Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 21 (Saturday, February 6, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 21 (Saturday, February 6, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1290-S1318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, under the order for today there will be
a 6-hour presentation equally divided between the House managers and
the White House counsel. It would be our intention to have a break
around noon so we will have an opportunity for lunch, and also it may
be necessary to have one break, a brief break, before that time.
Following today's presentation, the Senate will adjourn over until 1
p.m. on Monday.

The Journal

The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there is no objection, the Journal of the
proceedings of the trial are approved to date.

Order of Procedure

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to the order of February 1, 1999, the
managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel
for the President each have 3 hours to make their presentation. The
Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan to begin the presentation on the
part of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished counsel for the
President, Members of the United States Senate, this is the first and
only chance you will have in this historic impeachment trial to
consider the evidence from a few of the actual witnesses. After weeks
of proceedings, the day has finally arrived when the U.S. Senate will
listen, not just to lawyers talk about the evidence, but to witnesses
with direct knowledge of the unlawful conduct of the President of the
United States.

Today in particular, you will have your only opportunity to hear from
the one person whose testimony invariably leads to the conclusion that
the President of the United States committed perjury and obstructed
justice in a Federal civil rights action. That person is Monica
Lewinsky, a bright lady whose life has forever been marked by the most
powerful man on the Earth.
If her testimony is truthful, then the President committed the
offenses alleged in the articles of impeachment. Many different
opinions have been formed about her over the last year. Nearly all of
this has been fueled by spin and by propaganda rather than by truth.
Today, the analysis and the speculation ends. There is only one
judgment the Senate must make for history about Monica Lewinsky: Do you
believe her?
(Text of videotape presentation:)

SENATOR DeWINE. Do you, Monica S. Lewinsky, swear or affirm
that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending
between the United States and William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States, shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS. I do.
SENATOR DeWINE. The House managers may now begin your
questioning.

Mr. Manager ROGAN. Who is this former intern who swore under oath to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Monica
Lewinsky is an intelligent, articulate young woman who, until recently,
held untarnished hope for tomorrow, like any other recent college
graduate. That hope was drastically altered when she was subpoenaed in
a lawsuit against the President of the United States.
(Text of videotape presentation:)
But for the record, would you state your name once again,
your full name?
A Yes. Monica Samille Lewinsky.
Q And you're a--are you a resident of California?
A I'm--I'm not sure exactly where I'm a resident now, but
I--that's where I'm living right now.
Q Okay. You--did you grow up there in California?
A Yes.
Q I'm not going to go into all that, but I thought just a
little bit of background here.
You went to college where?
A Lewis and Clark, in Portland, Oregon.
Q And you majored in--majored in?
A Psychology.
Q Tell me about your work history, briefly, from the time
you left college until, let's say, you started as an intern
at the White House.
A Uh, I wasn't working from the time I--
Q Okay. Did you--
A I graduated college in May of '95.
Q Did you work part time there in--in Oregon with a--with a
District Attorney--
A Uh--
Q --in his office somewhere?
A During--I had an internship or a practicum when I was in
school. I had two practicums, and one was at the public
defender's office and the other was at the Southeast Mental
Health Network.
Q And those were in Portland?
A Yes.
Q Okay. What--you received a bachelor of science in
psychology?
A Correct.
Q Okay. As a part of your duties at the Southeast Health
Network, what did you--what did you do in terms of working?
Did you have direct contact with people there, patients?
A Yes, I did. Um, they referred to them as clients there
and I worked in what was called the Phoenix Club, which was a
socialization area for the clients to--really to just hang
out and, um, sort of work on their social skills. So I--
Q Okay. After your work there, you obviously had occasion
to come to work at the White House. How did--how did you come
to decide you wanted to come to Washington, and in particular
work at the White House?
A There were a few different factors. My mom's side of the
family had moved to Washington during my senior year of
college and I wanted--I wasn't ready to go to graduate school
yet. So I wanted to get out of Portland, and a friend of our
family's had a grandson who had had an internship at the
White House and had thought it might be something I'd enjoy
doing.
Q Had you ever worked around--in politics and campaigns or
been very active?
A No.
Q You had to go through the normal application process of
submitting a written application, references, and so forth
to--to the White House?
A Yes.
Q Did you do that while you were still in Oregon, or were
you already in D.C.?
A No. The application process was while I was a senior in
college in Oregon.
Q Had you ever been to Washington before?
A Yes.
Q Obviously, you were accepted, and you started work when?
A July 10th, 1995.
That image, the image of a young woman, very much like a family
member or a friend that we might know, is an image that the President
did not want America to see when his indiscretions with her became
public. When that happened, the President painted Monica Lewinsky in a
very different and callous light.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON: But I want to say one thing to
the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to
say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that
woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a
single time, never. These allegations are false, and I need
to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

``That woman'' with that subtle description, the President invited a
waiting America to adopt a totally false impression of Monica Lewinsky.
That was not fair. Yet, with his close aides, aides that he later
testified he knew would be witnesses before the grand jury, he went
much further than a subtle sneer. Hear the words of Sidney Blumenthal,
assistant to the President, recount how the President painted this
vulnerable young intern who made the tragic mistake of becoming
involved with him.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

[[Page S1291]]

called ``the stalker'' by her peers and that she hated the
term, and that she would claim that they had had an affair
whether they had or they hadn't, and that she would tell
people.
Q Do you remember him also saying that the reason Monica
Lewinsky would tell people that is because then she wouldn't
be known by her peers as ``the stalker'' anymore?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Do you remember the President also saying that--and I'm
quoting--``I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain
for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again''?
A Yes. He told me that.
Q And that was in the same conversation that you had with
the President?
A Right, in--in that sequence.
Q Can you describe for us the President's demeanor when he
shared this information with you?
A Yes. He was, uh, very upset. I thought he was, a man in
anguish.

He was a man in anguish. This was more than rakish behavior. When the
President used his aides as a conduit to impart false information to a
Federal grand jury in a criminal investigation, his behavior graduated
from the unconscionable to the illegal.
Members of the Senate, your task is to determine who is telling the
truth and who is lying. As you weigh that option, consider Mr.
Blumenthal's conclusion drawn on the very subject.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q That's where you start talking about the story that the
President told you. Knowing what you know now, do you believe
the President lied to you about his relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky?
A I do.
To justify a vote of not guilty for the President, you certainly have
the right to reject Monica Lewinsky's testimony as untruthful. However,
I trust your sense of fairness will dictate that you will listen to all
of her testimony before you dismiss it outright. If you believe her,
you will see this morning how the President wove the web of perjury and
obstruction of justice. You will see why he was impeached by the House
of Representatives, and you will see why a just and proper verdict in
this body would be to replace him as President with Vice President Al
Gore.
Consider, for example, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony regarding witness
tampering, one element of the obstruction of justice charge against the
President. The President stands charged with illegally encouraging a
witness in a Federal civil rights suit brought against him to give
perjured testimony in that proceeding. Did he do this? Listen to Monica
Lewinsky.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

We're at that point that we've got a telephone conversation
in the morning with you and the President, and he has among
other things mentioned to you that your name is on the Jones
witness list. He has also mentioned to you that perhaps you
could file an affidavit to avoid possible testifying in that
case. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q And he has also, I think, now at the point that we were
in our questioning, referenced the cover story that you and
he had had, that perhaps you could say that you were coming
to my office to deliver papers or to see Betty Currie; is
that right?
A Correct. It was from the entire relationship, that story.
Q Now, when he alluded to that cover story, was that
instantly familiar to you?
A Yes.
Q You knew what he was talking about?
A Yes.
Q And why was this familiar to you?
A Because it was part of the pattern of the relationship.
It was part of the pattern of the relationship. During Ms. Lewinsky's
testimony earlier this week under oath pursuant to a Senate deposition
order, she further elaborated on this critical piece of evidence.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Consider also Ms. Lewinsky's testimony regarding concealing
subpoenaed evidence; namely, the gifts he gave her. This is yet another
element in the obstruction of justice allegation against the President.
The President stands charged with corruptly engaging in a scheme to
conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights
action brought against him. Did he do this? Remember, on the morning of
December 28, 1997, a few days after Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena
directing her to turn over any gifts she had received from the
President, the President met with Ms. Lewinsky. She suggested to him
that she could give the gifts he gave her to Betty Currie, the
President's personal secretary. The President said that he would think
about it. Listen to what Monica Lewinsky said happened next.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Did you later that day receive a call from Betty Currie?
A Yes, I did.
Q Tell us about that.
A I received a call from--Betty, and to the best of my
memory, she said something like I understand you have
something for me or I know--I know I've testified to saying
that--that I remember her saying either I know you have
something for me or the President said you have something for
me. And to me, it's a--she said--I mean, this is not a direct
quote, but the gist of the conversation was that she was
going to go visit her mom in the hospital and she'd stop by
and get whatever it was.
Q Did you question Ms. Currie or ask her, what are you
talking about or what do you mean?
A No.
Q Why didn't you?
A Because I assumed that it meant the gifts.

As you can see, the only way Betty Currie would have known to come
and get the gifts would have been for the President to tell her to do
so.
Finally, consider Ms. Lewinsky's testimony regarding the President's
help in securing a New York job for her to encourage her silence, which
is another element of the obstruction of justice charge against him.
The President is charged with chasing a job for her in order to prevent
her truthful testimony. Did he do this? Remember that the President
learned on December 6, 1997, that Ms. Lewinsky was on the Paula Jones
witness list.
Listen to Monica Lewinsky.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Okay. Between your meeting with Mr. Jordan in early
November, and December the 11th when you met with Mr. Jordan
again, you did not feel that Mr. Jordan was doing much to
help you get a job; is that correct?
A I hadn't seen any progress.
Q Okay. After you met with Mr. Jordan in early December,
you began to interview in New York and were much more active
in your job search; correct?
A Yes.
Q In early January, you received a job offer from Revlon
with the help of Vernon Jordan; is that correct?
A Yes.

Members of the Senate, these are but a few highlights of a broad
tapestry of corruption that Mr. Manager Hutchinson and I will develop
for you this morning through videotape testimony and through other
evidence.
Before we proceed to that, it is worth briefly recounting the
circumstances that elevated the President's initial indiscretions to
the level of impeachable offenses. The lesson is not complex. It is
quite elementary.
In all the things we do in life, life is about making choices.
Parents teach children that bad choices bring sorrow and consequences.
We do that because the failure to impose meaningful consequences for
bad choices brings about more bad choices. That simple primer on life
encapsulates the political and personal legacy of Bill Clinton, his
continuing pattern of indulging all choices and accepting no
consequences. This is demonstrated by the actions he took leading to
his impeachment and trial before the Senate.
In May 1991, an incident allegedly occurred that led the President to
make a bad choice. According to Paula Jones, a subordinate government
employee, then-Governor Clinton made a crude and unwelcome sexual
advance on her. She later filed a legal claim for sexual harassment
against him.
In November 1995, the President made another bad choice. He began a
physical relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern. He chose
to begin a physical relationship with her. This was not, as he told the
grand jury, a relationship that began as a friendship only to later
blossom into intimacy. The President impulsively began using her for
his gratification the very day he first spoke with her. Later, he made
the bad choice of continuing the relationship after Monica became a
paid Government employee.
An important note. As regrettable as his choice was here, any
accountability

[[Page S1292]]

for the private aspect of this should not be determined by the Congress
of the United States. It should be determined by his family. Had the
President's bad choice simply ended with this indiscretion, we would
not be here today. Adultery may be a lot of things, but it is not an
impeachable offense.
Unfortunately, the President's bad choices only grew worse. In
December 1997, the President made a bad choice. In order to avoid any
possible legal accountability to Paula Jones, he chose to destroy her
lawful right to proceed with her case. And this is how he did it:
During the so-called discovery portion of the Paula Jones case, Federal
Judge Susan Wright ordered the President to answer questions under oath
about any intimate relationship he may have had with subordinate female
government employees while he was Governor or President.
Why did Judge Susan Wright order him to answer these questions? She
did it because sexual harassers in the workplace usually do not commit
their offenses in the open. Typically they get their victims alone and
isolated. Predators know if they can do this, one of two things
generally will happen. Out of fear and intimidation the victim will
submit, or out of fear and intimidation the victim will not submit but
the victim will not tell anybody about it.
There usually is no other way for a sexual harassment victim to learn
if there is evidence of a pattern of similar conduct by a predator
without being able to ask these kinds of questions in a sexual
harassment case. Without this information, a harassment victim in the
workplace generally would not be able to prove her case. This is why
courts routinely order defendants to answer these kinds of questions in
almost every sexual harassment case in the country.

Now, President Clinton vigorously pursued legal arguments and motions
to avoid answering these questions about his sexual relations with
subordinate government employees. Yet, after hearing his arguments,
Judge Susan Wright ordered the President to answer under oath these
routine questions. And by the way, Paula Jones also was required to
provide truthful answers under oath as part of the trial of the
discovery process. Had Paula Jones lied in providing such answers, she
would have been liable for criminal prosecution.
It was while the Paula Jones case was proceeding in the summer of
1995, that a 22-year-old named Monica Lewinsky went to work as an
intern at the White House. Shortly thereafter, in November 1995, the
President began his physical relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And
this continued from 1995 until the early part of 1997.
In order to shield him, Monica Lewinsky promised the President that
she would always deny the sexual nature of their relationship. She said
she would always protect him. The President spoke words of approval and
encouragement to this pledge of secrecy. Monica and the President even
agreed to cover stories to disguise the true nature of their
relationship.
In April 1996, Monica was transferred, against her will, from the
White House job to a job at the Pentagon. After she left employment at
the White House, she frequently returned there to continue her secret
relationship with the President under the guise of visiting Betty
Currie, the President's personal secretary.
After working at the Pentagon for over a year, Monica became
disheartened. Despite the President's promises to the contrary, Monica
was not returned to work at the White House. In July 1997, she began
looking for a job in New York. She wasn't having any luck, despite the
President's promise to help her with this, too. By early November 1997,
Monica became frustrated with the lack of assistance.
Finally, Betty Currie arranged a meeting for Monica with Vernon
Jordan, one of the President's closest friends. They sought to enlist
his help in her New York job search. On November 5, 1997, Monica met
for 20 minutes with Mr. Jordan in his office. No job referrals
followed, no job interviews were arranged, and there were no contacts
from Mr. Jordan. In short, Mr. Jordan made no effort to find Monica a
job. Indeed, getting her a job was so unimportant to him that Mr.
Jordan later testified that he didn't even remember meeting her on
November 5.
Nothing happened on her job search through the month of November,
because Mr. Jordan was either gone or he simply wasn't returning
Monica's phone calls. All that changed on December 5, 1997. That was
the day Monica Lewinsky's name appeared on the Paula Jones witness
list.
Members of the Senate, this is how the whole thing started. A lone
woman in Arkansas felt that she had been wronged by the President of
the United States. The law said that she had a right to have her claim
heard in a court of law. At each stage the President could have chosen
to uphold the law. Instead, he chose to obstruct justice and to commit
perjury.
In his presentation, Mr. Manager Hutchinson will show you, through
videotape words of the key witnesses, how the President used his
position to obstruct justice as set forth in the articles of
impeachment. I will then return to make the same showing respecting the
allegations of perjury in the articles. Throughout all of this,
throughout this presentation, it is important to keep in mind that we
seek no congressional punishment for a man who chose to cheat on his
wife. However, we have a legal obligation to expect constitutional
accountability for a President who chooses to cheat the law.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I want to continue the
presentation that was commenced this morning by Mr. Rogan. Let me
continue with the path of obstruction. The obstruction, for our
purposes, began on December 5, 1997, when the witness list came out in
the civil rights case. It was faxed to the President's lawyers. It was
later given to the President.
At that point, the administration of justice became a threat to the
President of the United States. He determined that the truth would be
harmful to the case that he was trying to defend, and the President
made a decision to take whatever steps were necessary to suppress the
truth rather than to uphold the law. The acts of obstruction included
attempts to improperly influence the testimony of witnesses in the case
against him, the procurement of a false affidavit in the case, the
willful concealment of evidence that was under subpoena, and efforts to
illegally influence the testimony of witnesses before the Federal grand
jury.
You have heard these areas of obstruction presented to you before by
managers on behalf of the House. Today it is important that you hear
this case from those who have testified by deposition at your
direction. And as you hear their testimony, you will see that the
President may have been the only individual who had the complete
picture. He had all the facts, and he did not always share those facts
with others. He did not share those facts with Mr. Vernon Jordan, nor
did he share all the facts with Ms. Monica Lewinsky, until he
determined the time was right to do so.
For example, he knows that Ms. Lewinsky is a witness but does not
tell Ms. Lewinsky that fact until the time is right and whenever the
job search is proceeding. He asks Mr. Jordan to help Ms. Lewinsky to
get a job, but he does not tell Mr. Jordan the essential facts, first
of all, that Ms. Lewinsky is a witness and, secondly, that there is a
dangerous relationship between them in which, if she testified, her
testimony would be harmful.
The President was obviously concerned about the truth of the
testimony of Ms. Lewinsky. It would have been harmful to his interests
in the case. As a result, the President personally obstructed and
directed the efforts of Mr. Jordan to secure Ms. Lewinsky a job and
urge the filing of the affidavit. Now, what is the President's defense
to this charge? Let's listen.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Was your assistance to Ms. Lewinsky which you have
described in any way dependent upon her doing anything
whatsoever in the Paula Jones case?
A. No.

