decides on a recommendation to the House....The proposal by Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts would condemn Clinton's sexual relationship in the White House with Monica Lewinsky, but would not include any punishment.... Clinton, Delahunt pointed out, ``is in legal jeopardy upon expiration of his term. There is a possibility that if (Kenneth) Starr or any subsequent prosecutor has a case that they feel is appropriate to charge a crime, whatever we do does not terminate that decision.''...However, Delahunt said the resolution would not prevent Clinton from making a voluntary decision to personally apologize to Congress...Delahunt's alternative is unlikely to sway the 21 Republicans on the committee, who appear to strongly support an impeachment resolution..."

The Washington Post 11/21/98 Nat Hentoff ".The most vital decision Congress must make -- short of declaring war -- now depends on the polls. Mark Sanford, a conservative Republican representative from South Carolina, says bluntly: "The outcome is all but certain. This thing ain't going anywhere." But a daring member -- Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) -- disagrees: "I don't think we're just here to follow public opinion." The Democrats, of course, are brandishing the poll results as if they were Excalibur, King Arthur's utterly decisive sword..As Eric Drudis wrote in a letter to the New York Times (Nov. 11): "The legal system didn't draw advice from public opinion polls at the time of the ruling on segregation in 1954. So why must it now listen to the public and the clamors to forgive the president?" Nor should Congress pay attention to the herd of more than 400 historians who insist -- with embarrassingly contorted reasoning -- that there is no evidence against this president that would warrant impeachment and a trial in the Senate. The plain fact is that the president -- with premeditation -- committed perjury before a federal grand jury. And elsewhere.. I commend to the usually redoubtable chairman Hyde what Justice Brandeis said: "For good or ill, [our government] teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law." And if members of Congress become accomplices in the president's lawbreaking, they have subverted not only the presidency but Congress itself.."

Freeper Kristinn 11/21/98 reporting on the Starr testimony ".Outraged by the rude, contemptuous behavior of the Democrats towards Judge Kenneth Starr during the House Judiciary impeachment inquiry hearing on Thursday, I went to the Rayburn building with bail money in my wallet and a determination to cause a media scene in the hearing room by shouting out "Democrats lie, Democrats cheat, there's a felon in the White House, and they don't care about the Constitution, they just want raw political power," and whatever else I could come up with before I was hustled out of the room. As I was hustled out the door, I planned to shout "Mr. Chairman, can I have one more minute, please, just one more minute ?".I took my seat as the duel between Independent Counsel Judge Starr and the private lawyer for President Clinton, Mr. David Kendall began. The smile on Judge Starr's face was the confident one a competitor has for a foe he has vanquished many times before. Judge Starr handily parried Mr.Kendall's questions. Those in attendance laughed at Mr. Kendall repeatedly. He was out of his league in dealing with Judge Starr, and it was recognized throughout the room. I could only see the profiles of both men, and could not see Mr. Kendall sitting on his briefcase in order to appear to be towering over Judge Starr (if Starr had sat on a briefcase....). As I was rotated out of the hearing room about 45 minutes into Mr. Kendall's self- imolation , my thoughts of making a media scene had dissipated. In fact, I was thinking,"Go back to law school, David." .."

AP 11/22/98 ABC's Diane Sawyer has interviewed Kenneth Starr for a ``20/20'' segment that will air Wednesday night, giving the network the two biggest newsmagazine interviews to come out of President Clinton's sex scandal...During her interview with Starr, Sawyer notes that the counsel's referral to Congress has been called ``demented pornography'' by some critics for its graphic sexual details. She asked whether Starr regretted the tone of the referral. ``Diane,'' Starr replied, ``Don't fault career prosecutors for telling the truth.'' ."

ABC's This Week 11/22/98 George Wil Freeper comments ".Today on This Week, George Will made a passing reference to Dash having spoken before some group 10 days before Starr's appearance at the Judiciary Committee, and that Dash said that Starr should "run, not walk" to the committee.."

Sunday Times of London 11/22/98 Matthew Campbell ".Starr suggested that there may be a link between the mystery of the missing billing records and Vincent Foster, the deputy White House counsel who died in 1993. Police called it a suicide but a thriving conspiracy theory industry regards it as one of several mysterious deaths of figures associated with the Clintons. Whatever the case, Starr noted in his testimony on Thursday that a second set of Hillary's billing records was found in Foster's home in 1997. Whether Starr is able to indict her could depend on the testimony of Webster Hubbell, the disgraced former associate attorney- general and friend of Hillary's. Starr recently indicted Hubbell on charges of tax evasion, apparently in the hope of pumping him for information about Hillary. Hubbell, who has served an 18-month jail sentence for embezzling funds from Rose Law, has denied he knows of any crimes by the first lady. At the same time Hillary is under a cloud of suspicion in the "travelgate" scandal involving the firing in 1993 of White House travel office workers who were replaced by friends of the Clintons in what looked like an abuse of power.."

Stock Smart 11/22/98 UPI ".The new Speaker of the House says a possible congressional censure against President Clinton constitutes ``a version of plea bargaining'' and would best be considered only after the House votes on articles of impeachment. Speaker-designate Bob Livingston, R.-La., told NBC's ``Meet the Press'' (Sunday) that if the Judiciary Committee recommends the House vote on impeachment, censure ``is outside the province of the House of Representatives'' and would be ``more appropriately a question for the Senate.'' ."

Reuters 11/22/98 ".Incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston said Sunday that the House of Representatives may not have the power to consider anything other than impeachment over President Clinton's misconduct in the Monica Lewinsky affair. In his first major interview since being chosen for his new post, the Louisiana Republican called Democratic suggestions that the president be censured a form of "plea bargaining'' and said that should be up to the Senate to decide. "It (censure) may be the alternative that might be proposed by some members, but the fact is it does constitute a version of plea bargaining which I think is outside the province of the House of Representatives,'' Livingston said on NBC's "Meet The Press'' program..Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, Republican from Utah, appearing on the "Fox News Sunday'' program, said independent counsel Kenneth Starr's marathon testimony last week before the House panel was convincing evidence that Clinton's actions were impeachable. "I don't think there's any question of multiple lies, multiple perjurious statements, even some indication that people have been bribed to not give the president problems and so forth,'' Hatch said. "There's enough in totality to constitute impeachment, the question is should we do it.''."

Washington Weekly 11/23/98 Marvin Lee ".After the marathon Starr session of the House impeachment committee Thursday, no Democrat opposed Chairman Henry Hyde's request for subpoenas of Bruce Lindsey, Nathan Landow, Robert Bennett and Daniel Gecker. The subpoenas of Lindsey and Landow confirm the suspicion that was raised by Hyde's as yet unanswered 81 questions to the President. Hyde seeks to broaden the impeachment inquiry into a larger pattern of obstruction of justice and intimidation of witnesses that goes beyond the Monica Lewinsky affair. When Landow was asked by the Kenneth Starr grand jury about his involvement in the violent intimidation of Clinton accuser Kathleen Willey, he reportedly pled the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Congress can grant Landow limited immunity and force him to testify. Nathan Landow has been linked by the Washington Post to the Gambino and Lansky organized crime families. Both Linda Tripp and Dolly Kyle Browning say that Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey threatened, either directly or through an intermediary, that the White House would destroy them if they went public with what they knew. In the end, both decided to go public anyway, and the White House kept its promise and destroyed them. In the case of Linda Tripp it involved the illegal use of her private employment papers, laundered through a friendly journalist at the New Yorker, to brand her as a thief and a liar. But Bruce Lindsey has been involved in much more sinister intimidation than that. In December of 1993, an ABC News crew taped Clinton associate Buddy Young as he accepted a call on the speakerphone from Bruce Lindsey directing him how to coordinate Troopergate damage control. Buddy Young has expressed concern for the health of Arkansas State Troopers who were considering going public with what they had learned while serving on then-Governor Clinton's security detail. Young also set up CIA contractor Terry Reed on an insurance fraud charge after Reed threatened to expose then-Governor Clinton's involvement in a drug operation at Mena airport. And finally, Young has been implicated by reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the 1993 murder of Jerry Parks after Parks presumably threatened to go public with, or perhaps even use for blackmail, his knowledge gained as security contractor for the Clinton campaign. We know from the ABC tape that Bruce Lindsey is Buddy Young's White House contact..He has his eyes focused on the ball and if he does not lose sight of it, his legacy may become similar to that of Peter Rodino. Hyde may be handling more dynamite if he calls John Huang as a witness. Kenneth Starr last week submitted to the Committee testimony given by John Huang about his knowledge of the $100,000 payment from Hong Kong Chinese Bank to Webster Hubbell [1]. It is unlikely that Chairman Hyde will be able to include the entire Chinagate scandal under the self-imposed time limit that leaves only about one month of the inquiry. But the truthful testimony of John Huang, who has already been given limited immunity by Kenneth Starr, on the President's role and motivation in the $100,000 payment to Webster Hubbell, could mean serious trouble for the President. A further indication of where Hyde intends to go came last week when the Associated Press reported that he had sought a copy of the LaBella Justice Department memo on illegal fundraising in the 1996 Campaign.."

Washington Weekly 11/23/98 Deroy Murdock ".How did Geraldo Rivera lose a pot of cash to attorney Victoria Toensing? The mustachioed interviewer and rabid apologist for President Clinton promised on CNBC that "If anyone could find another instance of a federal perjury prosecution for a sex lie, especially one told in a dismissed civil case - in other words a case just like the prosecution of Bill Clinton - we would pay $10,000." Rivera suggested that only a supposedly sex-crazed prosecutor like Kenneth Starr would recommend legal action against President Clinton for his alleged dishonesty in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit and the Monica Lewinsky sex-and-lies scandal. But when Toensing told Rivera about Dr. Barbara Battalino, Geraldo paid up...Battalino is not alone..These four women belie the Clintonite argument that perjury is no big deal, especially about sex. They lied under oath about sex in civil cases and were condemned to between four and 13 months in federal detention. Meanwhile, the cognoscenti demand that President Clinton avoid the same punishment for allegedly committing the same crime. The American people insist that their Rogue-in-Chief walk away. And, like a chorus line of Rockettes, America's feminists high-kick in agreement. Where is the justice? Where is the outrage? .."

Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/ 11/22/98 William Neikirk ".EXCERPTS: "...the House Judiciary Committee is moving toward a mid-December vote on articles of impeachment against...Clinton that lawmakers from both parties believe will pass...Hyde likely will summon more witnesses to public hearings in the first week of December, then bring in a constitutional expert to testify on Dec. 7 or Dec. 8 before pushing for a vote....Rep. Bill McCollum...said Starr's testimony energized Republican members of the panel and made it less likely that any of the 21 GOP representatives will vote against articles of impeachment....Rep. Steve Chabot...agreed, saying that Starr made a good case against Clinton...Rep. Lindsey Graham...said he is now inclined to vote for impeaching the president because of evidence that Clinton lied before a federal grand jury...McCollum and Chabot...hope that...the entire House...will think otherwise about rejecting the case..."House members haven't had the experience of looking straight down the barrel of the evidence," McCollum said...." .."

Human Events 11/18/98 Ann Coulter ".This makes it a hat trick. The Former number three official in the Justice Department of the most ethical administration in the history of the republic and former chief justice of the most ethical administration in the history of Arkansas -- Webster L. Hubbell -- has been indicted again. Hubbell's first criminal indictment ended in a plea bargain that sent him to prison in the summer of 1995. The second indictment was dismissed by U.S. District Judge James Robertson, a Clinton appointee, and is now on appeal. Hubbell's now third criminal indictment charges him with 15 counts, including fraud, making false statements to and trying to deceive two Federal regulatory agencies, and perjury before a Congressional committee. The inspectors general of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Resolution Trust Corp. provided Starr with the criminal referrals underlying the indictment. Though the Independent Counsel responsible for all these indictments might once have thought Hubbell would cooperate with federal investigators and perhaps incriminate Hillary Clinton in the nefarious and complicated land transactions performed by the Rose Law firm for Madison Guarantee -- even the tenacious Kenneth W. Starr must have abandoned that hope by now. Hubbell, according to James McDougal, "knows where the bodies are buried." Consequently McDougal advised the viewers of "Webb Hubbell is the guy they have to get to talk." But Hubbell never did talk, preferring to spend almost 2 years in a federal penitentiary. He apparently also preferred to collect over half a million dollars in "consulting fees" from various friends of Bill -- though "[l]ittle work, if any, was expected from Hubbell," as the put it.."

AP 11/22/98 Jim Abrams ".Rep. Bob Livingston, eager to begin his term as House speaker with a clean slate, said Sunday he thinks the full House would need only a few hours to debate and vote on President Clinton's impeachment. If the Judiciary Committee reports articles of impeachment to the House, Livingston said, "I wouldn't imagine that it would take a lot of debate.'' He told NBC's "Meet the Press'' that the House could vote after two or three hours of debate and "be done with it. If we did not have the votes to sustain the charge, that would be it.'' . He said there would be "no hope'' of that happening if more evidence of presidential wrongdoing is introduced to the Judiciary Committee. But if the evidence is all in, and the committee decides to refer articles of impeachment to the House, the matter should be ended this year, he said. A majority vote in the House would send articles of impeachment to the Senate. That body would need a two-thirds vote to remove Clinton from office. With 15 to 20 House Republicans said to be opposed to impeachment, the issue could die on the House floor. Asked whether impeachment would ever go to the Senate, Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Judiciary Committee, responded Sunday: "Right now, with the political landscape, I would say no.'' .Livingston said censure "would certainly be a possibility'' but that such a step would better be left for after the House votes on impeachment. White House adviser Paul Begala, on CBS' "Face the Nation,'' said it was "very, very important for the American people to understand that there's not some sort of negotiation or deal going on.'' .Craig said the White House would respond this week to a list submitted by the Judiciary Committee of 81 questions about the Lewinsky affair. He said Clinton and his lawyers will meet to complete the response Tuesday, after he returns from a trip to Asia. Even if House members decide that Clinton committed impeachable offenses, in the face of strong public opinion against removing the president from office, "Do you push the automatic impeachment button, or do you exercise some discretion and use your judgment as to what should be done?'' Craig asked. Livingston agreed that politics will play a part in decisions on the fate of allegations against Clinton. "If it is shown that the president of the United States is guilty of perjury, we have a major problem,'' Livingston said. "What to do about it is a political problem and should be weighed again by each member when it is presented to him.'' Meanwhile, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has said a lack of support for impeachment in Congress has not left him feeling deserted. ."

Roll Call 11/23/98 Amy Keller Jim VandeHei ".Incoming Speaker Bob Livingston (R-La.) on Friday said that, contrary to published reports, he has not sent word to Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) that he wants impeachment hearings against President Clinton to end as soon as possible. When asked if he wanted the impeachment issue to disappear quickly, he snapped in an interview: "Whoa, I had never said that. I would not characterize it that way. "I said I want the Judiciary Committee to reach their conclusion when they had all of the evidence, the benefit of evidence, and I understand that [Independent Counsel Kenneth] Starr has sent them new evidence, new documents." .Livingston stressed that he hopes the impeachment hearings can be concluded expeditiously, but he insisted that he will not lobby Hyde -- who continues to pledge that he will wrap things up before the year's end -- to sweep the impeachment mess away. "I don't see how the Judiciary Committee can complete its hearings and reach some final determination until they get all of the evidence, assuming they get all of the evidence," said Livingston. "But I am making no judgment on how they should handle the case ... and I have made no recommendations to Henry Hyde on how he should handle his committee." .Hutchinson emphasized that the committee still has further work to do in several areas and said that he would like to see other witnesses called. He said he hopes to look deeper into allegations of obstruction of justice -- and, in particular, the dispute between former White House intern Monica Lewinsky and Clinton's secretary, Betty Currie, over "how the gifts were handled." "There seems to be a clear conflict between those two," Hutchinson said, adding that "[Clinton's friend] Vernon Jordan is a witness I've always believed was extraordinarily relevant to the obstruction allegations. I would lean toward calling him." .."

Michael Schlau 11/22/98 by Freeper commish ".WHen historians look back on the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, will they refer to the events of Nov 19-20, 1998 much as they do the "Saturday Night Massacre" That doomed Richard Nixon?? An extrodainary chain events that began when Kenneth Starr stepped before the House Judiciary and continued through the Sunday Morning news shows of Nov 22 have seemed to kickstart the impeachment machine. Public and media reaction to Mr. Starr's testimony was overwhelmingly positive, and it was agreed upon by all that Mr. Starr expertly deflected the criticism of his investigation. Furthur more the antics of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee appalled even the most ardent media supporters of the President. Then the reluctance of Abbie Lowell and David Kendall to ask one single question about the facts of the investigation was also roundly critisized. But, if one moment will be looked back upon as the seminal (no pun intended) moment of the inquiry, it will be the sudden resignation of Sam Dash on Friday morning. Immediately questions surfaced concerning the timing of the resignation, who orchastrated it, how the press got wind of it so quickly, and so on and so forth. At the time it was widely reported and the WH and Press spin machines went into overdrive. Unfortunately the WH seems to have made one critical mistake. They have always considered the media as their staunchest ally and unwiting accompliss. But, they failed to consider the medias love for a good conspiracy, and starting Friday night that point came home to roost."

The Washington Post 11/22/98 Eric Pianin Helen Dewar ". Even as Judiciary Committee Republicans push for articles of impeachment against President Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, most other House Republicans appear torn by the decision or eager to find a way out of the thicket. Dozens of interviews with House Republicans conducted during and after independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's day-long testimony Thursday revealed little, if any, enthusiasm for a protracted impeachment battle with Clinton..Five Republicans, including senior members of the appropriations and budget committees and a prominent conservative activist, have said they will vote "no" should the House Judiciary Committee report out articles of impeachment next month. A handful of other moderates have indicated privately that they will oppose impeachment but are not yet ready to make that stance public. Some members suggested that as many as 20 Republicans were ready to oppose impeachment. Because the GOP holds a fragile 11-vote majority in the current Congress and the Democrats can be expected to present a relatively solid bloc of support for the president, such defections would virtually assure the demise of any impeachment article that reaches the House floor.." House Republicans who have told The Washington Post they are opposed to impeachment: Christopher Shays (Conn.) John Edward Porter (Ill.) Peter T. King (N.Y.) Jack Quinn (N.Y.) Mark Edward Souder (Ind.)

New York Times 11/23/98 Alison Mitchell ".With the House moving quickly toward a series of critical decisions on whether to impeach President Clinton, the White House signaled on Sunday that it was open to any "serious and reasonable" compromise that would allow the president to put the year-long scandal behind him. The comments by Gregory Craig, a White House special counsel, were similar to past statements opening the door to some kind of censure or rebuke short of removing Clinton from office. But the remarks took on added significance, because the appearance of Kenneth Starr before the House Judiciary Committee last week cleared the way for the House to move toward the conclusion of its inquiry. "The president has said -- and I want to repeat -- that we are in favor of any serious and reasonable proposition that has the promise of bringing this to a prompt and just conclusion," Craig said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Craig did not elaborate. And he also stuck uncompromisingly to the White House contention -- widely derided by Republicans and Democrats alike -- that Clinton never lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.."

