So many pundits have lauded the efforts of the White House counsel in the impeachment trial, that I thought my trial lawyer's perspective might assist some in would rating the various performances of the key actors--er--I mean advocates. It's not that my word is final, or any less biased than the media's. Any who expect an impartial analysis of performances might as well stop reading.

Of the house managers, the first to check out would be Henry Hyde, who gave a few eloquent speeches, and at times, seemed to stand for Truth and Justice. He is a good closer, he has the right oratory skills to win over jurors, but, his message fell short of what one would expect from such a self-acclaimed champion of Liberty.

Asa Hutchinson is a competent, systematic and effective interrogator. His opening statement was powerful, and he did a superior job on a very hostile Vernon Jordan; so good was Hutchinson's exposure of lies that the senators began ducking for cover, and closing off the case in an effort to cut losses that would be suffered if prosecutors such as Hutchinson were allowed to dig into more "facts." However, Hutchinson's heart was not in his task. He did what he had to, while at the same time running for re-election as he seemed to apologize for what he was doing.

Ed Bryant was given a most unfortunate task of deposing Monica Lewinsky. Bryant has not the skills to question a hostile witness, nor, perhaps even a friendly one. Bryant should never have been selected to depose Lewinsky. The managers were snookered by a coy, devious tramp into choosing him. You see, Lewinsky played up to Bryant when the house managers interviewed her before the deposition. The managers then thought that since Bryant had a good rapport with the chief witness for the prosecution, even though he lacked effective advocacy skills, that because of the chemistry the two showed, that he would do the best job. Of course, the apparent friendship turned sour at the deposition table, and demoness Lewinsky gloated as she staunchly defended her man to the best of her ability without violating the immunity agreement. She's so selfish that she won't defend the president quite all the way. The American people would have a totally different view of the situation if Lewinsky had been grilled by a trial lawyer.

George Gekas is an entertaining speaker, and because he refused to use notes, made himself all the more effective. Sometimes he showed signs of real indignation at the president, but, at others, he seemed to be politicking for re-election.

Bob Barr spoke strongly and harshly about the Senate's sham "trial." He really lacks great advocacy skills because he comes across as such an angry person that he won't win over many jurors.

James Rogan is as fine of interrogator as will be found in any courtroom. He took on a very hostile presidential aide, and devastated him. If anyone deserves the Perry Mason award, it is Rogan. Again, the Senate protected the status quo by refusing to investigate the smoking gun that Rogan showed them on the video. Alas, even Raymond Burr would lose when the judge and jury are bought off by the ruling elite.

The Senate even refused to admit three affidavits which showed the probable perjury of the witness, which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it is nothing but a New World Order power parading as a friend of Liberty. To add to the insult and legal affliction caused by the denial of admission of the affidavits, AFTER the acquittals, Trent Lott offered the three affidavits into evidence, and, they were admitted without objection. The implications of this proves further the fraudulent trial. Since no senator objected, then 100 senators agreed to this admission of evidence after the fact! And the Chief Justice passively allowed this nonsense to happen. Why would anyone admit evidence after the trial was over? What was the purpose of this seemingly procedural coup? Well, the House, if it dared, could impeach Clinton if it had new evidence. Those affidavits will not be new evidence because they were admitted into the first impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton. In sum, Rogan was the best trial lawyer of the entire trial. But, after the trial when he was interviewed, he seemed to be like eleven other managers, apologizing for what they had done.

Lindsey Graham is the closer, the person who can get right into the jury's heart with common sense, glib retorts and lively anecdotes. The managers probably should have given him 30 to 45 minutes closing-argument time, because the American people would have been entertained and swayed by his rhetoric. Graham seems so sincere and is so likable that most everyone wants to believe him, to side with him. However, as with eleven other managers, after the trial, he wanted to apologize and get on "with the people's business," a phrase now worn and tired.

Bill McCollum is affable, diligent, and seems to be somewhat naive, a characteristic that juries love. He could have done a good job deposing Lewinsky, except, he might actually be too offended by the activity of the sexual acts to charge into the meat of the perjury. He was a competent lawyer who would assist any team, but, also an apologist after the fact.

