OK, the bombs have dropped, the attacks have commenced and the partisan actions of the democratic liberal army, who's mission is to destroy Ken Starr and discredit his evidence.

I decided to watch a liberal show, the kind that will bring out the best of attacks.  I considered the Charles Grodin show, but decided that defense tactics like "Oh, come on people" and over educated rhetoric, and using big words in place of intelligence or fact would not be an admirable advisory.  I thought about Katie Couric.  No, too liberal, only has guests that are already known to believe her point of view, little things like factual information or the truth don't really fit into her agenda.  I flipped through a few others and there it was, The Geraldo Rivera Live Show!  Geraldo is an extreme liberal but his journalistic background goes back to the days when news was reporting events based on facts, not just a liberally bias opinion orchestrated by the liberal entertainment media moguls.  He is very opinionated and supports Clinton zealously, yet his journalistic background compels him to at least hear both sides before he decides to support the president anyway.  So here we go, with a commentary and analyses of the effects of the public forum for the attack of Ken Starr, a damage report if you will.

It was an ordeal lasting almost 13 hours.  Ken Starr sitting in a room, surrounded by about one hundred and fifty people, with the ascending tiers of the congressional assembly peering down on him, poised to pounce, and reviewing their pre written attack strategies to insure they were ready for the orchestration.  The only thing protecting him was the gavel of the chairman, a gavel that is not even heard in the ear of the democratic front line troops led by an almost incestuous, unconditional support for the fornicating draft dodger that is leaving traces of his DNA in the historical offices once occupied by great men.  Their goal is to pull the foundation out from this lowly defenders credibility and attempt to silence the message by killing the messenger, to stop or discredit the evidence against their leader, King Clinton.

for 10 hours they went back and forth, a well trained democrat tossing accusations and first asking then, themselves, answering their own circular references in an attempt to spin Mr. Starr and weaken his defenses, and the republicans with their standard weak support, thanking Mr. Starr for his good work, just as your boss has thanked you right before he told you that you will not be receiving the raise you requested.  Surely this man would break soon, and hear comes the big gun, the atom bomb of the kings army, David Kendall, with 30 minutes, that was extended to 60 minutes.  The butcher ready to draw and quarter the kill of the valiant knights, but wait, the prey was still alive and kicking, and able to defend it's self.  A barrage of irrelevance and questions about event's not even related to the presented evidence, and all that was done was the light scraping of the yet un scratched victim, the battle appeared to be over and the clear victor being a man that had a defense that no one predicted.  Ken Starr had an unbeatable defense against the verbal attack and attempts to discredit him, he had the truth, honesty, solid procedure and professional and independent conduct, and an honest respect, and solid understanding of the law that defines the forum in which he dwells.

So lets go review the post war rhetoric and see what an amateur political analyst using only common sense, a first hand viewing of the full twelve plus hours of the congressional hearings, available legal references, and the guidance of the holy spirit, can conclude and what blatant attacks on common sense and basic truth I can uncover, reveal, and portray in in light of someone who has the benefit of the complete experiencing of events that they will be commenting on. (I should now apologize for the misspelling of any or all names, but I tool my notes using voice mail)

On the side of the president, Alan Dirchowitz and Gerald, on the side of Ken Star, Anne Cloture, and on the side of truth and justice, me.

My personal analogy was that Ken Starr and the OIC came across as a clean well organized fact finding group that was petitioned to review the case and collect & present the evidence that may be considered impeachable.  They did exactly that.  I think the aftermath will be that people will view his testimony as somewhat one sided and impartial, but it will not be because of Starr's actions or impartiality, it will be because there was corroborated evidence that so strongly attacks the president's actions and may seem to be one sided, because the truth and facts in the case are one sided, they prove that Clinton is a perjurer and clearly define a patter of obstruction and blatant attempts to thwart the judicial system, but Starr's investigation and procedure, was fare and stands tall in the crowd of little people that attack him.  But I'm sure the liberal entertainment group that has been called "the media" will report something quite different.

Dirchowitz, was scrambling to defend his buddy Bill, and was picking and choosing the 3 or 4 minutes of testimony that may not have been totally favorable to Starr.  He pointed out That Zoe Lofgren said that he should release the press of their oath to protect their sources so they could ask if Starr was the source.  He replied that he would be willing to do it in an executive session, mainly because the press would never openly and publicly reveal their sources.  Mr. Dirchowitz said that any attempt to keep someone from possibly testifying against him, was clear and positive proof of his guilt.  I have to ask Mr. Dirchowitz to reconsider his statement, because as a law professor in the most prestigious law school in the united states, he may damage his reputation by making such a blatantly hypocritical statement since he has already stated that President Clinton's use of executive privilege in an attempt to cover his crimes was not any referendum on his guilt or in anyway an attempt to obstruct justice.  I think it's ridiculous to imply that Starr not openly giving carte blanch for any reporter to violate there secrecy was a proving factor of his guilt, but that more than 20 failed attempts by Clinton to use the executive privilege rule to silence his witnesses was just fine, (right?) especially when the hearings proved different.  Besides, reporters have no credibility anyway, Clinton could get Katie Couric to lie about Starr and I'm sure that Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drudge could say the same words but impose Clinton and Starr for the same allegation, but no body would believe anyone, anyway!  And if were going to bring in verbal evidence and irrelevant testimony, lets call in Larry Nicholas (Former friend and employee of Clinton that photo copied evidence that proved Clinton's friends were borrowing Clinton approved loans, and not paying them back, friends that gave lots of money to Clinton's campaigns), and LD Brown (Former Arkansas state trooper, body guard, and friend of Clinton, that said he procured well over 100 women for Clinton, and arranged meeting with Jennifer Flowers on several occasions.  Brown's wife was Chelsea's nanny and former baby sitter for Vince Foster and her mother currently works in the whitehouse, he also said that Hillary had spoken to him several times about an affair between her and Vince Foster!)  I agree Mr.  Dirchowitz, I say, lets hear, the hearsay evidence, maybe see if we can find a pattern!  Either Dirchowitz is scrambling and grasping any lie he can throw out there, or his law degree isn't worth the paper it's written on!

