Prior to the official opening statements in the Senate impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, legislators both current and former flocked to the Sunday political talk shows to express their opinions. While some of the Senators now turned jurors remained impartial or feinted impartiality well, several Democrat Senators have betrayed their oath of impartiality even before the trial has begun. The final judgement on these particular partisan purveyors of politics as usual will come at the ballot box, eventually ( or before God, providing they or you believe in one ). Whether you agree with their positions and/or philosophies, or not; the Republican Senator/jurors, on the Sunday political pontification-fests, certainly played the non-partisan game better than their Democrat counterparts. One can only speculate whether or not the roles would have been reversed, had this been a Republican president about to stand trial for his political life? Either way, without a firm trial deadline, we know we are destined for twenty four hours of House managers presenting their case, twenty four hours of the Whitehouse defense and sixteen hours of Senator's questions, before a vote to continue or not.

*On " Evans and Novak " ( yes, it really was only the original pair this week ), Senator Fred Thompson ( R ) was the guest. He commented on non-partisanship, with an emphasis on doing what is right without concern for party affiliation or polling data. He said, " It would be wise for all of us who took the oath to not personalize it ", and " There are some people in this town who will do what's right regardless of the polls ", ending the segment with a plea to " put our petty party partisan differences aside ". In response to questioning about Democrats voting en bloc to exhonerate Clinton on purely political grounds and the numbers counting by political pundits, he said, " We need to quit talking about who has the votes and who doesn't ". When asked about censure, he offered, " Censure is dead as part of the impeachment process ". He and other Republicans realize that talk of censure and impeachment don't mix, after all, one is Constitutional and one isn't. Finally, when quizzed on Clinton's ability to lead the country for two more years, should he be acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial, he said, " Foreign policy is lacking in many aspects ". What an understatement!

*On ' Eat The Oppressed ', Tim Russert had one Republican House Manager and an equally mixed six-pack of Senate jurors.

Representitive Lindsey Graham ( R ) said that lies in the Paula Jones deposition become lies before the OIC Grand Jury, as in his testimony Clinton reaffirmed them. He also said the idea that oral sex was never asked and a clever definition was used is wrong with, " the idea that oral sex was never asked, is a fraud...you judge people on their conduct, not magic phrases ". When asked about a potential witness list, among those mentioned were: Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie, Vernon Jordan, Sidney Blumenthall and John Podesta. He commented on the Democrat/Whitehouse/DNC lobby to exclude witnesses before the proceedings started with, " The Whitehouse blew up over the idea of witnesses " and " a meaningful trial is all I am asking for ". Finally, on the reason why this trial must go on, he opined, " Clinton-speak should not be legitimized ".

Senator John Chafee ( R ) thought, " some witnesses are legitimately needed ". He thought the President should postpone his state of the union address if the Senate trial is still proceeding, and pointed out that they were given in the past, as late as February. He had some advice for his fellow Senators on impartiality with, " If you do what's right, it will work out in the end ".

Senator Mike DeWine ( R ) was asked to comment on the possibility of a partisan dog and pony show in the Senate and replied, " We are members of the jury...the Senate is not going to allow this to be a circus ". On censure of a president, he opined, " We should not censure any president ". Responding to attacks on the process by the two disgraceful Democrat Senators from California, he said, " It is not a question of how this matter got to us, but the facts ". So true, to bad the partisan Democrats keep up the attack the messenger routine, even after taking an oath of impartiality. Shame on Senators ( and I use the term extremely lightly ) Boxer and Feinstein, and the California Democrat sheep voters who sent these two poor excuses for legislators to the United States Senate!

Senator Rick Santorum ( R ) on the House Managers wishing to call witnesses, " Let them present the case they want to present ". He further commented on the possible removal of Clinton as not a punishment, but..." we protect the Republic ". He then asked this rhetorical question, " Lying under oath and obstruction of justice, doesn't that threaten the Republic?"

