The pre-Ruff regurgitation, PANEL ONE ( or Clinton committed no chargable criminal offenses. ).

Thomas B. Sullivan ( former US Attorney ), he began with a misleading statement about not being at the hearing as a Democrat, but as an impartial witness ( sure man, whatever you say ). He went on about how none of the charges of abuse of power, obstruction of justice or perjury were provable. He said the President's definitions were reasonable. Yup, another Democrat lemming blindly defending Clinton to the last, trying to masquerade as objective. Who does he think he is kidding, we all know who called him in to testify. He didn't think Clinton was coaching Betty Currie? Pass the blinders! He knocked Ken Starr's report as being devoid of facts? In response to a question by William Delahunt, Sullivan said, " the criminal code was not enacted to enforce a code of morality ". I say, where did this come from and since when is lying, perjury, witness tampering and abuse of power a question of morality and not illegality?

Richard Davis ( Watergate Democrat/Nixon hater ). He seemed to say, the questions put to Clinton were vague, through inference of generalities. He condoned the parsing of words by Clinton, like any liberal Democrat defense lawyer would! He stressed that Clinton's testimony was not material, and thus not perjury. He invoked the spectre of Watergate.

Edward Dennis ( former Deputy Attorney General ). He said all Clinton did, was dance around questions about marital infidelity. He attacked the investigation process, and noted how rare prosecutions for perjury in civil cases were. He said, because the President admitted a relationaship and settled the Paula Jones case, that perjury was not provable. Now we know why Clinton settled the Paula Jones case; it was an attempt to remove any materiality that his lies may have had!

Richard Noble ( former DOJ official ). I remember this guy being quite evasive in prior Senate hearings on Whitewater, before Webb Hubble resigned. A true Clinton cronie, he raised public opinion and sentiment, as a defense to having impeachment proceedings. He invoked civil rights violations, as examples of possibly frivilous prosecutions. " Stay out of the private sexual conduct of adults ", he opined. He echoed the tired ' witch hunt ' allegations, and offered up the buzz words of " bug " and " wire tap " in reference to a government gone mad, investigating the sexual practices of ordinary citizens. He finally put in a dig on Donald Schmaltz ( Mike Espy investigator, who failed to get a conviction in the case ).

William Weld ( Watergate counsel and Republican ex-Governor of ' Massa-demo-chusettes ' ). He claimed you just can't indict someone for denying conduct, especially when it is personal conduct. He also said false denial, is not perjury, and not grounds for impeachment. He advocated a written admission of wrong doing by the President, and a fine ( making sure the fine was not payable from a defense fund ). He suggested leaving the President to be prosecuted after he leaves office, but doubted that would ever happen.

The House Judiciary Committee members began their five minutes of commentary or questioning; of note were:

John Conyers ( D ) attacked Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson and George Will ( persumably because they have not rolled over for the President, like other liberal media robots have done ). He lauded that the issue of materiality in Clinton's testimony had finally been put to rest?

Bill McCollum ( R ) pointed out that the DC circuit court of appeals has ruled that filing Monica Lewinsky's false affidavit was indeed material! He showed that Clinton lied, even by his own twisted definition of ' sex '.

Barney Frank ( D ) attacked Ken Starr, but also admitted that Clinton may have perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition, when he said he couldn't remember being alone with Monica Lewinsky. I guess this is a big step for him ( to admitt Clinton did anything wrong at all ). Barney's mother was in the audience, so he felt like he must offer up snide remarks while other members were questioning witnesses, in his typical ' class clown routine '!

George Gekas ( R ) said, the President chose not to plead the fifth amendment, but to lie, because taking the fifth would have instantly resulted in political fallout. Ain't ( sic ) that the truth!

Bobby Scott ( D ) unwittingly revealed that the House Democrats have joined in the scripted defense by the President, when he told Richard Davis to start reading his written testimony at some page number. Obviously, Davis then started reading it.

* Oh man, during a ten minute break on a C-Span telephone call-in Democrat line, a caller who had obviously swallowed Rev. Drinan's fire and brimstone speech from yesterday, accused the Republicans of being hateful and revengeful! This poor, weak-minded lady has been brainwashed successfully by the Democrats, and she should be ashamed of her own misguided hate!