Now, you have heard that before. As you can see, Mr. Jordan defends
his actions and, by implication, defends the actions of the President.
You can weigh his intentions, but his intentions are not the issue,
because regardless of your view of Mr. Jordan and his motivations, they
are irrelevant. His view as to whether there is a connection between
the job and the testimony is not

[[Page S1293]]

an issue. It is not an issue as to whether Ms. Lewinsky thought there
was a connection between the job and the testimony. It is not an issue
as to whether Revlon thought there was a connection between the job and
the testimony.
There is only one issue, and that is whether the President viewed
that there was a connection between those two. And it is the President
who, under the law, had to have the corrupt intent, and that is the
question that you have to answer. And I believe that the evidence will
show that regardless of what anyone else believed, he knew the direct
connection.
Now, after each of you hears the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and Mr.
Jordan, some of you will conclude that surely he had to know that there
was an inappropriate relationship between the President and Ms.
Lewinsky. And why do I say that? Well, Ms. Lewinsky will testify that
he made it clear--that she made it clear to Mr. Jordan that there was
that type of relationship. At first, she sort of is careful about it,
but then she just ultimately tells him, as you will see from her
testimony. But Mr. Jordan also, for those who have listened to his
testimony, refers to mother wit, and his oft relied upon mother wit
would have told him as well, under the circumstances, that there is
something more going on.
If he knew about the relationship, he had to know that all was not as
it should be in what the President was asking him to do. The President
requested a job for Ms. Lewinsky at the same time he was monitoring the
filing of a false affidavit and knowing she was a witness in a case
against him: All indicated that the job was not a favor for a young
friend but it was a favor for someone in high office that had to be
accomplished in order to assure the cooperation of a dangerous witness.
That evidence will show that it is the President who suggested the
assistance from Ms. Lewinsky and it is the President who suggested the
false affidavit.
Now, let's listen to the testimony, step by step, through the job
search, through the signing of the false affidavit, to the
encouragement to file the false affidavit on December 17, to the
discussion of the gifts on December 28, through the tampering with the
testimony of Betty Currie on two occasions, and then with the
President's aide when they were called before the Federal grand jury,
or prior to that.
First, let's go to the job benefit to Ms. Lewinsky. How involved was
the President in this activity? Let's first listen to the President as
to what he said when he testified under oath in his deposition.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Do you know a man named Vernon Jordan?
A I know him well.
Q You have known him for a long time?
A A long time.
Q Has it ever been reported to you that he met with Monica
Lewinsky and talked about this case?
A I knew that he met with her. I think Betty suggested he
met with her and she may have met with her. I thought that he
talked with her about something else. I thought he had given
her some advice about her move to New York. It seems like
that is what Betty said.

Rather vague. Attributes all of his knowledge about Vernon Jordan, in
reference to Ms. Lewinsky, to Betty, to Betty.
Let's go on and hear more of what the President has to say in this
connection.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Have you ever had a conversation with Vernon Jordan in
which Monica Lewinsky was mentioned?
A I have. He told me that he thought he mentioned in
passing to me that he had talked to her and she had come to
him for advice about moving to New York.
Q She had come to him for advice.
A She had come to him for advice about moving to New York.
She had called him and asked if she could come see him, and
Betty, I think, maybe had said something to him about talking
to him and he had given her some advice about moving to New
York.
That's all I know about that.

That is all I know about that--diminished knowledge, diminished
responsibility.
But let's see what his good friend and confidant, Mr. Jordan, says
about what the President knew, when he knew it, and to what extent he
controlled this effort.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Now, is it true that your efforts to find a job for Ms.
Lewinsky that you referenced in that meeting with Mr.
Gittis--were your efforts carried out at the request of the
President of the United States?
A There is no question but that through Betty Currie, I was
acting on behalf of the President to get Ms. Lewinsky a job.
I think that's clear from my grand jury testimony.
Q Okay. And I just want to make sure that that's firmly
established. And in reference to your previous grand jury
testimony, you indicated, I believe, on May 28th, 1998, at
page 61, that ``She''--referring to Betty Currie--``was the
one that called me at the behest of the President.''
A That is correct, and I think, Congressman, if in fact the
President of the United States' secretary calls and asks for
a request that you try to do the best you can to make it
happen.
Q And you received that request as a request coming from
the President?
A I--I interpreted it as a request from the President.
Q And then, later on in June of '98 in the grand jury
testimony at page 45, did you not reference or testify that
``The President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job''?
A There was no--there was no question but that he asked me
to help and that he asked others to help. I think that is
clear from everybody's grand jury testimony.
Q And just one more point in that regard. In the same grand
jury testimony, is it correct that you testified that
``He''--referring to the President--``was the source of it
coming to my attention in the first place''?
A I may--if that is--if you--if it's in the--
Q It's at page 58 of the grand jury--
A I stand on my grand jury testimony.

As Mr. Jordan testified, the President was a source of it coming to
his attention in the first place. Mr. Jordan, the President's friend,
testified that this was not a casual matter for the President. He was
interested, he was directing the show and, as will be clear, he was
consumed with preventing the truth from coming out in the civil rights
case.
But let's start back, for a moment, at the beginning. In the packet
provided to you, there is a time line, and you can see again that there
was the witness list that came out on December 5. That triggered the
action in this case. But as we know, there was a meeting on November 5
between Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan in Mr. Jordan's office. Ms.
Lewinsky wanted a job before the witness list came out, but not a whole
lot was happening in that regard.
Let's look at the testimony of Mr. Jordan in regard to this November
5 meeting that he was first asked about, which he had no recollection
about. When the records were reproduced for him, he had a recollection.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Well, regardless of whether you met with her in November
or not, the fact is you did not do anything in November to
secure a job for Ms. Lewinsky until your activities on
December 11 of '97?
A I think that's correct.
Q And on December 11, I think you made some calls for Ms.
Lewinsky on that particular day?
A I believe I did.
There will be a pattern developing, as you can see. Mr. Jordan had no
recollection of the November 5 meeting when he originally testified
before the grand jury. He had no recollection whatsoever of that
meeting. Basically, he said it didn't happen.
The second time he testified before the grand jury, the record was
produced and it was substantiated. He recalls that. The second thing
you can see from this was the meeting was of absolutely no consequence
to him because this was not a priority issue to him. He was not going
to do anything. It started happening, of course, when the witness list
came out. The President met with the attorneys with the witness list,
and on December 7 the President and Mr. Jordan meet. On December 8, a
meeting is set up by Ms. Lewinsky with Mr. Jordan for the 11th, and it
was on the 11th when they met that things started moving and calls were
being made. Of course, that was done at the direction of the President.
Look at Ms. Lewinsky's recollection of that same November 5 meeting.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q . . . you did not feel that Mr. Jordan was doing much to
help you get a job; is that correct?
A I hadn't seen any progress.
Q Okay. After you met with Mr. Jordan in early December,
you began to interview in New York and were much more active
in your job search; correct?
A Yes.
Q In early January, you received a job offer from Revlon
with the help of Vernon Jordan; is that correct?
A Yes.

Ms. Lewinsky, at this point, is at their mercy. She doesn't know what
the communication is, she doesn't

[[Page S1294]]

know what the President knows. The witness list has come in, and she
hoped things were moving, but she doesn't know it. Finally, they start
moving after the witness list comes in. On December 11, she has the
meeting at which things start moving.
Was this a typical referral? Each of you in this body have had
occasions where friends and acquaintances, at different levels, or
previous employees come to you and say: I am going to be applying for a
job with such and such a company. Will you be a reference for me?
Sometimes they ask you to make a call to that company that they are
applying for a job. This is not a typical referral, as you will see
from the testimony. A few days prior to the December 11 meeting, Ms.
Lewinsky sends up a wish list of the companies she wanted to apply. Mr.
Jordan quickly said, ``I'm not concerned about your wish list. I have
the people I want to deal with.'' He took control of the job search.
Let's listen to the testimony of Mr. Jordan as he emphasizes that
point.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Now, you mentioned that she had sent you a--I guess some
people refer to it--a wish list, or a list of jobs that she--
A Not jobs--companies.
Q --companies that she would be interested in seeking
employment with.
A That's correct.
Q And you looked at that, and you determined that you
wanted to go with your own list of friends and companies that
you had better contacts with.
A I'm sure, Congressman, that you too have been in this
business, and you do know that you can only call people that
you know or feel comfortable in calling.
Q Absolutely. No question about it. And let me just comment
and ask your response to this, but many times I will be
listed as a reference, and they can take that to any company.
You might be listed as a reference and the name ``Vernon
Jordan'' would be a good reference anywhere, would it not?
A I would hope so.
Q And so, even though it was a company that you might not
have the best contact with, you could have been helpful in
that regard?
A Well, the fact is I was running the job search, not Ms.
Lewinsky, and therefore, the companies that she brought or
listed were not of interest to me. I knew where I would need
to call.
Q And that is exactly the point, that you looked at getting
Ms. Lewinsky a job as an assignment rather than just
something that you were going to be a reference for.
A I don't know whether I looked upon it as an assignment.
Getting jobs for people is not unusual for me, so I don't
view it as an assignment. I just view it as something that is
part of what I do.
Q You're acting in behalf of the President when you are
trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a job, and you were in control of
the job search?
A Yes.

The testimony is very clear as to Mr. Jordan running the job search--
in essence, a job placement on behalf of the President.
Let's go again to that meeting of December 11 at which Ms. Lewinsky
goes, for the first time Mr. Jordan remembers, for that meeting about
the jobs. Ms. Lewinsky's view of this meeting--again, Jordan's list--he
was the one controlling the job search. Also, you will see that Mr.
Jordan acquires some knowledge from Ms. Lewinsky as to the
relationship.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Let's go forward another week or so to December the 11th
and a lunch that you had with Vernon Jordan, I believe, in
his office.
A Yes.
Q How did--how was that meeting set up.
A Through his secretary.
Q Did you instigate that, or did he call through his
secretary?
A I don't remember.
Q What was the purpose of that meeting?
A Uh, it was to discuss my job situation.
Q And what, what--how was that discussed?
A Uh, Mr. Jordan gave me a list of three names and
suggested that I contact these people in a letter that I
should cc him on, and that's what I did.
Q Did he ask you to copy him on the letters that you sent
out?
A Yes.
Q During this meeting, did he make any comments about your
status as a friend of the President?
A Yes.
Q What--what did he say?
A In one of his remarks, he said something about me being a
friend of the President.
Q And did you respond?
A Yes.
Q How?
A I said that I didn't, uh--I think I--my grand jury
testimony, I know I talked about this, so it's probably more
accurate. My memory right now is I said something about, uh,
seeing him more as, uh, a man than as a President, and I
treated him accordingly.
Q Did you express your frustration to Mr. Jordan with, uh,
with the President?
A I expressed that sometimes I had frustrations with him,
yes.
Q And what was his response to you about, uh--after you
talked about the President?
A Uh, he sort of jokingly said to me, You know what your
problem is, and don't deny it--you're in love with him. But
it was a sort of light-hearted nature.
Q Did you--did you have a response to that?
A I probably blushed or giggled or something.

That was on December 11. And I am sure Mr. Jordan and others were
starting to kick in, at this point, understanding that there was
something a little bit more involved in the relationship between Ms.
Lewinsky and the President.
But let's go to another aspect of the relationship on the job search.
Let's look how information is controlled. Mr. Jordan learns ultimately
on December 19 clearly that Ms. Lewinsky is on the witness list because
she presents a subpoena to him. But whenever he pursues the jobs later
on and maybe the call to Mr. Perelman, he does not pass that
information along to the company. Does that make a difference to
Revlon? You will hear some reference to Mr. Halperin, who is one of the
executives at MacAndrews & Forbes, the parent company of Revlon, and
Mr. Perelman, who is the CEO of MacAndrews and Forbes as well.
Let's listen to the testimony of Mr. Jordan on how information is
controlled.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Now, the second piece of information was the fact that
you knew and the President knew that Ms. Lewinsky was under
subpoena in the Jones case, and that information was not
provided to either Mr. Halperin or to Mr. Perelman; is that
correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, I wanted to read you a question and answer of Mr.
Howard Gittis in his grand jury testimony of April 23, 1998.
The question was: ``Now, you had mentioned before that one
of the responsibilities of director is to have a fiduciary
duty to the company. If it was the case that Ms. Lewinsky had
been noticed as a witness in the Paula Jones case, and Vernon
Jordan had known that, is that something that you believe as
a person who works for MacAndrews & Forbes, is that something
that you believe that Mr. Jordan should have told you, or
someone in the company, not necessarily you, but someone in
the company, when you referred her for employment?''
His answer was ``Yes.''
Do you disagree with Mr. Gittis' conclusion that that was
important information for MacAndrews & Forbes?
A I obviously didn't think it was important at the time,
and I didn't do it.