The London Sunday Times 11/22/98 ".Fortune-tellers, political pundits and congressmen were united last week in predicting that no amount of hearings in Congress would result in the Teflon president being impeached over his affair with Monica Lewinsky, the former White House trainee. But Kenneth Starr, the tenacious independent counsel, may well indict Hillary Clinton on criminal charges. This would fit a pattern of the president escaping with impunity while those around him go down in flames: Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky, yet it was his arch rival Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who was forced to resign.."After a thorough investigation, we have found no explanation how the billing records got where they were or why they were not discovered and produced earlier," said Starr. "It remains a mystery." Starr suggested that there may be a link between the mystery of the missing billing records and Vincent Foster, the deputy White House counsel who died in 1993. Police called it a suicide but a thriving conspiracy theory industry regards it as one of several mysterious deaths of figures associated with the Clintons. Whatever the case, Starr noted in his testimony on Thursday that a second set of Hillary's billing records was found in Foster's home in 1997.."

Newsweek 11/23/98 Daniel Klaidman ".After his surprise resignation as Ken Starr's ethics counsel, Samuel Dash explained his decision in written answers to NEWSWEEK's Daniel Klaidman. Excerpts:. I disagree that the report was a far more forceful piece of advocacy than Starr's testimony. I played an advisory role in the preparation of the [report] and insisted that it be primarily a factual statement of the evidence and not an accusation of impeachable offenses. I was successful in persuading the staff to edit out language of accusation in the early drafts ... To the extent the [report] may be strong and persuasive, it is not because of any conclusions drawn or accusations made, but, instead because of the sheer strength of the facts..."

Washington Post 11/24/98 Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin ".The House Judiciary Committee announced yesterday it will hold its second public hearing on whether President Clinton should be impeached, publicly debating "the consequences of perjury," as panel investigators took closed-door testimony yesterday from the attorney for former White House volunteer Kathleen E. Willey. The Dec. 1 hearing, committee sources said, is likely to feature testimony from federal judges, individuals convicted of perjury and military personnel, who would talk about the impact on morale of lying under oath. A witness list, however, has not yet been prepared..That session came as the Judiciary Committee took its first of four closed-door depositions in the inquiry, from Willey attorney Daniel Gecker. A deposition of Democratic fund-raiser Nathan Landow, originally scheduled for today, was postponed until next week. Committee sources said the Gecker testimony addressed possible efforts by the Clinton administration to influence Willey, who has accused Clinton of groping her in the Oval Office suite in 1993. Although Starr did not include the Willey allegation in his report of possible impeachable offenses, several GOP committee members have suggested that it may help establish a "pattern of behavior" by the president.."

WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah 11/23/98 ".Jerome Zeifman, a Democrat who served the impeachment inquiry along with former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum and first lady Hillary Clinton, presented his 19-page "memorandum of law and facts on bribery as an impeachable offense" to Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA, of the House Judiciary Committee late last week. "In his conduct of the office of president of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes with respect to one of more of the following," he writes in a memorandum of law and facts on bribery as an impeachable offense. Modeling the language of his memorandum as closely as possible to the articles of impeachment drafted against Richard Nixon, Zeifman writes: "In his conduct of the office of the president of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes with respect to one or more of the following: "(1) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the surreptitious payment of bribes for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Webster Hubbell as a witness or potential witness in criminal proceedings. "(2) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the use of political influence by Vernon Jordan in obtaining employment for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Monica Lewinsky as a witness or potential witness in civil or criminal proceedings; and "(3) Approving, condoning or acquiescing in the receipt of bribes in connection with the issuance of an executive order which had the effect of giving Indonesia a monopoly on the sale of certain types of coal." ."

St. Louis Post-Dispatch 11/23/98 Cal Thomas ".ABC's Ted Koppel once said of truth that it's "not a polite tap on the shoulder, but a howling reproach." Starr delivered a howling reproach to the president of the United States. Now it's up to the House to decide whether the law that applies to the rest of us should also apply to Clinton. Starr has been "meticulous and credible" in doing his job in the face of a nonstop smear head wind. Now let's see if the House will do its job and hold the president accountable.."

http://www.ConservativeNews.org 11/25/98 (CNS) ".The White House is reportedly ready to provide information to the House Judiciary Committee in its impeachment inquiry of President Bill Clinton by Friday, but committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) isn't taking any chances. In a November 25 letter to Clinton, Hyde noted the that the White House has not been cooperating with the committee, writing "despite recent requests for more than a month, the White House has yet to provide the Committee with any materials that tend to exonerate you or even dispute the evidence," being considered in the impeachment proceedings.Hyde added that the fact Clinton's lawyer David Kendall did not challenge any of the facts presented in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's impeachment referral, combined with the failure of the White House to respond to requests for cooperation, "lead to the conclusion that the White House does not dispute any of the factual evidence presented in the Referral and supporting materials.".Hyde's letter also presented the White House with a December 2 deadline for providing the committee with information and witnesses to be considered by the committee, and said he's ready to schedule a presentation to the committee by White House officials "as early as Tuesday, December 8."

http://www.ConservativeNews.org 11/25/98 Ben Anderson (CNS) ".Reports of numerous House Republicans committed to voting against impeachment appear to be suspect, according to a Capitol Hill source who told CNS that it appears President Bill Clinton's supporters are trying to "prime the pump" for censure. The House Judiciary Committee is moving closer to wrapping up its impeachment inquiry against Clinton and could pass Articles of Impeachment to the full House before the end of 1998. But, reports surfaced Wednesday that some Republicans would vote against impeachment if it reached the House floor for a vote. Those who say 20 or more Republicans will vote against impeachment want to see "a self- fulfilling prophesy," the source said, adding that there is no evidence of reported advance vote counting. The source told CNS it is inconceivable that so many members could decide their votes before they see the evidence which comes out of the Committee.."

Chicago Sun-Times 11/26/98 Robert Novak ".The probable House vote next month to reject impeachment of Bill Clinton does not mean the president's long personal nightmare is over. Although his tenure will not be terminated prematurely, the last two years of his presidency are threatened with torment on two fronts. * House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde is racing to conclude impeachment proceedings before the 105th Congress expires at year's end, but he is not abandoning the hunt for wrongdoing in the Clinton administration. An inquiry into its highly politicized Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno was planned before impeachment intervened and will be resumed when that proceeding is completed. * Special prosecutor Kenneth Starr made clear in his daylong testimony last week that his four-year-old investigation into the Whitewater land deal is not finished. The re-indictment of Clinton intimate Webster Hubbell signifies that Hillary Rodham Clinton remains a serious prosecutorial target Even though the president's problems have not benefitted the Republicans politically, the White House wants closure on endless investigation. That is why the president's agents are pressing hard for congressional censure to clear the air for Clinton--and his anointed successor, Vice President Al Gore-- during the next two years. In saying no to this alternative to impeachment, Hyde is rejecting closure."

MSNBC & AP 11/26/98 ".Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting that Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's office will remain open for business for up to two more years as it wraps up lingering investigations and prosecutors may consider indicting Clinton after he leaves the White House. With criminal charges pending against Clinton associates Webster L. Hubbell and Susan McDougal - and other indictments still possible - prosecutors need more time to complete their work and issue a final report, Starr spokesman Charles G. Bakaly told the newspaper. Asked whether Starr was open to the idea of indicting Clinton after his term ends in January 2001, Bakaly said, "I think that's fair to conclude, but I don't want to send any signals here." Bakaly added, "There's no statute of limitations problem. We have developed a criminal case.".As for the articles of impeachment, sources told the New York Times they were being drafted using the report of independent counselor Kenneth Starr, which focused on Clinton's affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, on the Watergate articles of impeachment that led to former President Richard Nixon's resignation from office, and on impeachment cases against three federal judges..."

Boston Globe 11/27/98 By Sandra Sobieraj AP ". President Clinton answered 81 questions put to him by the House Judiciary Committee today, asserting that his grand jury testimony on Monica Lewinsky ''was not false and misleading.'' The whole furor over his alleged attempts to conceal his relationship with the former White House intern ''long ago ceased to be primarily a legal or political issue,'' the president said..In response to several questions in which Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., asked the president to admit or deny giving false testimony under oath - when he swore that Ms. Lewinsky gave him gifts only ''once or twice,'' and when he testified about not knowing that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed as a witness in the Paula Jones sex harassment case - the president resolutely defended himself. ''That testimony was not false and misleading,'' is a sentence repeated several times throughout the 34 signed pages that Clinton submitted to Congress this afternoon.."

AP 11/28/98 Walter Mears ".The prospect of new special prosecutors to deal with alleged fund-raising abuses in the 1996 Clinton campaign is down. There won't be one on an aspect of the case involving Vice President Al Gore, to the frustration and protests of Republicans. Nor is one likely on the campaign finance issues directly involving the president. None of that closes the case against Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and the Justice Department campaign finance investigation is still on. But without a House vote for impeachment, and without an outside prosecutor probing what one GOP leader called ``the most corrupt fund-raising year since Watergate'' in Clinton's 1996 re-election, the president would be past the most pressing threats to his New Year. Not without scars, obviously. And not without future risks - including the possibility of criminal charges for perjury after he leaves office in 2001. Nor without permanent blots on his record. ``He has already been sentenced to a hundred years of shame in the history books, which is not an insignificant penalty,'' says Democratic Sen. Joseph R. Biden of Delaware. An impeachment charge brought by the House Judiciary Committee, where Republicans do have the votes to bring one, would record Clinton as only the third president ever to have proceedings against him reach that point. Perjury would be the most likely charge. Even if an impeachment article fails to pass the House after being approved by the committee, ``that will constitute for all history a censure of this president,'' Rep. George Gekas, R-Pa., said on CNN.. He's got more to go through. The House committee probably will act on the perjury and other impeachment accusations against him the week after next. He admits lying but denies perjury, a legalistic defense that didn't change in the answers he gave Friday to 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee..."

Chicago Tribune AP Larry Margasak 11/28/98 ".EXCERPTS: "...After denying legal wrongdoing in written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee,...Clinton must decide whether to mount a defense in a televised hearing....Clinton has an invitation to appear personally, send his legal representatives and call witnesses to back his version of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., set the appearance for Dec. 8 or shortly thereafter, but the president has not responded....Hyde also set that week for deliberations on articles of impeachment, with the full House possibly convening the week of Dec. 14....In anticipation of that debate, a senior Republican committee official...said Friday the staff already is starting to draft impeachment articles charging Clinton with perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power....Clinton has three basic choices in responding to Hyde's invitation: Wage a vigorous fight that would include defense witnesses. Have his lawyers argue the case without witnesses. Decline to appear..."

Associated Press 11/28/98 Sandra Sobieraj ".President Clinton's answers to the House Judiciary Committee amounted to "word games'' that both disappointed and outraged, some committee Republicans said Saturday. Clinton's signed responses to 81 questions was "an opportunity for the president to accept responsibility for any false statements,'' said Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark. "That opportunity was declined.'' Even the smallest admission by Clinton on Friday would have made it easier for Republican moderates to negotiate an end to the politically unpopular impeachment, said one top Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I detect among (committee members) disappointment and surprise that the president isn't mounting a more vigorous defense,'' this aide said. Without such a defense, articles of impeachment are all but certain to reach the House floor, the aide added..Any deviation from his earlier statements might have given one Republican a way out of supporting impeachment, "but it would have handed eight others something new to hit Clinton over the head with,'' this official said, speaking on condition of anonymity...But Clinton's refusal to answer "yes'' or "no'' to any of the 81 questions - even one asking whether he took the oath of office - was a thumb in the eye to some. "President Clinton's letter is nothing more than a 24-page exercise in denying a clear case of perjury and obstruction of justice by using tortured legal reasoning and convenient memory lapses,'' said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., perhaps the most vocal proponent of Clinton's impeachment. He and other Republicans said the president has yet to question the basic facts laid out in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report to Congress on Clinton's sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky..."

CNN Transcript 11/28/98 US Senator Orrin Hatch ".EXCERPTS: "...HATCH: ...the (House) Judiciary Committee is going to come up with articles of impeachment....When it gets to the (House) floor it's going to be very close...articles of impeachment...have an excellent chance of passing....there's at least a 50-50 chance that the House will vote up articles of impeachment....then it comes to the Senate....one of the leading (Senate) Democrats...said Orrin...don't be so sure...that none of us will vote for impeachment....this is far from over...there are some others (Democrat Senators)...who would...take this very seriously....If we don't have 67 votes...it may very well...wind up being a censure that the Senate brokers....there wasn't one Democrat who denied anything that was presented by Starr...(or)...who stood up for the president. They didn't even try to put a human face on the president's frailties....the obstruction...subornation of perjury, witness tampering is certainly there....Even bribery may be there....everybody admits and believes that he committed perjury...."."

AP 11/29/98 ".EXCERPTS: "...Clinton must state clearly that he lied in the Monica Lewinsky affair before the House Judiciary Committee can consider any alternative to impeachment, Republican members said Sunday....GOP dissatisfaction with what they said were Clinton's evasive answers to 81 questions on the affair presented to him by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill...."This censure idea without an admission on the president's part is a political cop-out," committee member Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told NBC. "I do not want to have an unrepentant perjurer leading the nation into the 21st century."...House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, on CNN's "Late Edition," said, "The Congress and the House have no other option but to vote impeachment or not."...Clinton has a chance to directly confront the committee on Dec. 8 when he or his representatives have been invited to testify...Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he saw a "50-50 chance" that the House would refer articles of impeachment to the Senate...." ."

Washington Weekly 11/30/98 Marvin Lee ".Palladino was hired by Betsy Wright during the 1992 campaign. But if Paula Jones didn't file her lawsuit until years later, then Gennifer Flowers wasn't a witness in a lawsuit and the witness tampering statutes would not apply, right? Wrong. Former Clinton employee Larry Nichols in 1990 and again in 1992 filed lawsuits alleging that then-Governor Clinton used state property and state employees to conduct illicit meetings with women. Flowers was among the women named by Larry Nichols in his lawsuit. By asking about Palladino, Chairman Hyde has made the 1992 witness tampering effort part of the impeachment inquiry within the scope of the charges of obstruction of justice. By his inability to deny the charges, Clinton has made sure that they stay part of the inquiry. The mainstream media, in its analysis of Clinton's responses to Hyde's 81 questions, has completely overlooked this aspect. They, as well as the Democrats, prefer to keep the inquiry narrowly focused on Monica Lewinsky.."

Washington Weekly 11/30/98 J. Peter Mulhern (Peter the Lawyer) ".The Washington establishment wants desperately to let Clinton go with a warning, but he is daring them to impeach him. He is gambling that the members of Congress are so spineless and so corrupt that they cannot act against him even after he flaunts his criminality in their faces. This time, he just might lose. Our political class has been locked in a standoff since the eve of Clinton's grand jury testimony last August. Ever since then, the editorial page of the New York Times has been begging Clinton to admit that he lied under oath so Congress can devise some ritual of chastisement and we can put the sordid events of the recent past behind us. Clinton is still refusing to take the bait...But, cowardly as it is, the political class can't humiliate itself by surrendering unconditionally to Clinton's depravity. They can't accept the absurd fiction that Clinton might be innocent, nor can they ignore the gravity of his guilt. Perjury and obstruction of justice are a big deal. Except for the lunatic fringe, even Democrats understand this. The political class needs its chance to pay lip service to the rule of law before it can go back to lionizing Bill Clinton. With his answers to the Judiciary Committee's 81 questions, Clinton served notice that he still has no intention of giving the political class the easy out it craves. No ritual of chastisement and forgiveness can be complete without a penitent, and Clinton resolutely refuses to play that part...Clinton has his story; juvenile and implausible as it is, he's sticking to it. This presents the political class with its worst nightmare. It must make a stark choice between craven surrender and principled action..The establishment fantasy of a third way is dying very hard, but Clinton's 81 responses should put a stake through its heart... But nobody likes humiliation. Members of Congress just might draw the line at a president who insults their intelligence by continuing to lie even after he's been caught dead to rights. They are facing an historic decision. The responsibility may stiffen their spines.."

The Washington Times CNN Transcripts Wolf Blitzer 11/29/98 ".EXCERPTS: "...House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, the chamber's best vote-coun ter, said yesterday he believes a majority of the House favors impeaching...Clinton...."I personally haven't taken a whip count, but I know of only two Republicans who have publicly said and substantiated that they are going to vote against impeachment. I have heard of some Democrats that are going to vote for impeachment," the Texas Republican said on CNN's "Late Edition."..."...CNN TRANSCRIPTS EXCERPTS: "...DELAY: ...from the evidence that I've seen so far, it looks like the president has committed pe rjury, he has obstructed justice, and he has abused his office. And most importantly, he has looked at the American straight in the eye and lied to them....BLITZER: Do you think the answers that he provided, in your opinion, represent another lie?...DELAY : As far as I'm concerned, it does....I think the members, by conscience, will vote for impeachment...." ."

Wall Street Journal 11/30/98 David Rogers ".Democrats ridicule the prospect of perjurers giving sworn testimony on truthfulness, but the issue is a stumbling block in shaping their final defense before the judiciary committee next week. David Kendall, Mr. Clinton [the known liar] 's personal attorney, is preparing a memorandum for this purpose, but the White House must also give notice by Wednesday of whether its lawyers will appear before the committee and call witnesses. On the perjury charge, the president's lawyers believe he could win in a courtroom, but Mr. Clinton [the known liar] 's own friends say this defense is too legalistic for Congress. Making these arguments could hurt politically then. Yet, to offer no defense is to make it easier for the GOP to vote for impeachment and rob the White House of a chance to challenge Mr. Starr's report on other allegations of obstruction and witness tampering.."

New York Times 11/30/98 William Safire ".In blowing off the House Judiciary Committee's 81 interrogatories, a mockingly evasive Bill Clinton told the Congress of the United States: Take your impeachment process and stick it in your ear.Clinton stiffed the Congress on questions about the most characteristic moment in his Presidency. In January, caught lying under oath in the Jones lawsuit, he consulted Dick Morris about the people's reaction if he told the truth. Morris testified he took a poll showing public forgiveness about adultery but not about perjury. He reported Clinton's declaration of dishonesty: "We just have to win, then" -- that is, to hang tough with his line of lie In his answer to Congress, Clinton had to admit the polling consultation because phone records back up what Morris told the grand jury. But that damning quote about winning by lying? Clinton answered "I do not recall." He dared not deny outright saying that because Morris's habit is to make contemporaneous notes on his laptop of all conversations with Clinton. (By the way -- who paid for the historic poll that led Clinton to his ruination?) Such exquisite disremembering is typical of the Clinton defense. Its guiding principle: If you can prove wrongdoing, I'll admit it, but not if it's a crime. In his grand jury testimony, Clinton took the position that he never touched Monica Lewinsky intimately, not even once -- look, Ma, no hands -- yet he and his lawyers assert that he did not lie under oath. Words have meaning. You can argue that lying under oath about sex does not rise to an impeachable offense, but if what Bill Clinton told that grand jury is not lying under oath, then nothing is lying under oath. What Clinton has done in his mocking answers to 81 questions is to fling down a gauntlet: Impeach me if you dare. .."