Senator Barbara Boxer ( D ) understandably used her airtime to attack the impeachment process and the Republicans in the House, saying it is a " lame duck impeachment " and they " sully the floor of the Senate ". Whoa, is this really what the California voters thought they were electing? Man, that broad got down right vicious and didn't want Clinton to delay his state of the union address either ( ofcourse ). Oh yeah, isn't she related to Hillary Rodham? That explains her urging of censure, but only because, " a censure is an expression of how we feel about what happened ". I suppose she only had to act openly sane until she was relected?

Senator Dianne Feinstein ( D ) attacked the OIC investigation calling it a " litany of investigations ". Perplexingly, she thought Clinton should postpone his state of the union address ( this surprised the heck out of me ). She betrayed her true partisan Democrat colors, by saying " the Democrats felt like it was not necessary to call witnesses ". The key word in that quote is " Democrats ". She didn't say " I "; she is only attempting to masquerade as impartial. She is ready to heal with the other trained Democrat lapdogs, at the slightest hint of their precious master's voice! When asked about censure, she said, " I am preparing something ". Great, these degrading indecent Democrats have it all planned out already...

Senator Charles Shumer ( D ) had less spittle dripping from the corners of his mouth than when he was in the House, and stated in a much less booming and obnoxious voice, " I do not see the need for witnesses ", but added " the list imposes brevity ". Like he has been saying all along, as well as saying he believes Clinton lied, he opined, " Does it rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, the answer is no ". He repeated the Whitehouse/DNC " undo the election " mantra with gusto. He didn't think Clinton should postpone his state of the union address ( naturally ) and joined the bobsy twins in their chorus of, " there should be a strong censure motion ". He also betrayed his oath of impartiality in advance with this comment on proof, " the standard is different, a little bit judicial and a little bit political ". Sheesh, is there a Democrat in the Senate who can be impartial or honor an official oath? Not any of these three, I betcha'!

*On ' Face The Alienation ', Bob Schieffer had one House manager and three Senate jurors ( okay, so he only has a half an hour ).

Representitive Asa Hutchison ( R ) said of calling witnesses, " We have to humanize the case...we wanted fourteen witnesses, but we now want a half a dozen ". This doesn't sound like a trial that will take many months, to me?

Senator Tom Daschle ( D ) was a bit subdued, but still his same old partisan self, attacking Ken Starr and the House with, the House wanting to call witnesses is " an admission that the case is pretty weak to begin with " and " Ken Starr is deserving of some criticism ". Not quite the rabid attack dog stuff he usually spouts, he opposed allowing any witnesses and thought the state of the union address should go on as planned. On his phoney cooperation with Republicans scheme, he said, " We are trying to avoid even the perception of partisanship ". Okay Tom, whatever you say; I believe you about as much as I believe the first philanderer!

Senator Phil Gramm ( R ) talked about the oath, " we swore to render impartial justice ". On the impending trial, " The truth is unpleasant...we unfortunately have to get into something unpleasant ". On censure, he said the " case for censure is very weak " and " I am afraid of setting the precedent for future censures ".

Senator Joseph Lieberman ( D ) was " worried about witnesses leading to more witnesses ". He didn't show his true Democrat collars yet, and said, " Each of us wants our constituents to know why we voted the way we did ". We have all seen this guy change his tune like a chameleon changes color.

*On ' Second-rate Rendition ', the Democrat leaning Wolf Blitzer had two current and two former Senators on, in part.

Senator Christopher Dodd ( D ) thought Clinton should proceed with his state of the union address and didn't see any need for witnesses to be called. He unconsciously may have betrayed his oath of impartiality by saying, " most of us have serious doubts whether witnesses are needed ". He did comment on the process and the Senate receiving testimony behind closed doors in executive session with, we will " have whatever we can have public, be public ". We must all remember that if the Senate takes testimony or debates privately, a transcript is usually always available shortly thereafter.

Senator Mitch McConnell ( R ) thought listening to opening statements will allow the Senate to make an informed decision on calling witnesses and said, " each witness will be voted on separately ". On the possibility of a media circus, he said, " There is nothing that compells us to put on a television show " and " television cameras lead some ( Senators ) to grandstand ". On the polls and possibly making a tough decision, he added, " forget about the 2,000 elections ".