Why would Revlon want to know that Ms. Lewinsky was on a witness list
and under subpoena in a case that was adverse to the President and the
fact the President was really the one that was wanting the job
placement for Ms. Lewinsky? I think everyone understands the
extraordinary conflict, extraordinary impropriety of that circumstance.
As Mr. Jordan himself testified previously, that whenever the subpoena
was issued, it changed the circumstances, and, yet, that information
was not provided to Revlon, and Mr. Gittis certainly would have thought
that it should have been.
So Revlon wanted to know for the same reason, really, that Mr. Jordan
would have liked to have had that information. But when the President
learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list, he did not share
that information with Mr. Jordan himself.
So it is explosive information that the President did not make
available to him until the right time.
Let's listen to Mr. Jordan.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q All right. And so there's two conversations after the
witness list came out--one that you had with the President on
December 7th, and then a subsequent conversation with him
after you met with Ms. Lewinsky on the 11th.
Now, in your subsequent conversation after the 11th, did
you discuss with the President of the United States Monica
Lewinsky, and if so, can you tell us what that discussion
was?
A If there was a discussion subsequent to Monica Lewinsky's
visit to me on December the 11th with the President of the
United States, it was about the job search.
Q All right. And during that, did he indicate that he knew
about the fact that she had lost her job in the White House,
and she wanted to get a job in New York?
A He was aware that--he was obviously aware that she had
lost her job in the White House, because she was working at
the Pentagon. He was also aware that she wanted to work in
New York, in the private sector, and understood that that is
why she was having

[[Page S1295]]

conversations with me. There is no doubt about that.
Q And he thanked you for helping her?
A There's no question about that, either.
Q And on either of these conversations that I've referenced
that you had with the President after the witness list came
out, your conversation on December 7th, and your conversation
sometime after the 11th, did the President tell you that Ms.
Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Jones case?
A He did not.

The President knew it was not disclosed to Mr. Jordan, according to
his testimony. Mr. Jordan has to be reminded as to how important this
information was because, he previously testified, that he expected to
be told. It was significant enough information that if Ms. Betty Currie
knew that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena that Betty Currie should tell
him. He expected the President to tell him. That was his expectation,
for natural reasons--that this is an extraordinary conflict whenever
the President knows there is a relationship. She is an adverse witness.
She is under subpoena, and provided a job benefit. But he kept some of
those details to himself without disclosing.
Let's listen again to Mr. Jordan.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Precisely. She disclosed to you, of course, when she
received the subpoena, and that's information that you
expected to know and to be disclosed to you?
A Fine.
Q Is--
A Yes. Fine.
Q And in fact, if Ms. Currie--I'm talking about Betty
Currie--if she had known that Ms. Lewinsky was under
subpoena, you would have expected her to tell you that
information as well since you were seeking employment for Ms.
Lewinsky?
A Well, it would have been fine had she told me. I do make
a distinction between being a witness on the one hand and
being a defendant in some sort of criminal action on the
other. She was a witness in the civil case, and I don't
believe witnesses in civil cases don't have a right for--to
employment.
Q Okay. I refer you to page 95 of your grand jury
testimony, in which you said: ``I believe that had Ms. Currie
known, that she would have told me.''
And the next question: ``Let me ask the question again,
though. Would you have expected her to tell you if she knew?"
And do you recall your answer?
A I don't.
Q ``Yes, sure.''
A I stand by that answer.
Q And so it's your testimony that if Ms. Currie had known
that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena, you would have expected
her to tell you that information?
A It would have been helpful.
Q And likewise, would you have expected the President to
tell you if he had any reason to believe that Ms. Lewinsky
would be called as a witness in the Paula Jones case?
A That would have been helpful, too.
Q And that was your expectation, that he would have done
that in your conversations?
A It--it would certainly have been helpful, but it would
not have changed my mind.
Q Well, being helpful and that being your expectation is a
little bit different, and so I want to go back again to your
testimony on March 3, page 95, when the question is asked to
you--question: ``If the President had any reason to believe
that Ms. Lewinsky could be called a witness in the Paula
Jones case, would you have expected him to tell you that when
you spoke with him between the 11th and the 19th about her?''
And your answer: ``And I think he would have.''
A My answer was yes in the grand jury testimony, and my
answer is yes today.
Q All right. So it would have been helpful, and it was
something you would have expected?
A Yes.
Q And yet, according to your testimony, the President did
not so advise you of that fact in the conversations that he
had with you on December 7th and December 11th after he
learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list?
A As I testified--
MR. KENDALL: Objection. Misstates the record with regard to
December 11th.
MR. HUTCHINSON: I--I will restate the question. I believe
it accurately reflects the record, and I'll ask the question.
BY MR. HUTCHINSON:
Q And yet, according to your testimony, the President did
not so advise you of the fact that Ms. Lewinsky was on the
witness list despite the fact that he had conversations with
you on two occasions, on December 7th and December 11th?
A I have no recollection of the President telling me about
the witness list.

Now, I am providing some long snippets because I want you to see the
testimony of the witnesses. I think it is very important as you piece
it together. You might say, well, there is nothing explosive here.
Whenever you are talking about obstruction of justice, it ties
together, it fits together. Information is controlled and that is what
we see in this particular case.
Clearly, Mr. Jordan expected information because he knew that
something that the President should have shared, it was not shared,
according to Mr. Jordan's testimony. And for natural reasons.
If you look at the exhibit that I passed out, on the time line we
have talked about when the witness list came out, on the 7th, and on
the 11th, or sometime thereafter, the President and Mr. Jordan meet,
and that information is not disclosed, despite the fact that the
President knows she is on the witness list.
And now, let's go to the 17th, because now the President is ready to
share some additional information with Ms. Lewinsky. Now that he has
got the job search moving, perhaps she is in a more receptive mood so
that she can handle the news that she is on the witness list. So let's
listen to Ms. Lewinsky's testimony as to this December 17, 2 a.m.,
telephone conversation from the President of the United States.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Sometime back in December of 1997, in the morning of
December the 17th, did you receive a call from the President?
A Yes.
Q What was the purpose of that call? What did you talk
about?
A It was threefold--first, to tell me that Ms. Currie's
brother had been killed in a car accident; second, to tell me
that my name was on a witness list for the Paula Jones case;
and thirdly, he mentioned the Christmas present he had for
me.
Q This telephone call was somewhere in the early morning
hours of 2 o'clock to 2:30.
A Correct.
Q Did it surprise you that he called you so late?
A No.
Q Was this your first notice of your name being on the
Paula Jones witness list?
A Yes.
Q I will try to ask sharper questions to avoid these
objections. At that point we got a telephone conversation in
the morning with you and the President. And he has, among
other things, mentioned to you that your name is on the Jones
witness list. He has also mentioned to you that perhaps you
could file an affidavit to avoid possible testifying in that
case. Is that right.
A Correct.
Q And he's also, I think, now at the point that we were in
our questioning in reference to the cover story that you and
he had, that perhaps you could say that you were coming to my
office to deliver papers or to see Betty Currie. Is that
right.
A Correct. It was from the entire relationship. That's
correct.
Q Now, when he alluded to that cover story, was that
instantly familiar to you.
A Yes.
Q You knew what he was talking about.
A Yes.
Q And why was this familiar to you.
A Because it was part of the pattern of the relationship.

* * * * *

Q Okay. Let me ask it. Did you understand in the context of
the telephone conversation with the President that early
morning of December the 17th--did you understand that you
would deny your relationship with the President to the Jones
lawyers through use of these cover stories?
A From what I learned in that--oh, through those cover
stories, I don't know, but from what I learned in that
conversation, I thought to myself I knew I would deny the
relationship.
Q And you would deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers?
A Yes, correct.
Q Good.
Do you believe Monica Lewinsky? I believe her testimony is credible.
She is not trying to hammer the President. She is trying to tell the
truth as to her recollection of this 2 a.m. call to her by the
President of the United States on December 17.
The news is broken to her that she is on the witness list. It puts it
in a legal context. This is a 24-year-old ex-intern. She might not have
the legal sophistication of the President, but the President certainly
knows the legal

[[Page S1296]]

consequences as to his actions. What he is telling a witness in a case
that is adverse to him is that: You do not have to tell the truth. You
can use the cover stories that we used before. And that might have been
in a nonlegal context, but now we are in a different arena and he says:
Continue the same lies, even though you are in a court of law. Continue
the same pattern.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, in my book that is illegal, and I
hate to say it, but that is obstruction of justice by the President of
the United States. And, if you believe Ms. Lewinsky, then you have to
accept that fact. Otherwise, we are saying that it is all right for
someone to take a witness who is against them and say: Don't tell the
truth, don't worry about that, use the cover stories. You can file an
affidavit. You can avoid telling the truth.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is significant. It is important. Do not
diminish this, the impact of what happened on December 17, with the
obstruction of justice on that occasion.
And, now, let's move on. That is December 17. We can move on to
December 19, and this is when the subpoena is actually delivered to Ms.
Lewinsky. She calls Vernon Jordan. She is in tears. She is upset.
Vernon Jordan says, ``Come over to my office,'' and they have the
discussion. And you are going to hear Mr. Jordan's version of what
happens on December 19. You are going to hear Ms. Lewinsky's testimony
as to what happens in that office on December 19 as well.
Let's hear from Mr. Jordan.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q And during this meeting, did she in fact show you the
subpoena that she had received in the Jones litigation?
A I'm sure she showed me the subpoena.
Q And the subpoena that was presented to you asked her to
give a deposition, is that correct?
A As I recollect.
Q But did it also ask Ms. Lewinsky or direct her to produce
certain documents and tangible objects?
A I think, if I'm correct in my recollection, it asked that
she produce gifts.
Q Gifts, and some of those gifts were specifically
enumerated.
A I don't remember that. I do remember gifts.
Q And did you discuss any of the items requested under the
subpoena?
A I did not. What I said to her was that she needed
counsel.
Q Now, just to help you in reference to your previous grand
jury testimony of March 3, '98--and if you would like to
refer to that, page 121, but I believe it was your testimony
that you asked her if there had been any gifts after you
looked at the subpoena.
A I may have done that, and if I--if that's in my
testimony, I stand by it.
Q And did she--from your conversation with her, did you
determine that in your opinion, there was a fascination on
her part with the President?
A No question about that.
Q And I think you previously described it that she had a
``thing'' for the President?
A ``Thing,'' yes.
Q And did you make any specific inquiry as to the nature of
the relationship that she had with the President?
A Yes. At some point during that conversation, I asked her
directly if she had had sexual relationships with the
President.
Q And is this not an extraordinary question to ask a 24-
year-old intern, whether she had sexual relations with the
President of the United States?
A Not if you see--not if you had witnessed her emotional
state and this ``thing,'' as I say. It was not.
Q And her emotional state and what she expressed to you
about her feelings for the President is what prompted you to
ask that question?
A That, plus the question of whether or not the President
at the end of his term would leave the First Lady; and that
was alarming and stunning to me.
Q And she related that question to you in that meeting on
December 19th?
A That's correct.
Q Now, going back to the question in which you asked her if
she had had a sexual relationship with the President, what
was her response?
A No.
Q And I'm sure that that was not an idle question on your
part, and I presume that you needed to know the answer for
some purpose.
A I wanted to know the answer based on what I had seen in
her expression; obviously, based on the fact that this was a
subpoena about her relationship with the President.
Q And so you felt like you needed to know the answer to
that question to determine how you were going to handle the
situation?
A No. I thought it was a factual data that I needed to
know, and I asked the question.
Q And why did you need to know the answer to that question?
A I am referring this lady, Ms. Lewinsky, to various
companies for jobs, and it seemed to me that it was important
for me to know in that process whether or not there had been
something going on with the President based on what I saw and
based on what I heard.

Why was it important? Why was it important for Mr. Jordan to know
whether she was under subpoena? Why was it important for Mr. Jordan to
know whether there was a sexual relationship? Why was it important?
Because those would be incredible, explosive ingredients in a
circumstance that is fraught with danger and impropriety, and he knows
that and he asked the right questions. But he doesn't listen to the
right answer, nor does he take the right steps, because he is acting at
the direction of the President.
As you will see, during his meeting on December 19, he was keeping
the President very closely informed. You will see in your packet of
materials that the call--as soon as he was notified, Mr. Jordan was
notified Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena, he tried to get ahold of the
President, exhibit H-25, a 3:51 call to the President. He didn't make
contact at that point. Ms. Lewinsky came into his office about 4:47. It
was at 5:01 that he received a call from the President. So the
President actually called him at the same time Ms. Lewinsky was in the
office.
Let's look at Ms. Lewinsky's testimony as to her recollection of that
December 19 meeting with Mr. Jordan.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q You went to see Mr. Jordan, and you were inside his
office after 5 o'clock, and you did--is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Were--were you interrupted, in the office?
A Yes. He received a phone call.
Q And you testified that you didn't know who that was that
called?
A Correct.
Q Did you excuse yourself?
A Yes.
Q What--after you came back in, what--what occurred? Did he
tell you who he had been talking to?
A No.
Q Okay. What happened next?
A I know I've testified about this--
Q Yes.
A --so I stand by that testimony, and my recollection right
now is when I came back in the room, I think shortly after he
had placed a phone call to--to Mr. Carter's office, and told
me to come to his office at 10:30 Monday morning.
Q Did you know who Mr. Carter was?
A No.
Q Did Mr. Jordan tell you who he was?
A No--I don't remember.
Q Did you understand he was going to be your attorney?
A Yes.
Q Did you express any concerns about the--the subpoena?
A I think that happened before the phone call came.
Q Okay, but did you express concerns about the subpoena?
A Yes, yes.
Q And what were those concerns?
A In general, I think I was just concerned about being
dragged into this, and I was concerned because the subpoena
had called for a hatpin, that I turn over a hatpin, and that
was an alarm to me.
Q How--in what sense was it--in what sense was it an alarm
to you?
A The hatpin being on the subpoena was evidence to me that
someone had given that information to the Paula Jones people.
Q What did Mr. Jordan say about the subpoena?
A That it was standard.
Q Did he have any--did he have any comment about the
specificity of the hatpin?
A No.
Q And did you--
A He just kept telling me to calm down.
Q Did you raise that concern with Mr. Jordan?
A I don't remember if--if I've testified to it, then yes.
If--I don't remember right now.
Q Did--would you have remembered then if he made any
comment or answer about the hatpin?
A I mean, I think I would.
Q And you don't remember?
A I--I remember him saying something that it was--you know,
calm down, it's a standard subpoena or vanilla subpoena,
something like that.

What we see here is another example of compartmentalization of
information. During this meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan receives
a call from the President, presumably in response to a call he had
placed to the President, to tell him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed.
When the President calls, Mr. Jordan takes that call in private. It is
about Ms. Lewinsky, it is about the subpoena, and that information is
not shared with Ms. Lewinsky. It is of interest to her.
Let's go on and hear some more about Ms. Lewinsky's version of that
conversation on December 19.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

[[Page S1297]]

Q. Did Mr. Jordan during that meeting make an inquiry about
the nature of the relationship between you and the President?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What was that inquiry?
A. I don't remember the exact wording of the questions, but
there were two questions, and I think they were something
like did you have sex with the President or did he--and if--
or did he ask for it or some--something like that.