FoxNews 11/30/98 Jim Abrams ".The White House said today President Clinton is not likely to accept an invitation to testify next week before the House Judiciary Committee. Meantime, impeachment investigators failed to gain information from a witness they questioned. "I don't think its very likely you'll see the president appear before that committee,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told reporters concerning the invitation the committee extended to Clinton to answer questions about the Monica Lewinsky matter. Meanwhile, Maryland lawyer Nathan Landow invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and declined to answer questions during a closed-door deposition with impeachment investigators, according to a committee official who spoke only on condition of anonymity. The Judiciary Committee wanted to question Landow about whether he was aware of any effort to influence the testimony of Kathleen Willey, who has accused Clinton of making an unwanted sexual advance in 1993. Landow declined to comment as he left the closed meeting.."

FoxNews 11/30/98 AP Jim Abrams ".Impeachment proceedings against President Clinton are headed for a December finale in the House amid doubts about whether lawmakers have the votes to impeach or the will to censure. The House is expected to vote in mid-December on whether to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Sunday on CNN's Late Edition that he thought a majority of 218 would vote to impeach. But other Republicans said they did not have the votes..."Right now, to me he is an unrepentant perjurer who should lose his job unless he changes his tone," said Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Judicary Committee member. Graham and a committee colleague, Rep. Ed Bryant, R-Tenn., said on NBC's Meet The Press they opposed the less drastic step of censuring the president while keeping him in office.."

Stanford University's Hoover Institution 11/30/98 Thomas Sowell ".Rule of law means little to our leaders. The 12 hours of questioning of independent counsel Kenneth Starr by the House Judiciary Committee may not have told us much more that we already knew about the facts in the case for impeachment. But it told us some very painful things about where we are as a country. The rude and childish behavior of some Democrats on the committee was not just a shameful performance for them. The very fact that such behavior could go on for hours, on nationwide television, told us how confident they were that our national standards had degenerated to the point at which there would be no public outrage at the sight of members of Congress acting like little brat."

House Judiciary Committee 11/30/98 Majority Staff ".Tomorrow the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the consequences of perjury and related crimes. The witnesses will include federal judges, retired military officers, professors, and persons who have been convicted of perjury or related crimes..Ms. Pam Parsons, Atlanta, Georgia Ms. Parsons was the women's basketball coach at the University of South Carolina in the early 1980s. In 1984, she pled guilty to a federal perjury charge based on her having given false testimony about a sexual relationship during a civil case. Dr. Barbara Battalino, Los Osos, California Dr. Battalino is a doctor of osteopathic medicine, a board-certified psychiatrist, and a lawyer. In 1998, when Dr. Battalino was practicing as a Veterans Administration psychologist, the Department of Justice brought obstruction of justice charges against her based on her having given false testimony about a sexual relationship during a civil case. Dr. Battalino pled guilty to the charge and is currently serving a sentence of six months' home detention.."

AP 11/30/98 Laurie Kellman ".The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee is expanding its impeachment investigation to fund-raising allegations against President Clinton, committee sources said Monday. The panel will seek subpoenas for internal Justice Department memos debating whether an independent counsel should have been named in the fund-raising inquiry, said the sources, speaking on condition of anonymity. Republicans also will seek testimony this week from FBI Director Louis Freeh and Justice Department prosecutor Charles LaBella, both of whom advocated an independent counsel be named to investigate Clinton's 1996 fund-raising activities. The Republicans will vote behind closed doors Tuesday also to send document subpoenas to Attorney General Janet Reno and Clinton demanding that the secret memos Freeh and LaBella wrote advocating their positions be turned over to the committee, the sources said.

FROM DRUDGE 11/30/98 Freeper Senator Pardek reports ".The House Judicary Committee has now decided to subpoena FBI Director Freeh and Attorney General Reno to explore fund-raising allegations. The move comes after Republican counsel Schippers personally went over to Justice and asked for Freeh and LaBella memos. Schippers was stiffed, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Freeh and Reno meet regularly to discuss what national security information can go to the White House -- and they don't send everything over! "Is this a virtual impeachment, with top law enforcement deciding the president can't be trusted?" asks one insider. "Why does he stay in office then?" Developing hard...

FOX NEWS 11/30/98 Freeper report ".FOX News is reporting that Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have recently studied non redacted copies of the 'LaBella' memo to Janet Reno and have gleaned new information. Additionally, and outside of the LaBella report, the Judiciary Committee has come into possession of "new evidence implicating the President in criminal wrongdoing." The Committee is now investigating the President's personal involvement in the Campaign Finance scandal. Breaking." Addition Freeper report ".Not only new evidence but new evidence supplied by Clinton Administration officials. The Fox News reporter says we'll find out who within 72 hours. This evidence is said to show that Clinton commited criminal activity and if I'm not mistaken, that the evidence points to orcastrating payoffs. IMHO, apparently someone in the Clinton Administration has flipped" . additional Freeper report ".Fox said they have sopoenaed info from Tree, Chung, Huang and Middleton. They said they have info from someone in the WH that the president knew about campaign finance abuses....Did I hear that right? ."

Freeper BC Specht adds ".This is one of the two key actions by Henry Hyde's committee which Year of the Rat authors Ed Timperlake and Bill Triplett II advised Jim Quinn's (WRRK) listeners to be on the watch for. When Ed and Bill were interviewed on Nov. 20th, they were asked by show host Jim Quinn to summarize what they think might happen with the impeachment. I don't recall their exact words but they cautioned that our country is on the brink of a critical juncture in the nation's future. Will our Congress uphold the rule of law and follow through with the actions of impeachment which are mandated by the Constitution, or will we allow this (and future) presidents to skate on any legal responsibility and accountability thus setting a dangerous precedent for the next hundred years? YotR authors Ed and Bill cited two citical events to watch for which will determine whether our Congress will seriously exercise its duties under our Constitution. (1) Will Hyde's committee subpoena FBI director Louie Freeh? and (2) will they subpoena the Labella memo which advised Janet Reno to appoint an independent prosecutor in the fundraising matter? If not, then we might as well start shoveling the dirt over the grave of our once great republic because it (and the rule of law) is utterly dead. Well, it looks like there's life in the old girl yet. Stay tuned... "

AP 11/30/98 Laurie Kellman ".The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sharply attacked President Clinton's answers to impeachment investigators on Monday, saying Clinton ``chose to evade'' questions in a manner that could force the panel to accept allegations as fact. ``He has made it very clear he is going to stick with his reliance on bizarre technical definitions and legalistic defenses,'' Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said in a statement on the written answers Clinton submitted last Friday in response to 81 questions..``Instead of shedding new light on the key facts, the president chose to evade them,'' Hyde said in his statement. ``He did not challenge the truthfulness of the evidence. Rather his responses revealed a selective ability to recall information.'' ``If the president leaves undisputed the record of where has given evasive responses, we will be forced to assume that the corroborated evidence is accurate,'' Hyde added. ."

AP Laurie Kellman 11/30/98 ".Republicans on the House impeachment panel moved Monday to subpoena FBI Director Louis Freeh and a federal prosecutor as they sought access to secret memos relating to alleged fund-raising irregularities in President Clinton's 1996 campaign, sources said. These committee sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Rep. Henry Hyde and other Judiciary Committee Republicans want to question Freeh and prosecutor Charles La Bella, as well as gain possession of memos they wrote recommending that Attorney General Janet Reno appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign fund-raising issues. The decision opens up a new avenue of investigation for the impeachment panel, at precisely the time that Hyde, R-Ill., is pressing to wrap up work on the issue in time for a vote by Christmas on possible articles of impeachment against the president. The sources said that in addition to demanding Freeh and La Bella submit to depositions, Hyde will press for a vote by the full committee on Tuesday to compel Reno to hand over copies of memos written by the two men. A separate subpoena will also be sought to demand that Clinton order Reno to comply promptly, sources said, but no attempt was contemplated to force Clinton to answer questions.."

Freeper Fountainhead reports on CNN 11/30/98 Wolf Blitzer ".Not only are they looking for Freeh's and LaBella's recommendations, they are also going to subpoena the report sent to Reno to investigatte possible wrongdoing on her part in covering it up."

FoxNews Reuters Carl Cameron via Rodger Schultz 11/30/98 ".Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee will subpoena FBI Director Louis Freeh and former campaign finance task force head Charles LaBella to testify in President Clinton's impeachment inquiry, a committee source said Monday. The Republicans also will issue subpoenas for documents to Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno and independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the campaign finance scandal, the aide said.. "The committee is in receipt of information that indicates the LaBella memo may contain allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the president,'' the aide said. "We are duty-bound to look at this material before we complete our task.'' The subpoena to Clinton would compel him to force Reno to hand over the memos, and the subpoena to Reno would seek the memos and related documents, along with documents tied to figures who have been central to the campaign finance probe, including John Huang and Charlie Trie (and Mark Middleton.) The subpoena to Starr would seek information related to Huang, who has been granted immunity in Starr's criminal investigation.."

Drudge 11/30/98 Tomorrows LA Times ".Even with the turn into fund-raising, a GOP source on the committee tells Tuesday's LOS ANGELES TIMES that the impeachment investigation cam still be completed this month, as insisted upon by chairman Hyde. "The chairman said this will be a very, very quick review, and the chairman is still hopeful this matter can be resolved by year's end. It's a quick review over one area." The source tells the paper: "It will be a quick turn-around. We've got some good investigators." ."

CBS News 11/30/98 Bob Schieffer "..The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee is expanding its impeachment investigation to include alleged fund-raising violations in President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, sources told CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer on Monday. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., will seek subpoenas for internal Justice Department memos debating whether an independent counsel should have been named in the fund-raising inquiry. Hyde wants to see this memo because a government employee has come to the committee and told them it may contain allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the president himself. The chairman intends to subpoena Justice Department prosecutor Charles LaBella and FBI Director Louis Freeh, the memo, and other documents relating to it. Both Freeh and LaBella advocated an independent counsel be named to investigate Mr. Clinton's 1996 fund-raising activities.."

12/1/98 Reuters ".The House Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday to expand its impeachment inquiry of President Clinton by issuing subpoenas for two Justice Department memos on the White House campaign fund-raising scandal. The committee also voted to subpoena the authors of the two memos, FBI Director Louis Freeh and former head of the campaign finance investigative task force Charles LaBella, to testify in closed-door depositions. The panel also approved a subpoena requiring independent counsel Kenneth Starr to furnish all the documents and evidence related to John Huang, a key figure in the campaign finance scandal who has been granted immunity by Starr."

FoxNews 12/1/98 Joy Demanden ".Fox News has learned someone in the White House may have turned on the president as the impeachment drama moved forward. That source gave the House Judiciary information accusing the president of criminal wrongdoing in connection with his campaign fundraising activities. As a result, the Committee will now look beyond the Lewinsky scandal and expand its investigation. It will subpoena FBI Director Louis Freeh and the head of the Justice department's campaign finance probe. Attorney general Janet Reno will also be ordered to turn over some documents..."

Washington Post 12/1/98 Spencer S. Hsu ".Nearly 25 years after Rep. M. Caldwell Butler (R-Va.) voted to impeach President Richard M. Nixon, Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., a fellow Virginian from the state's tobacco-and-textile belt, is poised to cast another vote to remove a president of his own party from office. Goode, the only House member from Maryland or Virginia willing to hop party lines so far, plays a lanky, backwoods lawyer more comfortable with rural conservatives than city liberals. But in an interview, he is as sharp and direct in his criticism as moderate Reps. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) and Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) are guarded about intentions to punish President Clinton.."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/101301.htm 12/1/98 Statement of Barbara Battalino ". I am neither a historian nor a Constitutional scholar. I am an American who worked hard to complete both a medical and law degree, and have practiced in public and government service for over 20 years until I became a convicted felon in April of 1998...The falsehood centered around my reticence to acknowledge the one act of consensual oral sex which occurred between myself and an unmarried male adult on Veterans Affairs premises. A civil suit was filed, complicated by the male party having secretly recorded phone conversations he and I had during the months an intimate relationship between us developed. These very tapes were instrumental in having the civil suit dismissed in September of 1998, with no monetary award or settlement being made by myself or the Veterans Affairs Administration. So how is it I am a convicted felon? In early 1998 my attorney received word that the U.S. Department of Justice planned to indict me for perjury based upon an untruthful response I gave to a question regarding whether anything of a sexual nature had occurred between myself and that individual on June 27, 1991. Understanding that I would be subjecting myself to unwarranted civil exposure if I told the truth, I justified in my own mind that this deception was warranted in order to protect my personal and professional self-interest. In an attempt to save myself and my family any further embarrassment and/or financial loss, I agreed accept a negotiated disposition of the criminal case.My sentence will not end on February 27, 1999, when the electronic monitoring device is removed from my ankle, nor will it end on July 19, 1999, when my formal probationary period is completed. In a very real sense, I am condemned to a life sentence. I have lost my professional standing, my life as it had been, and my cherished privacy - these consequences are irrevocable.."

12/1/98 AP Laurie Kellman ".While Democrats objected to a belated expansion of the impeachment inquiry, House Republicans today questioned two women prosecuted for lying in sex cases as they explored whether President Clinton should be held to the same standard. ``Because a president is not a king, he or she must abide by the same laws as the rest of us,'' Barbara Battalino told the House Judiciary Committee. The former Veterans Affairs hospital psychologist is serving a home detention sentence after pleading guilty in a case in which she lied about a sexual relationship with a patient.. ``It is particularly disturbing that many who generally claim to represent the weak now argue that the powerful should be allowed a pass when they break the rules,'' Hyde said. ``The committee has received information which suggests that the campaign finance abuse memos may contain allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the president,'' Paul McNulty, a spokesman for Republicans on the panel, said Monday. ``The committee is duty-bound to investigate that information.'' .."

Freeper Michael Rivero 12/1/98 reports ".Hyde was asked if there was a mystery witness. He said if there was a mystery witness it was a mystery to him. Also Chip Reid reported that DOJ officials said there was nothing impeachable in LaBella's or other documents.."

Freeper heyhub 12/1/98 reports ".At noon, McCollum said a "high government official" gave the commitee information in the last 72 hours that the Freeh memo lists criminal wrongdoing by Clinton. Maybe that ties all the points together - it's not really a secret witness, but the results are somewhat similar."

Scripps Howard News Service 12/1/98 Joan Lowy ".Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, applauded efforts by House Republicans to expand the impeachment inquiry beyond Clinton's sexual liaison with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky to include allegations of campaign finance misconduct by Clinton and other Democrats. ``I think most people realize this (the Lewinsky matter) is only part of the totality of impeachable offenses,'' Hatch said. ``I personally believe that (potential campaign finance violations) is where most of the real criminality is, the real violations of the laws, and unless the attorney general is willing to request an independent counsel, we're never going to get to the bottom of it.''..``It just seems to me that the far right has captured the Republican caucus again and that against their own best interests and against what appears to be the interests of the American people, they insist upon doing this,'' Daschle said.."

UPI 12/1/98 ".House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (Tuesday) rejected House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt's call for ``a speedy wrap-up of this (impeachment) inquiry before year's end.'' Hyde issued a statement saying: ``Gephardt says he fears that the inquiry lacks direction. It is my view that his real fear is not a lack of direction, but rather that we are moving in the right direction _ getting to the facts.'' ."

Freeper libbylu 12/1/98 report on FoxNews ".Hannity says LaBella went to the committee. McCollum HJC would not confirmm. He says he doesn't know where it is going, but is part of pattern. They are planning on vote next week, don't know where it will go. ."

Washington Post 12/2/98 Edward Walsh William Claiborne ".Approaching a vote scheduled for next week on articles of impeachment against President Clinton, the committee's GOP majority sought to use the hearing to argue that failure to impeach Clinton on perjury in the Monica S. Lewinsky matter would mean creating a "double standard" unavailable to ordinary Americans.. After Battalino and Parsons had left the witness table, they became the subjects of a bitter exchange between Hyde and Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz.. "

Washington Times 12/1/98 John McCaslin ".Christopher C. Horner is one of the omnipresent TV attorneys who have been spawned, like a negative side effect, from President Clinton's problems. He's seen regularly on Court TV's "Cochran & Company," in addition to other "shout shows," as he calls them. He wrote to Inside the Beltway after reading the proposed legislative language that Concerned Citizens of Arlington, Va., are asking (daring) Congress to pass: "a sexual relationship with a co-worker in the workplace is only a private matter; one-time groping is not sexual harassment; we can lie under oath in a civil case and to a grand jury; and as long as it's about sex, it is not perjury." In the same spirit, Mr. Horner educates us on the "Conyers Corollary" he's offered on TV, "to no approval from the left," he notes. He's referring, of course, to Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, and the "redoubtable ranking Democrat's oratory" as a longtime member of the House Judiciary Committee during impeachment proceedings against President Nixon and now Mr. Clinton. Mr. Conyers' arguments in both instances "make it clear Mr. Clinton's activities deserve, at a minimum, impeachment," according to the attorney, citing the congressman's line of reasoning: "Lie under oath -- bad; lie under oath about sex or to facilitate your sex life -- fine. Steal a car --bad; steal a car to have sex in, or get to your sex -- fine. Rob a bank -- bad; rob a bank and use the proceeds to assist with sex --fine." As for "the Conyers Corollary?" "Do anything you want, illegal; but ensure that at some point in the process you have some sex; you are then off the hook." ."

Hotline 12/1 FOX News Channel Freeper report ".FNC's Cameron: "Judiciary Committee sources are now saying they are in receipt of information from Clinton Administration officials that indicates that the president was indeed involved in criminal wrongdoing in the context of the campaign fundraising activities leading up to the 1996 re-election campaign. ... Beyond the LaBella memo, they are now in receipt of additional information implicating the president in what they describe as criminal wrongdoing. ... What they have been pursuing in recent weeks, has been the idea that the president was essentially orchestrating coverup money intended to keep various people quiet about what they knew, relative to Webster Hubbell's involvement with the old Whitewater investigation, and a number of other things. So the idea would be that they are now pursuing the president's firsthand involvement in a coverup" ("Special Report," FNC, 11/30). ."

12/1/98 Larry Margasak AP ".After the vote, Republican committee lawyers went to court for a second time in an effort to persuade a federal judge to seek internal Justice Department memos in which top law enforcement officials laid out fund-raising evidence against Clinton in arguing for the appointment of a special prosecutor. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson on Friday had issued a sealed ruling that the committee had not demonstrated a sufficient need for the memos, which include secret grand jury material. Committee Republicans believe the subpoena will strengthen their argument, said panel spokesman Paul McNulty. The committee also subpoenaed material from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on John Huang, a former Democratic fund-raiser whose ex-employer paid money to presidential friend Webster Hubbell. Starr is investigating whether that payment and other consulting fees represented ``hush money'' to keep Hubbell quiet about any wrongdoing by the president...GOP officials indicated the committee hopes to depose FBI Director Louis Freeh and Charles LaBella, author of the campaign fund-raising memos, as early as Wednesday or Thursday, assuming Judge Johnson gives them access to the materials. If the Republicans succeed, they would presumably make a quick judgment about whether to delve more deeply into campaign finance allegations or drop the issue.Several court rulings have held that an impeachment inquiry in Congress, unlike a simple oversight hearing, is a judicial proceeding to which otherwise secret grand jury information can be disclosed under certain circumstances."