Retired Senator Howard Baker ( R ) remarked on the Senate using executive session, " it depends on what the material is ". He opined on the lenghtiness of the Senate trial with, " The length of this trial will depend on the Whitehouse need for witnesses ". He had this advice for the serving Senator/jurors, the trial " must not be partisan; not a casual thing ".

Former Senator Sam Nunn ( D ) began with, " The Senate will be fully focused for the next two weeks. They are off to a good start ". He showed the integrity that current Senate Democrats seem to be devoid of, with a description of what should be their true motivation, " Loyalty to the Constitution and not a person ". Sam, where were you when we really needed you? Why can't the rest of the Senate Democrats have your sense of integrity and honesty? He reinterated the possibility of executive session material with, " they can have testimony in executive session and release the transcript later ". Maybe there is one other Democrat with some spinal rigidity, and Sam named him with, " Robert Byrd is irreplaceable ".

* On ' This Week's Geeks ( or, oh no...George Step-on-all-of-us is back ) ' they had one House manager and three Senator/jurors.

Representitive James Rogan ( R ) said that factual disputes must be settled by actually seeing witnesses, adding, " It doesn't serve me or the House managers if the President is convicted unfairly ". He continued, " If the President was truely innocent, he would be joining us in this fight to bring the witnesses in ". On the procedure if witnesses are deemed called for, " No live witnesses can be called until they are deposed, I think that is appropriate ". In closing, he said, " We are only asking for what the Senators pledged in their oath, impartiality ". That is easier said than done for Democrats!

Senator Orrin Hatch ( R ) was glad " it ( the trial ) starts out bi-partisan ". On having live witnesses, he said, " it will be hard for Senators to vote against it ". On the polls and possibily following an unpopular course of action, he had these words for us, " This is a trial, probably the most important trial of this century. We wouldn't have civil rights, if we had abided by the polls ". He is correct on this one, the majority of public opinion was against the rudimentary first civil rights legislation. He ended with a final plea to his Senate colleagues to " do impartial justice, do what's right ".

Senator Olympia Snowe ( R ), not a regular on these shows, was happy the Senate was able to " establish a bi-partisan approach to the procedure ". She continued, " We have taken an oath to render impartial justice " and we must " hear the evidence and weigh it. We can't be denied evidence ". When asked about censure, she replied, " Perhaps somebody will suggest a censure motion, if the two-thirds is not there for conviction ". Lastly, on the opinion polls, she said, " I am not going to worry about that, the polls ". She is definately one of the cooler heads in the Senate!

Senator John Breaux ( D ) said " We don't want to punish the Congress. We are in bi-partisan mode for kickoff, halftime is questionable, and if we go into overtime, we are in trouble ". He seemed to be skating the fine line between partisan and non-partisan, saying, the " Whitehouse could move for dismissal at the beginning " and attacking the House with, " they let Ken Starr come in and tell them what witnesses were going to say ". He then sent the media audience and the Whitehouse this mixed message, " don't try a scorched earth policy " and " no nit picking ", but ended on " you do not have 67 votes to convict ". Okay Breaux, play both ends toward the middle; that is a safe strategy.

Finally, in the round table discussion, Bill Krystal and George Will had different characterizations of the procedural vote to begin the trial proceedings. Krystal said, " The one hundred to zero vote leaves open the possibility that the Senators will be impartial jurors ". But Will said, " All the Senate did was kick the ball down the road ". I think they both may be correct!

To the credit of all three of these Senators, none of them reacted, when the venomous quotations of the rabid Democrat attack dog, Senator Tom Harkin ( D ) were read aloud for comment. If you didn't hear them, they were the worst thing I have ever heard coming out of a politician's mouth. Really, worse than House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. I can still not believe that they quoted his characterization of the current Senate proceedings as they move from the House as a " pile of dung ". Personally, I think Tom Harkin should be ridden out of the Senate on a rail! He will never be taken seriously again, by Democrats and Republicans alike.

It is really starting to look like the Republicans are the only ones who are taking their oaths seriously and want to proceed Constitutionally. The Democrats are obviously only interested in two things: 1) Getting their fearless leader off scot-free, and 2) Making enough political points to regain a majority in Congress. Yes, it is sad, but looking like it is true!

- Bongo ( To a Democrat, an oath is something to be broken or ignored! )