Tim Russert on ' The Bleat of The Press ', asked some tough questions, but got few direct answers.

Trent Lott refused to make specific comments on the possible impeachment of the President, so as not to taint his position as a possible ' juror ' in a Senate impeachment proceeding. When asked about Clinton's answers to the 81 questions sent to the Whitehouse by the House of Representitives, Lott said, "...the answers to the 81 questions were evasive and arrogant...". Questioned about a possible censure option instead of removal from office for Clinton, Lott saw it as a big problem for future presidents saying, "...censure would be a problem for the future...". Finally, on the upcoming Congressional agenda, he said he would try to " make our government smaller and smarter ". On saving Social Security, he said he wants to work with Clinton, but he ( Clinton ) must put forward a proposal.

John Conyers, lacking the ruthless loud vocal partisan rancor of a Congressional proceeding, was still as partisan as anyone could possibly be. Sometimes I just can't believe he can keep a straight face, while spinning the Whitehouse/DNC lies with such a wreckless disregard for the truth. His answer to Russert's question on the 81 answers was almost beyond belief. " He ( Clinton ) is in a tough position. For him to answer any way but the way his lawyers want, would be silly ". When Russert tried to press him on the impeachment issue to get a few straight answers, the questions became irrelevant, as every answer was an attack on a different Republican. Ken Starr, Tom DeLay, Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich were the objects of Conyers answers, to questions on the facts in the OIC Impeachment referral. Why can't the Democrats address the issues and stop attacking the process or the messengers? The OJ defense is alive and mounting, in the minds of Democrats!

A round table discussion with Bill Safire, Sally Quinn and Charles Peters offered little food for thought, but illustrated the far left-wing leanings of Democrat apologists. Charles Peters, obviously still groggy from a recent dental gas experience said he believes the President was " brutally honest " in his speech after the Grand Jury appearance in August? Whoa, what speech did that guy hear? Sally Quinn said there would not have been an obstruction, if he ( Clinton ) hadn't lied. Bill Safire had it right, when he said of those 81 non-answers, " ( Clinton ) put his thumb in the eye of Congress ". Everyone did seem to agree that the legalese answers that Clinton keeps providing, are not helping his situation!

Bob Schieffer asked some ' Defacing The Nation ' legislators about the week to come in the House Judiciary Committee.

Peter King, Lindsey Graham, Tom Barrett and Bobby Scott formed the partisan political phallanx. Peter King, only a Republican because he is a pro-life Catholic against abortion, said, " The President will not be impeached ". Lindsey Graham said there are " serious problems with obstruction of justice ". He then read some of the 81 answers that Clinton gave to the Congress and called them " baloney ". Tom Barrett said he didn't want to be a Whitehouse defense lawyer? Then why is he, huh? Bobby Scott used his time to attack Ken Starr and the process ( same old routine ). In response to questioning about those 81 answers, he rudely replied, " writing an insulting answer to a question is not an impeachable offense ". That guy is a real piece of work!

' This Week's Geeks ' had two Republicans on both sides of the impeachment issue, proving that they are not being collectively partisan as a group. Bill McCollum and Christopher Shays faced off. McCollum said there is overwhelming evidence against the President and impeachment is censure, " the ultimate scarlet letter ". He opined that perjury in the Grand Jury setting was a high crime and misdemeanor. Shays said, " The impeachable offenses were not proven, and the proven offenses are not impeachable " ( in reference to Whitewater and Filegate ). On the 81 answers, he said, " The President stiffed the Congress " and he is still not telling the truth. Both agreed that there should be no vote on censure, but an " up or down vote on impeachment ".

The Sam and Cokie group discussion produced the quote of the day from George Will on including a fine in a censure motion from Congress. " Fining the President means fining Steven Speilberg, Tom Hanks and Barbara Streisand ". Bill Krystal summed up the looming impeachment vote with, " Clinton's continuation of the lies, are ( sic ) swinging the moderates to vote for impeachment ". Even George Step-on-all-of-us said, " yes, the President lowered the standards on truth telling ". What an understatement!

On ' Belating Condition ' ( or sheep in wolf's clothing ) Dick Thornburgh presented a much over looked fact. This week a judge cleared Ken Starr on a vast majority of any of the Whitehouse accusations of his alleged prosecutorial misconduct ( not finding any incidents of it so far ). He then opined that the Whitehouse should quit attacking the process and address the facts!

I believe if the President continues to ' lie, deny and stick to it ', the House will have no choice but to vote to send article(s) of impeachment to the Senate for trial. If Clinton would just cut the crap, the House would be more likely to cut a deal!

- Bongo ( No oath, no problem... )