Fox News 12/1/98 Reuters John Whitesides ".Panel Republicans shrugged off Democratic charges that the impeachment inquiry was spinning out of control, saying the memos might contain evidence of illegal acts by Clinton that they were "duty-bound" to investigate.. Reno has repeatedly refused to turn the memos over to Congress, even after a contempt citation by the Republican-controlled House Government Reform and Oversight Committee earlier this year. She faces a deadline next week on whether to appoint an independent counsel to look into allegations Clinton violated campaign spending laws in 1996. Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson scheduled a hearing for Wednesday on the committee's request for the memos, which include confidential information from grand juries under her supervision."There is time. We're going to look into this as best we can," Hyde said, although he said the inquiry might be prolonged if investigators turned up new evidence. He offered a sharp rebuke to Democrats who complained about the inquiry, saying they had ignored the seriousness of the allegations against Clinton to focus on "process and procedure and personal attacks on the chairman." "We haven't called a lot of witnesses because you plead nolo contendere," he told the Democrats. "You have conceded on the facts." ."

Associated Press 12/2/98 Larry Margasak ".White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said outgoing Speaker Newt Gingrich and incoming Speaker Bob Livingston have taken the position they don't want to touch the impeachment process, leaving it in the hands of Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.. Lockhart said. "I think they need to step up and figure out a way to get this thing resolved expeditiously because everybody ... wants to get this behind us.'' .The White House push to end the inquiry came as Judiciary Committee Republicans sought to expand the impeachment investigation with material on potential campaign fund-raising abuses.."

Freeper go star go 12/2/98 on MSNBC ".Judge Johnston says the Congress can have the memo.."

Washington Times 12/2/98 Ernest Blazer ".Officially, the Pentagon denies that the president's recent difficulties have had any impact upon the U.S. military. Troop morale remains good, and the combat forces are still eagle-eyed, goes the assurance. but if you listen to Navy Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., head of U.S. Atlantic Command, the president's habit of choosing words with exquisite care has found its way into the ranks. It came during a serious discussion of naval strength. The four-star officer -- who oversees 80 percent of all stateside Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps units -- talked with reporters yesterday at a breakfast. He was asked about the Navy's mission and the service's ability to execute it with only 320 warships. "It all depends," he told reporters, "on what the definition of 'it' is"."Leadership by example must come from the top, it must be consistently of the highest standards, and it must be visible for all to see," Adm. Edney told the lawmakers. "'Do as I say and not as I do' just won't hack it! This country is firmly entrenched in the principle of civilian control of our military in the authority of the president. Therefore, those who hold that leadership position, to be credible, must meet the same standard." When the standard is breached, a payment must be exacted, said the retired admiral, who teaches ethics at the U.S. Naval Academy. "We must continue to remove those who fall short and seek those who meet and exceed the requirements. Dual standards and less accountability at the top will undermine the trust and confidence so essential to good order and discipline as well as mission success." .Indeed, since Bill Clinton became president, he has personally approved the removal of 18 military officers from lists promoting them to general or admiral. Since 1993, the Army has lost two, the Navy six, the Air Force seven and the Marine Corps three, according to Pentagon statistics. The president moved against these officers at the suggestion of the Defense Department, which substantiated misconduct charges against the officers, some of which were sexual in nature.."

Sacbee Voices 12/2/98 William Buckley ".Here is a synopsis of the Clinton situation, wrenched out of the busy events of the past few days and including the exegeses on the Sunday talk shows. 1. White House management feels the need to handle the perjury count on two fronts. One front calls for acknowledging the lies in the between-us-kids mode -- Yeah, I had sex with the girl and denied it. To the other forum, which is the Justice Department, the line is, Who says I lied?! My lawyers are on record as saying I never committed perjury. 2. That line is complicated by the language required to plead management's innocence. It boils down to, How do you define sexual relations?. 3. So then two prosecutors, Congress now, the judicial system down the road, are to proceed on different assumptions. Congress isn't really debating the question whether perjury has been committed. The House knows the answer to that one -- yes, perjury was committed. The House will stick to the question, Is perjury an impeachable offense?. 4. So the House is left with a clear-cut perjury notwithstanding the formalistic denials of management's legal team... 5. Management's handling of the 81 questions was certainly provocative, beginning with the very first, in which Mr. Clinton telegraphed his tactics by refusing to answer point-blank even the question, Are you the chief law enforcement officer of the United States? ..6. The Democrats are rallying around the idea of censure. If they can do this, the maneuver avoids a great many difficulties...This, then, will be Lady Macbeth time. Will Mr. Clinton feel the wound? Or will he succeed in simply ignoring it, as he has his oath of office?."

Freeper Birdman reports 12/2/98 ".Fox news reporter on Rush/Snow just laid it all out. LaBella went to Schippers and told him there is critical, impeachable material in his memo that must be brought to light in regards to current investigation. Based on that, Schippers went last week and was rebuffed. With help from congressional counsel and subpoena, Johnson allowed viewing. This report really sounded grave for Clinton - I can't express it any better in writing if you didn't hear it.."

AP 12/2/98 Larry Margasak ".Reversing course, a federal judge today gave permission to House impeachment investigators to read secret Justice Department memos that detail evidence of alleged fund-raising irregularities in President Clinton's 1996 campaign. U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson said one Republican and one Democrat from the House Judiciary Committee staff will be permitted to see the memos written by FBI Director Louis Freeh and prosecutor Charles LaBella. Johnson's written order said it was ``in the public interest that this limited disclosure be made'' to impeachment investigators from the 2-year-old grand jury investigation into fund raising. The staff members will not be allowed to copy or take notes from the memos and can report their contents only to Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the committee chairman, and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, senior Democrat on the panel, the judge said.."

Freeper Lex remembers 12/2/98 ".Remember when Freeh and La Bella appeared before the Burton committee and both Freeh and La Bella both requested that Burton not subpoena their memos due to national security AND that it would tip off those being investigated as to what they had discovered? Remember when Burton asked Freeh if his, Freeh's, investigation and evidence for crimes led to the WH? Freeh replied yes. Burton then asked Freeh if the crimes led to the highest office in the land in the WH and Freeh said yes. Burton went on and asked Freeh if his investigation/evidence led to Clinton/Gore and Freeh said YES. The hearing room was so quiet you could have heard a pin drop. Reno, Freeh, and La Bella have always fought to have these reports/memos kept from public viewing....even from those in congress/senate. Are we talking about Freeh and La Bella's ORIGINAL memos that were oh so secret just a few months ago, OR are we now talking about a different memo/report?."

AP 12/2/98 Larry Margasak ".Republicans said the ruling by U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson could upset the tight impeachment schedule. The White House, exasperated that it does not yet know which articles of impeachment Clinton might have to defend against, urged GOP House leaders to rein in the inquiry... Committee officials cautioned, however, that the schedule could be altered if investigators unearth any explosive new evidence in the memos written by FBI Director Louis Freeh and prosecutor Charles LaBella..The Justice Department memos, on the other hand, mainly contain the conclusions of two law enforcement officials who oversaw the fund-raising inquiry but whose recommendations for a special prosecutor so far have been resisted by Attorney General Janet Reno..Johnson's ruling gave impeachment investigators access to four internal memos from the fund-raising inquiry: --Freeh's memo to Reno on Nov. 24, 1997. Freeh has acknowledged the memo recommended a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton's fund raising. --A July 16 interim report and an Aug. 12, 1998, addendum from LaBella and James DeSarno, the FBI agent who oversaw the campaign fund-raising task force. LaBella, too, urged appointment of a special prosecutor. --An Aug. 5 memo from Lee Radek, chief of public integrity in the Justice Department, to James Robinson, assistant attorney general, that reviewed the LaBella and DeSarno interim report. --An Aug. 25 memo by Robinson analyzing the LaBella-DeSarno report.

Freeper Lancer 12/2/98 FoxNews report ".O'Reilly made a strong point tonight: it is not the information in the memos that will be important; it is the questioning of LaBella (and Freeh and the FBI guy) regarding the conduct of their investigation and the kind of treatment they got from the White House. O'Reilly expects LaBella et al will have quite a story of stonewalling, denial, obstruction, etc to tell. And when the fence sitters hear that story, they will come over into the impeachment column.."

Freeper Steve Schulin 12/2/98 remembers concerning another Freeper question: "Can some of you keen memory Freepers place this and an Aug. 12, 1998, addendum from LaBella and James DeSarno, into a time frame. What was the timing of Aug. 12 compared to Freeh, LaBella testimony and what is timing compared to Clinton testimony to GJ etc. ? " . reponse: ".Freeh urged independent counsel be appointed in autumn '97. Sen. Thompson questioned Reno about Freeh's November '97 memo that concluded "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel." After a 10-month inquiry, LaBella submitted his report to Reno in July 1998 (NYT 7/23/98). Desarno is an FBI agent -- a top agent for Freeh -- who approved LaBella's findings. LaBella and Freeh testified before Burton committee on 8/4/98. That's a few days before the addendum!."

Freeper Rodger Schultz recalls 12/9/97 Full Committee Hearing ".Mr. Burton: Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you have prosecuted or on which you have been involved? FBI Director Freeh: I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City, and many people were frequently unavailable.."

MSNBC 12/3/98 Jay Severin ".YET ANOTHER spasm of instant analysis - always wrong - holds that Republicans' choreography of the latest round of impeachment hearings was a large self- inflicted wound. If that's true, how come it's Democrats who are yelling, "Ouch?" Henry Hyde & Company drew blood on Tuesday. The dramatic testimony of two ordinary citizens - former basketball coach Pam Parsons and Barbara Battalino, a former Veterans Administration psychiatrist -each of whom lied about sex under oath and was slammed for it, gave the impeachment charges a real-world context. And that context is the one the White House fears most: that this isn't about sex, it's about crime and equal justice under law. The testimony of these two women was a winner for another, by now quite familiar, reason: public opinion. The Democrats and their academic cadres mocked the notion of hearing from two average Americans, dismissing what they had to say. But the words and images of these two women - more like most Americans than anybody else in the room, maybe in the whole story dominated the news that night and the following day. If you think public opinion no longer matters, think again.."

Washington Post 12/3/98 Roberto Suro and Ruth Marcus ".Now that the House Judiciary Committee has the information it sought concerning President Clinton and his 1996 campaign fund-raising, it may wonder why it went to so much trouble to get it..The memos to which U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson granted the Judiciary Committee access Wednesday contain no explosive new evidence of criminal activity by the president, sources familiar with the documents said. ``If either of these things was a ticking time bomb they would have blown up by now,'' said one Justice official familiar with the documents..But the memos by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and the Justice Department's former top campaign finance prosecutor, Charles G. LaBella, did not address whether those actions were crimes and alleged no specific offenses by Clinton or other officials. Rather, sources said, they argued that the allegations swirling around Clinton and others were such that the Justice Department shouldn't be investigating the issue at all, but should turn it over to an independent counsel...``The only question was whether there is specific evidence from a credible source indicating potential wrongdoing by the president or someone else covered by the independent counsel act and that is several long steps from saying there is probable cause to believe any crime has been committed,'' said a law enforcement official familiar with the memos..Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., the Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member, announced Wednesday night that the Democrats, for their part, had found nothing useful in the documents. ``Democratic counsel has thoroughly examined the memoranda in question and has advised me that nothing in these documents is in any way relevant to this committee's consideration of possible impeachable offenses by the president,'' Conyers said.. Ginsberg said that an inquiry into the Democrats' use of campaign money from foreign sources might be more fruitful for the committee. ``If there's information that may be lurking out there'' linking Clinton to foreign contributions, he said, ``that strikes me as relevant stuff.'' But sources said the memos do not allege a criminal effort by anyone in the White House, no less the the president, to solicit foreign funds. Even if such evidence emerged, a recent court ruling concluded that those funds might be legal after all...The LaBella memo, given to Reno July 16, is longer, and involves a more extensive recitation of evidence developed in the Justice Department campaign finance investigation, but essentially offers the same kind of analysis, according to officials familiar with the document.. "

Washington Post 12/3/98 Peter Baker and Juliet Eilperin ".The White House vowed yesterday to mount a "vigorous defense" of President Clinton next week that may include calling witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee, setting up a public clash just two days before the panel plans to begin voting on articles of impeachment..Behind the scenes on the committee, Democratic Judiciary aides formally opened negotiations with GOP counterparts in a bid to avert impeachment by introducing a censure resolution. But Republicans evinced no interest and focused instead on how to fashion impeachment charges, with sources saying it was "virtually certain" they would separate the charge that Clinton perjured himself into two separate articles dealing with the president's Jan. 17 deposition in the Paula Jones case and his Aug. 17 testimony before independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's grand jury. And for the first time, House leaders began making preparations for a lame-duck floor session to consider impeachment before Christmas if the committee sends the matter to the full chamber as appears likely... The scheduling moves suggested that this week's widening of the impeachment inquiry's scope into campaign finance irregularities might not delay its resolution, as some had feared when the committee Republicans added the issue into the mix...Democrats later said the examination showed the documents were not relevant to the impeachment inquiry. "We trust that this closes a short and unproductive chapter in the history of this very strange proceeding," Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the senior Judiciary Democrat, said after a briefing on the memos. Republicans did not offer an immediate assessment, although they gave no indication that any issues raised in the memos would force them to revise or extend the inquiry schedule they released.."It's troublesome when the judicial branch places restrictions on the constitutional work of the Judiciary Committee," said Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)..One presidential adviser said the White House was prepared to counter charges about Lewinsky, Willey, campaign finance or anything else the committee tried to investigate. "I want to know what they're going to pursue," this adviser said. "If they're really sure about opening up the world, we're going to fight them." While providing no information about the format or substance of its defense presentation other than to say it "may include calling witnesses," the White House signaled that it would use the forum to again turn the focus away from Clinton's conduct and onto Starr's."To date, the president's defenders have pled 'no contest' to the substantial body of evidence that confronts them," said McNulty. "Furthermore, if the president's lawyers want to examine Justice Department memos outlining a criminal investigation possibly involving the president and the vice president, they should take that up with Attorney General Reno." ."

Wall Street Journal 12/2/98 Micah Morrison ".Arriving in the midst of the sex-and-perjury impeachment hearings last month, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's indictment of Webster Hubbell on fraud and coverup charges has been treated as almost an exoneration of the president. The indictment did not name Bill Clinton, the thought runs, so therefore Mr. Starr has "cleared" him. Once upon a time, though, presidents were considered at least morally responsible for the actions of their appointees. Mr. Hubbell, too, was no ordinary appointee, but the personal emissary Mr. Clinton sent to the Justice Department to see that laws were faithfully executed. Mr. Hubbell has already served time for two felonies, and Mr. Starr's new indictment charges him with 15 more. They include fraud in Arkansas, involving the Rose Law Firm, Madison Guaranty savings-and-loan and the Castle Grande land deal. They also include actions while associate attorney general, including perjury before a congressional committee, and corruptly impeding the work of two federal agencies, the Resolution Trust Corp. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Hillary Clinton was intimately involved in these events. While not using her name, the indictment repeatedly mentions her as "the 1985-1986 billing partner" from the Rose Law Firm. In his Judiciary Committee testimony, Mr. Starr revealed that his office had drafted, but decided not to submit, an impeachment referral charging that the president committed perjury during the 1996 trial of Madison owners Jim and Susan McDougal, when he denied knowledge of an illegal $300,000 loan--a portion of which went to benefit the Whitewater Corp., a Clinton-McDougal partnership. But Ms. McDougal stayed silent and the impeachment report foundered. Now the Clintons are again the apparent beneficiaries of a coverup, this one orchestrated by Mr. Hubbell. Indeed, the charges against Mr. Hubbell echo the charges against Mr. Clinton in the Lewinsky case now before the House Judiciary Committee. In his testimony before the committee on Nov. 19, Mr. Starr suggested that all aspects of his probe be considered as parts of a whole, raising the issue of a broad pattern of abuse of power. "Our task over the past several years has involved far more than simply the Lewinsky matter," Mr. Starr told the committee. "The pattern of obstruction of justice, false statements and misuse of executive authority in the Lewinsky investigation did not occur in a vacuum." ."

New York Times 12/3/98 Alison Mitchell Lizette Alvarez ".House Republicans overwhelmingly told their leadership Wednesday they wanted to bring impeachment to a quick vote this month in the House, as the Judiciary Committee, under criticism for expanding its inquiry, appeared to be moving to wrap up the investigation by the end of next week. The Republicans made their views known as the staff of Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the majority whip, reached across the country in a conference call to informally gauge Republican support for impeachment..He said their overwhelming sentiment was to move quickly to a vote. Scanlon asserted there was no formal vote counting. But by day's end, Republicans said it was clear there were up to 12 Republican votes against impeachment and another small core group of moderates still unwilling to commit. Democratic leaders say they believe that only three to five of their members will turn against Clinton. If Republicans lose only 12 votes, they could narrowly pass iompeachment if several Democrats break ranks."

Freeper LYNXcry 12/3/98 on FoxNews ".Fox news just reported that the GOP and DEM leaders had gotten together tonight and discussed what was in the LaBella memo, and it seems likely that nothing more than the Starr report will be considered in the impeachment inquiry..."

Original Sources 12/2/98 Mary Mostert ".The New York Times observes today, in a report entitled "Speaking On Perils of Perjury" that "The way the Judiciary Committee billboarded the day's hearing -- "The Consequences of Perjury" -- had the ring of the pulpit to it, much as the sermon topic "The Wages of Sin" has generated countless spiritual revivals across American history. "Revival was most definitely the Republicans' hope, with their attempt to impeach President Clinton still failing to win over the American public. But instead of fire and brimstone, the Republican majority presented two penitent miscreants -- two ordinary American women who were convicted and seriously punished by the government for having lied under oath about their sex lives." Strangely, the fact that these two women had been tried and convicted, and their professional lives destroyed, for doing exactly what Bill Clinton has done has not even been widely reported in the media. Why, you might wonder, is it OK to punish women accused of lying under oath about a sexual encounter, but not a man named William Jefferson Clinton? As has been the case with Paula Jones, when it is a matter of fairness and equality of women under the law - the nation's media and the feminist groups like the National Association for Women, have been remarkably silent over what appears to be a rather glaring double standard.."

FoxNews AP 12/3/98 Laurie Kellman ".Democratic committee officials, meanwhile, predicted the GOP had not found enough evidence of Clinton's wrongdoing to include those issues in articles of impeachment. Chief Democratic counsel Julian Epstein, who talks daily with his Republican counterpart, Thomas Mooney, predicted after a conversation with Mooney Wednesday night that the GOP would drop the campaign fund- raising and Willey matters. Epstein declined to comment about any specific conversations with Mooney.. Committee Republicans said a secret source had led them to believe the memos contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the president. The memos remained sealed until U.S. District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson on Wednesday permitted one Republican and one Democratic committee aide to review them. The aides were forbidden from copying, taking notes or discussing the content of the memos with anyone but Hyde and ranking Democrat John Conyers of Michigan. In an interview from his San Diego office Wednesday night, LaBella said he regretted that his memo had become fodder for a public inquiry. "Internal prosecutorial memoranda are not intended for public consumption,'' LaBella said, adding that he was due for his deposition Friday morning in Washington. Freeh's deposition had not been scheduled Wednesday night, GOP aides said. Less than two hours after the aides finished their review, Conyers released a statement declaring that his aide "has advised me that nothing in these documents is in any way relevant to this committee's consideration of possible impeachable offenses by the president.''."