Situation:  Before anybody knew about the Tripp tapes, the Paula Jones team requested counsel from one of the 600 lawyers in another of the many nation wide offices of the law firm Ken Starr worked for.  Dirchowitz claimed that the law firms ethics committee should have known and sent up red flags.  Anne Cloture got this one right away, she so correctly stated that Mr. Dirchowitz was then implying that the general consensus of the law firm should be that anyone having anything to do with the president should be considered a conflict of interest, because Clinton's criminal activity must be so extensive that anything involved with him will probably lead to an impeachable charge eventually.  She was absolutely right, just because one of many lawyers who Ken Starr never met, in a firm of 600, who refused to take a case, is hardly a conflict of interest that would warrant the removal of Ken Starr from the OIC.  They're grasping for straws.

Johnny Cocherin stated in the OJ trial that if you can't trust the messenger that you can't trust the message.  This is a terminology used to describe the primary way that you defend a guilty client.  If you can't stand up against the evidence, you try to discredit the people that gathered the evidence and make the evidence look less reliable by trying to prove some kind of bias.  It worked for OJ, but there is actually better evidence against Clinton, and it was collected properly and legally and is clearly convicting.  The democrats in the committee and the defenders of King Clinton are doing everything they can to discredit Starr, because it is the only chance they have to win, because if you look at the law, the truth and the corroborated facts, Clinton is guilty of perjury, obstructing justice, and abuse of his presidential powers, as well as lying to the American people, an offense he and Hillary have both previously called an impeachable offense.  We'll not the only chance to win, they are also aggressively trying to deceive the general public about the law, and trying to bend it wherever they can to accommodate their lies and deception.  The fact is that the impeachment of the truth and the impeachment of our law are the only factors left that inhibit the impeachment of the president.

Again with this Dirchowitz guy!  Now he says that because Starr had previously talked on the phone with Jones lawyers about the constitutional view of civil charges against the president, and that one of the 600 lawyers in his firm turned down the jones lawyers, that this is circumstantial evidence against starr.  Well Mr. Dirchowitz, I move to motion that we bring in all of the circumstantial evidence against Bill Clinton, and I would be willing to bet your law degree that there would be well over 100 charges of felony criminal activity, with more to credibility than the situation you presented.  In the words that Geraldo "Please, Give me a break!"  I agree we should allow circumstantial evidence and put this guy away, the only difference is that many of the circumstantial charges against Star have already been thrown out of court for having no baring at all, and nothing to support them as anything more than a trumped up allegations.

But I think the looser of the night award had to to go to the showing of Rep. John Conyers, he said about the jones lawyers contacting another of the 600 lawyers in the nation wide firm Starr Worked for - "Is it just coincidence?", about the offer of a job at Princeton, who has received donations from a right winger who has stated publicly he is against Clinton, "Is it just coincidence?", and about Starr not mentioning irrelevant conversations with a Jones lawyer about maters other issues, "Is it just coincidence?", and about Starr Working for tobacco companies who give to the republican party, "Is it just coincidence?"  Well Mr. Conyers, lets talk about how often a lawyer in a law firm with over 600 lawyers know about every case lawyers from different offices turn down, my guess is none!  Let's talk about tobacco lawyers, I believe Bill Clinton employees a few lawyers in the whitehouse, and I also believe some of them have also worked for the tobacco companies.  Let's talk about donations to Princeton and how donors politics affect the recipients, and then let's talk about how the single largest contributor to the presidential election campaigns of Bill Clinton was the Chinese Government, and how their front man John Huang was given top secret security clearance by Clinton's people, when he was just a campaigner!  If were going to bring second party relativity into the picture, lets talk about how Web Hubble wrote the legislation to ratify the ADFA, and how Bill and Hillary Clinton signed off the first loan of 2.8 million dollars that went to Web Hubble's Father in laws company POM, but was never paid back, and how the taxpayers got stuck with the loan, and how the product of the POM company was airplane nose cones that were used in the Mena drug trafficking case, and how you pardoned your brothers best friend who was convicted of giving large amounts of cocaine to a 14 year old, and how you told the American people that you have always been hard on drug offenders.  Let's talk about how Bill is still lying about Jennifer Flowers even though your former bodyguard has already testified that he arranged many meeting at her apartment, and let's talk about her neighbor that was brutally beaten, cut open from stomach to chest and left for dead after he was forced to hand over security surveillance tapes showing Bill going into her apartment dozens of times.  Just read what's on my web page or the movie "The Clinton Chronicles" and you'll find tons of circumstantial hear-say evidence against Clinton, and then ask your question "Is it just coincidence?"
 

Shane Zettelmier