*January 20, 1999 Day Five. Whitehouse Special Counsel Greg Craig gets defensive with the Senate on the charge of PERJURY.*

For a little pregame action, Senator John Kerry from Demochusetts appeared on C-Span2's Washington Journal. He showed the refined Democrat tactic of talking out of both sides of his mouth ( lying omni-directionally? ). He lauded his glorious leader, Bill Clinton, for his proposed educational programs and criticized the investigation of the first philanderer with, " there is an enormous element of entrapment here ". Oh yeah, this Senate Democrat Robot is taking his additional oath of impartiality very seriously? He continued with attacks directly on courageous truth tellers like Linda Tripp and the virtuous independant counsel, Kenneth Starr. Most disturbing was, when he was faced with a caller who questioned the obvious fact that he has made up his mind already, he did a complete flip-flop and said, he was keeping an open mind " on perjury and obstruction of justice ". Another caller pointed out that Clinton's state of Arkansas was second to last in educational quality ( only ahead of the state of Mississippi ), so why did he believe that Clinton's plan to improve education nationally would do anything other than " throw money at the problem "? Kerry did another quick about face and tried to change the subject to the state educational plan in Massachusetts. Democrats seem to lie so easily and with such believable demeanor, until confronted with the truth? I guess, it is the same way our liar-in-chief can give a speech where he talks about the era of big government spending being over, and then chronicles tons of new Federal programs from education and health care to crime prevention and gun control? Bend over and spread 'em, here comes the SOCIALIST bullet! Who do they think they are trying to kid? Whoa, how can these Democrat creeps vomit all over us and the truth this way? Atleast you can disagree with an Independant or a Republican and have an arguement; the Democrat just changes his or her position temporarily ( and changes it back as soon as you are out of sight or ear-shot )!

As " Jabba The Ruff " hands over to " Comrade Commissar Craig ", the socialist tyranny of the Whitehouse shows no indication of any abdication of it's abhorrent aberration of authority. In the greatest of all slaps in the face, the female degradathon master Bill Clinton, reportedly will be using two women to help present his case ( lies ) to the Senate. One of these women is black, Cheryl Mills; so much the better ( two special interest groups for the price of one )!

Craig began with, " The President is not guilty of Grand Jury perjury...you will see the President is truthful ". He started by trying to show " how really bad this article ( one ) is ". He attacked it as being vague and non-specific. He sought to illustrate this by citing the more specific charges in past impeachment articles. Amazingly, the instances he quoted were paraphrased generalities? What gives man, is this guy competent? He then put up a blank Federal perjury charge form and whine about the exact form of the House articles of impeachment. He whined more loudly about his perceived unfairness of the entire affair ( Hey Greg, was it fair for Clinton to command to be serviced orally be these women? Huh, was it, huh? ). Does Craig think he is at one of those 60s socialist anti-war rallies, or what? We are not that gullible or stoned out of our minds, at a 60s extremist left wing radical liberal sit-in!

Comrade Craig then illustrated that Clinton did say he was " alone " with Monica Lewinsky, in the Grand Jury. Ironically this is the place where the meaning of the word " is " could be important! He additionally apologized for the continued legal parsing of words defense, but he immediately turned it around in the next sentence as just doing his job thoroughly? This was really demeaning to every non-lawyer in the television audience ( or anyone who criticized the hair splitting parsing of words defense ). He actually had the gall to accuse the House Managers of twisting and parsing of words? The nerve and arrogance of this guy is absolutely beyond belief! He could only be doing this, if he knows already that enough Senate Democrats are willing to ignore their oaths and vote blindly with the liar-in-chief above all other concerns, to insure his acquittal on the articles of impeachment!