FoxNews AP 12/3/98 David Espo ".To hear Democrats tell it, the House impeachment panel is careening chaotically out of control as it pokes into campaign fund-raising issues in the twilight of an inquiry into President Clinton's conduct. Republicans counter they're doggedly doing their constitutional duty. Either way, barring an evidentiary bombshell contained in secret Justice Department memos, the House Judiciary Committee will likely debate and vote on GOP-drafted articles of impeachment against Clinton late next week. That will set the stage for a vote in the full House, probably the following week, in which Republicans try to muster the votes for at least one article of impeachment. Democrats will try to craft an alternative, a formal censure of the president, that can command majority support.. Gephardt's comments were part of a long- term, well-executed Democratic plan to undermine the GOP-led impeachment inquiry as wholly partisan, and turn the focus away from Clinton's actions. Neither his letter to Gingrich nor his public comments addressed the issue of the memos that Justice Department officials wrote Reno recommending she appoint an independent counsel, or whether impeachment investigators should have access to them. Nor did Hyde or any other Republican defender address their own weakness the perception that the voters spoke on the issue in November, and they want Clinton to stay in office, and Congress to move onto other matters. Clinton himself took an opportunity to make that point subtly during the day. ."

Original Sources 12/3/98 Mary Mostert ".The reaction of both the Republicans and the Democrats on the Committee was interesting. There was an instantaneous statement to the press by Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) saying, "the documents were not relevant to the impeachment inquiry. We trust that this closes a short and unproductive chapter in the history of this very strange proceeding." The Republicans, on the other hand, said not a word. The last time the two sides reacted that way, the Democrats were saying that Linda Tripp's friend, Lucianne Goldberg, had "made up" the story about the dress with the stain just to try to discredit the President and that there was actually nothing to it at all. After the dress was turned over to the FBI for testing, the Republicans said nothing, and no one in the White House knew for sure what was going on. Strangely, when the White House did not know what was happening there were no "leaks from Kenneth Starr's office" and no vociferous attacks on Kenneth Starr for "leaking" Grand Jury information...Last week the talk show "experts" announced quite authoritatively that in no way would the President make a defense before the Committee (after all, so they tell us, the American public wants to hear not another word about the whole thing and only wants it over). Now we hear there will be a defense, a "vigorous" defense, and the President's lawyers are insisting on reading the Freeh and LaBella memos, and having access to Starr's evidence about Kathleen E. Willey who was the target of unwelcome sexual advances from Clinton the day her husband committed suicide... Folks, I think the carefully spun propaganda machine in Washington which has been telling you that there "aren't enough votes" to impeach and the "American people don't want impeachment" is unraveling... "

CNN-Breaking News 12/3/98 Bob Frankling Freeper report ".Bob Franklin reported from Capital Hill that Pete King is ciculating a petition among 'moderate Republicans' that would call for censure by the House. The terms of King's petition reportedly call for "a stiff financial penalty" and a letter of admission of wrong-doing. When it was pointed out that many, such as Tom DeLay, have said the Consittuion does not allow censure, the response was :It doesn't exclude it, either." ."

Roll Call 12/3/98 John Bresnahan ".With the House moving closer to a floor vote on articles of impeachment against President Clinton, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is lobbying GOP leaders to prepare for an impeachment trial as a way to send a strong message of Republican solidarity to the White House. Hatch met Monday with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to urge Lott to begin preparations for a trial. Hatch argued that without the credible threat of Senate action, including an impeachment trial, Clinton will continue to try to fend off the House impeachment probe. But Lott has yet to abandon what some GOP insiders are calling "strict neutrality" on a potential Senate impeachment trial..."

Landmark Legal Foundation 12/3/98 ". No wonder Barney Frank is not so concerned about lying. In 1990, the full House voted to reprimand Frank for his lies. Here's what the House Ethics Manual (1992) says about it: Franks was reprimanded for: "writing a misleading memorandum that could have influenced a personal associate's probation and arranging for the improper administrative dismissal of parking tickets."."

Providence Journal 12/3/98 Mark Patinkin ".Until this week, I was on the president's side. Ken Starr was the bad guy, wasting millions investigating behavior that seemed nobody's business. It was sordid for Mr. Clinton to have such a tryst, and apparently lie about it, but how has that hurt the country? I'm beginning to see. It's about children. Here is a letter from a reader named Pete McVety: ``My 10-year- old son used the President's actions as an excuse the other day. I asked if he had practiced the trombone. He said `yes . ' I knew that he had not since I had been home all day, so, I told him `How could you say that?' He replied, `You didn't ask me if I had practiced today, only, if I had practiced, and I have, just not today.' I asked how he could possibly think his answer acceptable and he replied, `It's just what the President does on TV. I answered just like he does.' What can you say to that? I said, `You have to be better than the President. Just because he did it, doesn't make it right.' '' .. This one is from Don Giannatti of Phoenix, Ariz.: ``I am the father of three girls. My oldest is 12. As my daughter was trying to fake her way through a story about `missing' homework, the lies were beginning to mount. Her frustration at being grilled and caught was palpable. Then she told me what happened: It wasn't all her fault, she explained, if the `stupid teacher hadn't caught me, I wouldn't be in all this trouble.' Nearing exasperation I explained that the accuser isn't necessarily the wrong party. `Well, everyone on the morning show today said it was that Starr guy that got Clinton in trouble.' She was serious. I was sad.'' ."

Creators Syndicate 12/3/98 Linda Bowles ".And woe to Republicans if they wimp out on the impeachment process the way they wimped out on the budget! If Republicans in the Congress do not comprehend the danger to the nation of entrusting this man with the awesome power of the presidency, or if they ignore such danger in the interest of political expediency and pragmatism, they will pay a price. The party faithful will not tolerate another craven abandonment of principle.............. And if the people don't care about any of it, out of ignorance or fatalism, we have surely lost our way. America will have moved closer to that time when historians may add to the story of the magnificent rise of the greatest nation in history a full account of its inglorious fall.."

The Salt Lake Tribune - Commentary 12/3/98 Christopher Matthews ". The most damning thing you can say about President Clinton is that he knew all this would happen. He could foresee from the moment of his exposure the whole onslaught of news coverage, the months of partisan warfare, the full fury of the debate his conduct and cover-up in the Lewinsky matter would ignite, yet he chose to lie about it. He chose to lie because it was, he calculated, a better bet than admitting what was obvious from day one, not least to those who know him best. With all the hell that it would bring, he decided that denying the affair and denying the perjury in the January 17 deposition would get him through the storm. He could deal with the mess later, when tempers were lowered, the nation's interest had waned, the national attention span had outrun its usual, short course. It was a logical decision. Give him that. Bill Clinton, who had gotten through so many jams, would once again bet his fate on the short national attention span... The question now facing the Congress is whether Clinton chose wisely. If the House fails to impeach him later this month, the president can say to himself -- and to history -- that he chose wisely in January: He was right to lie in the civil deposition, right to later affirm that lie to the public. He was right because he got away with it where telling the truth back then might have caused such a storm as to drive him from the presidency he'd spent his life attaining..."

Freeper citizen report on CNN 12/3/98 BoB Franken ".CNNs Franken says Repub JC members (2) have told him that Hyde has advised the Committee members that Campaign Finance will not be explored in the impeachment inquiry, that the Willey matter is also dead. Franken further says that Freeh and LaBella probably will not be deposed, as will not Lindsey.."

AP Laurie Kellman 12/3/98 ".Incoming Speaker Bob Livingston said today he hopes the House wraps up its impeachment inquiry this year but held out the possibility it could carry over to the next Congress unless the Judiciary Committee completes work next week. Republicans investigators decided to drop fund-raising allegations from the inquiry ..Meanwhile, the Judiciary chairman, Rep. Henry Hyde, told GOP members in a conference call this morning that the staff review of Justice Department memos detailing alleged fund-raising irregularities in Clinton's campaign did not yield information worth considering for articles of impeachment, two sources said. One GOP committee member, Rep. George Gekas, said through a spokeswoman: ``I believe campaign finance will not be the main focus of articles of impeachment. ..``I think it's interesting that just about a month ago, people on the Democratic side of the House were complaining because the process was either moving too fast or later too slow and they were condemning the speaker (Rep. Newt Gingrich) for being too involved,'' Livingston said. ``Now they're mad at me for not being involved enough.'' ...Republican aides and Rep. Henry Hyde, who chairs the panel, are not saying whether the inquiry would be expanded to include information on Clinton's campaign finances and Kathleen Willey, who has accused the president of groping her. Democratic committee officials, meanwhile, expressed doubt the GOP had found enough evidence of wrongdoing on those issues to include them in articles of impeachment... Committee Republicans said a secret source had led them to believe the memos contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the president.."

Freeper commish reports on RUSH 12/3/98 ".Rush just brought up an interesting point. Throughout this inquiry no one from the White House has given one shred of evidence to refute the Perjury and obstruction charges. Hyde invited the Pres lawyers and they declined to appear. Then Information on Willey is sent up and they call Landow knowing he will Clam up. Then they ask to see the LaBella and Freeh memo's. SUDDENLY the WH says its lawyers will appear and present a vigorous defence, and they WANT all information on Willey and Campaign Finance What they have done is get the WH to respond to these charges while they still are ignoring the charges ACTUALLY being considered. Hyde has basically tricked the WH into admitting Guilt on the Starr Report."

The Hill - The Capitol Newspaper 12/2/98 A.B. Stoddard ".House Republican leaders, uncertain they have the floor votes to pass an article of impeachment charging President Clinton with perjury, appear likely to consider a censure resolution in the event that their impeachment efforts are defeated. Meanwhile, the likelihood that a perjury vote would pass has been bolstered by some key moderates and fence-sitting Republicans who have indicated they would vote for impeachment on a count of perjury. These include Reps. Marge Roukema (N.J.), Greg Ganske (Iowa) and Tom Campbell (Calif.). But the number of Republicans who will vote against impeachment remains in dispute..Rep. Peter King (R- N.Y.), who publicly declared his intent to vote against impeachment counts of any kind more than a week ago, agreed that Livingston and Gingrich should work with Democrats in the next week to draft "the toughest censure resolution possible." McHale stressed that a censure resolution would not be crafted until after the vote on impeachment. "I have confidence in the statesmanship on the Republican side of the aisle that their leadership will, in fact, in the wake of an impeachment vote, provide for a recorded vote on a meaningful censure resolution," he said. Such a resolution would have to be "blunt and bipartisan," said McHale, whose own resolution condemned Clinton for his actions and concluded the president had provided false testimony under oath and engaged in a pattern of behavior designed to cover up his initial wrongdoing. McHale said, while he is certain liberal Democrats would not vote for such a measure, he believed that a broad coalition of mainstream Democrats and Republicans would support it in the event that impeachment votes fail on the House floor.."

AP David Espo 12/3/98 ".Key Democrats met privately with the party's leader, Rep. Dick Gephardt, and -- according to two sources speaking on condition of anonymity -- they will soon begin contacting Republican lawmakers outside the Judiciary Committee to see what bipartisan cooperation might be possible in the full House. These sources added that while Democrats are willing to join in efforts to wrap up the issue by year's end, they will insist on a lengthy period for debate on the House floor and demand that consideration be given to censure as an alternative to impeachment.. Hyde relayed the results to GOP members of the panel in a morning conference call. ``The committee will not address allegations involving abuse of campaign finance laws in its deliberations currently scheduled for next week,'' he later said in a written statement. By then, Charles LaBella, the former head of the Justice Department's campaign finance inquiry, was en route to Washington from California to submit to a deposition. A committee official, who asked not to be named, said Republican investigators were surprised by Hyde's announcement, and had planned to ask a federal judge to allow LaBella to testify about grand jury matters. LaBella, airborne, received the news of Hyde's decision on his pager. ``I think they're running for the hills,'' he later said of the Republicans. .

Hyde response reported 12/3/98 by Freeper MoralSense ".Ensuring that campaign finance laws have been and are vigorously and properly enforced and that the Independent Counsel statute is strictly adhered to by the Attorney General will be a top oversight priority of the Committee in the 106th Congress. Knowledge of the contents of the LaBella memorandum will greatly assist in this effort."

Reuters 12/3/98 ".A White House official Thursday warned that a Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton would "paralyze'' the country, a sign of concern the president might lose a House of Representatives vote on impeachment. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said pro- impeachment Republicans in the House of Representatives were driving the process "full-steam ahead.''."

Summarized by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher from Whitewater File/FreeRepublic Archives (Re-Posts) http://www.freerepublic.com/ December 4, 1997; December 2, 1997; November 11, 1997 Chairman Henry Hyde "....HYDE: ...she (Reno) has not answered questions to which we are entitled to answers....what does she do if she's investigating an administration that pleads privilege?....Does she defend the president...or does she assail the privilege...That's a conflict of interest....whether or not a conspiracy existed to subvert the campaign laws of this country....we're talking about public confidence...Congress and the administration are on the opposite sides of the same barricade....problems with her, the public integrity section's investigation....We represent the people, we can keep a confidence, but we need some answers...my duty, which is one of oversight, over the FBI, and over the Justice department, (is not) just accepting stonewall answers and delay...so many things we still don't know. Travelgate; nine hundred Republican files from the FBI...Why? Why just Republicans?...they blame the Secret Service. The Secret Service denies it....We will spend some time on (Justice Department) oversight...."

Washington Post 12/4/98 Guy Gugliotta Juliet Eilperin ".A "vast majority" of Republican House members are now committed to a floor vote on those impeachment articles, Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said in an interview, and will not entertain until later, if at all, a resolution of censure. DeLay's assessment, echoed by several other GOP lawmakers, came even as moderate Republican Peter T. King (N.Y.) added a GOP censure proposal to four such Democratic measures already in the works..Should an article charging Clinton with lying under oath pass, deemed a 50-50 possibility by both parties, the Senate would be obliged to open a full-scale impeachment trial [Details, Page A19]. The Judiciary Committee will open its debate next week after Clinton's attorneys present a defense Tuesday, but they are already clashing with Republicans over the conditions for that presentation. Judiciary Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) yesterday allowed the White House access to some secret evidence it had requested but gave Clinton's team until the close of business today to say which witnesses they wish to call and warned that whoever appears to defend the president will be subject to questioning... In his news conference with Lott, Livingston was careful to avoid pressuring Hyde, saying that while "it would be my expectation" that the House would be able to vote on impeachment the week of Dec. 14, "it's not definite." "My preference would be to get it over with this year," Livingston said. "But if the Judiciary Committee doesn't complete its work next week, it would be pretty certain that it would have to be carried over."."

New York Times 12/4/98 Eric Schmitt ".As House Republicans push toward a vote to impeach President Clinton, not only is public sentiment overwhelmingly against them, but so are many prominent Republicans across the country. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee say there is credible evidence that the President committed perjury and other impeachable offenses. Moreover, they say they are duty bound to follow a constitutionally established process and cannot be swayed by public opinion. "The guys who have the constitutional and historical responsibility are us," said Representative Christopher B. Cannon, a Utah Republican on the committee. A large majority of House Republicans seem inclined to follow the panel's lead.."My responsibility is not to come to that judgment that fast," Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, told reporters Thursday. When asked why senior Senate Republicans had not called for an end to the proceedings, Lugar said: "Sure, people want it done. Toast. Over. But that can't, in a rule of law situation, be the governing principle. We need to proceed deliberately, and not just wave it out." Indeed, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee say that not only are they obliged to pursue the accusations against the President, but that the case against Clinton is overwhelming. "The fact of the matter is that we have a mountain of sworn testimony that points to the conclusion that the President is guilty of various offenses, including lying under oath," Representative Charles T. Canady, a Florida Republican on the committee, said at a hearing on Tuesday about the consequences of perjury.."

Washington Times 12/4/98 Ralph Hallow by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...The Republican Party's core voters across the country favor House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde's tough stand in favor of a vote to impeach President Clinton....A substantial majority of Republican voters favor impeaching the president...Likely Republican voters have always been for impeachment..."Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and in the full House who were re- elected [on Nov. 3] know they have a mandate for something stronger than simply censuring the president, at the very least." Much of the media's emphasis on the general public's view of the impeachment issue is misplaced..."The Hyde committee is doing the right thing...There are Republicans who constitute an 'impeachment cult' that actually subscribes to that antique document called the Constitution. They are serving the Constitution and by doing so, they are serving their Republican base."...Many Republicans in Congress tend to read the polls as buttressing their view that impeachment is preferable to censure..." ."

USA TODAY 12/4/98 Judy Keen ".Privately, White House and Democratic leaders admit they are worried an article of impeachment could pass in the House. Two weeks ago, they were confident it would fail. The House would act after next week's expected party-line vote in favor of impeachment in the GOP- controlled Judiciary Committee. The situation is fluid, and many undecided lawmakers are unwilling to say how they'll vote. But Clinton allies have discussed attempting to prolong the committee's deliberations, perhaps by calling many witnesses when his legal team lays out a defense next week.."

Judicial Watch 12/4/98 Larry Klayman ".Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman today blasted House Judiciary Committee Republicans for dropping consideration of "Chinagate" and related White House fund-raising scandals from the Clinton impeachment case. The decision not to pursue this line of investigation will help bolster the claim of Clinton allies that the impeachment issue is "just about sex." "Once again Congressional Republicans have cut and run from their duty to the American people," Klayman said. "The `Chinagate' scandal is the basis for the most serious charges against Clinton. The criminal actions in the `Chinagate' scandal undeniably constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. It's not just about sex - it's about bribery and treason."."I predict that yesterday's ignominious retreat will be enough for most conservatives to see through this charade. If the Republicans do not impeach and convict," Klayman concluded. "Their party is over."

Freeper remembers the Congressional Record 10/7/98 The House ".RESOLUTION Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America.."

The New York Post 12/4/98 John Crudele ".President Clinton is entering into the crucial impeachment phase of his presidency with the economy turning uncooperative. Today the government will report how it believes the nation's labor markets are doing. The experts are predicting the Labor Department will report that between 150,000 to 200,000 jobs were created in November and that the unemployment rate will hold at 4.6 percent. The Labor Department's employment statistics are nonsense.. The facts are these: Many, many corporations are downsizing. Most of these cutbacks have to do with the weakening economy around the world. Companies that can't expand their business try to improve profits by reducing costs. Or they merge with other companies and cut costs that way.According to the tab kept by outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas, at the end of October there were 522,987 job cuts announced this year. And that doesn't count job losses expected from the Mobil merger with Exxon, or the additional cuts Boeing says it is planning or the layoffs that will be announced in the remaining days of this month...President Clinton does have one thing going for him. The stock market's recovery from the 20 percent mini-crash in late summer/early fall is continuing to make consumers feel relatively prosperous. But the market's erratic behavior lately is a confidence deflator that won't help the president. Bill Clinton isn't up for re-election as was Bush. But this president has, in a way, a more important election ahead of him. Sources close to the impeachment process see things this way.. As it now stands, President Clinton will survive a vote in the Senate - especially when that body is reconfigured with a few more Democrats in January. But the Republicans appear to be holding back on some information. One high-ranking Republican recently told me over drinks that all he needed was for the president to screw up one more time and he was gone. "And he's reckless," this source says..."

