*February 10, 1999 Day Eighteen. The Senate continues final Impeachment Trial deliberations.*

No sign of spinal rigidity after more than one entire day of double secret deliberations, the Senators from both parties seem more like planarian than human beings. Granted the Democrats more closely resemble mamals, as in well trained dogs and the Republicans insects ( though this may be attributing them too much organization ). The Senators of both parties ignored the Constitution for their own partisan political reasons. Some of them seem quite anxious to confess their sins to the television cameras.

Democrats threw the Constitution into the shredder when they argued as a group that PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE were not inherently impeachable crimes ( as in HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ). They then threw their oaths as Senators and SEPERATE OATH OF IMPARTIALTY in the Senate Impeachment Court away, when many of them ascerted Clinton's guilt but planned to vote not guilty, because of a variety of other reasons ( Robert Byrd and Charles Schumer ). Some just blindly followed the orders of their chief defendant; attacking the OIC and claiming Clinton's innocence to the very end ( John Breaux and Tom Harkin ).

Republicans have thrown the Constitution in the round file, for the sake of expediency. They short circuited the trial procedure, by not having a trial at all. No testimony by witnesses, but plenty by lawyers; it was all opening and closing statements? Any Republican who uses the incomplete trial rationalization will be looking for trouble, as they held the key to this one right in their own hands ( Arlen Specter ). They should have conducted a real trial and let the chips fall where they may. Barring this type of twisted rationalization ( John Chaffe? ), the Republicans could have pointed at the lock-step way all the Democrats voted as a block. We shall see what the final vote is and just how much we want to believe their individual reasons for voting the way they do!

Any Senator who has a doubt, whether reasonable or unreasonable, on any of the facts which could have been cleared up by hearing witnesses, should be flogged for not insisting on a full trial with live human beings. The creative video tape edittiing by the Whitehouse defenders would not have been present, with live people to be questioned. No attempt at the subtrefuge of differing recollections, when you can see and hear the witnesses at odds with each other.

- Bongo ( After the votes of exoneration, meet the Imperial President. )