Sadly, unlike the Republicans of the Watergate era, the Democrats are acting as an extension of the Whitehouse Clinton defense team. The Democrats will not be presenting any information exposing the President's conduct, but will continue the blind choreographed defense.

Abbe Lowell, former member of Carter's Whitehouse staff, shows none of the integrity associated with Jimmy Carter. Instead of being totally open, like the Carter administration was ( waiving legal privileges and such ), Lowell has joined in on the robotic Whitehouse obfuscation and defense of Bill Clinton. David Schippers, majority counsel, though a Democrat, has conducted himself in a rational manner. Schippers is proof there are still a few Democrats who don't wear blinders!

Abbe Lowell begins with, " The committee does not have Constitutional grounds to push forward this impeachment ". This just about says it all. Disingenuously Lowell says we ( the committee members ) should attempt to see through the eyes of the other side. This betrays his partisan position, as there truely should be no " sides ". It didn't take him long to say it's all about sex. Predictably, he begins to cite the partisan Democrat witnesses, as if they were the absolute judges of what is right. To bad, the Democrats have only proven they are completely devoid of all morality or sense of taking responsibility for one's own actions! He attacks the process and states the President is innocent of all charges ( technically he is, because he hasn't faced a trial in court ). He attacks specific Republicans, in an unrelenting litany obviously signed off by the Whitehouse. As he tries to mock the Judiciary Committee, he only diminishes any miniscule amount of respect, anyone other than a far left-wing liberal Democrat, may have had for him!

He played excerpts from Clinton's Paula Jones deposition, where the lawyers are arguing about the definition of sex. Clinton's counsel goes on and on about limiting the definition, but Clinton does acknowledge he understands the definition being used. I have read the definition, and it is just not as skewed as Democrats would want you to believe. In fact, it seems to come straight from the penal code definition. The President's counsel seems to be making an effort to stop the Paula Jones attornies from asking the serious questions they wanted to! Abbe Lowell says, " he ( Clinton ) was being set up by the Paula Jones lawyers and Linda Tripp ". Geraldo Rivera would have been proud ( maybe he was and was watching? ). Lowell also adds, " they were colluding together to embarass the President ". It must be that vast right-wing conspiracy? This is no defense. You can watch Abbe Lowell's nose grow longer, minute by minute! He played tapes of Monica Lewinsky talking about lying with Linda Tripp ( yes, it's attack Monica time )! He then plays tape of Ken Starr being asked questions about particulars of what his investigators did and he can't remember their exact words, etc. How does Starr's inability to remember a FBI agent's exact words to someone, equate to Clinton lying about not remembering being alone with Monica Lewinsky personally? Does Abbe Lowell really think the viewing public is this stupid? I guess he does, because he then revisits the " nobody told me to lie " statement by Monica Lewinsky, the Democrats have been claiming was not included in the referral, but have since been proven to be lying about. Only a complete moron would use the word ' lie ' in coaching a witness to testify falsely. I believe he has crossed the ethical line of his oath as a lawyer, when he states Clinton was not coaching Betty Currie, because she was not on a witness list. He doesn't dispute the content of Clinton's statements to her. What he does do, is cite the July deposition testimony of Betty Currie, as opposed to the first Grand Jury testimony that was closer to when the incident happened. Currie seems to have changed her testimony after someone ( like Clinton ) has told her to. This changing testimony was noted in the OIC referral, and Lowell doesn't see fit to mention that! He also had to mention, in a misleading manner, the committee subpoena to Robert Bennett and it's withdrawl, as something sinister. The subpoena was withdrawn after Bennett filed an amendment to the Paula Jones depostition, concerning his representation of Monica Lewinsky's perjurious affidavit as true ( obviously the topic of any Bennett testimony wanted ). He brought up the spectres of Watergate and other past presidents lying, as a defense? Lowell directly lied when he said, " Mr. Starr did not ask any witness any question in any deposition or Grand Jury appearance ". I distinctly remember Ken Starr's voice asking Bill Clinton at least one question in Clinton's Grand Jury appearance! Is Lowell parsing words? Does he believe Clinton was not a witness, but an ' object ' testifying? That is quite a stretch, if so. Lowell really has shown an incredibly wreckless disregard for the truth, in editiing the video tape excerpts to misrepresent what was actually said. It is one thing to quote the Democrat sponsored witnesses as gospell, but the twisting spimeister version of the facts he presented should be a disgrace, even to Democrats devoid of all conscience. Shame on you, Abbe Lowell, but I guess you need a liar to defend a liar!

Abbe Lowell's entire presentation can be boiled down to one statement. It was Ken Starr, Linda Tripp and the vast right-wing conspiracy that are wrong. Then what was Clinton supposedly apologizing for? John Conyers called Lowell's presentation, " highly professional and exceptionally well crafted ". You can understand this statement, as the Democrats obviously put it together as a team effort!

After the lunch break, David Schippers will have to fill any holes Abbe Lowell may have put in the case for impeachment. This is a good part of the process, as Lowell's presentation will mirror any future arguements the Democrats will offer, if the process is voted out of the Judiciary Committee, to the full House of Representitives!

Before David Schippers began, Henry Hyde announced that Charles Ruff declined to return to address the committee.

Schippers begins his overview of the facts in the OIC referral on the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He said, " some promising leads had to be abandoned ", because of time constraints and ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigations. " The President has continually lied about the sexual relationship in his deposition, the Grand Jury and in his answers to the questions from the committee ". Schippers doesn't edit and dissect testimony or events, but said, " Don't consider each fact solely, but as a whole ". He opined the defense attorneys will do that for you.

The first debunked Democrat defense was on Monica Lewinsky's statement of, " No one ever told me to lie and no one promised me a job ". Clinton said, " You can always say you are coming to see Betty or bringing me papers ". This is what the lying Democrats don't want you to hear, or think about!

" Life was so much simpler before they found that dress, wasn't it? " , Schippers offers rhetorically, as he proceeded through a chronology of Clinton's actions of deception. " The essence of lying is in the deception, not in the words ", he added. Schippers then debunked all the lies Abbe Lowell had the audacity to put forth to the public. He completed many of the quotes that Lowell used, exposing the blatant way Lowell was trying to corrupt the truth by using the little portions that suited his misleading presentation. Schippers produced cell phone records showing Betty Currie called Monica Lewinsky to pick up Clinton's gifts to her, to conceal them. Schippers reinterated the Whitehouse spinmeister lies about why Clinton couldn't remember having sex with Monica in 1995, and pointed out she was a Whitehouse intern in 1995. He also said, " There is no one left to lie to ". Schippers went on to cite and play complete passages, so as not to have any appearance of skewing the facts. The number of times Charles Ruff and Abbe Lowell directly mislead and misquoted, in an effort to deceive to the public, was astounding.

My only question left now is can Abbe Lowell be prosecuted for his lies and misleading testimony before the committee and the American public?

- Bongo ( Abbe Lowell should at least be disbarred. )