FoxNews 12/4/98 Steve Holland ".The White House said on Friday it was alarmed that House Republicans were moving ahead toward an impeachment vote against President Bill Clinton based more on politics than constitutional seriousness. "This isn't something that can be pushed off and dealt with in a political way," said White House spokesman Joe Lockhart. He spoke a day after House Majority Whip Tom Delay, a Texas Republican, reported that a vast majority of House Republicans are now committed to a floor vote on articles of impeachment, and will not entertain until later, if at all, a resolution of censure.. The White House fears a Senate trial could paralyse the country for months. "This is perhaps the most serious thing Congress can do. This isn't a process where the House of Representatives can throw it to the Senate to let them deal with it," Lockhart told reporters. He said there has been a "serious lack of the constitutional solemnity" that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican, had promised.."

FoxNews 12/4/98 Steve Holland ".The White House leaped on a Los Angeles Times article that it said showed Hyde in a double standard. The Times said that back in 1987, when Hyde was leading the defense of the Reagan administration in the Iran-Contra hearings, Hyde mocked the sanctimonious nature of all who "sermonized about how terrible lying is." "It just seems to me too simplistic (to condemn all lying)," Hyde said in 1987. "In the murkier grayness of the real world, choices must often be made." Lockhart said of Hyde: "He seems to hold people to different standards depending on their party affiliation.".."

CNN 12/4/98 John King Carl Rochelle ".The White House has until Friday night to name potential witnesses who might testify on President Bill Clinton's behalf during impeachment hearings next week but sources tell CNN it's unlikely the president's lawyers will call any. .As he did in the questioning of Independent Counsel Ken Starr, Kendall is expected to take the lead in any presentation. White House lawyers are expected to take the same approach that Kendall did in his last appearance before the committee: more of an attack on Starr than a defense of the president's actions. The president's lawyers intended to go to Capitol Hill during the day to meet with committee leaders. White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart said the two sides have "some issues to work out." Clinton's attorneys have complained they still don't know what charges their client faces.."

PR Newswire 12/4/98 ".House Judiciary Committee General Counsel and Chief of Staff Thomas Mooney today sent a letter to White House Counsel Charles Ruff in response to erroneous media reports that the questioning of Mr. Ruff during his testimony next week would be unprecedented. * * LETTER FOLLOWS * * * Yesterday, I wrote to inform you of the Committee's procedures relating to the possible presentation of the President's views to the Committee regarding the impeachment inquiry that the Committee is conducting pursuant to House Resolution 581. One of the procedures that I outlined was that the President's counsel should expect to be questioned by the Committee. Since that time, I have seen accounts in the press attributed to White House sources that assert that such questioning is unprecedented. That is incorrect, and I am hopeful that you will assist the Committee in stopping the spread of this misinformation. During Watergate, the President's counsel, James D. St. Clair, appeared before the Committee on June 27, 1974. The Committee questioned Mr. St. Clair at length which extended his presentation for an additional two days. Thus, the Committee's procedures in this regard closely track the Watergate model. Aside from the clear precedent, simple fairness dictates the same result. The Committee allowed Mr. Kendall to question Judge Starr at length during which he raised many of the President's concerns about Judge Starr's conduct. In the interest of fairness, it is only right that those who have concerns about the President's conduct be allowed to raise those concerns with whomever will represent him.."

Fox News 12/4/98 Freeper Committed reports ".Fox news has just named the specific charges that will be sent to the full house next week. They are three counts -- -- abuse of power, obstruction of justice and perjury. Of course, the White House is begging the Democrats to steer it to censure.."

Reuters 12/4/98 Steve Holland ".The White House said Friday it was alarmed that House Republicans were moving ahead toward an impeachment vote against President Clinton based more on politics than constitutional seriousness. ``This isn't something that can be pushed off and dealt with in a political way,'' said White House spokesman Joe Lockhart. He spoke a day after House Majority Whip Tom Delay, a Texas Republican, reported that a vast majority of House Republicans are now committed to a floor vote on articles of impeachment, and will not entertain until later, if at all, a resolution of censure."

Reuters 12/4/98 Steve Holland ".The White House leaped on a Los Angeles Times article that it said showed Hyde in a double standard. The Times said that back in 1987, when Hyde was leading the defense of the Reagan administration in the Iran-Contra hearings, Hyde mocked the sanctimonious nature of all who ``sermonized about how terrible lying is.'' ``It just seems to me too simplistic (to condemn all lying),'' Hyde said in 1987. ``In the murkier grayness of the real world, choices must often be made.''."

Fox News/Reuters 12/4/98 ".President Clinton is open to the possibility of a congressional reprimand coupled with a fine as punishment short of impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, the White House said Friday. Increasingly concerned that House Republicans are moving ahead toward an impeachment vote, the White House made clear it was listening to various alternatives being floated by moderate Republicans and some Democrats. "We are aggressively listening,'' said White House spokesman Joe Lockhart. Asked if Clinton would be willing to pay a fine, Lockhart said: "I think if members in good faith want to pursue that option and approach representatives here at the White House with that option, we will listen and take anything they say seriously. But I am not going to predict what might happen in a hypothetical incident.'' His remarks represented the strongest sign to date that Clinton would prefer the censure option, in which he would stand in strong condemnation by the House of Representatives but still get to keep his job. Up to now he and the White House have insisted it was up to Congress to decide a punishment, while insisting that Clinton's actions in the sex-and-lies affair did not rise to the level of impeachment. But Republicans appear to have been moving away from the censure option.."

New York Post 12/5/98 ".The charges against Bill Clinton are serious, and worthy of serious study. But the House of Representatives can no more undertake a serious study of an issue than it can fly..But now that opinion polls and the November election results suggest that the American public is sick of the entire impeachment debate, GOP leaders are behaving with comparable cravenness in trying to get themselves out of this mess. The fact remains, however, that a strong case has been made that the president of the United States, at the very least, perjured himself before a grand jury. And the way to deal with that is not to sweep everything under the rug..Ironically, an emboldened Bill Clinton may have overplayed his hand when he submitted his answers to the House Judiciary Committee's 81 questions on the Lewinsky matter. By most accounts, Republicans who two weeks ago were on the fence have now turned against the president, thanks to his deceptive and evasive non-replies last week. Republicans should have pursued all evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors that came their way, but chose instead to play into the Clintonites' hands by limiting their inquiry to the president's adulterous affair. That's an unfortunate turn of events. But if they want to reclaim a measure of honor in this repellent business, the new House GOP leadership will not turn tail and run simply because the poll numbers aren't what they might like.."

New York Times 12/5/98 Alison Mitchell ".With Republican leaders looking unlikely to allow a vote on censure, President Clinton's fate in the House hinges on the decisions of a small group of Republican moderates who could tilt an impeachment vote either way. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to vote along party lines by the end of next week for at least one article of impeachment -- on perjury -- against the president. The full House is slated to vote the following week, and Republicans and Democrats alike say the vote is too close to call. They say it could well shift against the president if a censure measure is not allowed on the floor as an alternative option. Rep. Tom DeLay, the House majority whip, and other Republicans who have been canvassing GOP sentiment say that censure's chance of coming to the floor, even if impeachment fails, is now very slim. Such a no-censure scenario would give wavering Republican moderates, who disapprove of Clinton's behavior in the Lewinsky scandal, the unpalatable choice of impeachment or nothing. If the House was complicating matters for the president, the White House threw a roadblock of its own into the House on Friday night, signaling that it wanted to put on a full defense that could last most of next week and push the impeachment vote behind schedule. Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had no immediate reply Friday night to the new request. Republicans said they saw the White House move as an effort to stall the proceedings until January, when a new Congress, with five more Democrats, convenes. "Clearly this is a desperate last minute ploy to move the impeachment inquiry into next year -- this after demanding from the beginning that the inquiry be finished this year," said one committee official. He added, "They are looking at the votes, and they don't like what they see".But King acknowledged Friday that the biggest hurdle could be getting his censure proposal to the House floor. "The idea is to try to build up pressure," he said. "DeLay does not want it to go to the floor, no doubt about it." .Although Democrats say they are prepared to use parliamentary maneuvers to get at least an indirect vote on a censure alternative, such a move would be difficult for Republicans to support. The current House leadership has long warned Republicans that a vote with the Democrats on procedure is considered a heretical stand against the party and the House leadership... King, who has become perhaps the most outspoken Republican against impeachment, said his office began receiving 150 phone calls an hour in favor of impeachment on Monday and Tuesday. "We had to shut down the phones and put on the voice mail system," he said..."

UPI 12/4/98 ".A group of House Judiciary Committee Democrats petitioned committee chairman Henry Hyde (Friday) to give members at least 48 hours to ponder the articles of impeachment the committee is now said to be drafting, before debate begins. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., who wrote the letter, said, ``It is inconceivable that anyone would be expected to intelligently debate and vote on matters of such grave presidential import...moments after they are initially revealed.''."

Judiciary Committee 12/4/98 Henry Hyde ".The White House press agents have dramatically stepped up their attacks on the House Judiciary Committee just as it prepares to begin deliberations on articles of impeachment. This is certainly unfortunate, but it sadly comes as no surprise. From the very beginning of the impeachment inquiry, those who would defend the President at all costs have preferred to attack the process rather than address the facts. I want to assure everyone that we will not be intimidated by rhetoric or name-calling, and we will complete our duty in accordance with the Constitution. The Democrats are now describing our actions as "chaotic." This is amusing because "chaos" is the best word to describe the Democrats' responses to the discharge of our duties. How else could one describe statements that seem to flip back and forth 180 degrees on a minute-by-minute basis? Here are just some of the best examples of Democrat double-speak: Democrats complain that our inquiry is "just about sex," but when we seek to broaden its scope beyond the Lewinsky matter -- pursuant to House Resolution 581 -- they go ballistic. We have been accused of wanting to delay our proceedings, and yet we are charged with not calling enough witnesses. Moreover, a few days before Committee deliberations, we are told the White House may want to call many witnesses. If we seek depositions, we are criticized; if we don't seek depositions, we are criticized. We are criticized for not calling any "fact witnesses," despite the mounds of grand jury testimony in our possession. But when we ask Committee Democrats if they would like us to call any witnesses, their answer is "no." The Democrats' own impeachment resolution set a deadline of Thanksgiving, but now as the prospect of impeachment looms large, they are accusing us of rushing to judgment. Committee Republicans are characterized as partisan, but throughout the process Democrats have been lock-step with the White House and afraid to even glance at the Justice Department's campaign finance abuse memoranda. Committee Democrats are now demanding that Judge Starr release sensitive investigative information to them after vigorously complaining that he "improperly discussed sealed matters before the Committee." In sum, our inquiry is either too broad or too narrow, too slow or too fast, Judge Starr is either talking too little or too much.."

Freeper go star go reports on 12/4/98 MSNBC ".Henry Hyde sent a letter the the U.S. Secret Service seeking their assistance identifying those people that witnessed a conversation between Clinton and Dolly Kyle Browning at Clinton's reunion. Hyde says it will not delay the vote in any way.."

Freeper go star go reports on 12/4/98 MSNBC ".The Whitehouse sent a letter the Hyde requesting 3 or 4 days to mount a defense. A Judiciary source told MSNBC that this was obviously an attempt to push this into next year.."

UPI 12/5/98 ".Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, says (Saturday) he is willing to give President Clinton's lawyers two days to appear before his panel in impeachment proceedings against the president next week. Clinton's attorneys had asked for three or four days to present panels of witnesses and the president's case against impeachment. Hyde told UPI Clinton's attorneys will have access to documents the committee has, but not to secret grand jury testimony that is not available to his panel."

NY Post 12/5/98 Brian Blomquist ".House Democrats - already aware that three party members will vote with the GOP to impeach President Clinton - are worried even more will defect, congressional sources said yesterday. Democratic aides on the House Judiciary Committee are even calling the White House's latest attempt to reserve three or four days for defending the president a "panic" - a term the White House refuted...The pro-impeachment Democrats on record are Reps. Virgil Goode of Virginia, Ralph Hall of Texas and Gene Taylor of Mississippi - but an aide close to Schumer said, "The sense we're getting is that we're going to lose more than three." .But since then, Clinton and his defense lawyers have refused to make any effort to dispute the charges laid out by Sexgate investigator Kenneth Starr, frustrating some teetering congressmen and tilting the vote toward impeachment, congressional aides said.. Hyde's aides said the White House lawyers, as well as Clinton defense lawyer David Kendall, should expect a grilling from Republicans when they show up. White House lawyers Chuck Ruff and Greg Craig told Hyde in a letter that they don't expect to have to answer any questions.."

Washington Post 12/5/98 Peter Baker Juliet Eilperin ".The White House signaled yesterday that President Clinton might be willing to pay a fine as part of a censure deal to avoid impeachment, as his lawyers demanded that the House Judiciary Committee postpone next week's votes to give them time to mount an extensive defense of the president...But within the Clinton circle, advisers have experienced a sinking realization that he still faces a genuine threat. The answers Clinton sent last week to 81 questions posed by Hyde aggravated on-the-fence moderate Republicans and even some Democrats who viewed them as evasive. And partisan lines appeared to harden as House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R- Tex.) stepped in to rally Republicans. .With that in mind, the White House opted for a full-bore attack before the committee. While some advisers had once favored a simple, straightforward defense argument without witnesses, White House counsel Charles F.C. Ruff and special counsel Gregory B. Craig told the committee yesterday that they want three to four days to present multiple panels of witnesses to talk about constitutional standards for impeachment; standards for prosecution of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power; and prosecutorial misconduct and "tainted evidence." ..McNulty said Hyde "stands by the statements" he made a decade ago. "In Iran-contra, a difficult choice was made between two evils by those who were concerned about the loss of life that could result from the disclosure to Congress of certain financial support for covert action," McNulty said. "No one lied under oath after swearing to tell the truth, and no one ever lied for personal gain." Hyde also issued a blistering statement denouncing "White House press agents" for attacking him, noting that Democrats have changed their criticism of impeachment proceedings numerous times..."

World Net Daily 12/4/98 Jerome Zeifman ".In my view, the House Judiciary Committee should now question Sam Dash under oath, and require him to disclose all off-the-record briefings he has given to the media while employed as ethics adviser to Ken Starr. In addition, I am especially saddened that Mr. Dash has also given at least one "on-the-record" interview with the New Yorker -- in which he is quoted as stating that even though Starr had done noting illegal there is a "strong odor" about Starr's associations with a private law firm. In my view, Mr. Dash's interview with the New Yorker was at best a violation of the legal profession's code of ethics, which prohibits attorneys from publicly disparaging their own clients. I know of no other lawyer in American history who has publicly characterized his own client as having a "strong odor" of impropriety. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I now see Mr. Dash as a lawyer who knows that the truth is very precious -- and therefore uses it very sparingly.."

Bloomberg via Drudge 12/5/98 ".U.S. President Bill Clinton's lawyers said they will defend the president before the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry by stressing ``prosecutorial misconduct'' by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and by arguing that Clinton's conduct does not meet the standard for an impeachable offense.In a letter to the panel, the president's attorneys asked for three to four days next week to argue that Clinton shouldn't be impeached for lying about his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky.Three to four days of testimony could push back the Judiciary Committee's vote on impeachment, which is tentatively set for Dec. 12. That could delay a vote by the full House until next year, when Democrats will have five more votes because of victories in last month's elections.."

The Washington Post 12/5/98 AP ".Clinton's lawyers, demanding three or four days to call panels of witnesses, will attack the inquiry's fairness beginning Tuesday in the room where three articles of impeachment were approved against Richard Nixon. Right after the Clinton team will come summations by two veteran lawyer-investigators, certain to clash over perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power evidence submitted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. David Schippers, a one-time prosecutor who made his reputation fighting organized crime in Chicago, is speaking for the Republican majority. Abbe Lowell, an ex-prosecutor who specializes in government ethics, represents the Democrats. Committee Republicans, who have shunned polls and calls for censure, want a vote on impeachment articles Friday or Saturday..."

Roll Call 12/5/98 John Bresnahan ". With the House moving closer to a floor vote on articles of impeachment against President Clinton, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is lobbying GOP leaders to prepare for an impeachment trial as a way to send a strong message of Republican solidarity to the White House. Hatch met Monday with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to urge Lott to begin preparations for a trial.. GOP sources claim Lott has not had any other discussions on impeachment except his conversation with Hatch. Lott met with Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.) on other issues this week. But the big question for Lott is what the Senate will do once the House acts. The House Judiciary Committee may vote as soon as late next week on at least one, and possibly as many as three, articles of impeachment, with a full House vote expected shortly thereafter. The Senate would then be forced to act. Hatch and other constitutional experts have suggested that the Senate will be required by law to hold an impeachment trial, despite the fact that there appears to be little support for Clinton's conviction..."

Washington Post 12/6/98 Eric Pianin Guy Gugliotta ".Although the GOP's disappointing showing in last month's election seemed to doom the chances of presidential impeachment, what many members see as President Clinton's arrogance and lack of repentence have made it far more likely that the House will approve at least one article..."

Freeper LYNXCry on Drudge 12/5/98 ".Drudge told Maxine he was going to play an exert from the Lewinsky/Tripp tapes and wanted her comment. Then the tape rolled and Monica said "my mom's great fear was that he was gonna send someone out to kill me".............Maxine had a stunned look on her face, looked like she was sucking on lemons. When Drudge asked her comments, she said "oh it just sounds like some kinda spy novel stuff....blah blah".."

12/5/98 Henry Hyde House Judiciary Committee "."Back in October we invited the White House to provide any exculpatory evidence it had and to suggest witnesses it would like the Committee to call. The President's lawyers have made it quite clear that they do not intend to challenge the facts, and yesterday, less than one week before the Committee is to begin deliberations on articles of impeachment, they asked for three or four days of hearings unrelated to the facts of this inquiry. In the interest of fairness, I intend to make a sincere effort to accommodate this last minute request. I have instructed my staff to contact the President's attorneys to request specific information regarding proposed witnesses and, once again, to remind them of the Committee's rules which we will insist they observe. Our final decision must be guided by what is reasonable. The Committee has already received testimony from thirty witnesses on the issues of standards for impeachment and perjury. In fact, the majority of these witnesses have represented the White House's position. In addition, the Committee heard more than four hours of cross-examination from the President's lawyer and Democrats on the issue of alleged prosecutorial misconduct during the testimony of the Independent Counsel. Given the limited amount of time remaining for the Committee to act, we can only hope that the White House will not request witnesses who will duplicate testimony the Committee has already received. I fully intend for the Committee to discharge its constitutional duties in this inquiry by the conclusion of next week. This is necessary to fulfill my promise of completing this matter by the end of the year."