At this point, Ms. Lewinsky denies the relationship. She thinks this
is some type of a test. She is not sure the reason for the question.
She thinks he knows there is a little confusion on that. Clearly, Mr.
Jordan is not satisfied with the answer. Mother wit is still around, as
he indicated. But he feels so concerned about it that that night he
goes to see the President, that we will later see, and asks that same
question of the President.
Now, let's talk to President Clinton and see what he testifies about
when this information was reported to him on the subpoena. Let's listen
to the testimony of President Clinton.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that
Monica Lewinsky had been served with subpoena in this case?
A I don't think so.
Q Did you ever talk with Monica Lewinsky about the
possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case?
A Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she
was, I think maybe that's the first person told me she was. I
want to be as accurate as I can.

Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the Senator from NebraskA
Mr. KERREY. Can I ask the manager to identify which deposition this
is?
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. This is the January deposition.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. Chief Justice, will the manager answer the question
and then show that again? This is the second time he has shown a tape
of the President without indicating which deposition it was.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes, I think it would be a good idea for the
manager if he will indicate what deposition it was, if you are showing
a deposition video of the President.
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and I thank the
Senator for the question. It is a very fair question, and I will try to
be more clear in the identification of that. This is the testimony of
William Jefferson Clinton before the deposition in the Jones case in
January, January 17. I believe--can we replay that? We are not going to
replay that. Let me go on.
The testimony that he gave at that time was, ``Did anyone other than
your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with
a subpoena in that case,'' and the answer was, ``I don't think so.''
Clearly, Mr. Jordan was keeping close contact with the President,
telling him every step of the way, when the subpoena, the call, he is
placing a call back--the information is there, but, of course, the
President tries to diminish that.
Let's go on with some more testimony of Ms. Lewinsky.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Did you ask Mr. Jordan to call the President and advise
him of the subpoena?
A. I think so, yes. I asked him to inform the President. I
don't know if it was through telephone or not.
Q. And you did that because the President had asked you to
make sure you let Betty know that?
A. Well, sure. With Betty not being in the office, I
couldn't--there wasn't anyone else that I could call to get
through to him.
Q. Did Mr. Jordan say to you when he might see the
President next?
A. I believe he said he would see him that evening at a
holiday reception.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, could I inquire, was the manager
thinking in terms of concluding this portion in 15 minutes, or do you
want to take a break now?
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. This would be a good time for a break.

recess

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that we take a
15-minute break at this time.
There being no objection, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate recessed until
11:53 a.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by
the Chief Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I was going to
take the opportunity to replay the videotape--in fact, I will now--that
I did not properly explain before. This is the videotape of President
Clinton and his testimony before the civil deposition in the Jones case
in January of 1997.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. When you say ``before,'' you actually mean
``during,'' don't you? It is not before the deposition; his testimony
was during the deposition.
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chief Justice, you are absolutely
correct. Excuse me. Thank you.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

And now let's go to what Mr. Jordan has to say in reference to his
contacts with the President when he learned of the subpoena on December
19. Let's play that tape.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Now, Mr. Jordan, you indicated you had this conversation
with the President at about 5:01 p.m. out of the presence of
Ms. Lewinsky. Now, during this conversation with the
President, what did you tell the President in that
conversation?
A That Lewinsky--I'm sure I told him that Ms. Lewinsky was
in my office, in the reception area, that she had a subpoena
and that I was going to visit with her.
Q And did you advise the President as well that you were
going to recommend Frank Carter as an attorney?
A I may have.
Q And why was it necessary to tell the President these
facts?
A I don't know why it was not unnecessary to tell him these
facts. I was keeping him informed about what was going on,
and so I told him.
Q Why did you make the judgment that you should call the
President and advise him of these facts?
A I just thought he ought to know. He was interested it--he
was obviously interested in it--and I felt some
responsibility to tell him, and I did.
Q All right. And what was the President's response?
A He said thank you.
Q Subsequent to your conversation with the President about
Monica Lewinsky, did you advise Ms. Lewinsky of this
conversation with the President?
A I doubt it.

Once again, Mr. Jordan testifies that the President was obviously
interested in it. This was not a matter of casual interest to him. It
was a matter of deep concern that jeopardized what he saw as his
position in that lawsuit.
Now, let's go back again to the testimony of President Clinton, this
time before the grand jury in August of 1998.
(Playing of videotape.)
Mr. STEVENS. We cannot hear that monitor.
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. I will read the answer again:

. . . and Mr. Jordan informed you of that, is that right?
Answer: No, sir.

Now, in fairness to the President, he gives a longer answer than
that. I welcome anybody to read it, but it appears rather convoluted. I
think that you can see the contrast. There is no question in Mr.
Jordan's mind as to the details that he is providing to the President
on a regular basis. We are on December 19. The subpoena is issued. He
notifies the President. He notifies the President how the job search is
going. He notifies the President that they got representation through
Mr. Carter. So the details are provided to the President and to
contrast that with the President's recollection as to did he have any
contact with Mr. Jordan, once again diminishing that.
Let's go back to December 19, back to the chart--to December 19 when
the subpoena is issued. Mr. Jordan meets with Monica Lewinsky. He
confronts her about the relationship. Now, he goes that evening to see
the President at the White House to confront him personally about it to
discuss this with him. Let's hear from Mr. Jordan, and this is at the
White House.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Now, would you describe your conversation with the
President?
A. We were upstairs, uh, in the White House. Mrs. Jordan--
we came in by way of the Southwest Gate into the Diplomatic
Entrance--we left the car there. I took the elevator up to
the residence, and Mrs. Jordan went and visited at the party.
And the President was already upstairs--I had ascertained
that from the usher--and I went up, and I raised with him the
whole question of Monica Lewinsky and asked him directly if
he had had sexual relations with Monica

[[Page S1298]]

Lewinsky, and the President said, ``No, never.''

(Text of videotape presentation:)

A Well, we had established that.
Q All right. And did you tell him that you were concerned
about her fascination?
A I did.
Q And did you describe her as being emotional in your
meeting that day?
A I did.
Q And did you relate to the President that Ms. Lewinsky
asked about whether he was going to leave the First Lady at
the end of the term?
A I did.
Q And as--and then, you concluded that with the question as
to whether he had had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?
A And he said he had not, and I was satisfied--end of
conversation.
Q Now, once again, just as I asked the question in
reference to Ms. Lewinsky, it appears to me that this is an
extraordinary question to ask the President of the United
States. What led you to ask this question to the President?
A Well, first of all, I'm asking the question of my friend
who happens to be the President of the United States.
Q And did you expect your friend, the President of the
United States, to give you a truthful answer?
A I did.
Q Did you rely upon the President's answer in your decision
to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job?
A I believed him, and I continued to do what I had been
asked to do.
Q Well, my question was more did you rely upon the
President's answer in your decision to continue your efforts
to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job.
A I did not rely on his answer. I was going to pursue the
job in any event. But I got the answer to the question that I
had asked Ms. Lewinsky earlier from her, and I got the answer
from him that night as to the sexual relationships, and he
said no.

You will have to judge for yourselves as to why Mr. Jordan felt
compelled to ask the question. He is asking the right questions. It was
important information. If the President had said, ``Yes; there is,''
then it would certainly have been inappropriate to continue providing a
job benefit for a witness that you are seeking an affidavit from
denying a relationship when you know the relationship exists, when that
witness would be adverse to the President's interest who is seeking the
job.
To some that might be convoluted, and perhaps I didn't explain it as
best it can be. But it looks to me like that is why Mr. Jordan is
asking the question because he knows it would be inappropriate if that,
in fact, did exist. He got an answer ``no.'' I don't know what he
thought in his mind. But clearly you see the conversations develop when
Ms. Lewinsky made it totally clear to him without any question that
there was that relationship. But still the job benefit was provided.
We are not going to have time to go through it all. But sequentially,
the next thing that happens is December 2 when Ms. Lewinsky goes to Mr.
Jordan's office where Mr. Jordan drives her in the chauffeur-driven
government vehicle to Mr. Frank Carter's office where the attorney is
that is provided for Ms. Lewinsky. And that is the only time that it
happened in the referral that Mr. Jordan took it upon himself to
personally deliver a client to Mr. Carter. During that conversation,
Ms. Lewinsky tells Mr. Jordan more of the details of their
relationship.
But let's go to another element of obstruction--on December 28, a few
days after Christmas. You are very familiar with this episode in which
Ms. Lewinsky and the President meet. They exchange gifts. The testimony
in the Jones case is discussed. There is concern expressed about the
gifts. She asks the President in essence, Should I get them out of my
house? And you will hear her answer. Her testimony is very clear on
this. That is what I would like you to listen to. There is no
ambiguity. There are no ``what-ifs.'' It is very clear. And let's move
now to the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky.
(Inaudible.)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I can't hear.
Mr. GRAMM. Can we turn this up?
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. I don't think the question is audible.
Well, that is a different--it's not as sophisticated a sound
collection system as the U.S. Senate used in the depositions here, so I
apologize for the fact that that was inaudible but the question was
asked of the President:

Q. After you gave her the gifts on December 28, did you
speak with your secretary, Ms. Currie, and ask her to pick up
a box of gifts that was some compilation of gifts that Ms.
Lewinsky would have?

His answer:

No, sir, I did not do that.

His denial and then the facts presented by Ms. Lewinsky and the
circumstantial evidence, the question was asked of Ms. Lewinsky:

Q. Did the President ever tell you to turn over the gifts?
A. Not that I remember.

But when I say that she that testified unequivocally, whenever Ms.
Lewinsky was asked ``Did you later that day receive a call from Ms.
Currie,'' the answer was, ``Yes, I did,'' and she goes ahead and
explains it. There is no hesitation. There is no question. But their
memory is clear that the call came from Betty Currie.
Now, how could Betty Currie know to go pick up the gifts? I think you
understand there is only one way that could have come about, and that
would be through a communication from the President to her.
Now, let's go on down the path. After we see the meeting on December
28, there was a meeting at the Hyatt on December 31. We could play this
video--I would like to--with Vernon Jordan and with Ms. Lewinsky. This
is a meeting at the Hyatt that Mr. Jordan totally denied ever happened
in his first few testimonies before the grand jury. But in his most
recent testimony before the Senate, in the deposition, he was
confronted with receipts from the Hyatt, and the testimony of Ms.
Lewinsky which was clear, and the corroborating facts. And he said yes,
in fact, it did happen. And not only did he recall the meeting, but
then he recalled what was discussed, that yes, in fact, notes were
discussed there.
And Ms. Lewinsky testifies that she raised the issue of other
evidence that would be possibly in her apartment, notes to the
President. According to her testimony, she was told that: You need to
get rid of those.
Now, Mr. Jordan totally denies that. But the point is, there is more
evidence at risk for the President. Mr. Jordan, who is doing the work
for the President, has this conversation with Ms. Lewinsky that he
earlier denied ever happened.
So, I think you look at credibility there. You believe Ms. Lewinsky?
If you accept the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, then you have more
evidence that is at issue, and that is being urged to be destroyed and
not available for the truth-seeking endeavor in the civil rights case.
I think that is significant.
Now, you say that is not the President, that is Mr. Jordan. You have
to put this in context. It is Ms. Lewinsky who says that she is talking
to the President when she is talking to Mr. Jordan--and I am
paraphrasing that, but that is what she was seeing--seeing Mr. Jordan
as a conduit to the President.
Then we go on after the meeting in the Hyatt, we go into January,
where the job search continues. But it is tied directly to the signing
of the affidavit, which is false by its nature.
If we look at the testimony of Mr. Jordan, in the January 5 timeframe
where the affidavit is prepared and discussed with Mr. Jordan:
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Do you know why you would have been calling Mr. Carter on
3 occasions the day before the affidavit was signed?
A Yeah, my recollection is, is that I was exchanging or
sharing with Mr. Carter what had gone on, what she asked me
to do, what I refused to do, reaffirming to him that he was
the lawyer and I was not the lawyer. I mean, it would be so
presumptuous of me to try to advise Frank Carter as to how to
practice law.
Q Would you have been relating to Mr. Carter your
conversation with Ms. Lewinsky?
A I may have.
Q And if Ms. Lewinsky expressed to you any concerns about
the affidavit would you have relayed those to Mr. Carter?
A Yes.
Q And if Mr. Carter was a good attorney that was concerned
about the economics of law practice he would have likely
billed Ms. Lewinsky for some of those telephone calls?
A You have to talk to Mr. Carter about his billing.

So you have Mr. Jordan discussing the affidavit with both Ms.
Lewinsky and her attorney, Mr. Carter. And if you look at the testimony
of Mr. Carter, he talks about the fact that he did bill some time for
his conversations with Mr. Jordan. Certainly they are matters of
substance in relation to the affidavit that was being discussed between
the three: Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Carter.

[[Page S1299]]

Now, let's hear what Ms. Lewinsky has to say on the changes that were
made in the affidavit:
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q OK, have you had an opportunity to review the draft of
your affidavit?
A I--yes.
Q Do you have any comment or response?
A I received it. I made the suggested changes. And I
believe I spoke with Mr. Jordan about the changes I wanted to
make.

Now, because of time, I am not going to be able to go completely
through all of their testimony but let me tell you time sequentially
what is happening here. This is the second page of the time chart that
you have.
January 5 and 6, the affidavit is prepared and discussed with Mr.
Jordan and with the President.
On the 7th, the affidavit is signed. You recall Mr. Jordan lets the
President know that the affidavit was signed. And he says he was
interested, he was obviously interested in this.
On January 8 the job came through, the day after the affidavit was
signed. And of course it had to come through, the personal call of Mr.
Jordan to Mr. Perelman to ``make it happen--if it can happen.'' Once
that job is secured, the President is informed: Mission accomplished.
January 15, there are some inquiries from the news media about the
gifts that had been delivered to the White House. This makes Betty
Currie nervous enough that she has to go see Mr. Jordan about it.
You go to the 17th; the President gives his deposition in which that
false affidavit is presented on behalf of Ms. Lewinsky and the
President's attorney.
And then the next day, after that deposition is given, you go to
January 18, where he is very concerned because he mentions Betty
Currie's name so many times.

We were not able--we did not ask for the deposition of Betty Currie.
We wish that we had had that opportunity. We would like to call her
here. But that is one of the most critical and important elements of
the structure in which the truth is so critically clear, because it
happened not just on one day, because it happened on a couple of days.
We see on the 17th, the President is deposed. This is the third chart
that you have. The 18th, the President coaches Betty Currie, going
through the series of questions. On the 19th, there is this dramatic
search for Ms. Lewinsky. On the 20th, the Washington Post story becomes
known, because the President's counselors get calls and the OIC
investigation becomes known.
On the 21st, at 12:30 a.m., the Post story appears on the Internet.
At 12:41, the President calls Bruce Lindsey. At 1:16 a.m, the Post
story appears. The President calls Betty Currie for 20 minutes,
discusses the Post story. And then, according to Betty Currie, on the
20th or the 21st, it was the second incident of coaching that took
place, where the President calls her in and goes through that series of
questions: I did nothing wrong; she came on to me; we were never alone.
And so that was the second time that it happened. And that, ladies and
gentlemen of the Senate, is another example of witness tampering: A
known witness clearly going to be testifying, a subordinate employee
who is called in and coached.
Now, the President says, ``I was trying to gain facts.'' You
determine that. You are the ones who have to defend that question as to
whether, under common sense, the President was gaining information on
two separate occasions or whether he was actually trying to tamper with
the testimony of a witness.
The 21st, she is subpoenaed by the OIC. The 23rd, she is added to the
Jones witness list.
Now I want to play the last video clip that I am going to move to on
Ms. Lewinsky, some things that she said that are different with regard
to the President:
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q The President did not in that conversation on December 17
of 1997, or any other conversation for that matter, instruct
you to tell the truth; is that correct?
A That's correct.