Bob Inglis ( R ) pointed out that no evidence has been presented by the defenders of Clinton, but the Whitehouse spin ( lies ) have been carefully articulated by the witnesses it has brought forth. A document delivered to the committee is only a reinteration or regurgitation, of the rationalizations of Clinton's parsing of words, in legalese!

Zoe Lofgren ( D ) started with the stretch about Clinton's oath not being official, because it was not administered by the judge in person. The Democrats are really reaching new embarassing lows, in their mindless defense of the indefensible!

Steve Buyer ( R ) debunked the ' un-official oath ' arguement, by quoting the law on substitute administrators of an oath in Washington DC. Several Democrats tried to interrupt him while he was reading from the code, including, I believe both Zoe Lofgren and Bobby Scott ( you could only hear their voices in the back ground ).

The morning Clinton defense session closed with John Conyers attacking the process, and lauding the defenders of the President.

PANEL TWO ( or the Charles Ruff vomits on the rule of law in defense of the first philanderer show ), with David " Darth Vader " Kendall and Greg Craig looking on, began with a ninety minute opening seizure. Surprizingly, Charles Ruff was eloquent, sober and soft spoken. This was in direct contrast with Craig and Kendall, who are arrogant and brash. His statement was misleading and evasive at times, but it was delivered well. From the very beginning, it was obvious to all, that the President's lawyers were going to stick to the legalese, semantic hair splitting defense of parsing words when Ruff said, " The President testified truthfully in the Grand Jury ". He talked about Starr leaving certain exculpatory evidence out of the referral. I found this quite interesting, as after I read the referral, I was aware of these? I won't begin to describe them all, but if I read them referenced in the referral, what business has Ruff to say they weren't there? Isn't he under oath? Lamar Smith himself said he counted seventeen instances of Ruff referencing the appendix portion of the referral, for materials supposedly not contained with in it's own pages? Isn't there something wrong with this line of reasoning, couldn't it be considered conduct contrary to the oath Ruff took as an officer of the court? Ruff better relish his ticket, as his response to questioning about Clinton's possible witness tampering, was to say Betty Currie was not on a witness list, so not an official witness at the time. Even Ruff will have to eventually admitt that the courts recognize Clinton's own statements in his deposition would have assured she was going to be shorlty put on the list. I believe this kind of devious behavior by Clinton, in tampering with this witness, made probable by his own statements, shows the intend to deceive the court. Ruff can't ethically rationalize his advocacy for his twisted explaination on this one. Sorry to say, Ruff's presentation, at best, does not pass the sniff test!

John Conyers was " very moved with what he ( Ruff ) had to say ". Howard Berman actually admitted believing Clinton has lied, at some point in the proceedings.

Zoe Lofgren lauded Clinton's peace accords in Northern Ireland and Israel, as reasons supporting Clinton's ability to still act as President. Maybe, she should have asked the people of Israel and Northern Ireland, how bad and behind schedule these Clinton ' negotiated ' accords are going?

Just when I thought the partisan Democrat clown act was dead, Maxine Waters was recognized. She played very fast and loose with the truth, in another vicious direct attack on Ken Starr. She again brought up the lie about someone's child getting served a subpoena at school. When will this BS stop flowing so freely from her lips?

Finally, we got see why three Republicans didn't use their time, but reserved it. Lindsey Graham had to use fifteen minutes to illustrate, through press accounts and Sidney Blumenthal's own Grand Jury testimony, a choreographed attack strategy on Monica Lewinsky, should the test results come back negative on the infamous stained blue dress. Ruff was speechless and at a loss for any words or explaination, other than a blanket denial. The Democrat members, championed by Maxine Waters and Barney Frank, attempted to shout Graham down, to deflect the truth from getting to the American people! The President should resign immediately and the Judiciary Committee Democrats should apologize to Lindsey Graham!

I am thoroughly disgusted at the blind immoral antics of these partisan Democrat so called representitives. If they are truely representitive of the people in the districts that elected them; help us all!

- Bongo ( Aren't these guys under oath? )