Washington Post 12/6/98 Ruth Washington ". And, they say, the House should set a higher threshold than probable cause before it acts, such as "clear and convincing" evidence. Since voting to impeach the president is effectively voting for his removal from office, these Democrats say, members have a responsibility to consider themselves as more than a grand jury. "For the House of Representatives to impeach a president and subject the country to the trauma of a four- or six- or seven-month trial in the Senate is one heck of a thing . . . to do, and we should not do it simply on probable cause," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) "To adopt the contrary view . . . would be to say that the role of this committee of the House is a mere transmission belt or rubber stamp for the special prosecutor." Democrats complain in particular that it is outrageous for the committee to proceed against Clinton without hearing directly from any of the key witnesses against him. They point to the committee's handling of President Richard M. Nixon's impeachment, when nine witnesses testified in closed sessions and White House lawyers had an opportunity to question them. But Republicans say it is reasonable at this stage to rely on the extensive, sworn record developed by Starr and to leave the actual witnesses to the Senate, if the matter proceeds that far. "That's where you've got a trial," said Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) These differing assessments of the House's role are likely to be debated at length this week as the panel takes up articles of impeachment. Already, the dispute has been foreshadowed in some of the committee's hearings, including last week's session on perjury, as panel members and legal experts thresh out the issue."

Associated Press 12/5/98 Larry Margasak ".Clinton's lawyers demanded three or four days to call panels of expert witnesses -- but not any of the key players in the Monica Lewinsky affair.. Three witnesses on the White House list, for a proposed panel on the standards of impeachment, are Johnson administration Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach; Bruce Ackerman, professor of constitutional law at Yale University, and Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton. The committee already has heard from 30 witnesses on impeachment standards and perjury, and Hyde said he didn't want witnesses who would ``duplicate testimony ... already received.'' If witnesses testify, the Clinton lawyers would follow with their conclusions in the same room where three impeachment articles were approved against Richard M. Nixon in July 1974. Right after the Clinton team will come summations by two veteran lawyer-investigators, certain to clash over perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power evidence submitted by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. David Schippers, a one-time prosecutor who made his reputation fighting organized crime in Chicago, is speaking for the Republican majority. Abbe Lowell, an ex-prosecutor who specializes in government ethics, represents the Democrats.."

Washington Post 12/5/98 Nat Hentoff regarding Ann Coulter ". On Nov. 16, she received a letter from Rep. John Conyers, ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee. He asked her for an array of documents related to the committee's impeachment inquiry, adding that he hoped "you will share the spirit in which we are operating." One would have to be a professional wrestler to share the spirit in which that committee has been operating since the inquiry began. Ann Coulter was given two days from the receipt of the letter to provide: "All documents -- including but not limited to -- phone records, messages or letters, that memorialized or relate to any contacts or communications between yourself and the following individuals or entities." This exuberant critic of the president was asked for every contact she has made with, among others, "the Office of the Independent Counsel; any persons who once worked or who now work for the Office of Independent Counsel; Lucianne Goldberg; Linda Tripp; and Paula Jones's attorneys." ..On the date due for compliance, Ann Coulter sent the following answer to the Honorable John Conyers: "Thank you for your correspondence. I wish you the best success in your impeachment inquiry. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that your committee is looking into the impeachment of the president. I do not believe you have the authority to impeach a private citizen for expressing her First Amendment rights by writing a book critical of the president. "For that reason, I have no intention of complying with your burdensome, irrelevant and harassing request that I produce, inter alia, phone records, e-mails and birthday cards exchanged with several of my friends and acquaintances since 1994. "If it's any help, however, I believe that you should be able to obtain the same information from Terry Lenzer or another of the president's private investigators.."

The Houston Chronicle 12/6/98 Rep Tom DeLay ".I would never be so bold as to presume that I could compete with our president in his favorite new sport of "definitional acrobatics," but I would like to try my hand at "technical accuracy." If the president wants us to consider his "technical legal accuracy," shouldn't Congress insist on "technical constitutional accuracy?" We live in a democratic constitutional republic. The people elect their president, but the Constitution states that he cannot assume the powers, privileges and responsibilities of the office without first taking an oath before the American people. It is then that the president is subject to another and higher authority when he swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" and to "faithfully execute" the office of president, which implies upholding the law. If a president violates that constitutional oath, our Founding Fathers established a process by which the chief executive might be judged. The process is rooted in the law, not the polls or feelings of people who may still like an elected leader. Our Constitution plainly gives the House but one means of passing judgment on serious transgressions by the chief executive. That means is impeachment. Impeachment is not punishment. Nor is it a conviction of guilt. It is only an indictment; a formal constitutional statement that serious charges have been lodged, and enough evidence has been presented to warrant further action in the Senate. The Senate is specifically vested by the Constitution with the authority to determine the guilt and punishment of the president. The impeachment process provides for no further penalties. Its chief concern is protecting the public office from corruption, not punishing the public official beyond removing him.."

The New York Times 12/6/98 James Bennett ".Things were odd enough here when the roses started blooming in December. But then the White House started complaining that people were not paying enough attention to the possible impeachment of President Clinton. "People aren't taking it seriously," fumed Joseph Lockhart, the White House press secretary. Indeed, they are not. The House of Representatives may be gearing up to vote as early as midmonth on the impeachment of a President -- for only the second time in history -- but history does not exactly hang heavy on the air...."

Fox News Sunday Freeper report ChancePastula ".Tom Delay tells Tony impeachment votes: Reps: 5 against Dems: 5-6 for.."

Washington Times 12/5/98 Wes Pruden ".What the media like to refer to as "moderate" Republicans appear to be stampeding away from the idea of censure and toward impeachment of the president, according to a report in the Baltimore Sun. "Two of them, Marge Roukema of New Jersey and Greg Ganske of Iowa, suggested that recent predictions that 20 or more Republicans would defect to vote against impeachment would prove unfounded," reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote. "Another, Rep. Tom Campbell of California, said he is convinced that the president committed perjury, which the Republican called an impeachable offense. "'The spin out there is to make it look as though a rising tide of moderates is going to vote against impeachment,' said Roukema, who is considered a bellwether for Northeastern Republican sentiment. 'I don't sense that at all.' ."

Washington Weekly 12/7/98 Robert Stowe England ". Hundreds of conservative and libertarian protesters from around the nation rallied Saturday on the steps of the nation's Capitol--ahead of a pending historic vote--to urge a wavering House of Representatives to reject censure and impeach the President. "This is the most important decision America makes in our modern history," Georgia Republican Representative Bob Barr told the gathering. "The next two weeks will decide the future of America." A House vote on impeachment could come as early as next week. While it appeared unlikely a few weeks ago, Republican leaders say they believe they have the votes for impeachment on a single charge of perjury. The White House has sent signals the President might be willing to pay a fine as part of censure in lieu of impeachment. The protesters who came to the rally are part of a patriotic grassroots movement that was born on the web site FreeRepublic.com and which has developed ties to national conservative organizations and political leaders, including Barr, who first called for an impeachment inquiry last year..The Free Republic web site has as many as 200,000 hits a day, making it a formidable protest forum and organizing vehicle, according to rally organizer and emcee Connie Hair of Los Angeles, whose screen name is "Clinton's a liar." Hair says the Free Republic's first national rally on October 31 at the Washington Monument "put us on the map" and "gave us the legitimacy we deserve." Now, she says, when she or other Freepers call a member of Congress, he or she has already heard about the Free Republic. Barr told the protesters that Free Republic has shown that the Internet is "the new tool of democracy." He thanked Free Republic founder Jim Robinson of Fresno, Calif., who had flown in to attend the rally, for sponsoring it..There were at least 13 other protests set for Saturday around the nation that were organized by people who post messages on Free Republic's discussion groups or visit the site to read the discussions posted by others. They call themselves Freepers. Free Republic protests were slated to be held in front of the Congressional district offices of Florida Democrat Rep. Robert Wexler, California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, and California Republican Mary Bono, all members of the House Judiciary Committee. Other protests were scheduled for state houses in Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah, and other locations in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois and Texas.."

12/4/98 Tim Russert MSNBC reported by FishHog ".REP. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-NY, just elected to the Senate, told the Daily News editorial board that a week ago he would have predicted that the president would not have been impeached by the House. Now, Schumer said, there's a very good chance that at least one of the articles - lying under oath - may pass the House. And that's because some in the House felt insulted by what they thought were the president's mocking answers to the 81 questions...The day after the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal broke, the president's best friends said things like "If this really happened he has to go." They've changed their minds as it has become more of a political fight and their passion has subsided a little bit. The country is abhorred by what the president did. They just haven't made the decision that he should vacate the office. The one thing that bothered a lot of the president's friends was when the president was on the phone, lobbying Congress to send troops to Bosnia while engaged with Lewinsky. That's a tough thing to get over for many - and yet the country has made a decision. They truly have decided that he should remain in office.."

Boston Globe 12/6/98 John Ellis ".Three things changed the political dynamic. First, Democrats seriously overplayed their hand when they turned Kenneth Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee into a 12-hour inquisition into the independent counsel's professional conduct. Second, incoming House Speaker Robert Livingston was disgusted by the Democratic assault on Starr and acutely aware of the reaction to it at the grass roots. Shortly thereafter, he let it be known publicly and privately that censure was not really an option and that he expected the House to vote either up or down on the question of impeachment.. Third -- and this was the kicker -- President Clinton's "responses" to 81 questions submitted by the House Judiciary Committee were released by the White House on the Friday after Thanksgiving. The questions were designed to establish what lawyers in appellate cases call a "fixed set of facts." Clinton's answers to these questions stunned GOP lawmakers.."

LA Times 12/6/98 Richard Serrano ".Hyde's insistence prompted a quick response from the White House, which provided the names of three of their witnesses: two legal experts and a historian. But this only served to further anger Republicans who complain that the Clinton administration is trying to dodge the central question of whether the president is guilty of impeachable offenses..The staffers said they knew nothing beforehand of the Friday night request from the White House for three to four days of testimony..While at least one article is expected to pass in the committee, the jockeying over Clinton's defense strategy could be seen as a way for the White House and the Republicans to influence the rest of the House, where the outcome on impeachment remains too close to call. The White House wants to challenge the very legitimacy of the inquiry; Republicans argue that Clinton's lawyers are trying to change the subject because they cannot defend the president based on the federal grand jury evidence gathered by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.."

San Diego Union Tribune 12/5/98 Valerie Alvord ".A Justice Department report by Charles La Bella on possible White House campaign finance abuses contained significant information and leads that could be developed by other investigators, La Bella and a congressional aide said yesterday. The House Judiciary Committee, which is considering impeachment of President Clinton, shifted gears Thursday and decided not to take testimony from La Bella, who is now interim U.S. attorney in San Diego. But leads in the report will be pursued next year, according to a committee aide. La Bella wrote his report for Attorney General Janet Reno, and recommended to her that she appoint a special prosecutor to pursue allegations of fund-raising abuses by Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. La Bella said in an interview yesterday that his report, written last summer when he headed a special Justice Department campaign finance probe, was not simply a dry legal analysis, but also contained facts gleaned from documents and witnesses. La Bella hinted that what he found consisted either of new information or of previously unconnected threads passed over by the various individuals and committees that have investigated the president for more than three years. Now that two investigators from the Judiciary Committee have received a green light by a judge to read -- but not copy or talk about -- the previously sealed report, they could follow the same leads themselves, he said. "Nobody had ever put the pieces together like we did," La Bella said. House investigators "may be able to follow the same leads we did. There is nothing to say 'You can't now go out and do the same investigation.' " ..There was speculation that his testimony was canceled because his report didn't contain anything new. But an aide to the Judiciary Committee, who asked not to be identified, denied that. "Mr. La Bella's report contained serious and substantial new information that cries out for further review," the aide said. "It is information that needs to be developed." He said time constraints stopped the committee from probing further into La Bella's report, but that leads in the document "will be pursued next year by the Judiciary Committee's Justice Department oversight project."."

US News 12/14/98 Major Garrett ".Lawmakers and top aides say GOP House leaders have no intention of debating censure and that their moderate and liberal brethren who have always held the president's fate in their hands aren't pushing for it. In fact, swing voters now seem to be tilting impeachment's way. "I think it's going to be a narrow vote in favor of impeachment," says Rep. Marge Roukema, a New Jersey Republican and close ally of the next House speaker, Bob Livingston of Louisiana. "This is not about the first family's privacy or sexual conduct; it's about whether laws were broken."."

12/14/98 Time James Carney John Dickerson ".For much of November, Republicans were looking everywhere for an impeachment escape hatch. The midterm elections had gone badly, and everyone blamed it on the party's obsession with ousting the President. Shut it down, said party elders; take Henry Hyde's gavel away and move on. In the House, G.O.P. members began discussing milder presidential punishments as if they were debating different models of a new car. Formulations like "censure," "censure plus," and "censure with teeth" came in and out of fashion. With Gingrich out, Hyde's committee in obvious disarray and Livingston showing no stomach for dealing with the impeachment mess, the troops had no leader to guide them. But before the agitated Republicans could flee the House in a stampede, DeLay, the third-ranking Republican and the man whose job it is to round up votes, started nailing the exits shut. The Constitution allows one option, he said: impeachment, up or down. Censure "means nothing." And voting to impeach Clinton for lying under oath, he insisted, is not a dangerous act because the Senate will never follow through and remove him from office.."

Washington Times 12/4/98 Ralph Z. Hallow ".The Republican Party's core voters across the country favor House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde's tough stand in favor of a vote to impeach President Clinton. "A substantial majority of Republican voters favor impeaching the president," said independent pollster John Zogby. "Likely Republican voters have always been for impeachment." Lydia Saad, managing editor of the Gallup Poll, notes that only "a third of the general public but a majority of rank-and-file Republicans support impeachment." Almost all Democrats and a handful of Republicans in Congress have indicated that they favor a lesser punishment, such as censure.."The Hyde committee is doing the right thing," said Mr. Severin. "There are Republicans who constitute an 'impeachment cult' that actually subscribes to that antique document called the Constitution. They are serving the Constitution and by doing so, they are serving their Republican base."."

Washington Post 12/4/98 Guy Gugliotta Helen Dewar ".It would begin at 1 p.m. sharp. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist would be the presiding officer. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) would likely be the prosecutor. Senators would be the jury, required to sit silently at their desks. If they had questions, they would be written on slips of paper and passed to Rehnquist, who would decide whether they would be asked. Senate rules lay out with precision the procedures that must govern a presidential impeachment trial, a spectacle of such gravity that several lawmakers have publicly described it as the most serious thing Congress can do short of declaring war..Nevertheless, it can be done: "If it is absolutely positive we can't convict, it may be that leaders need to get together and see," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), but, he added later, "the number one obligation is to hold a trial." And it is this obligation that is uppermost in the minds of many senators, regardless of party. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a stern guardian of Senate prerogatives and an expert on Senate procedure, says special Senate rules dealing with impeachment require that the Senate conduct a trial if the House votes articles of impeachment.."

AP 12/7/98 Jim Abrams ".The White House said today it will challenge the impeachment allegations against President Clinton based on ``the facts and the law'' rather than on a new round of attacks against Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Clinton's spokesman also offered an olive branch to members of Congress angered by the president's legalistic responses to 81 questions posed by the House Judiciary Committee. ``We answered those questions in good faith,'' press secretary Joe Lockhart said. ``We certainly regret those who took offense by the way we answered them.''.."

AP 12/7/98 Jim Abrams ".The White House will call 14 witnesses and use two lawyers to mount a defense that removing President Clinton from office is too severe a penalty. The presentation will challenge the impeachment evidence without attacking the prosecutor who gathered it, officials said.."

Washington Times 12/7/98 Joyce Howard Price Excerpts by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...momentum continued to grow toward a presidential impeachment....Senior members of both parties said that impeachment by the House of Representatives -- similar to an indictment -- is moving from distinct possibility toward probability...."If we voted today, the president would be impeached," House Majority Whip Tom DeLay said on "Fox News Sunday." He said he knows of only five Republicans who intend to vote against impeachment and he is aware of "five or six" Democrats who would vote for impeachment. If those numbers hold, the 218 votes necessary for impeachment, and a subsequent trial before the Senate with the chief justice of the United States pre siding, would be assured....Republican staffers for the Judiciary Committee have drafted three articles of impeachment --perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power -- against Mr. Clinton. The committee is almost certain to approve at least one of them. The full House would take up impeachment the week of Dec. 14..."."

NY Post 12/7/98 Deborah Orin Excerpts by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...Suddenly...Clinton is in serious danger of being impeached - thanks to his own arrogance....Since the Nov. 3 election, Clinton has thumbed his nose at Congress, refusing to yield 1 inch on his insistence that sex isn't sex and lies aren't lies - at least not when he's sitting in the Oval Office....Clinton misread the election as a triumph for his Sexgate stonewall because Democrats unexpectedly gained five House seats even though hi s own personal ratings were as bad as Newt Gingrich's - and the GOP kept control of Congress and actually got more votes....Post-Nov. 3, Republicans pleaded with Clinton for some kind of fig leaf so they could give him a pass - just admit fibbing, they be gged. Instead, he gave them the finger, plus 81 more stonewall answers....Sexgate prober Kenneth Starr gave a courteous, reasoned presentation of the case against Clinton - most Americans said he did a good job and he could no longer be painted as a sex-m ad zealot....Clinton can't dispute any of Starr's sex-and-lies."

NY Post Vincent Morris 12/7/98 Excerpts by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott yesterday said he expects the House to bring impeachment charges against...Clinton, and predicted a Senate trial could be over in as little as "a few days."...With the prospect of impeaching Clinton over his Monica Lewinsky lies looking more likely each day, Lott and other lawmakers yesterday turned their attention to the Senate....Lott, who called Clinton's written responses to 81 House Judiciary questions "evasive, arrogant," said one or more articles of impeachment could be voted on with no disruption to Congress' work...."I could see it taking just a few days to perhaps a few weeks," Lott (R-Miss.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press."....Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican and the No. 3 lawmaker in the House, said he thinks the House will bring charges against Clinton and agreed the trial won't paralyze the country for months, as some Democrats have charged...."Things have turned against the president," agreed Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)..."The right wing wants to take this president out,"..."

CNN Transcripts 12/6/98 ".BLITZER: But to just nail this one point down, and I want to ask both you and Senator Hatch this question. First Senator Lieberman, do you realistically believe 67 United States senators will vote to convict the president if it comes down to that? LIEBERMAN: Look, intuitively, I think most people think it's unlikely that there'll be 67 votes for conviction on the current record as we know it, but almost no one in the Senate, no one that I know of, no member of the Senate has indicated how he or she would vote. So those projections are really intuition. And of course, if an article -- and that's a big if -- is voted out of the House and sent to us for trial, and if we have a trial, which is to say this is not disposed of in some other way than that before a trial, then it is an open question. ."

Washington Post 12/8/98 Peter Baker and Juliet Eilperin ".In a last-minute effort to head off impeachment, the White House will call more than a dozen witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee beginning Tuesday to argue that President Clinton's offenses do not compare to Watergate and do not warrant his removal from office. The president's lawyers will neither introduce new exculpatory evidence in their two-day defense nor question any of the players in the scandal, including Monica S. Lewinsky herself, even though they had previously complained that they never had a chance to cross- examine the grand jury witnesses whose testimony provided the basis for independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report to Congress.."