* * * * *

Q But the--the pattern that you had with the President to
conceal this relationship, it was never questioned that, for
instance, that given day that he gave you gifts you were not
going to surrender those to the Jones attorneys because that
would--
A In my mind there is no reflection; no.

We have one more here we would like you to listen to.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

A Sure, gosh, I think to me that if the President had not
said to Betty in letters us--cover--let us just say if we
refer to that which I am talking about in paragraph 4 of page
4, I would have known to use that. So, to me, encouraging or
asking me to lie would have, you know if the President had
said now listen you better not say anything about this
relationship, you better not tell them the truth, you better
not--for me the best way to explain how I feel what happened
was, you know, no one asked or encouraged me to lie, but no
one discouraged me either.
It is very important to understand that we want you to know very
clearly that Ms. Lewinsky says that the President never told her to
lie. There is no question about that. There is no dispute about that,
either. I think you have to look at all the context of this. What the
President did suggest to her was to use an affidavit to avoid truthful
testimony, to stick with the cover stories under legal context.
Is the issue here whether Ms. Lewinsky believed the President was
encouraging her to lie, that's what the President was trying to do
here? Or is the issue what the President was trying to do? It is your
determination. You have to make the decision whether the President, in
talking to a 24-year-old ex-employee, whether he is encouraging her to
come forward and to tell the truth or, in a legal context, to use the
old cover stories, to lie, to use false affidavits, to avoid the truth
from coming out.
It is not Ms. Lewinsky's viewpoint that is important. It is what the
President intended. What did the President intend by this conversation
when he told her on December 17, ``Guess what, bad news; you're a
witness''. Then he proceeded to suggest to her ways to avoid truthful
testimony.
I really don't care what is in Ms. Lewinsky's mind at that point. The
critical issue is what is in the President's mind at that point as to
what he was intending. Was it an innocent conversation, or was it a
conversation with corrupt intent?
I believe that if you put all of this in context--from the affidavit
to the job search, to the coaching of Ms. Betty Currie, to all of the
other conversations with the aides--that it was the President's intent
to avoid the workings of the administration of justice, to impede the
flow of the truth in the administration of justice for his own benefit,
and that is what obstruction of justice is about. That is what people
go to jail about, and that is what we are presenting to you as a
factual basis for this case.
I now yield to my fellow manager, Mr. Rogan.

recess

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I think it would be appropriate if we
take a break at this time for lunch and return at 1:15, and I so ask
unanimous consent.
There being no objection, at 12:22 p.m., the Senate recessed until
1:24 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by
the Chief Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I believe we are ready to resume the presentation by the House
managers, and Mr. Manager Rogan is prepared to speak.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan.
Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, before
the break, you had the opportunity to hear the very able presentation
from Mr. Manager Hutchinson relating to the article of impeachment
alleging obstruction of justice against the President of the United
States. I would like to use my portion to discuss very briefly article
I of the impeachment resolution that alleges on August 17, 1998, the
President committed perjury before a Federal grand jury conducting a
criminal investigation. He did this in a number of ways, embarking on a
calculated effort to cover up illegal obstruction of justice.
First, the President lied about statements he made to his top aides
regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is significant
because the President admitted, under oath, that he knew these aides
were potential witnesses before a criminal grand jury.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

[[Page S1300]]

A. And so I said to them things that were true about this
relationship. That I used--in the language I used, I said
there was nothing going on between us. That was true. I said
I have not had sex with her as I define it. That was true.
And did I hope that I never had to be here on this day giving
this testimony, of course. But I also didn't want to do
anything to complicate this matter further.
So I said things that were true that may have been
misleading, and if they were, I have to take responsibility
for it, and I am sorry.
Q. It may have been misleading, but you knew, though, after
January 21 when the Post article broke and said that Judge
Starr was looking into this, you knew they might be
witnesses, you knew they might be called into the grand jury?
A. That's right.
Q. And you do you recall denying any sexual relationship
with Monica Lewinsky to the following people: Harry
Thomasson, Erskine Bowles, Harold Ickes, Mr. Podesta, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Jordan, Miss Betty Currie. Do you recall
denying any sexual relation--

The question to the President: ``You knew they might be called into a
grand jury, didn't you?'' Answer by the President: ``That's right.''
The President's testimony that he said things that were misleading
but true to his aides was perjury.
Just as the President predicted, several of his top aides later were
called to testify before the grand jury as to what the President told
them. When they testified before the grand jury, they passed along the
President's false account, just as the President intended. The
President's former chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, and his current
chief of staff, John Podesta, went before the grand jury and testified
that the President told them he did not have sexual relations with
Monica and he did not ask anybody to lie.
Mr. Podesta had an additional meeting with the President 2 days after
the story broke. Mr. Podesta testified that at that meeting with the
President the President was extremely explicit in saying he never had
sex with her in any way whatever and that he was not alone with her in
the Oval Office.
The most glaring example of the President using an aide as a
messenger of lies to the grand jury was his manipulation of his
Presidential assistant, Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blumenthal has been
assistant to the President since August of 1997. Mr. Blumenthal
testified that dealing with the media was one of his responsibilities
on January 21, 1998, the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke. Mr.
Blumenthal testified under oath that once the story became public, he
attended twice-a-day White House strategy sessions called to deal with
the political, legal, and media impact of the Clinton scandals on the
White House.
In his deposition testimony taken just this week by authority of the
U.S. Senate, Mr. Blumenthal shared in chilling detail the story of how
the President responded to the public discovery of his longstanding
relationship with a young woman who had shared tearful and emotional
descriptions of her love for him. Mr. Clinton responded not in love,
not in friendship, not even with a grain of concern for her well-being
or emotional stability. Instead, the President took the deep and
apparently unrequited emotional attachment Monica Lewinsky had formed
for him, and prepared to summarily take her life and throw it on the
ash heap.
The date is January 21, 1998. The Lewinsky scandal had just broken in
the newspapers that morning. Mr. Blumenthal met initially with the
First Lady, Mrs. Clinton, to get her take on the growing political fire
storm. Later that day, Mr. Blumenthal is summoned to the Oval Office.
Listen as Sidney Blumenthal describes, step by step, the destructive
mechanism of the man who twice was elected President under the banner
of feeling other people's pain.

(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Mr. Blumenthal, specifically inviting your attention to
January 21, 1998, you testified before the grand jury that on
that date you personally spoke to the President regarding the
Monica Lewinsky matter, correct?
A. Yes.

* * * * *

Q. You are familiar with the Washington Post story that
broke that day?
A. I am.

* * * * *

Q. The story stated that the Office of Independent Counsel
was investigating whether the President made false statements
about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones case?
A. Right.
Q. And also that the Office of Independent Counsel was
investigating whether the President obstructed justice in the
Jones case, is that your best recollection of what that story
was about?
A. Yes.

* * * * *

Q. And you now remember that the President asked to speak
with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to the Oval Office?
A. Yes.
Q. During that conversation were you alone with the
President?
A. I was.
Q. Do you remember if the door was closed?
A. It was.
Q. When you met with the President, did you relate to him a
conversation you had with the First Lady earlier that day?
A. I did.
Q. What did you tell the President the First Lady told you
earlier that day?
A. I believe that I told him that the First Lady had called
me earlier in the day, and in the light of the story in the
Post had told me that the President had helped troubled
people in the past and that he had done it many times and
that he was a compassionate person and that he helped people
also out of his religious conviction and that part it was
part of--his nature.
Q. And did she also tell you that one of the other reasons
he helped people was out of his personal temperament?
A. Yes. That is what I mean by that.

* * * * *

Q. Do you remember telling the President that the First
Lady said to you that she felt that with--in reference to the
story that he was being attacked for political motives?
A. I remember her saying that to me, yes.
Q. And you relayed that to the President?
A. I'm not sure I relayed that to the President. I may have
just relayed the gist of the conversation to him. I don't --
I'm not sure whether I relayed the entire conversation.

Mr. ROGAN: Inviting the Senators and counsel's attention to the June
4th, 1998 testimony of Mr. Blumenthal, page 47, beginning at line 5.

By Mr. ROGAN:
Q. Mr. Blumenthal, let me just read a passage to you and
tell me if this helps to refresh your memory?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Reading at line 5, ``I was in my office, and the
President asked me to come to the Oval Office. I was seeing
him frequently in this period about the State of the Union
and Blair's visit''--that was Prime Minister Tony Blair, as
an aside --correct?
A. That's right.

* * * * *

Q. Reading at line 7, ``So I went up to the Oval Office and
I began a discussion, and I said that I HAD received--that I
had spoken to the First Lady that day in the afternoon about
the story that had broke in the morning, and I related to the
President my conversation with the First Lady and the
conversation went as follows. The First Lady said that she
was distressed that the President was being attacked, in her
view, for political motives for his ministry of a troubled
person. She said that the President ministers to troubled
people all the time,'' and then it goes on to--
Does that help refresh your recollection with respect to
what you told the President the First Lady had said earlier?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you now remember that the First Lady had
indicated to you that she felt the President was being
attacked for political motives?
A. Well, I remember she said that to me.
Q. And just getting us back on track, a few moments ago, I
think you--you shared with us that the First Lady said
that the President helped troubled people and he had done
it many times in the past.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember testifying before the grand jury on that
subject, saying that the First Lady said that he has done
this dozens, if not hundreds, of times with people--
A. Yes.
Q. --with troubled people?
A. I recall that.
Q. After you related the conversation that you had with the
First Lady to the President, what do you remember saying to
the President next about the subject of Monica Lewinsky?
A. Well, I recall telling him that I understood he felt
that way, and that he did help people, but that he should
stop trying to help troubled people personally, that troubled
people are troubled and that they can get you in a lot of
messes and that you had to cut yourself off from it and you
just had to do it. That's what I recall saying to him.
Q. Do you also remember in that conversation saying to him,
``You really need to not do that at this point, that you
can't get near anybody who is even remotely crazy. You're
President''?
A. Yes. I think that was a little later in the
conversation, but I do recall saying that.
Q. When you told the President that he should avoid contact
with troubled people, what did the President say to you in
response?
A. I'm trying to remember the sequence of it. He--he said
that was very difficult for him. He said he--he felt a need
to help troubled people, and it was hard for him to--to cut
himself off from doing that.

[[Page S1301]]

Q. Do you remember him saying specifically, ``It's very
difficult for me to do that given how I am. I want to help
people''?
A. I recall--I recall that.
Q. And when the President referred to helping people, did
you understand him in that conversation to be referring to
Monica Lewinsky?
A. I think it included Monica Lewinsky, but also many
others.
Q. Right, but it was your understanding that he was all--he
was specifically referring to Monica Lewinsky in that list of
people that he tried to help?
A. I believe that--that was implied.
Q. Do you remember being asked that question before the
grand jury and giving the answer, ``I understood that''?
A. If you could point it out to me, I'd be happy to see it.

* * * * *

By Mr. ROGAN: Inviting Senators' and counsels' attention to
June 25th, 1998 grand jury, page 5, I believe it's at lines 6
through 8.
The WITNESS: Yes, I see that. Thank you.
By Mr. ROGAN:
Q. You recall that now?
A. Yes.

Following this conversation where Mr. Blumenthal told the President
about his conversation with the First Lady that day, the President told
Mr. Blumenthal about the President's own conversation he had earlier
that day with his pollster, Dick Morris.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Mr. Blumenthal, did the President then relate a
conversation he had with Dick Morris to you?
A. He did.
Q. What was the substance of that conversation, as the
President related it to you?
A. He said that he had spoken to Dick Morris earlier that
day, and that Dick Morris had told him that if Nixon, Richard
Nixon, had given a nationally televised speech at the
beginning of the Watergate affair, acknowledging everything
he had done wrong, he may well have survived it, and that was
the conversation that Dick Morris--that's what Dick Morris
said to the President.
Q. Did it sound to you like the President was suggesting
perhaps he would go on television and give a national speech?
A. Well, I don't know. I didn't know.
Q. When the President related the substance of his
conversation with Dick Morris to you, how did you respond to
that?
A I said to the President, ``Well, what have you done
wrong?''
Q Did he reply?
A He did.
Q What did he say?
A He said, ``I haven't done anything wrong.''
Q And what did you say to that response?
A Well, I said, as I recall, ``That's one of the stupidest
ideas I ever heard. If you haven't done anything wrong, why
would you do that?''

After denying to Mr. Blumenthal any wrongdoing with Monica Lewinsky,
the President then struck the harshest of blows against her. He
launched a preemptive strike against her name and her character to an
aide who he expected would be, and very shortly became, a witness
before a Federal grand jury investigation.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Did the President then give you his account of what
happened between him and Monica Lewinsky?
A As I recall, he did.
Q What did the President tell you?
A He, uh--he spoke, uh, fairly rapidly, as I recall, at
that point and said that she had come on to him and made a
demand for sex, that he had rebuffed her, turned her down,
and that she, uh, threatened him. And, uh, he said that she
said to him, uh, that she was called ``the stalker'' by her
peers and that she hated the term, and that she would claim
that they had had an affair whether they had or they hadn't,
and that she would tell people.
Q Do you remember him also saying that the reason Monica
Lewinsky would tell people that is because then she wouldn't
be known by her peers as ``the stalker'' anymore?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Do you remember the President also saying that--and I'm
quoting--``I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain
for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again''?
A Yes. He told me that.
Q And that was in the same conversation that you had with
the President?
A Right, in--in that sequence.
Q Can you describe for us the President's demeanor when he
shared this information with you?
A Yes. He was, uh, very upset. I thought he was, a man in
anguish.
Q And at that point, did you repeat your earlier admonition
to him as far as not trying to help troubled people?
A I did. I--I think that's when I told him that you can't
get near crazy people, uh, or troubled people. Uh, you're
President; you just have to separate yourself from this.
Q And I'm not sure, based on your testimony, if you gave
that admonition to him once or twice. Let me--let me clarify
for you why my questioning suggested it was twice. In your
grand jury testimony on June the 4th, at page 49, beginning
at line 25, you began the sentence by saying, and I quote,
``And I repeated to the President''--
A Right.
Q --``that he really needed never to be near people who
were''--
A Right.
Q --``troubled like this,'' and so forth. Do you remember
now if you--if that was correct? Did you find yourself in
that conversation having to repeat the admonition to him that
you'd given earlier?
A I'm sure I did. Uh, I felt--I felt that pretty strongly.
He shouldn't be involved with troubled people.
Q Do you remember the President also saying something about
being like a character in a novel?
A I do.
Q What did he say?
A Uh, he said to me, uh, that, uh, he felt like a character
in a novel. Uh, he felt like somebody, uh, surrounded by, uh,
an oppressive environment that was creating a lie about him.
He said he felt like, uh, the character in the novel Darkness
at Noon.
Q Did he also say he felt like he can't get the truth out?
A Yes, I--I believe he said that.
Q Politicians are always loathe to confess their ignorance,
particularly on videotape. I will do so. I'm unfamiliar with
the novel Darkness at Noon. Did you--do you have any
familiarity with that, or did you understand what the
President meant by that?
A I--I understood what he meant. I--I was familiar with the
book.
Q What--what did he mean by that, per your understanding?
A Uh, the book is by Arthur Koestler, who was somebody who
had been a communist and had become disillusioned with
communism. And it's an anti-communist novel. It's about, uh,
uh, the Stalinist purge trials and somebody who was a loyal
communist who then is put in one of Stalin's prisons and held
on trial and executed, uh, and it's about his trial.
Q Did you understand what the President was trying to
communicate when he related his situation to the character in
that novel?
A I think he felt that the world was against him.
Q I thought only Members of Congress felt that way.

