ANNOUNCER: GE is proud to support the McLaughlin Group. From lighting to financial services, GE: We bring good things to life.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue one: China's nuclear spy.

SEN. DON NICKLES (R-OK): (From videotape.) Evidently there was a significant amount of espionage ongoing, and that's very, very troubling.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON (R-TN): (From videotape.) And I don't know what would be of more concern in the proliferation field than having the Chinese steal our most sensitive nuclear warhead secrets.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: (From videotape.) We did not ignore evidence; quite the contrary, we acted on it. I believe if -- the record is clear that we did respond in an appropriate way.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Republicans are attacking President Clinton and his senior officials for their lax security policies at the nation's nuclear missile labs and calling on national security adviser Sandy Berger to resign. The reason? A suspected Chinese spy at the nation's top-secret nuclear weapons facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson fired scientist Wen Ho Lee this week on suspicion of espionage, after three years of warning to President Clinton and his people by U.S. counterintelligence agents.

SECRETARY OF ENERGY BILL RICHARDSON: (From videotape.) He was investigated. He was questioned. But I had to get the green light from the FBI on when to terminate him.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The alleged nuclear spy gave Beijing the secret of nuclear miniaturization, which would allow China to put multiple warheads on a single missile and skip a generation in nuclear weapons development. That theft is worse than the Aldrich Ames case, experts believe. And it may be the worst spy damage since the Rosenbergs were executed for stealing nuclear weapons secrets from the very same Los Alamos laboratory 50 years ago.

"Throughout the 1996 Clinton campaign for president, China's agents of influence had the run of the White House as they raised millions for the Clinton campaign. Chinese military intelligence officials were waved in without clearance. U.S. executives contributed megabucks as they lobbied for easier approval of sales of sensitive technology to Beijing." That was William Safire in last Monday's New York Times, describing the background against which this Chinese nuclear espionage was going on.

Question: Is this security breach more than gross negligence on the part of the Clinton people? Did the White House actually turn its head as China stole our nuclear secrets, when Chinese money was at the same time being flushed into the China -- the Clinton-Gore campaign coffers? I ask you, John Fund.

MR. FUND: Very few people, John, realize that the Chinese invented the arts of deception and strategy 5,000 years ago. They have been running circles around us for years in several administrations. This administration, though, is at a complete and total collapse because it has much more to hide, the nexus between campaign cash and China policy, which is very clear but has not yet been fully explored.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Were there more tips to this administration from the FBI that they should take some action? I ask you, Eleanor Clift.

MS. CLIFT: Let's inject a little reality here into the hyperbole. This alleged theft occurred in the mid-'80s, when there were other people who were president, not President Clinton. When this administration learned of it in 1995, the FBI was called in; the CIA was called in.

The CIA basically said, "You can't know with certainty that the secrets came from this man and this scientist because we have so many scientific exchanges. We have sort of a fraternity of science." They didn't have the proof.

The FBI continued to monitor him. And you know, maybe they kept him going for quite a while, hoping to catch him in the act. But they couldn't even get wiretap approval because the trail was so old; I mean, these secrets were transferred a decade ago.

So you can fault the administration, maybe, for not cracking down. But you know, maybe we were learning something by the surveillance of this gentleman. And we need to look at security in labs and so forth.


MS. CLIFT: But this is not the scandal you are trying to make it out --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I understand. Now we ought to believe, according to Eleanor, that the original theft, which occurred back in the 1980s, with the same person, I believe, involved, that there was no further espionage; there was no refinements of that W-88 technology, and therefore, there was ongoing espionage. Do you believe that?

MR. BLANKLEY: Now look, the charge against the Clinton administration is the old French phrase, "It's worse than a crime; it's a blunder."

What is at issue now is not whether they maliciously did anything but whether our China policy itself is justified by the facts that we now know. And it has taken four years, and they have not yet adjusted the China policy to what we believe now is the emerging reality that they are not going to be a strategic partner, which is what the Clinton administration calls them, but something less than a strategic partner.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mort Zuckerman?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, it's clear at Los Alamos that our security was lapsed -- and had lapsed. And it goes back a long, long way with this guy and with others. So that is the problem that is ongoing.

Whether or not they could have done anything on a more rapid basis, nobody knows. The CIA, after all, said that the guy who sort of brought the charges, this guy Trulock, Notra Trulock -- which is an amazing name, but anyway --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It's a boy's name. Notra.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Where does it come from?


MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yeah, Notra.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: It's an Indian name.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I've never heard of it. Anyway --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's an Indian name.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Anyway, the CIA basically said it was a worst case scenario that wasn't supported by the evidence. So you can't really carry this too far. And I think --

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mort -- just a moment, please. Excuse me.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Please, please. Let's not just dismiss the CIA as being somebody, an organization that just is in everybody's pocket. This is their business, after all.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did you happen to see, in Thursday's Washington Post or in Monday's New York Times, the extreme care with which a time line and a total perfect concatenation of events was drawn by Michael Kelly in the Post and by Bill Safire in the New York Times?


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How can you sit there and fail to assign proper culpability?

MR. ZUCKERAN: Oh, no, listen, I'm not saying that this thing shouldn't have been focused on with a greater degree of attention, but there are obviously two different assessments, one --

MS. CLIFT: Yeah, I --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want to hear from John.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: -- by the CIA and one by the Cox committee. I'm not arguing all of that. I mean, they're tying it into campaign contributions, which is a separate issue.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think?

MR. FUND: This administration has created a perfect strategy. You constantly have one part of the bureaucracy fight with another part of the bureaucracy; you never come to conclusions; therefore, you don't have to take action. The FBI did go to the administration and warn them about what their Arkansas business friends were doing in China many years ago. They completely ignored that and they tried to flush those people out of the FBI and out of the counterintelligence wing. So they --

MS. CLIFT: Listen --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Hold on, Eleanor.

MR. FUND: So they literally do not want to hear the information.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want to go to the point that was raised by you, and that is, they have not adjusted their Chinese policy to reflect the realities of the way China is treating us today. However, I want you to take note of what's on the screen, namely, the remarks of the new speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, who says this: "The more we're involved with China, the better off we are, for us and for China and the Pacific area. It's also important that we stress our views on human rights. If we aren't engaged, we can't do that." So what do you think of those remarks from your fellow Republican, the man who succeeded the man whom you used to work for?

MR. BLANKLEY: Well, I think that what Speaker Hastert was trying to do was to suggest that we don't need to have a Manichaean view of evil or good, but we need to be engaged, but with our eyes open as opposed to our eyes closed. This is the point I want to make; that it wasn't Clinton's fault that the Chinese stole the warhead technology, but after the Clinton administration knew it, they did nothing to stop selling them the missiles --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why? Because they were getting money from the Chinese?

MR. BLANKLEY: That remains to be seen, but they nonetheless, whether for policy or other reasons, they chose to sell them the technology to deliver the warhead.


MR. BLANKLEY: And that's the mistake.

MS. CLIFT: These are judgment calls that you make, and you can also look on the side of the ledger where the Chinese have acted responsibly, in trying to help peace in North Korea; they've stopped --

MR. FUND: What about nuclear nonproliferation?

MS. CLIFT: Let me finish, please. They have stopped cooperating nuclearly with the Iran and so forth. So they have done some positive things.

And I would also -- Mr. Hastert is exactly right, and his vote on Kosovo this week was also right. And the Congress has the capacity to act responsibly once in a while and this administration briefed Congress on these lapses throughout '96 and there were no leaks. This is very good.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you feel reassured now that we don't have to worry about China because of these wonderful things China is doing? Did you get the reference to North Korea, even?

MR. FUND: Well, contrary to what Eleanor said, Congressman Norm Dicks, who's the ranking committee member on the Cox committee, said, "We were not fully informed, they could have done a much better job," and he is not a happy camper with this administration.

MS. CLIFT: China's -- China's done --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit. Eleanor, we got to get out.

Do you want to make one quick remark:

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yeah. Whatever the problems are with China, we cannot disengage with China.

MS. CLIFT: Right.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: On that point, I think the speaker is absolutely right.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, maybe we could try another kind --

MR. ZUCKERMAN: It doesn't mean we should be blind to their problems, and there are a lot of them. We cannot disengage from China.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Maybe there is another disengagement we should welcome, and this is it. Exit: Should Sandy Berger resign, yes or no, John Fund?

MR. FUND: He was never a foreign policy specialist; he's an international trade lawyer. I think he's a Ron Brown in an ill-fitting suit. He's not qualified for the job.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think he should resign on the grounds of negligence --

MR. FUND: I don't think he should have been -- I don't think he should have been appointed.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So therefore, you favor resignation. Eleanor?

MS. CLIFT: Absolutely not. When the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Pat Buchanan want something, it's got to be wrong. (Laughs.)