Steve Buyer showed great knowledge of the law and Constitution in his presentations, and was an effective speaker. It would have been a wise to have forced Lewinsky to have faced his sharp mind at the deposition. The thing that makes Buyer stand out over all of the other managers is that AFTER the trial at a press conference where all managers were given a chance to speak out, and when Hyde, Hutchinson, Graham et. al. were allowed to speak their minds, only Buyer illuminated America about the travesty of
justice that had occurred. He pointed out that future presidents now have the green light to even more "egregiously flout the law" and showed his disgust at the senators who voted their party line instead of their consciences and convictions. (Perhaps senators have so sold out to the ruling elite that they have no consciences and convictions to vote.) But, even more than his words, was the energy he used to deliver his message. So cutting and powerful was his 90 seconds speech that Henry Hyde could be seen in the
background wincing as Buyer's words attacked the mockery. Time will tell whether this was a single outburst, or whether Buyer has become a True Friend of Liberty.

For the White House, Charles Ruff is the key "actor" who played his part quite well. He was the darling of the media. It was he who showed the greatest advocacy skills, if you belief the press. But, anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that the media was rooting for Clinton, so, they likewise cheered Ruff's every move.

Ruff is intelligent, well-spoken, and puts on a facade of credibility, so, he naturally was chosen as the lead counsel. With the facts the White House team faced, they needed somebody who could lie and lie and lie while appearing to be telling the truth. Ruff was quite good in this role, and as stated before, he played it well.

But, was he a good advocate? His courtroom skills are nearly non-existent. His speeches were as dry as the Sahara; he put everyone to sleep. However, that was probably his intent. So horrible was the case, that he didn't want anyone to consider the facts. He dragged on and on, tearing down the ratings of the networks, making the media cry, "Enough!" And, as he spoke, he seemed to gather energy from all those
who watched him and were drained. The best analogy I can draw for his performance would be to say that observing him in action is a little like having a vampire bat attached to one's neck, with the rodent slowly sucking the lifeforce from its victim. He literally wore out the judge, jury, opponents and the audience. He wins points for being effective, but in a most demonic sort of way.

Greg Craig was adequate, bright, and effective. But, strangely, his heart really didn't appear to be in the case. His slip to volunteer his client's answering of questions posed by the Senate showed that he was not sharp at all times. Perhaps he secretly wanted the truth to come out.

David Kendall was sharp, and showed no concern for getting the truth out, which made him a fine advocate for Clinton. He, like Ruff, played a game of emotionless, dreary talk, which also drained the viewers, jury and opponents. Obviously, Ruff and Kendall made a great one-two punch to exhaust their opponents.

Cheryl Mills also played the energy-drain game along with Ruff and Kendall, but, she seemed to have it down to an art form. She parlayed inflection with other speaking tricks such as dropping the register of her voice, to drain gobs of energy. I suspect that had she been given much time to speak, the sales of anti-depressant medications would have doubled. I'm not prone to headaches, but, I felt a migraine coming on as I listened to her.

The house managers feigned to fight for the Constitution in this impeachment, yet how many flagrantly unconstitutional bills do they consider and pass every year? But, hypocrisy aside, they had the better team of lawyers, had truth on their side, and would have destroyed nearly any opponent in nearly any setting. However, this was American "justice" before prejudiced jurors and a cowardly judge. The managers erred in choosing Bryant to depose Lewinsky, but, it really wouldn't have changed the result
given the forum. There were more marsupials hopping about at this trial than could have been found on the entire continent of Australia.

Truth has never had much of a place in the Senate, but, now, after it has certified perjury, the Senate's corruption will flood into every court in this land. It's not that American courtrooms were bastions of the truth before the Senate "trial," but now, all semblance of honesty will be totally stamped out, driven from the outlaw courts like an unwelcome in-law.

The White House attorneys were clearly outlawyered in the action, but, they had bigotry, prejudice, lies, fraud, bribery, the media and William Jefferson Clinton assisting them. And, in fairness to the president's lawyers, while they were outlawyered, they really did outsuck the managers.