The President continued to pass along false information to Mr.
Blumenthal with regard to the substance of his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Mr. Blumenthal, did you ever ask the President if he was
ever alone with Monica Lewinsky?
A I did.
Q What was his response?
A I asked him a number of questions that appeared in the
press that day. I asked him, uh, if he were alone, and he
said that, uh, he was within eyesight or earshot of someone
when he was with her.
Q What other questions do you remember asking him?
A Uh, there was a story in the paper that, uh, there were
recorded messages, uh, left by him on her voice-mail and I
asked him if that were true.
Q What did he say?
A He said, uh, that it was, that, uh, he had called her.
Q You had asked him about a press account that said there
were potentially a number of telephone messages left by the
President for Monica Lewinsky. And he relayed to you that he
called her. Did he tell you how many times he called her?
A He--he did. He said he called once. He said he called
when, uh, Betty Currie's brother had died, to tell her that.
Q And other than that one time that he shared that
information with you, he shared no other information
respecting additional calls?
A No.
Q He never indicated to you that there were over 50
telephone conversations between himself and Monica Lewinsky?
A No.
Q Based on your conversation with the President at that
time, would it have surprised you to know that there were
over 50--there were records of over 50 telephone
conversations with Monica Lewinsky and the President?
A Would I have been surprised at that time?
Q Yes.
A Uh, I--to see those records and if he--I don't fully
grasp the question here. Could you--would I have been
surprised?
Q Based on the President's response to your question at
that time, would it have surprised you to have been told or
to have later learned that there were over 50 recorded--50
conversations between the President and Ms. Lewinsky?
A I did later learn that, uh, as the whole country did, uh,
and I was surprised.
Q When the President told you that Monica Lewinsky
threatened him, did you ever feel compelled to report that
information to the Secret Service?
A No.
Q The FBI or any other law enforcement organization?
A No.
Q I'm assuming that a threat to the President from somebody
in the White House

[[Page S1302]]

would normally send off alarm bells among staff.
A It wouldn't--
MR. McDANIEL: Well, I'd like to object to the question,
Senator. There's no testimony that Mr. Blumenthal learned of
a threat contemporaneously with it being made by someone in
the White House. This is a threat that was relayed to him
sometime afterwards by someone who was no longer employed in
the White House. So I think the question doesn't relate to
the testimony of this witness.
MR. ROGAN: Respectfully, I'm not sure what the legal basis
of the objection is. The evidence before us is that the
President told the witness that Monica Lewinsky threatened
him.
[Senators Specter and Edwards conferring.]
SENATOR SPECTER: We've conferred and overrule the objection
on the ground that it calls for an answer; that, however the
witness chooses to answer it, was not a contemporaneous
threat, or he thought it was stale, or whatever he thinks.
But the objection is overruled.
MR. ROGAN: Thank you.
BY MR. ROGAN:
Q Let me--let me restate the question, if I may. Mr.
Blumenthal, would a threat--
SENATOR SPECTER: We withdraw the ruling.
[Laughter.]
MR. McDANIEL: I withdraw my objection, then.
[Laughter.]
MR. ROGAN: Senator Specter, the ruling is just fine by my
light. I'm just going to try to simplify the question for the
witness' benefit.
SENATOR SPECTER: We'll hold in abeyance a decision on
whether to reinstate the ruling.
MR. ROGAN: Thank you. Maybe I should just quit while I'm
ahead and have the question read back.
BY MR. ROGAN:
Q Basically, Mr. Blumenthal, what I'm asking is, I mean,
normally, would a threat from somebody against the President
in the White House typically require some sort of report
being made to a law enforcement agency?
A Uh, in the abstract, yes.
Q This conversation that you had with the President on
January the 21st, 1998, how did that conversation conclude?
A Uh, I believe we, uh--well, I believe after that, I said
to the President that, uh--who was--seemed to me to be upset,
that you needed to find some sure footing and to be
confident. And, uh, we went on, I believe, to discuss the
State of the Union.
Q You went on to other business?
A Yes, we went on to talk about public policy.
Q When this conversation with the President concluded as it
related to Monica Lewinsky, what were your feelings toward
the President's statement?
A Uh, well, they were complex. Uh, I believed him, uh, but
I was also, uh--I thought he was very upset. That troubled
me. And I also was troubled by his association with troubled
people and thought this was not a good story and thought he
shouldn't be doing this.
Q Do you remember also testifying before the grand jury
that you felt that the President's story was a very heartfelt
story and that ``he was pouring out his heart, and I believed
him''?
A Yes, that's what I told the grand jury, I believe; right.
Q That was--that was how you interpreted the President's
story?
A Yes, I did. He was, uh--he seemed--he seemed emotional.
Q When the President told you he was helping Monica
Lewinsky, did he ever describe to you how he might be helping
or ministering to her?
A No.
Q Did he ever describe how many times he may have tried to
help or minister to her?
A No.
Q Did he tell you how many times he visited with Monica
Lewinsky?
A No.
Q Did he tell you how many times Monica Lewinsky visited
him in the Oval Office complex?
A No.
Q. Did he tell you how many times he was alone with Monica
Lewinsky?
A No.
Q He never described to you any intimate physical activity
he may have had with Monica Lewinsky?
A Oh, no.
Q Did the President ever tell you that he gave any gifts to
Monica Lewinsky?
A No.
Q Did he tell you that Monica Lewinsky gave him any gifts?
A No.
Q Based on the President's story as he related on January
21st, would it have surprised you to know at that time that
there was a repeated gift exchange between Monica Lewinsky
and the President?
A Well, I learned later about that, and I was surprised.
Q The President never told you that he engaged in
occasional sexual banter with her on the telephone?
A No.
Q He never told you about any cover stories that he and
Monica Lewinsky may have developed to disguise a
relationship?
A No.
Q He never suggested to you that there might be some
physical evidence pointing to a physical relationship between
he--between himself and Monica Lewinsky?
A No.
Q Did the President ever discuss his grand jury--or strike
that.
Did the President ever discuss his deposition testimony
with you in the Paula Jones case on that date?
A Oh, no.
Q Did he ever tell you that he denied under oath in his
Paula Jones deposition that he had an affair with Monica
Lewinsky?
A No.
Q Did the President ever tell you that he ministered to
anyone else who then made a sexual advance toward him?
A No.

One of the things that the President's counsel has continuously urged
upon this body, as they did over in the House of Representatives, is to
look at the President's state of mind in determining whether, in fact,
he committed the crime of perjury. We hope that you will do that.
Because nowhere is the President's state of mind more evident than it
is in the manner in which he dealt with Sidney Blumenthal at this
point.
Remember, the date of this conversation that Sidney Blumenthal just
related to you was January 21, the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke.
About a month later, Sidney Blumenthal was called to testify as a
witness before the grand jury. That was the first time.
Five months later or 4 months later Sidney Blumenthal was called back
to testify to the grand jury--not once, but two more times. From
January 21 until the end of June 1998, the President had almost 6
months in which to tell Sidney Blumenthal, after he was subpoenaed, but
before he testified, not to tell the grand jury information that was
false. The President had the opportunity to not use his aide as a
conduit of false information. Listen to what Sidney Blumenthal said the
President failed to tell him.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q After you were subpoenaed to testify but before you
testified before the Federal grand jury, did the President
ever recant his earlier statements to you about Monica
Lewinsky?
A No.
Q After you were subpoenaed but before you testified before
the federal grand jury, did the President ever say that he
did not want you to mislead the grand jury with a false
statement?
A No. We didn't have any subsequent conversation about this
matter.
Q So it would be fair also to say that after you were
subpoenaed but before you testified before the Federal grand
jury, the President never told you that he was not being
truthful with you in that January 21st conversation about
Monica Lewinsky?
A Uh, he never spoke to me about that at all.
Q The President never instructed you before your testimony
before the grand jury not to relay his false account of his
relationship with Monica Lewinsky?
A We--we didn't speak about anything.

The President of the United States used a special assistant, one of
his aides, as a conduit to go before a Federal grand jury and present
false and misleading information and precluded the grand jury from
being able to make an honest determination in their investigation. He
obstructed justice when he did it, and when he denied that testimony he
committed the offense of perjury.
In response to a question from Mr. Manager Graham, Mr. Blumenthal
candidly addressed the President's claim under oath that he was
truthful with his aides that he knew would be future grand jury
witnesses:
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q . . . Knowing what you know now, do you believe the
President lied to you about his relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky?
A I do.
Q I appreciate your honesty . . . .

* * * * *

Q . . . Is it a fair statement, given your previous
testimony concerning your 30-minute conversation, that the
President was trying to portray himself as a victim of a
relationship with Monica Lewinsky?
A I think that's the import of his whole story.

In an earlier presentation, the President's attorney, Mr. Ruff, said
that the very same denial the President made to his family and his
friends was the same one he made to the American people.
Mr. Ruff said:

Having made the announcement to the whole country, it is
simply absurd, I suggest to you, to believe that he was
somehow attempting corruptly to influence his senior staff
when he told them virtually the same thing at the same time.

Members of the Senate, Mr. Ruff's conclusion is wrong because his
premise is wrong. The President didn't tell the American public and his
aides the same thing, nor did he make the

[[Page S1303]]

very same denial. On the contrary, the President went out of his way
with his aides to make explicit denials, coupled with character
assassination against Monica Lewinsky. Why the distinction? Because the
American public was not destined to be subpoenaed as a witness before
the grand jury and the President's aides were.
Members of the Senate, our time draws short. The record is replete
with other examples which I have addressed and Mr. Manager Hutchinson
has addressed dealing with the President's perjuries in other areas,
for instance, in the Paula Jones deposition where he emphatically
denied having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky that we now know to
be true, a relationship that a Federal judge ordered him to discuss
with Paula Jones' attorneys because it was relevant information in the
sexual civil harassment lawsuit.
The President's perjury is with respect to Betty Currie and using
Betty Currie as somebody to be brought into the Oval Office so that he
could coach her as a witness and doing everything he could in his own
testimony to ensure that the Jones attorney would subpoena her as a
witness, to once again use a White House aide as a conduit of false
information before the grand jury.

I don't feel the need to have to go over this ground with you any
further. In my final couple of minutes, before I reserve time, I do
want to raise one last point, because I think it is a valid one and it,
perhaps, in the long run, is the most important point that this body
should consider in coming to their verdict.
We have heard an awful lot throughout this entire episode about the
idea of proportionality of punishment. We have also heard that lying
about sex somehow minimizes the perjury because everybody does it. Many
people in everyday life under the stress of ordinary relations may well
lie about personal matters when confronted with embarrassing
situations. But, no, everybody doesn't commit perjury under oath in a
court proceeding, having been ordered by a Federal judge to answer
questions. And if they did so, they generally don't expect to keep
their job or their liberty if they get caught.
The dispensation this President wants for himself is not the same
dispensation he grants as head of the executive branch to ordinary
Americans when they lie about sex under oath. Bill Clinton wants it
both ways. The question before this body is whether you are going to
give it to him.
During our committee hearings, we learned the Clinton administration
had no shyness in prosecuting other people for lying under oath about
consensual sex in civil cases, even when the underlying civil case was
dismissed. For instance, Dr. Barbara Battalino was an attorney and a VA
doctor when she began a relationship with one of her counseling
patients at a VA hospital. On a single occasion, she performed an
inappropriate sexual act with him in her office. The patient later sued
the Veterans Administration for, among other things, sexual harassment.
During a deposition in this civil lawsuit, Dr. Battalino was asked if
anything of a sexual nature took place in her office with the patient.
Fearing embarrassment, disgrace and the loss of her job, Dr. Battalino
answered, ``No.'' Later, she learned the patient had tape recorded
conversations which proved she lied about sex under oath.
Even though the patient's harassment case was eventually dismissed,
the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted Dr. Battalino. She lost her
medical license. She lost her right to practice law. She was fired from
her job. She later agreed to a plea bargain. She was fined $3,500 and
sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment under electronic monitoring.
Listen to the words of Dr. Battalino as she testified before the
House Judiciary Committee, and then explain to her the theory of
proportionality, if you can.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Dr. Battalino, your case intrigues me.
I want to make sure I understand the factual circumstances.
You lied about a one-time act of consensual sex with someone
on Federal property; is that correct?
Ms. Battalino. Yes, absolutely, correct.
Mr. Rogan. This act of perjury was in a civil lawsuit, not
in a criminal case?
Ms. Battalino. That's also correct.
Mr. Rogan. And, in fact, the civil case eventually was
dismissed?
Ms. Battalino. Correct.
Mr. Rogan. Yet despite the dismissal, you were prosecuted
by the Clinton Justice Department for this act of perjury; is
that correct?
Ms. Battalino. That is correct.
Mr. Rogan. I want to know, Dr. Battalino: During your
ordeal, during your prosecution, did anybody from the White
House, from the Clinton Justice Department, any Members of
Congress, or academics from respected universities every show
up at your trial and suggest that you should be treated with
leniency because ``everybody lies about sex''?
Ms. Battalino. No, sir.
Mr. Rogan. Did anybody ever come forward from the White
House or from the Clinton Justice Department and urge
leniency for you because your jerjury was only in a civil
case?
Ms. Battalino. No.
Mr. Rogan. Did they argue for leniency because the civil
case in which you committed perjury was ultimately dismissed?
Ms. Battalino. No.
Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from the White House ever say that
leniency should be granted to you because you otherwise did
your job very well?
Ms. Battalino. No.
Mr. Rogan. Did anybody ever come forward from Congress to
suggest that you were the victim of an overzealous or sex-
obsessed prosecutor?
Ms. Battalino. No.
Mr. Rogan. Now, according to the New York Times, they
report that you lied when your lawyer asked you at a
deposition whether ``anything of a sexual nature'' occurred;
is that correct?
Ms. Battalino. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from Congress or from the White
House come forward to defend you, saying that that phrase was
ambiguous or it all depended on what the word ``anything''
meant?
Ms. Battalino. No, sir. May I just--I am not sure it was my
lawyer that asked the question, but that is the exact
question that I was asked.
Mr. Rogan. The question that was asked that caused your
prosecution for perjury.
Ms. Battalino. That's correct.
Mr. Rogan. No one ever argued that that phrase itself was
ambiguous, did they?
Ms. Battalino. No.
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rogan. Regrettably, my time is limited and I will not
yield for that reason.
Now, Doctor, you lost two licenses. You lost a law license.
Ms. Battalino. Well, I have a law degree. I was not a
member of any bar.
Mr. Rogan. Your conviction precludes you from practicing
law?
Ms. Battalino. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Rogan. You also had a medical degree and license.
Ms. Battalino. That is correct.
Mr. Rogan. You lost your medical license?
Ms. Battalino. Yes. I am no longer permitted to practice
medicine either.
Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from either the White House or from
Congress come forward during your prosecution, or during your
sentencing, and suggest that rather than you suffer the
severe punishment of no longer being able to practice your
profession, perhaps you should simply just receive some sort
of rebuke or censure?
Ms. Battalino. No one came to my aid or defense, no.
Mr. Rogan. Nobody from the Clinton Justice Department
suggested that during your sentencing hearing?
Ms. Battalino. No.
Mr. Rogan. Has anybody come forward from the White House to
suggest to you that in light of circumstances, as we now see
them unfolding, you should be pardoned for your offense?
Ms. Battalino. Nobody has come no. . . .