MR. BLANKLEY: It's less important to find a scapegoat than to stop the defensiveness in the Clinton administration and let everybody start rationally understanding how to fix the policy. I don't want his head; I want his mind.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Should he resign?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, I don't think he ought to resign. I think we should look carefully at our China policy, but I don't think he ought to resign.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: In terms of grave damage to our national security, this is the most serious counterintelligence breach since -- in decades. I think he should resign.

When we come back, Bill and Hillary: Is it splitsville?


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue two: Big cleavage in the White House. Headlines screamed this week about a split between the president and the first lady. Mrs. Clinton reportedly told a friend, quote, "I don't want to be in the same room with him, let alone the same bed." As has been noted, Mrs. Clinton did not accompany Mr. Clinton to Central America this past week and reportedly will not be with him at two traditional major black-tie events in the upcoming season -- the White House correspondents' dinner and the Gridiron Club dinner.

Question, Eleanor Clift. Are these reports credible?

MS. CLIFT: Well, John, you'll probably have to do another segment next week after they appear together at a Millennial Evening Monday night, the St. Patrick's event on Wednesday, and a Rabin Center event.

You know, we don't know what goes on inside the Clinton marriage, and if there was a shouting match, as has been reported, there are lots of shouting matches that go on in lots of marriages. I wouldn't predict an end to this relationship any time soon.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So they are going to be together at official functions next week?

MS. CLIFT: Three official functions next week.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, what do you think, Tony?

MR. BLANKLEY: Well, I'm -- I don't what goes on in their bedroom, if anything. But I do --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, that's really getting right to the point, isn't it?

MR. BLANKLEY: But -- but I do know that if --

MS. CLIFT: Thanks for being so candid! (Chuckles.)

MR. BLANKLEY: -- that if Hillary were to leave him, she becomes, from Clinton's point of view, another bimbo eruption, another woman who's a trouble for him, and she may then be the target end of the Clinton attack machine. So she has some dangers if she leaves him, I think.

MS. CLIFT: Oh, please! (Chuckles.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think the -- has the feminist sisterhood, do you think, gotten to Hillary? Do you understand the question?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yes. No, I understand the question. I don't think the feminist movement has actually distinguished itself through all of this. They lost sight of what we would normally call the essentials. But do I believe --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, there's been a conversion on the part of Patricia Ireland.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: -- do I believe the headline in the New York Post? I have to declare an interest, since I publish -- (laughter) -- 50 percent of their headlines are completely baseless. I mean, this is a ridiculous story. Nobody knows what goes on in that marriage. I agree with -- (inaudible due to cross talk).

MR. BLANKLEY: So at 50-50, it could be right, then.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yeah, right, but it's the wrong half that's right.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think that she could be feigning some kind of split between the two of them?


MR. FUND: Probably not. But I'll tell you, the one thing that does distinguish this administration from others -- the Secret Service and the people in the White House have such contempt -- some of them -- for this first couple, they will leak things that no other administration would have had leaked. That is remarkable and sad, because I do believe a certain zone of privacy is appropriate. But this couple apparently doesn't seem to merit it with some people.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Can we carry this one step further, on the assumption that what Eleanor's saying is correct, that it's probably an exaggerated report? Suppose it were serious, and there was a split, and there was separate living between the two, she in New York and he in Washington; she pursuing a political career and his trying to clean up his. What would be the, if any, political implications domestically and abroad? I ask you, Mort. Please speak to "abroad." Does he lose even more -- does he lose even more of a center of gravity in the eyes of Europe and the rest of the world? He obviously looks enfeebled now. Do you follow me?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Look, in the first place, just in a general sense, I think if in fact they split, it would have major political consequences for the president.

I don't think it really would affect him all that much internationally, because frankly the international community watched the whole impeachment hearing and said, "We can't believe they're doing this, and frankly we don't think it's much of an issue," because they have a very different standard of public and private morality than do we, in terms of political leadership.

MS. CLIFT: You know --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You don't think that the Chinese feel that they've got a little additional leverage on us now because of his woes?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Oh, no, I really don't think so.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You don't think that?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I really don't think that. I mean, look, it all depends --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What does this -- how would it hurt him politically?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: -- you know, you look at it from one particular end of the telescope, but let me give you the other end of the telescope. There is a president with huge approval ratings, and everybody in the political world knows it. So if he's stronger for that, who knows?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did you say it would hurt him politically at home?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Oh, yes, absolutely. I think it would be -- she saved him, and not once but several times.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We got to go on. Okay, was the last straw for Hillary Clinton, if this was a last straw, the allegation of Juanita Broaddrick?