Washington Post 12/8/98 Ruth Marcus ".The 14 witnesses whom the White House will call in President Clinton's defense have something in common with those who have already testified in the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry: no first-hand knowledge of the facts involving Clinton and Monica S. Lewinsky. The witness list signals that the White House will stick to familiar themes in its final bid to forestall Clinton's impeachment -- that this episode is not remotely like Watergate, the last time a president stood on the verge of impeachment, and that, however tawdry Clinton's behavior, it does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors..."

Reuters 12/7/98 ".In a strategy that mixes contrite admission of wrong-doing with a firm insistence that Clinton's misdeeds do not warrant removal from office, the White House tried to cast a sympathetic image of the president. ``The president is second to none in recognizing ... what was wrong in his behavior and apologizing to those who he's affected and hurt,'' White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart told reporters... "

Washington Times 12/8/98 Todd Lindberg ".Why are the Republicans going through with it? Can't they read the polls? Don't they understand that there is no public sentiment for removing President Clinton from office? Did the results of the congressional elections in November mean nothing to them? Why are they willing to risk their own political fortunes on a crusade that no one wants and is doomed to fail? I take these to be the main questions on Democrats' minds these days, now that it has dawned on everyone in Washington that impeachment is not, after all, dead. All of these questions seek a political explanation for the fact that this process won't go away.Rather than having collective insanity as its origin, however, I think it's worth at least considering the possibility that, gulp, principle has something to do with it. Republicans, in general, are remarkably literally minded about the law. They see in the statute books and the text of the Constitution a certain finality, and that is what they mean by their ceaseless evocation of the "rule of law" in this case. He swore to tell the truth, and he didn't. Democrats are more inclined to view the letter of the law as the beginning of the discussion, not the end. Where's the harm in a lie about sex, and what's anybody doing investigating anyway? Were President Clinton currently unpopular, and had Democrats done badly in the November elections, people would have expected the drums of impeachment to grow louder. That's because there would be a political case. There is no political case. Yet the GOP drums grow louder -- as if to emphasize the point that popularity is not the issue, but a reading of the law. No, the simplest explanation for what's driving Washington's current perturbations has to be exactly something as crazy as principle.."

Judiciary Committee Henry Hyde 12/8/98 "."Eleven months after the President lied to the American people, three months after the White House received the Independent Counsel's report, two months after the House voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry, and two days before the Committee is set to begin impeachment deliberations, the President chose to finally send us his 184-page defense. Upon preliminary review, this document, the contents of which we learned from television news, appears to contain no new evidence or challenge the truthfulness of any testimony the Committee now possesses. It merely directs our attention to particular portions of testimony we already have which we will gladly read again. What it also includes is more legal hairsplitting and semantic gymnastics we have come to expect from this White House. On page 77, we read: "The term 'alone' is vague, unless a particular geographic space is identified."."

Freeper DC Agent reports 12/8/98 ".Graham asked Ben-Veniste: if he (Graham) were to introduce evidence that Clinton tried to get the IRS to investigate someone, would he change his mind about Clinton's impeachment? After Ben-Veniste said, "I'd be interested," GRAHAM SAID "THEN TUNE IN TOMORROW." ."

Drudge 12/8/98 ".The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that Republicans are now planning to show excerpts of the videotaped deposition made in the Paula Jones case in which Clinton is shown denying an affair with Lewinsky... MORE The video would be shown on Thursday, the day Democratic and Republican lawyers are now scheduled to make their final presentations in the House impeachment probe. "There are a number of moments in the video that could easily prove, beyond a doubt, that Clinton misled the court," one well-placed committee source told the DRUDGE REPORT late Tuesday night. The screening of the video is still subject to change, notes a source familiar with Republican counsel Schippers' planned presentation, which was still in flux late Tuesday.."

Wall Street Journal 12/8/98 Henry Ruth ".Instead of a bald-faced distortion of their 1974 impeachment conduct, Democrats should be admitting that they believe -- and indeed voted in 1974 -- that defrauding the Treasury was not a private matter. Likewise, lying to a judge, to a civil plaintiff, to a federal prosecutor and to a federal grand jury are not private matters today. The integrity of our tax system and the integrity of our justice system are issues of the utmost public concern.."

The Washington Times 12/8/98 Bill Sammons ".The White House abruptly abandoned attacks on independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr yesterday, vowing instead to dispute the facts in impeachment charges against President Clinton during a two-day, 14-witness defense that begins this morning before the House Judiciary Committee.. "We have heard from so many college professors that I think I'm going to ask if we can get college credit for attending seminars," the Illinois Republican said at a news conference. "Well, I'd like to hear something on the facts." He added: "We haven't heard anybody say Monica Lewinsky is a liar. We haven't had anybody ... explain the gifts that ended up under Betty Currie's bed. There are lots of questions that we'd like to hear some evidence on, but we'll hear from professors giving us their interpretation, perhaps unique, of the Constitution.".."

Silicon Valley Logic 12/8/98 ".At least four of the witnesses appearing before Congress today and tomorrow on behalf of President Clinton have given the President campaign contributions in the recent past, and at least eight have given frequently to Democratic candidates, a review of FEC records shows. Bruce Ackerman, testifying on historical precedent, has donated $1000 to Clinton himself, and thousands to other Democrat candidates. An economic organization of his in the Los Angeles area has also conducted an impeachment survey for the President free of charge and pushed for media coverage of the preliminary results, which are favorable to Clinton. Nick Katzenbach, who also testifies for Clinton today on constitutional standards for impeachment, gave $1000 to Clinton along with his wife. The two have also given money to Democratic interests. James Hamilton, testifying on evidence gathering tomorrow, has given $2000 to Clinton and thousands more to Democratic candidates around the country. He was also attorney for the late Vince Foster, and fought to the Supreme Court to keep notes potentially incriminating the President out of the hands of Ken Starr. Elizabeth Holtzman, Richard Ben-Veniste and Wayne Owens have each given thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates around the country. They will testify before Congress on behalf of Clinton today and tomorrow."

Summary of 12/8/98 HJC Hearings by Freeper Winfield ".It has been a long time since I felt pride in being a Republican. Today was one of them! What a class act by the Repubs on the Jud. Com.! They were calm, cool, collected, precise, knowledgeable and spoke in language that could be understood by any fifth-grader. Their "Just the Facts" approach is very effective. On the otherhand, the "egg-heads" came across as just what they were, egg-heads who have an agenda to rescue the Clintoon. ."

Hardball MSNBC 12/8/98 Freeper ByteMe reports ".Marsha Clark on hardball said Clinton's lying behavior reminds her of the behavior she has seen in so many of the criminals she has prosecuted. Finaly someone is telling the truth, Clinton is really just like a common criminal."

Wall Street Journal 12/8/98 Henry Ruth ". Henry Ruth, is a retired lawyer in Tucson, Ariz. He served as Watergate special prosecutor and as deputy to his predecessors, Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski. In George Orwell's "Animal Farm," whenever the animals could possibly blame their incumbent leader for a hardship, the leader's aide would blame a former rival, Snowball. Even though Snowball was obviously innocent, the animals in the farm would eventually come to accept the explanation. Ken Starr is President Clinton's Snowball. And as a good Democrat who voted twice for Mr. Clinton, I fear the November 2000 election consequences for my party if the Democrats in the House don't stop playing "Animal Farm" and start dealing seriously, forthrightly and morally with the consequences of presidential lying and obstruction. Instead, as Mr. Clinton's lawyers prepare to present his defense to the House Judiciary Committee starting today, Democrats are close to euphoria over the likelihood that the president will remain in office. One White House aide put it succinctly: "Why should we give an inch when the American people are with us all the way?" President Nixon voiced the same thought when he observed that if his administration gave the people peace and prosperity, he could get away with anything. The Democrats have apparently adopted that cynical view of leadership. Here are the credos for which the party seems to stand today: (1) Character doesn't count. (2) Lying to a federal judge and a grand jury is OK, at least in a sexual-harassment suit, because everybody does it and it is a private matter. (3) A CEO may take sexual advantage of a young employee as long as the employee consents. (4) As with professional basketball players, so too with Presidents: It is unfair to expect them to be role models. (5) All presidents lie. (6) Presidents may use executive privilege and the secrecy privilege with government lawyers to defend themselves against charges of personal wrongdoing. ."

Freeper LYNXCry 12/8/98 reports on Michael Reagan Show ".Crudele was on the Michael Reagan show today, and said he has talked to a "high ranking GOP SENATOR" who has told him that Clinton is a "sociopath" and that they have other damming information to come out in the Senate trial. He also said the senator told him "Clinton will be removed. Crudele has a 10,000 word report on his web site that lays out what he says is Ken Starr's second report to congress which lays out an "Arkansas RICCO" case against both Clintons. He says he believes Starr will indict both Clintons, and if you read this report from beginning to end you will see the Clintons are going to be begging the next president to grant them pardons.."

Washington Post 12/9/98 Peter Baker ".Even as it tried to fend off impeachment yesterday, the White House began preparing for the worst by laying out a possible constitutional challenge designed to invalidate any vote by the lame-duck House to impeach President Clinton next week. As part of its defense presentation to the House Judiciary Committee, the White House introduced expert testimony asserting that articles of impeachment would expire on Jan. 3 along with the 105th Congress. Under this argument, the new House would have to vote again - this time with five more Democrats who could turn the outcome if next week's vote is as narrow as predicted.."

USA Journal 12/9/98 Jon Dougherty ". Think back; have you ever heard Clinton clearly, concisely and definitively admit to doing anything wrong? No, you haven't. That flimsy "admission" of some semblance of a sexual act with Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because it wasn't really an admission of guilt - just an admission of `making some mistakes.' The reason you don't hear Clinton or his White House co-conspirators defending themselves with pleas of "not guilty" by measure of innocence because they aren't innocent. They're all guilty as hell and not only that, they're all liars to boot..

Electronic Telegraph 12/9/98 Hugo Gurdon ".In the final chance to avoid his becoming the second president in American history to be impeached, his legal team threatened an appeal to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who would preside over the trial, to crush Republican attempts to oust him for perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power in the sex-and-cover-up scandal. Bruce Ackerman, a Yale law professor and one of 14 key White House witnesses in Mr Clinton's two-day defence, told the judiciary committee: "People seem to be assuming that once the present committee and the full House of Representatives vote for a bill of impeachment, the stage will be set for trial in the Senate in the upcoming year. Nothing could be further from the truth . . . When the 105th Congress dies on Jan 3, all its unfinished business dies with it." ."

Electronic Telegraph 12/9/98 Hugo Gurdon ". Mr Craig disclosed that the President ordered him not to hide behind technicalities or evasions, but he denied that Mr Clinton lied when he said he "never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Prof Sean Wilentz, a historian from Princeton, said the constitution as originally drafted prescribed impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanours "against the United States" and that, although these words were removed, the framers said explicitly that this did not signal a change in their intent. "By removing . . . the words . . . the committee created a Pandora's box, which we have opened 211 years later," said Prof Wilentz, adding that it was wrong to believe, as Mr Clinton's critics do, that "all sorts of private crimes are impeachable". Republican committee members countered that perjury by the nation's top law enforcement officer was indeed a crime against the state, and precisely the type of offence for which the Founding Fathers envisaged removing a president from office.."

12/7/98 Freeper otisg reports on Britt Hume's FoxNews ".On May 26 the D.C. Appellate Court ruled, in a sealed ruling, that Monica's affadavit in the Jones Case was indeed MATERIAL. Thus removing any doubts Clinton's Perjury..."

NY Post 12/9/98 John Mainelli ".TALK radio, always a hotbed of fiery debate, hit a new level of screaming and name-calling last week as Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz and radio host Sean Hannity went at each other on WABC (770 AM)..The shouting started after Dershowitz appeared on Hannity's show to claim he has proof that House Judiciary Committee member Robert Barr (R.-Ga.) is a racist. Dershowitz and Barr argued during Clinton perjury hearings last week after Barr used the term "real Americans" and Dershowitz called it "code words for racism." The lawyer, a frequent radio/TV talk show guest, went on with Hannity to claim Barr once addressed what he claims is a "racist and anti-Semitic" group called Council of Conservative Citizens. He came back a second day with more details. "You're not getting away with it this time, Dershowitz, like you do on Geraldo's show," challenged Hannity. "You're a character assassin who uses McCarthy-style tactics. You're a bully and a spineless coward, coward, coward." "You'll be working for McDonald's in a few years because you're playing ball with racists, and your New York audience shouldn't be subjected to this," replied Dershowitz, who used to host a syndicated talk show carried by WABC. "Shut your jackass-professor mouth for one second," continued Hannity. "You're a failed talk show host who has the nerve to call people racists after you sat silent while the race card was played in the Simpson trial." "Listen, you wimp, I'll bet you $1,000 that you won't renounce your buddy Barr after I prove to you that he's a racist and an anti-Semite," said Dershowitz. "I'll go you one better, you gutless, lowlife professor," countered Hannity. "I'll bet you $50,000 that I'm still on the air two years from now, unlike you." Dershowitz's syndicated radio show was dropped two years ago by WABC after Dershowitz called Hannity's predecessor Bob Grant a racist. Sony Radio cancelled the program altogether several months later.."

12/9/98 Julia Malone 'Spiked' News Article ".Item. Would it be right for a president to put his hand on the Bible twice and solemnly swear to faithfully execute the office of president "so help me God" and then go into a court proceeding and lie? Or, should there be an exception in the case of Bill Clinton because the subject is sex? Doesn't this lie in the highest office have a trickle down effect in courts, schools and homes? Are kids now speaking of "pulling a Clinton" to mean telling half truths? Is that right for the country? Item. Should members of Congress pore over the election results and exit polls to decide what to do? Should they take the advice of hundreds of historians who say that impeachment in this case would damage the presidency? Should they listen to constitutional lawyers, who often directly contradict each other? Or, should they study the Constitution, the fundamental principles that undergird the nation, and examine their own convictions? Item. Is it right for the president to talk about elevating the role of women and then engage in the most demeaning kind of sex with a female employee inside the office that symbolizes his public trust? Didn't he promise the nation to give up such behavior before his election? Or is it "just" sex? Just such casual sex has spread AIDS and a host of other infections at an alarming rate. And doesn't a lack of morals in the highest office inevitably contribute to the breakdown in homelife in the country? Item. Since the president lied to his family, who are closest to him, who can be sure he is truthful to others? He has admitted to deceiving his Cabinet, the public and his staff. When can his veracity be trusted in his private negotiations with Israel or his secret handling of Iraq? Or should we, as some urge, forget the whole unpleasant business?.."

Creators Syndicate 12/8/98 Pat Buchanan ".All who live by the sword perish by the sword. The warning of Matthew's Gospel is our lesson for today. No White House has ever been more devoted to, or adept at, attack politics than this one. When allegations were made about Bill Clinton's private life in 1992, Gennifer Flowers and her sorority were savaged and silenced. When the Republican convention raised the cultural and character issues, the Clintonites instantly counterattacked, and the irresolute Republicans broke ranks and ran away. Bill Clinton owes his White House to the War Room. But he may also owe his impeachment to the War Room mind-set. What he and his men have never understood is that when the battle is won, magnanimity, not arrogance, is the way to consolidate victory. The vulgar war dance the Clintonites conducted in the end zone after the Democrats' November victory has backfired.. When Ken Starr appeared before Henry Hyde's Judiciary Committee, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters & Co. went into their Chicago Seven, Days-of-Rage routine, disrupting the proceedings, reciting canned speeches and trashing Starr. David Kendall used his allotted hour to berate Starr and smear his investigation. Opinion polls showed that scheme backfired. The independent counsel, whose approval rating had been down almost in the teens, was thought by 67 percent of the nation to have given a fine presentation of the evidence against Clinton. By the next day it dawned on America that no Democrat even contested Starr's case or defended the president as innocent of the charges of perjury, obstruction of justice or abuse of power. Why the William Kunstler-style defense, if the president was not guilty? A second White House opportunity came with the 81 questions submitted by Hyde. Rather than give Republican moderates grounds on which to stand and say, "The president did not tell the truth but is aware of it and has apologized. Let us censure him, do the public's will, and move on," the White House responses were contemptuous. Unstated message of those replies: "You ignoramuses don't deserve a reply; we have the votes to block impeachment, and you know it." This not only enraged conservatives but affronted GOP moderates and Democrats who do not relish being treated as party hacks who will stomach any garbage the White House dishes up. .."

Ruff testimony 12/9/98 Freeper MeneMenuTekelupharsin "..Democrat Judicial Committee member [Berman D-CA] . just said "I think the President lied under oath."."

Washington Times National Weekly "."I think history will not be kind to this committee:" Mr. Dershowitz intoned. "History will not be kind to this Congress. I think this committee and this Congress will go down in history along with the Congress that improperly impeached Andrew Johnson for political reasons. I think there is no exit strategy that will permit this committee and this Congress to regain any place in history which is going to look positively. It made a dreadful mistake by ever opening up an impeachment inquiry on the basis of sex lies and coverups of sexual events. It's down that line. Now it's getting worse. It's like my typical client. First he commits the crime and then he compounds the crime by making it worse. Now it's becoming worse, because now we are seeing incredible hypocrisy introduced into the debate: 'Oh, we care so much about perjury -- what a terrible thing perjury is.' The only reason the majority of this committee cares about perjury is because they believe that President Clinton, their political opponent, is guilty of it." There you have it. No mount of compromise, no proposed appeasement, no effort at a brokered end-game is going to satisfy Mr. Dershowitz and his ilk. To the extent that any lawmaker was thinking about taking it easy on the president for fear of looking partisan or extreme, he should take note: He will still be denounced by those currently doing the denouncing; he will win no laurels for his wisdom and sweet reason."

Freeper Steven W 12/9/98 ".Lindsey Graham has let it fly. Speaking about how Clinton wanted to destroy Monica, if not for the blue dress. Told the Dem women to take note. Used his, Mary Bono's and Mr Bryant's time. Dems going nuts. Happen about 4.5 hrs into the Ruff session.."

Freeper Top of the World Ma report 12/9/98 ".As I have been saying here for weeks, Lindsey Graham is the man to watch. He just ate Ruff's lunch about the President trying ruin Monica Lewinsky, citing press report after press report, saying the WH was the source. AND that if it hadn't been for Linda Tripp telling Monica to save that dress, the WH today would be saying Monica was a sexual predator, a disturbed woman, crazy, fantasizing. Watch Mr. Graham on the news tonight or the rerun on C-Span. He is/has been the designated hitter for the Committee. The Democrats are screaming bloody murder! He is a Desert Storm veteran. Not since 1877 has a Republican been elected to Congress from his district. Go Lindsey Go!."

Freeper Jaxgram 12/9/98 ".Lindsey Graham' s performance was the best of the entire televised hearings. While everybody else is comforted by dancing about the issues, he minced not one word. Additionally, he forewarned them from the very start. Lindsey Graham has restored my faith; that this is not just some lip service to appease the Office of Independent Council.... "