That is how the Clinton administration defines proportionality in
punishment.
Mr. Chief Justice, we reserve the remainder of our time.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. The Chair recognizes the majority
leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe now we are prepared to hear
from White House counsel for up to 3 hours. How much time is remaining
for the House managers?
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thirty-one minutes.
Mr. LOTT. Does the Chief Justice suggest we take a brief break here?
The CHIEF JUSTICE. No, let's keep going.
Mr. LOTT. All right, sir.
(Laughter.)
Mr. LOTT. I guess that settles that.
(Laughter.)
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Counsel Seligman.
Ms. Counsel SELIGMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the
Senate, the House managers have suggested to you that the deposition of
Ms. Lewinsky helped their case. The opposite is true. Ms. Lewinsky
undermined critical aspects of the House managers' obstruction case.
As those of you who watched the entire video are well aware, the
managers have cleverly snipped here and there in

[[Page S1304]]

an effort to present their story even if, as a result, the story they
are telling you is not Ms. Lewinsky's story. They have distorted, they
have omitted, and they have created a profoundly erroneous impression.
So let's look at the facts.
In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky reaffirmed her previous
testimony and provided extremely useful supplements to that testimony.
We asked her no questions. Why? Because there was no need. Her
testimony exonerated the President. In four areas in particular, what
she said demonstrates that the allegations in the articles cannot
stand.
First, she refuted the allegations in article II, subpart (1), with
respect to alleged efforts to obstruct and influence Ms. Lewinsky's
affidavit.
Second, she contradicted the allegations in article II, subpart (2),
with respect to alleged efforts to influence Ms. Lewinsky's testimony
as distinct from her affidavit.
Third, she undermined the allegations in article II, subpart (3),
with respect to alleged efforts to conceal gifts.
And fourth, she rebutted the allegations in article II, subpart (4),
with respect to Ms. Lewinsky's job search.
I will discuss each briefly.
Let's begin with the December 17 phone call between the President and
Ms. Lewinsky, which is at the heart of article II's first two subparts.
The managers have consistently exaggerated the facts, the impact, and
the import of this conversation. They have relentlessly argued that you
should draw inferences and conclusions that are not supported by the
evidence. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony this week should put an end to these
inflated claims about that call.
Article II charges, in subpart (1), that the President: ``On or about
December 17, 1997,'' ``corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in
that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.''
``On or about December 17.'' In other words, the allegation is firmly
grounded in the December 17 phone call. That is where the House of
Representatives charged the deed was done. That is the single event on
which the managers base the first obstruction of justice charge.
Indeed, Mr. Manager McCollum made this point emphatically before the
Senate. He claimed:

In this context, the evidence is compelling that the
President committed both the crimes of obstruction of justice
and witness tampering right then and there on December 17th.

He went on:

Now, Monica Lewinsky's testimony is so clear about this
that the President's lawyers probably won't spend a lot of
time with you on this; they didn't in the Judiciary
Committee. I could be wrong, and they probably will just to
show me I am wrong.

Well, Mr. McCollum was wrong in one respect. We do plan to spend time
on that call. But he was absolutely right in another respect. He was
correct that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is so clear on this issue. It is
so clear it exonerates the President.
The managers asked this body to permit the deposition and later the
live testimony of Ms. Lewinsky to complete their proof. As Mr. Manager
Bryant stated:

An appropriate examination--and an appropriate cross-
examination, I might add; let's don't limit the White House
attorneys here--of Ms. Lewinsky on the factual disputes of
the affidavit and their cover story, wouldn't that be nice to
hear?

Well, the managers got their examination of Ms. Lewinsky about the
December 17 phone call, and it defeated the charge. It showed that she
and the President did not discuss the content of an affidavit--never
ever. Again, the managers ask you to convict the President and remove
him from office for what turns out to be his silence. No discussion of
content.
Let's listen to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky about that December
17 phone call. It is critically important. And we are showing it to you
unvarnished, not in snippets, because the snippets you have seen are
terribly misleading. The tape you will hear establishes beyond doubt
that she and the President did not discuss the content of the affidavit
in that call, or ever. It establishes beyond doubt that what happened
is not obstruction of justice.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Sometime back in December of 1997, in the morning of
December the 17th, did you receive a call from the President?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the purpose of that call? What did you talk
about?
A. It was threefold--first, to tell me that Ms. Currie's
brother had been killed in a car accident; second, to tell me
that my name was on a witness list for the Paula Jones case;
and thirdly, he mentioned the Christmas present he had for
me.
Q. This telephone call was somewhere in the early morning
hours of 2 o'clock to 2:30.
A. Correct.
Q. Did it surprise you that he called you so late?
A. No.
Q. Was this your first notice of your name being on the
Paula Jones witness list?
A. Yes.
Q. I realize he, he commented about some other things, but
I do want to focus on the witness list.
A. Okay.
Q. Did he say anything to you about how he felt concerning
this witness list?
A. He said it broke his heart that, well, that my name was
on the witness list.
Can I take a break, please? I'm sorry.
SENATOR DeWINE: Sure, sure.

* * * * *

BY MR. BRYANT:
Q. Did--did we get your response? We were talking about the
discussion you were having with the President over the
telephone, early morning of the December 17th phone call, and
he had, uh, mentioned that it broke his heart that you were
on that list.
A. Correct.
Q. And I think you were about to comment on that further,
and then you need a break.
A. No.
Q. No.
A. I just wanted to be able to focus--I know this is an
important date, so I felt I need a few moments to be able to
focus on it.
Q. And you're comfortable now with that, with your--you are
ready to talk about that?
A. Comfortable, I don't know, but I'm ready to talk about.
Q. Well, I mean comfortable that you can focus on it.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Good. Now, with this discussion of the fact that your
name appeared as a witness, had you--had you been asleep that
night when the phone rang?
A. Yes.
Q. So were you wide awake by this point? It's the President
calling you, so I guess you're--you wake up.
A. I wouldn't say wide awake.
Q. He expressed to you that your name--you know, again, you
talked about some other things--but he told you your name was
on the list.
A. Correct.
Q. What was your reaction to that?
A. I was scared.
Q. What other discussion did you have in regard to the fact
that your name was on the list? You were scared; he was
disappointed, or it broke his heart. What other discussion
did you have?
A. Uh, I believe he said that, uh--and these are not
necessarily direct quotes, but to the best of my memory, that
he said something about that, uh, just because my name was on
the list didn't necessarily mean I'd be subpoenaed; and at
some point, I asked him what I should do if I received a
subpoena. He said I should, uh, I should let Ms. Currie know.
Uh--
Q. Did he say anything about an affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said that, uh, that I could possibly file an
affidavit if I--if I were subpoenaed, that I could possibly
file an affidavit maybe to avoid being deposed.
Q. How did he tell you you would avoid being deposed by
filing an affidavit?
A. I don't think he did.
Q. You just accepted that statement?
A. [Nodding head.]
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, yes. Sorry.
Q. Are you, uh--strike that. Did he make any representation
to you about what you could say in that affidavit or--
A. No.
Q. What did you understand you would be saying in that
affidavit to avoid testifying?
A. Uh, I believe I've testified to this in the grand jury.
To the best of my recollection, it was, uh--to my mind came--
it was a range of things. I mean, it could either be, uh,
something innocuous or could go as far as having to deny the
relationship. Not being a lawyer nor having gone to law
school, I thought it could be anything.
Q. Did he at that point suggest one version or the other
version?
A. No. I didn't even mention that, so there, there wasn't a
further discussion--there was no discussion of what would be
in an affidavit.
Q. When you say, uh, it would be--it could have been
something where the relationship was denied, what was your
thinking at that point?
A. I--I--I think I don't understand what you're asking me.
I'm sorry.
Q. Well, based on prior relations with the President, the
concocted stories and those things like that, did this come
to mind? Was there some discussion about that, or did it come
to your mind about these stories--the cover stories?

[[Page S1305]]

A. Not in connection with the--not in connection with the
affidavit.
Q. How would--was there any discussion of how you would
accomplish preparing or filing an affidavit at that point?
A. No.
Q. Why--why didn't you want to testify? Why would not you--
why would you have wanted to avoid testifying?
A. First of all, I thought it was nobody's business. Second
of all, I didn't want to have anything to do with Paula Jones
or her case. And--I guess those two reasons.
Q. You--you have already mentioned that you were not a
lawyer and you had not been to law school, those kinds of
things. Did, uh, did you understand when you--the potential
legal problems that you could have caused yourself by
allowing a false affidavit to be filed with the court, in a
court proceeding?
A. During what time--I mean--I--can you be--I'm sorry--
Q. At this point, I may ask it again at later points, but
the night of the telephone--
A. Are you--are you still referring to December 17th?
Q. The night of the phone call, he's suggesting you could
file an affidavit. Did you appreciate the implications of
filing a false affidavit with the court?
A. I don't think I necessarily thought at that point it
would have to be false, so, no, probably not. I don't--I
don't remember having any thoughts like that, so I imagine I
would remember something like that, and I don't, but--
Q. Did you know what an affidavit was?
A. Sort of.
Q. Of course, you're talking at that time by telephone to
the President, and he's--and he is a lawyer, and he taught
law school--I don't know--did you know that? Did you know he
was a lawyer?
A. I--I think I knew it, but it wasn't something that was
present in my, in my thoughts, as in he's a lawyer, he's
telling me, you know, something.
Q. Did the, did the President ever tell you, caution you,
that you had to tell the truth in an affidavit?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. It would have been against his interest in that lawsuit
for you to have told the truth, would it not?
A. I'm not really comfortable--I mean, I can tell you what
would have been in my best interest, but I--
Q. But you didn't file the affidavit for your best
interest, did you?
A. Uh, actually, I did.
Q. To avoid testifying.
A. Yes.
Q. But had you testified truthfully, you would have had
no--certainly, no legal implications--it may have been
embarrassing, but you would have not had any legal problems,
would you?
A. That's true.
Q. Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of--I
would draw your attention to the cover stories. I have
alluded to that earlier, but, uh, did you talk about cover
story that night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was said?
A. Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said something--
you can always say you were coming to see Betty or bringing
me papers.
Q. I think you've testified that you're sure he said that
that night. You are sure he said that that night?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, was that in connection with the affidavit?
A. I don't believe so, no.
Q. Why would he have told you you could always say that?
A. I don't know.

* * * * *

We're at that point that we've got a telephone conversation
in the morning with you and the President, and he has among
other things mentioned to you that your name is on the Jones
witness list. He has also mentioned to you that perhaps you
could file an affidavit to avoid possible testifying in that
case. Is that right?
A Correct.
Q And he has also, I think, now at the point that we were
in our questioning, referenced the cover story that you and
he had had, that perhaps you could say that you were coming
to my office to deliver papers or to see Betty Currie; is
that right?
A Correct. It was from the entire relationship, that story.
Q Now, when he alluded to that cover story, was that
instantly familiar to you?
A Yes.
Q You knew what he was talking about?
A Yes.
Q And why was this familiar to you?
A Because it was part of the pattern of the relationship.
Q Had you actually had to use elements of this cover story
in the past?
A I think so, yes.

* * * * *

Q Okay. Now let me go back again to the December 11th
date--I'm sorry--the 17th. This is the conversation in the
morning. What else--was there anything else you talked about
in terms of--other than your name being on the list and the
affidavit and the cover story?
A Yes. I had--I had had my own thoughts on why and how he
should settle the case, and I expressed those thoughts to
him. And at some point, he mentioned that he still had this
Christmas present for me and that maybe he would ask Mrs.
Currie to come in that weekend, and I said not to because she
was obviously going to be in mourning because of her brother.

* * * * *

Q As I understand your testimony, too, the cover stories
were reiterated to you by the President that night on the
telephone--
A Correct.
Q --and after he told you you would be a witness--or your
name was on the witness list, I should say?
A Correct.
Q And did you understand that since your name was on the
witness list that there would be a possibility that you could
be subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case?
A I think I understood that I could be subpoenaed, and
there was a possibility of testifying. I don't know if I
necessarily thought it was a subpoena to testify, but--
Q Were you in fact subpoenaed to testify?
A Yes.
Q And that was what--
A December 19th, 1997.
Q December 19th.
Now, you have testified in the grand jury. I think your
closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie, but
yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997 when
the President told you that you were on the witness list, he
also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use
misleading cover stories. Isn't that correct?
A Uh--well, I--I guess in my mind, I separate necessarily
signing affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So,
does--
Q Well, those two--
A Those three events occurred, but they don't--they weren't
linked for me.
Q But they were in the same conversation, were they not?
A Yes, they were.
Q Did you understand in the context of the conversation
that you would deny the--the President and your relationship
to the Jones lawyers?
A Do you mean from what was said to me or--
Q In the context of that--in the context of that
conversation, December the 17th--
A I--I don't--I didn't--
Q Okay. Let me ask it. Did you understand in the context of
the telephone conversation with the President that early
morning of December the 17th--did you understand that you
would deny your relationship with the President to the Jones
lawyers through use of these cover stories?
A From what I learned in that--oh, through those cover
stories, I don't know, but from what I learned in that
conversation, I thought to myself I knew I would deny the
relationship.
Q And you would deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers?
A Yes, correct.
Q Good.
A If--if that's what it came to.
Q And in fact you did deny the relationship to the Jones
lawyers in the affidavit that you signed under penalty of
perjury; is that right?
A I denied a sexual relationship.
Q The President did not in that conversation on December
the 17th of 1997 or any other conversation, for that matter,
instruct you to tell the truth; is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And prior to being on the witness list, you--you both
spoke--
A Well, I guess any conversation in relation to the Paula
Jones case. I can't say that any conversation from the--the
entire relationship that he didn't ever say, you know, ``Are
you mad? Tell me the truth.'' So--
Q And prior to being on the witness list, you both spoke
about denying this relationship if asked?
A Yes. That was discussed.
Q He would say something to the effect that--or you would
say that--you--you would deny anything if it ever came up,
and he would nod or say that's good, something to that
effect; is that right?
A Yes, I believe I testified to that.
Q In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has
indicated that he thought he had--might have had a way that
he could have you--get you to file a--basically a true
affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you
wouldn't be called as a witness.
Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?
A He didn't discuss the content of my affidavit with me at
all, ever.

