The Republican Ringmaster, Charles Canady, ushered in the two ring ( panel ) circus with a statement of known facts and goals. The Republicans were civil, despite extreme partisan antics from both the Democrat members of the subcommittee and 4 of the supposed Constitutional scholars, who masqueraded as Clinton defense lawyers dressed as clowns!

Circus Democratus Round One. ( See: Circus Democratus. ( 10-1-98 ) for my preview. ).

Bobby Scott opened up on every Republican that he could imagine, from previous Presidents and the House Committee, to Ken Starr. Obviously he didn't have anything substantitive to say about the impeachment inquiry. John Conyers, Shiela Jackson Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Maxine ' The Wicked Witch of The West ' Waters, and Mel Watt all attacked the Republicans, Ken Starr, and Water's " the people out to get Bill Clinton ". They truely made a mockery of themselves in complaining about the committee hearings and calling for Ken Starr to be investigated for abuse of power. They were all in blind Clinton defense mode, with Waters going on and on about everything from Ronald Reagan to Linda Tripp, to change the subject and waste as much time as possible. She must have no shame, to be able to run her mouth the way she does? William Delahunt and Tom Barrett didn't join the act, and were really not as heavily partisan as I thought they would be.

The only comment bordering on partisanship from the Republicans came from Bob Inglis, on what would happen if the President is let off the hook and the message it would send. " If you are called in court in a proceeding about sex, lie if you want ".

The first panel ( act ), consisted of 10 scholars invited by either side ( 1 of them a real partisan clown act ).

*Rev. Robert Drinan, invited by the Democrats, was more Clinton defense lawyer or clown than scholar. He should be ashamed of himself and I can't believe that he is really a Georgetown University law professor. I don't agree with his view that Clinton's conduct was personal and when he said, " personal conduct is not impeachable ". But he looked down right foolish as he launched into a litany on the evils of Ken Starr ( it sounded suspiciously identical to the DNC and Whitehouse talkings points for media talking heads ). Maybe next time, they can get a less obvious person to attempt to reflect that morality and religion, are on the side of our immoral and untruthful President?

John Harrison ( University of Virginia law professor ) talked about the Claiborne precedent and Federal judges who had been impeached for conduct unrelated to office, and do to problems of personal integrity.

Matthew Holden ( University of Virginia government and politics professor ) said the United States should not have an impeachment statute at all?

Cass Sunstein ( University of Chicago law professor ) said crimes were not impeachable offenses, and Clinton's were not even close to the line. Amazingly she said, " violation of oath of office is not impeachable ". She thought Clinton should be prosecuted after he leaves office, if at all.

Gary McDowell ( University of London, Institute for US studies ) said to have no censure.

Richard Parker ( Harvard University law professor ) said the " key to growth of our Constitution is fexibility ( to ) adapt the meaning of the Constitution to new issues. Don't try and freeze dry the meaning of the words of the Constitution ". He thought the impeachment allegations were " serious, grave, gross or substantive behavior ".

Arthur Schlesinger ( Presidential historian ) thought the " charges against the President do not rise to the level of impeachment ". He also said, with foot in mouth, " gentlemen lie about sex "?

John McGinnis ( Yeshiva University, Cardoza School of Law ) said perjury is much like bribery, responding to the old, ' treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors ' question. He said, " the US is based on the rule of law and truth is the basis of the rule of law ". He also talked about censure being a violation of the separation of powers. Finally, he said, " Impeachment is not about popularity, but preserving the public trust ".

Stephan Presser ( Northwestern University law professor ) said there is " no distinction about the content, in perjury ".

Michael Gerhardt ( College of William and Mary law professor ) said you " don't impeach on integrity ". He also said the focus of hearings should be the facts, not an abstract definition of impeachment.

The second panel ( act ) consisted of 9 scholars invited by either side ( 3 of them real partisan clown acts ).

Charles J. Cooper ( attorney ) said impeachment is not confined to official acts. He cut straight to how he felt with, " These ( Clinton's alleged ) crimes are clearly impeachable offenses, at the core of high crimes and misdemeanors, not the fringe ".

Griffin Bell ( judge, former Attorney General under Jimmy Carter ) said, " These crimes very well may be impeachable offenses ".

*Daniel Politt ( University of North Carolina law professor ) was one of the second act clowns. His arguements of, " impeachment is like the atom bomb ", and should only be used in the extreme; are over shadowed by his attacks on the Independant Counsel personally. He rudely assaulted his honesty, integrity, and motives; finally saying, " I wouldn't trust Kenneth Starr ". Is this really the best that the DNC and the Whitehouse can do, in supplying their minions with scholars willing to blatantly do their ' attack the messenger thing ' and pray for sound bite material?

Forrest McDonald ( University of Alabama ) , " The Federalists, in describing high crimes and misdemeanors, list perjury first ".

*Laurence Tribe ( Harvard law professor ) was another second act partisan clown. His points of; impeachment being " only for gravest crimes ", " focus on the effect ", and " look behind the offense ", were forgotten when he attacked the messenger in DNC robot fashion. All right already, isn't this enough of trying to change the focus from impeachment analysis, to the subject of the Whitehouse defense ( when you have no defense, attack the prosecutor ), in the person of Ken Starr?

*Susan Bloch ( Georgetown University law professor ) was a real piece of work, the final clown of the second act. She had a valid position, in distinguishing impeachment from criminal punishment; but it was barely noticed, as she went for the partisan juggler in Whitehouse inspired rhetoric with how much she, " fears sexual witch hunts ". This one must have been personally programmed by Hillary Clinton?

William Van Alstyne ( Duke University law professor ) was a bit contradictory. " These are impeachable offenses... the sum is the total of the parts, and dont disect them ". But he hoped, " there may be something short of impeachment ". He did have the quote of the day, " It would unduly flatter the President, to send it to the Senate ".

Jack N. Rakove ( Stanford law and history professor ) read impeachment very restrictively and said, " ( the ) Framers wanted to protect the President from Congress ".

Jonathan Turley ( George Washington University law professor ) actually said quite a bit. Of impeachment he said, " you can't exclude Clinton's conduct ". He advanced the concept that the Constitution ignores the House and impeachment should move quickly to the Senate. He did say that, " censure is ' articles of impeachment ' ". To the assembled Representitives he said, " Your oath is at stake, not the President's ".

Hey man, this subcommittee stuff was like minor league. Just watch how worked up those partisan left wing liberal extremists can get, when they feed off each other's egos, in the full Judiciary Committee hearings!

Coming in the near future, and guaranteed to be quite a bit more vocally partisan by the Democrats, the opening of hearings starring Kenneth Starr on November 19th! The question is, will there be anything else tastey, in between?

* I am assuming the Democrats called these four.

- Bongo ( interpret this... )