KEVIN HICKEY (Juanita Broaddrick's son): (From videotape.) I can tell, just by the look in her face, that this was just a terrible, terrible experience. And then anger followed after that, but it was more shock than anything at first.

She has had wonderful support -- everybody in our community. She has received letters from around the country, just saying that they are behind her, they support her, they believe her; and, "Keep the faith."

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That was Kevin Hickey, Juanita Broaddrick's son, last Monday, talking about his mother's explosive allegation that she was raped by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general of Arkansas.

Last week, President Clinton saw his closest allies from the Lewinsky scandal begin to break away: "Ms. Broaddrick's accusations are even more troubling than a classic 'he said; she said' rape allegation because there is more evidence than just one woman's word; her story is corroborated," unquote, so says liberal commentator and former sex-crimes prosecutor Cynthia Alksne.

Feminist Katha Pollitt was even more pointed: "It would be a grave mistake for liberals to lend him a penny more of their moral capital," unquote.

Former Clinton adviser David Gergen believes that the president must address the rape allegation himself. And Dee Dee Myers and Cynthia Alksene, among others, have also suggested, even urged, that Clinton personally address the matter.

Question: Mort Zuckerman, is your employee David Gergen correct? Should the president speak to the rape allegations personally?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I think if the president has completely lost it politically, he should address it. (Laughter.) If he has the slightest bit of political intelligence, I would do exactly what he did; keep my mouth shut, try and do my job, and let somebody else talk about it.


MR. ZUCKERMAN: It is totally impossible to think that the president would do that.

MR. FUND: This is not a "he said; she said" situation because he is not saying anything. His lawyer is issuing one sentence. Like Banquo's ghost, this will cast a pall over the rest of this administration if it's not addressed.

MS. CLIFT: There is no way to address this to the satisfaction of the John Funds of the world. And frankly, this is just the frustration on the part of Clinton's foes. That this story has not gained more traction is why it is now being injected into the current controversy and wonderment over the Clinton marriage. I mean, this story is not going anywhere. We might as well just --

MR. FUND: Both are not going away.

MS. CLIFT: -- give it a rest. Oh, among the Internet and the Clinton-haters, it goes there -- it's -- among Clinton's greatest hits, along with the Vince Foster suicide.


MR. BLANKLEY: Look, let me suggest something.

If the Juanita matter has triggered Hillary's resentment of the president in some significant way, I think the model that we might want to use to figure out what will happen after that is Prince Charles and Princess Diana, where the two camps, friends of the husband and wife, go out to their favorite media and start trashing each other. That could be the next step.

MS. CLIFT: You know, you have a good novel in you, Tony -- (laughter) -- both the Clinton attack machine going after the wife, and now --

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Going after the wife and --

MS. CLIFT: Right, exactly.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: -- the mother of his daughter?

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We have got to get out.

MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible) -- direct your energy. (Laughs.)

MR. BLANKLEY: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: In her heart of hearts in those late moments at night, when people address the truth often, do you think Hillary believes Broaddrick, or do you think Hillary believes Bill?

MR. BLANKLEY: I do not have an opinion on that.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You have no insight into that?

MR. FUND: I have a hunch but no opinion.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's your hunch?

MR. FUND: That she believes Broaddrick.


MR. FUND: I think she believes their reservoir of psychic capital is completely depleted. She is not going out on a limb anymore.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What does she believe? She is not even going to get into the area of belief. (Laughter.) What do you think of that?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I think she has no choice but to believe her husband; otherwise -- (laughs) --

MS. CLIFT: She has been with this man for a quarter of a century.


MS. CLIFT: She knows him a lot better than all of you do.


MS. CLIFT: And it's up to her to make her peace.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We'll try this out on Eleanor. (Laughter.)

Other defectors:

Hillary is not the only one who is edging away from the president. Former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos released a book this week detailing the president's failings: "I have realized that the intensity of my anger towards him was both irrational and uncharitable, but I couldn't help it. For several years, I had served as Clinton's character witness. Now I felt like a dupe."

He told ABC's Diane Sawyer that he particularly resents Clinton because of Clinton's habitual lying and his willingness to use subordinates to spread his lies.

(Begin video clip.)

DIANE SAWYER: Should a man capable of doing that ever have been elected president?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, people chose him.

MS. SAWYER: That's -- that's a cop-out. But should they have?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: No, I don't think so.