He also regurgitated ( played ) video tape of Whitehouse called witnesses in front of the House Judiciary Committee concerning the definition of perjury. These were only paid Whitehouse Democrat hacks like former Watergate investigator Richard Davis and somewhat less partisan, but still a total knee jerk liberal, Thomas Sullivan. What does Craig think he is doing? Anyone with an ounce of gray matter can see through this circus of " Clinton uber alles " DNC forever operatives! Additionally, Craig failed to characterize these witnesses as called by the defense ( causing a misleading inference of impartiality and not just partisan DNC programming ).

He reduced all the charges to just semantics, and parsed some witness testimony into what he believed they meant ( including some vintage Monica Lewinsky ). He took statements by Charles Canady and Henry Hyde out of context and used them in an infantile attempt to prove his own lies ( misleading statements or opinions? )? His defense boiled down basically to: ' if the President was mistaken in his testimony, it is not perjury '. Oh man, what a stretch. He attempted to trivialize the President not admitting to an affair with Lewinsky while she was an intern in 1995. Sorry comrade, this one doesn't fly. He then tried to do the ' twisted defintion of sex ' thing, but that one didn't fly either! Craig has begun to shift the villification again. First this hate was personified in Newt Gingrich, then Ken Starr, Linda Tripp, and now the House Managers.

After a short break ( to take a few polls on his performance? ) he concluded his presentation with a long video tape excerpt from the Paula Jones deposition. He was trying to illustrate that Clinton's " my goal was to be truthful, but I didn't want to help her " was correct and twisted defintion of sex thing again. He really blew it big time. From this tape, two things became abundantly clear. 1) The definition used was straight from Federal Rule of Evidence # 413, and the exclusions were because of concentual and non-concentual sex, and it finally settled on " intentional sexual contact ". And, most importantly; 2) The Paula Jones lawyers wanted to spare Clinton the details of salacious questions, and not to embarass him! Clinton can no longer use the ' unfairness ' defense. Craig claimed Clinton never reaffirmed his testimony in the Paula Jones deposition? He also described Clinton's reaction about admitting to a sexual realtionship with Gennifer Flowers, " I would rather take a whipping in public than admitt that ", as indicating that he was telling the truth in other parts of his testimony. Sorry again, comrade, that proves just the opposite to me ( like Clinton would lie through his teeth about anything, rather then admitt it publically )! Craig deconstructed Clinton's affirmation of Monica Lewinsky's false affidavit through his lawyer Bennett, but failed to disprove it, though he told some blatant lies about Clinton not paying attention ( look man, I saw it myself ). He also talked about " the meaning of the word is, is thing " and made a complete and utter fool of himself trying, to nit pick his way out of the hole he dug himself into using the ' verb tense defense '!

Craig finished with the ' if you realized I have been bullshitting for the last two hours, these acts of perjury and obstruction of justice are just not imprachable offenses ' defense. Believe it or not, Craig actually said, " The power of impeachment and removal is to protect the system of government, not the rule of law ". Okay man, what ever you say...

Cheryl Mills was to begin presenting the Whitehouse defense on the Article Two charge of obstruction of justice. In an embarassingly obvious payback for six years of Whitehouse loyalty, Ms(iss) Mills got all emotional about Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. She did debunk some of the House Managers charges, but she failed to cite many of them exactly. The ones she did recite, were so sticky sweet with contrived emotional acting, in voice intonations as to make it almost impossible to watch. She had an interesting slant on Betty Currie's testimony about picking up gifts from Lewinsky, but played rather fast and loose with the truth regarding a Currie to Lewinsky phone record. She directly attacked the House Manager's integrity and motivations, in a brash listing of ways they had ' colorized ' the evidence?

Now look, if you are one of those slavvering, Groomaldo watching, left wing conspiracy addicted liberal wackos, you were just jumping for joy at Craig's masterfull defense, of the indefensible actions of the first defendant. You may take the misleading presentations of Comrade Commissar Craig as gospell, but Clinton's lawyers seem to have about as much respect for the truth as their confessed liar client does!

- Bongo ( Will the indecent Senate Democrats stop at nothing to keep their precious sexual predator-in-chief in the Whitehouse? )