*January 22, 1999 Day Seven. Questions from Senators will be answered?*

Judging from the strongly partisan positive reaction of Senate Democrats to Dale Bumpers non-informational and un-judicial speech/plea for clemancy, the Senate Democrats will be sacrificing their principles for their precious first philanderer. The Senators from my state would probably sacrifice their first born, if it would buy Bill Clinton a third term! Hopefully, the Senate will clear up all questions of the facts ( and testimony ) then vote each article up or down. I want to know how and why my two Senators vote the way they vote.

Some notable questions and/or answers were:

*The first interesting category of questioning concerned Bill Clinton's coaching of witness-to-be Betty Currie.

The Whitehouse counsels don't dispute the specific testimony, but argue: 1) The intent was to refresh Clinton's mind for media related purposes, 2) Betty Currie was not a witness at the time, and 3) witness tampering must include some form of threat or pressure.

Managers Ed Bryant and Asa Hutchinson pointed out, and were not contradicted by Whitehouse counsels: 1) A second witness coaching session occured after the story broke in the media, but before Betty Currie testified, 2) Clinton mentioned Currie many times in the course of his deposition in the Paula Jones case, for the purpose of creating her as a witness, and 3) Asa Hutchinson quoted and cited the wrong Federal statute Cheryl Mills was erroneously ( that's a nicer word than intentionally mislead ) trying to use, in describing United States Code section 1512 title 18!

*Just prior to the first break, Counsel Greg Craig tried to convince the Senate to disregard any reference to the Paula Jones deposition, because the perjury in the Paula Jones deposition article was not voted out of the full House of Representitives. After the break, Manager James Rogan pointed out that article one: perjury, specifically charges affirmation of perjureous testimony in the Paula Jones deposition. Counsel Ruff was not able to rebut, but still used up some time clouding the issue with unsubstantiated double-talk. Later, Ruff stopped very short as he was quoting from portions of the impeachment process record, from the investigation of Richard Nixon? It was almost one of those ' oops, I didn't want to read that, did I ' things!

Unbelievable, I just heard Charles Ruff argue that the President of the United States didn't have to follow the gag order of a judge? He had to argue this because the last question addressed the fact that Clinton talking to Currie violated that gag order, by it's own admisson! Now the Whitehouse counsels are starting to get really defensive, Ruff begins to attack the House Managers ( as violators of their House oath ), and not the Manager's case ( no matter what the question )? Emotion is beginning to take over reason, in the Whitehouse defense!

*The best question was from the Republicans to the President's counsel. " Four days after The President's Paula Jones testimony, wherein he testified under oath about Miss Lewinsky. Why would Dick Morris conduct a poll on whether the American people would forgive the President for committing perjury and obstruction of justice? "

*The best answer of the day was a tie between Charles Ruff, to the above question, " I didn't see any volunteers "; and Lindsey Graham on an earlier question, " We need to try this case ladies and gentlemen, because you need to know who your President is ".

- Bongo ( Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan or George Bush would have resigned immediately? )