(End video clip.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Stephanopoulos, as noted earlier, is not the only one of the president's men to turn on Clinton. Recent weeks have seen stringent criticism of the president by former press secretary Mike McCurry, former political adviser Dick Morris, and even bimbo-eruption controller Betsey Wright. (Laughter.)

Question: Has Stephanopoulos' tell-all memoir given him a safe distance from contagion by Clinton? Has Stephanopoulos created a believable cordon sanitaire? (Laughter.) I ask you, Eleanor.

MS. CLIFT: For what? I mean, George Stephanopoulos answered the siren call of the mighty dollar. And the sanctimoniousness of his approach --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How much was that -- how much was the dollar?

MS. CLIFT: Two point eight million dollars.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Two point seven. Quick.

MS. CLIFT: And you know, when he finds a perfect politician, I hope he lets the rest of us know. (Laughs.)

MR. BLANKLEY: There is an old phrase, you know: "If you want to criticize a man, take his shoes and walk a mile from him. And then at least you are a mile away; you still have his shoes." (Laughter.)

But I sort of had this feeling, you know, that it's kind of a little bit sad in a way. I am sure he believes what he is writing but still, to do this, there is a certain level of betrayal, I think, in what he did that I am uncomfortable with.

MR. BLANKLEY: Look. He admits in his book that in 1992, he already thought that the president was lying. So he went into this with his eyes open. I think now he's trying to buy back his moral virginity, and it's too late.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think, John?

MR. FUND: For the last year, we have had all the president's women come forward and they have told very credible stories. So now we have all the president's men coming forward saying, "My God, we were shocked." I think Stephanopoulos has so much company, he's safe.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'd like to know this, to get back to the Hillary run for Senate, which some people think is now definite. Do you hear anything to that effect?

MS. CLIFT: You know, the signals are all positive that she intends to do it, but, you know, the risk is enormous, and in the end, she may back away. I really don't know. This is what she thinks about in the dark of night, John.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let me ask you this, Eleanor -- to join up something that you really don't believe is taking place -- for the purposes of political speculation. If she were to split, separate -- let's say not divorce, but separate from Bill Clinton, is she better off politically to do it before the election of the year 2000, when she runs for the Senate, or after?

MS. CLIFT: No, John, if they do indeed split in any way, we're never going to know it. You know, New York is an hour away by shuttle --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'm asking you what is politically better.

MS. CLIFT: Wait -- because I'm not --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You're not responding. I ask you.

MS. CLIFT: I'm not going to respond to that. It's totally irresponsible.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I ask you.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I ask you.

MR. FUND: She is not running. Just to give you one example, her name is going to be brought up several hundred times in this trial in Little Rock. And there's too much hanging over her, too much of a pall. She's not running.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I don't think --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You won't even address the hypothesis.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, no, no. Number one, I think one of the things that has elevated her popularity is the feeling that she has been wronged and she stood by her man. If she now separates from him, I think it will damage her politically.


MR. ZUCKERMAN: But that goes to -- there's a different issue.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But there's another reason, too, and that's Bill Clinton is very popular in New York. Bill Clinton can raise tons of money for her run, and she knows that. In addition to that, she should wait -- if she is going to divorce him, she should wait till he's out of the White House because his present earnings establish her rate of alimony, and within five years he'll be making $10 million a year out in Hollywood. Right?

(Cross talk.)

MR. FUND: Hillary's a better breadwinner than he is.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How many knives can the president take in his back until they prove fatal? I ask you.

MR. FUND: Well, they're more and more coming from his former aides. Those are the ones he has to worry about.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How many can he take? Many more?

MR. FUND: Oh, the man is invulnerable.

MS. CLIFT: You're not going to drive him from office. His popularity is high. The people --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Unlimited knives? Quickly! Quickly!

MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah, the knives haven't penetrated far enough to take damage yet.

MR. FUND (?): Yeah, right.

MS. CLIFT: No way.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Unlimited knives?

MR. ZUCKERMAN: There are a thousand cuts. He's got 936 to go.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: (Laughs.) Mort, you're absolutely right.

We'll be right back with predictions.


MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Forced predictions, four seconds each. John?

MR. FUND: The Cox report is going to be THE story of next week, how much released.


MS. CLIFT: Charles Bakaly is only the first to fall in the Starr investigation; more to come.


MR. BLANKLEY: Missile defense will pass with over 300 votes in the House next week.


MR. ZUCKERMAN: Jackie Bennett, Ken Starr's deputy, will be indicted or disbarred for his testimony on what he knew with the -- did with the Paula Jones lawyers.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Erin go bragh! Bye-bye!~