Now that the Senate trial for the impeachment of Bill Clinton has deteriorated into a Democrat partisan exoneration, the only question left is, how will the disingenuous Democrats rationalize their dispicable decision to draw the line in the sand in blind support of their beloved dictator? The four major topics of discussion were: 1) Will the Senate have a seperate vote on a finding of fact, independant of the impeachment verdict? 2) Will the deliberations of Senators and/or witness testimony be shown to the public? 3) Will the Senate pass a censure motion if ( when ) the Democrats vote in block to exonerate their precious first philanderer of the articles of impeachment? 4) Can the independant counsel indict a sitting president ( referencing a Sunday New York Times report )?

*Al Hunt replaced Roland Evans and joined Bob Novak in questioning Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison ( R ) on CNN ( the Democrat News Network ). She believed the Senate should continue the trial to a verdict and have the final deliberations in the open, for the public to see.

*Wolf Blitzer was his old partisan DNC hack self, and this makes his ' berated condition ' show almost unwatchable. I just couldn't bring myself to watch him asking his biasedly worded questions and making his pro-liberal Democrat editorial comments in the disguise of questions! I have just had it with him throwing softball questions to the likes of diehard Clinton defenders such as Lanny Davis. Blitzer attempts to legitimize the lies of the Whitehouse spin machine, by stating them as if they are facts, and not just ' preprogrammed misleading statements designed to deceive '! Senator Judd Gregg ( R ) " wants to know the definition of the word is ", and DNC lapdog supreme, Senator Christopher Dodd ( D ) said, " Further testimony...is not exactly warranted ". Former Democrat Senator Sam Nunn did chastise Senators of both parties, saying, " I don't think there are going to be any blue ribbons awarded ".

*A six pack of Senators could be found on ' Bleat and be redressed '.

John Breaux ( D ) said a finding of fact motion would be unconstitutional, and Clinton's conduct was only " a personal cover-up ". Breaux predicted that a dozen Republicans will vote for the exoneration of the President? He wanted the deliberations to be open but saw no need for witnesses, saying, " these witnesses have testified time and time again ". When asked why Greg Craig offered to answer questions from the Senators and then took it back, Breaux said, " He ( Clinton ) already did "? Man these Democrats are poor excuses for human beings!

Richard Durbin ( D ). Hiding the presidential choke-chain collar marks embedded in his neck, he repeated the DNC mantra from last year on censuring Clinton. He then launched into a typically emotional and fact lacking litany on the evils of Ken Starr and the OIC itself, with, " office of independant counsel should be changed or removed ".

Susan Collins ( R ) wanted open Senate deliberations and before a vote on the removal of the President on the articles of impeachment, a vote on a " bi-partisan finding of fact on guilt or innocence ".

Richard Shelby ( R ) thought the Senate deliberations should be closed. He didn't like censure motions or finding of fact before a final vote, saying, " we ought to convict him or acquit him ".

Tim Hutchinson ( R ) thought the deliberations should be open. He criticized the Democrats for seemingly believing Clinton committed the offenses charged, but wanting to exonerate him anyway. He thought it would be bad for Clinton to get away with everything and argued the public agrees, with, " They don't want an out right acquittal ".

Mary Landrieu ( D ) left the issue of openess on the fence, but seemed to favor open final deliberations. She showed her Clinton/DNC/Whitehouse obedience training by saying that Clinton did wrong, " no one could defend his conduct ". Sadly, she then defended him with, " they ( the charges ) don't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors ". This is quite typical of the Democrat doublespeak oozing from the dirty lips of Senate Democrats!

*On ' Facing the aggravation ', four Senators offered up their learned opinions.

Charles Schumer ( D ) tugged very little on his Clinton/DNC/Whitehouse leash, using his well conditioned preprogrammed Democrat responses to Bob Scheiffer's questions to attack the Republicans and the OIC ( amid the New York Times article ) with, " Ken Starr is once again running amok ".

Carl Levin ( D ) wanted no witnesses and thought it would " sensationalize the trial by calling witnesses ".

Olympia Snowe ( R ) wanted a seperate motion for a finding of fact to " establish a record of fact...know what the facts the Senators thought were true ". She ended with, " We owe it to the American people...to acknowledge this ".

Thad Cockran ( R ) thought the idea of a seperate motion on the facts was a " substitute finding the President guilty ". He urged the Senators to keep their duty clear, with, " Our role is to remove him from office, if found guilty ".

*Three Senators joined ' This Week's Geeks '.

Mike DeWine ( R ) declared, " I am not a big fan of the independant counsel statute ". Showing his personal integrity, he issued a plea for Democrats to honor what they pledged, saying, " It is important that those in the Senate who took their oath of impartiality administer justice ". He was very clear on the need for openess, ending with, " If I have my way, we would have witnesses on the floor ".

Pete Domenici ( R ) opined that Starr ( and presumably the New York Times article ) has nothing to do with what we are doing. On a motion of finding on the facts, he agreed with Lieberman, that it should not find criminal guilt, but he thought it was important, saying " history demands we make a record on this ". He did think the " Whitehouse is fearful of a finding of fact " motion passing the Senate!

Joseph Lieberman ( D ) thought Clinton could not be indicted and said there is " no Supreme Court decision on whether a sitting president can be indicted ". He did opine that " a magic moment may occur ". Cokie Roberts asked him directly, if he " would be doing the Whitehouse bidding "? He answered, " we'll see ". Yes, that it exactly what he said!

The action was not as hot and heavy as on previous Spinmeister Sundays, but with the partisan Democrat vote for dismissal under their belts, it all over but the shouting. I am glad the Senate is playing this out to the very end, as I believe it is very important to see if all the Democrats betray their oaths and summarily vote to keep their precious dictator in office with no concern for the oaths they swore to uphold!

- Bongo ( Democrat = damnation! )