Now, there is a lot there, but that's the testimony. I would like to
go quickly through some parts of it. First, let's be very clear, as you
saw, Ms. Lewinsky repeatedly told Mr. Manager Bryant that she and the
President did not discuss the content of the affidavit in that phone
call.
Let's listen quickly again:
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Are you, uh--strike that. Did he make any representation
to you about what you could say in that affidavit or--
A No.
Q What did you understand you would be saying in that
affidavit to avoid testifying?
A Uh, I believe I've testified to this in the grand jury.
To the best of my recollection, it was, uh--to my mind came--
it was a range of things. I mean, it could either be, uh,
something innocuous or could go as far as having to deny the
relationship. Not being a lawyer nor having gone to law
school, I thought it could be anything.
Q Did he at that point suggest one version or the other
version?
A No. I didn't even mention that, so there, there wasn't a
further discussion--there was

[[Page S1306]]

no discussion of what would be in an affidavit.

* * * * *

Q In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has
indicated that he thought he had--might have had a way that
he could have you--get you to file a--basically a true
affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you
wouldn't be called as a witness.
Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?
A He didn't discuss the content of my affidavit with me at
all, ever.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, the managers skipped these excerpts. They
hid from you this key fact about the call. To borrow a phrase, they
``want to win too badly.''
In that excerpt, Ms. Lewinsky also made clear that the President only
suggested she might be able to file an affidavit that might enable her
to avoid testifying.
Let's listen:
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Did he say anything about an affidavit?
A Yes.
Q What did he say?
A He said that, uh, that I could possibly file an affidavit
if I--if I were subpoenaed, that I could possibly file an
affidavit maybe to avoid being deposed.
Q How did he tell you you would avoid being deposed by
filing an affidavit?
A I don't think he did.
Q You just accepted that statement?
A [Nodding head.]
Q Yes?
A Yes, yes. Sorry.

* * * * *

Q And in that same telephone conversation, he encouraged you to file
an affidavit in the Jones case?
A He suggested I could file an affidavit.
She also made clear that the President was not certain she even would
be subpoenaed and have to confront the issue.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q What other discussion did you have in regard to the fact
that your name was on the list? You were scared; he was
disappointed, or it broke his heart. What other discussion
did you have?
A Uh, I believe he said that, uh--and these are not
necessarily direct quotes, but to the best of my memory, that
he said something about that, uh, just because my name was on
the list didn't necessarily mean I'd be subpoenaed; and at
some point, I asked him what I should do if I received a
subpoena. He said I should, uh, I should let Ms. Currie know.
Uh----

* * * * *

Q How would--was there any discussion of how you would
accomplish preparing or filing an affidavit at that point?
A No.

Now, where does this leave us? Ms. Lewinsky described a brief
conversation in which the President mentioned the possibility that an
affidavit might enable her to avoid testifying if the need for it
arose, and they left the subject. No discussion of content. No
discussion of logistics. No discussion of timing. Virtually no
discussion at all. And that very brief exchange is the heart of the
case.
Now, the managers contend that because Ms. Lewinsky also recalls a
reference to cover stories in that call, it is clear beyond doubt that
the President instructed her to file a false affidavit.
But for at least two reasons, this claim fails also. First, Ms.
Lewinsky repeatedly told Mr. Manager Bryant that the mention of cover
stories in that call was not connected to the mention of a possible
affidavit--a position, I must note, that she had taken with the
independent counsel for a very long time.
Second, Ms. Lewinsky has insisted for more than a year that the cover
stories were not, in any event, false--a position she reasserted this
week in explaining why an affidavit didn't necessarily have to be
false.
Let's look quickly at Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, first, with respect
to the alleged connection between cover stories and the affidavit.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Well, based on prior relations with the President, the
concocted stories and those things like that, did this come
to mind? Was there some discussion about that, or did it come
to your mind about these stories--the cover stories?
A Not in connection with the--not in connection with the
affidavit.

* * * * *

Q Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of--I
would draw your attention to the cover stories. I have
alluded to that earlier, but, uh, did you talk about cover
story that night?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what was said?
A Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said something--you
can always say you were coming to see Betty or bringing me
papers.
Q I think you've testified that you're sure he said that
that night. You are sure he said that that night?
A Yes.
Q Now, was that in connection with the affidavit?
A I don't believe so, no.
Now, you have testified in the grand jury. I think your
closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie, but
yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997 when
the President told you that you were on the witness list, he
also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use
misleading cover stories. Isn't that correct?
A Uh--well, I--I guess in my mind, I separate necessarily
signing affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So,
does--
Q Well, those two--
A Those three events occurred, but they don't--they weren't
linked for me.
Again, the managers did not play these excerpts for you either. They
don't want you to know Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, which is that the
cover stories and the affidavit were not connected in that telephone
call. And that is the call that is at the heart of that first
obstruction charge.
The managers have suggested to you that Ms. Lewinsky for the first
time this week offered responses, responses concerning the literal
truth, for example, of the cover story designed to help the President.
That was a suggestion a few days ago. Concerned then that the testimony
might now undermine their case, they suddenly did an about-face and
attacked her on Thursday.
Through these proceedings, the managers have consistently told you
how credible a witness Ms. Lewinsky is and they have invoked her
immunity agreement as the reason that she must be honest, and today
they again credit her testimony, but carefully, only in snippets, only
when it suits their purposes. The responses Ms. Lewinsky provided about
the cover story that were mentioned on Thursday by Mr. Manager Bryant
are not new; they are the same responses Ms. Lewinsky gave to the
independent counsel. For example, when asked about the so-called cover
story, Ms. Lewinsky testified as follows this week.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Would you agree that these cover stories that you've just
testified to, if they were told to the attorneys for Paula
Jones, that they would be misleading to them and not be the
whole story, the whole truth?
A They would--yes, I guess misleading. They were literally
true, but they would be misleading, so incomplete.

The managers suggest that this testimony may be new, different,
tinted, and tainted, I think they said on Thursday, but they don't tell
you that Ms. Lewinsky said the very same things to the independent
counsel. She did so repeatedly, and she did so--and this is key--before
the President testified. She didn't know what he would say. He didn't
know what she had said.
For example, Ms. Lewinsky referred to the two cover stories in her
February 1998 proffer, more than a year ago. Remember, one such cover
story concerned the reasons for visiting the President before she left
the White House. That was to bring papers to him. And the other
concerned her reasons for visiting the President after she left the
White House, and that was to visit Betty Currie. Ms. Lewinsky was asked
and said that neither of these statements was untrue and also that
there was truth to both of these statements in her proffer a year ago.
She repeated this testimony in July to the independent counsel,
telling an FBI agent that ``these statements were not untrue but were
misleading'' and that ``some facts were omitted from this statement.''
That is what she said this week.
The cover story testimony is consistent and is consistently
exculpatory. Of course, it was easy for Mr. Manager Bryant to stand
before you on Thursday reminiscing about the open and forthcoming Ms.
Lewinsky he had met during the informal interview. It was easy for Mr.
Manager Bryant to complain that the Ms. Lewinsky of the deposition was,
I believe he said, not open to discussion or fully responsive to their
inquiry. Let the questions and answers let you be the judge of that. It
was easy for him to say that, because the House managers had refused
Senator Daschle's request that they be allowed to make a transcript of
the interview. That absence of a transcript

[[Page S1307]]

allowed them this unverifiable fallback if their examination was
disappointing: Oh, she changed on us. The truth is that she didn't tell
the story that the managers wanted to hear. Remember those stubborn
facts.

So we know that the managers are disappointed and want to blame their
disappointment on Ms. Lewinsky. But when you get to the substance of
today's presentation by the House managers, it shows that they have not
in fact identified any significant area where Ms. Lewinsky's testimony
on Monday differs from her earlier testimony in the grand jury. Her
view of the cover story has been consistent from day 1.
Mr. Manager McCollum has also insisted that in the December 17 call
it was clear both to the President and Ms. Lewinsky that the affidavit
had to be false. As he put it--and I quote-- ``Can there be any doubt
that the President was suggesting that they file an affidavit that
contained lies and falsehoods that might keep her from ever having to
testify in the Jones case, and give the President the kind of
protection he needed when he testified?'' Yes, there surely is doubt.
Ms. Lewinsky herself explains this week that she did not discuss the
content of the affidavit with the President--we played those portions
already and I will not again--but also that in her mind an affidavit
presented a whole range of possibilities that were not necessarily
false.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q The night of the phone call, he's suggesting you could
file an affidavit. Did you appreciate the implications of
filing a false affidavit with the court?
A I don't think I necessarily thought at that point it
would have to be false, so, no, probably not. I don't--I
don't remember having any thoughts like that, so I imagine I
would remember something like that, and I don't, but--

Thus, as we have seen and heard, Ms. Lewinsky testified that there
was no discussion of what would be in the affidavit and also that, to
her thinking, the affidavit would not necessarily have been false.
Now that the December 17 call has fallen short, the managers have
tried to transform the articles, as drafted, by asserting that the
alleged obstruction occurred also on another date, January 5, in a call
that took place then, even though the articles pin everything on
December 17.
With respect to a January 5 call, Mr. Manager Hutchinson made the
following claim to you. He asserted, and I quote:

Well, the record demonstrates that Monica Lewinsky's
testimony is that she had a conversation with the President
on the telephone in which she asked questions about the
affidavit. She was concerned about signing that affidavit and
according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President said, ``Well, you
could always say the people in legislative affairs got it for
you or helped you get it.''

This is still a quote:

And that is in reference to a paragraph in a particular
affidavit.

Those were Mr. Manager Hutchinson's words. But the record
unequivocally demonstrates that Ms. Lewinsky and the President did not
ever discuss the content of that affidavit in this January 5 call or
otherwise. And I challenge you to find any paragraph in Ms. Lewinsky's
affidavit, either her draft or the final, reflecting this
conversation. There isn't one. The call wasn't about the affidavit. He
didn't tell her what to say in the affidavit. It is just not there.

In fact, Mr. Manager Hutchinson repeatedly represented to you that
Ms. Lewinsky reviewed the content of her affidavit with the President.
He had to say that because he is asking you to remove the President
from office for getting her to file a false affidavit. That is a tough
sell if they never talked about the content of the affidavit. That is
why he told you, and I quote, ``On January 6th''--5th or 6th--``she
discussed that with the President, signing that affidavit, and the
content of the affidavit.''
That is why Mr. Manager Hutchinson also told you, ``She went over the
contents of that, even though she might not have had it in hand, with
the President.''
That is just not true. It is not true. To borrow a phrase, again: It
is wanting to win too much. What is clear from Ms. Lewinsky's testimony
is that she never went over the contents of the affidavit with the
President, on January 5 or at any other time. Let's watch a brief
excerpt about this matter.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Did--did the subject of the affidavit come up with the
President?
A. Yes, towards the end of the conversation.
Q. And how did--tell us how that occurred.
A. I believe I asked him if he wanted to see a copy of it,
and he said no.
Q. Well, I mean, how did you introduce that into the
subject--into the conversation?
A. I don't really remember.
Q. Did he ask you, well, how's the affidavit coming or--
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. But you told him that you had one being prepared, or
something?
A. I think I said--I think I said, you know, I'm going to
sign an affidavit, or something like that.
Q. Did he ask you what are you going to say?
A. No.
Q. And this is the time when he said something about 15
other affidavits?
A. Correct.
Q. And tell us as best as you can recall what--how that--
how that part of the conversation went.
A. I think that was the--sort of the other half of his
sentence as, No, you know, I don't want to see it. I don't
need to--or, I've seen 15 others.
It was a little flippant.
Q. In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has
indicated that he thought he had--might have had a way that
he could have you--get you to file a--basically a true
affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you
wouldn't be called as a witness.
Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?
A. He didn't discuss the content of my affidavit with me at
all, ever.

In fact, Ms. Lewinsky made clear she did not have any indication
whatsoever that the President learned of the content of the affidavit
from Mr. Jordan, either.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. The fact that you assume that Mr. Jordan was in contact
with the President--and I believe the evidence would support
that through his own testimony that he had talked to the
President about the signed affidavit and that he had kept the
President updated on the subpoena issue and the job search--
A. Sir, I'm not sure that I knew he was having contact with
the President about this. I--I think what I said was that I
felt that it was getting his approval. It didn't necessarily
mean that I felt he was going to get a direct approval from
the President.

* * * * *

Q. Did you have any indication from Mr. Jordan that he--
when he discussed the signed affidavit with the President,
they were discussing some of the contents of the affidavit?
Did you have--
A. Before I signed it or--
Q. No; during the drafting stage.
A. No, absolutely not--either/or. I didn't. No, I did not.

Finally, lacking any direct evidence of any kind that there was a
discussion about the content of the affidavit, the managers have argued
again and again that the President must have told Ms. Lewinsky to file
a false affidavit because it was in his interest, not hers, to avoid
her testifying in the Jones case. Mr. Manager Bryant argued to you at
the start of these proceedings, ``When everything is said and done, Ms.
Lewinsky had no motivation, no reason whatsoever, to want to commit a
crime by willfully submitting a false affidavit with a court of law.
She really did not need to do this at that point in her life.''
Mr. Manager Bryant also argued that only the President would benefit
from a false affidavit, so he must have instructed her to do it. As he
put it, ``Ms. Lewinsky files a false affidavit in the Jones case. What
is the result of filing that false affidavit and who benefited from
that?''
But he was wrong. He was wrong, as Ms. Lewinsky made very clear when
Mr. Manager Bryant asked her about this very subject this week. Let's
listen to what she said:
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. But you didn't file the affidavit for your best
interest, did you?
A. Uh, actually, I did.
Q. To avoid testifying.
A. Yes.

* * * * *

Q. Why--why didn't you want to testify? Why would not you--
why would you have wanted to avoid testifying?
A. First of all, I thought it was nobody's business. Second
of all, I didn't want to have anything to do with Paula Jones
or her case. And--I guess those two reasons.

Ms. Lewinsky concedes that she had a reason to act on her own.
Now, we have been discussing subpart (1) of article II, the affidavit
allegation. But this testimony also undermined subpart (2) of article
II, which

[[Page S1308]]

alleges that the President obstructed justice in that very same phone
call by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie in any testimony that she might
give. Ms. Lewinsky previously denied that she and the President ever
discussed the content of any deposition testimony in that conversation.
That happened before this week. Indeed, she had told the FBI that she
and the President never discussed what to say about her visits to the
White House in the context of the Paula Jones case. And the managers
themselves said, in a press release on January 19 of this year, that
the President and Ms. Lewinsky ``did not discuss the deposition that
evening because Monica had not yet been subpoenaed.''
So it is not entirely surprising that the managers did not ask Ms.
Lewinsky to confirm that she and the President talked about the
testimony in this call, even though that is where the obstruction
allegedly occurred. They didn't ask her about that this week because
they knew the answer. They knew the answer was ``No.'' They knew there
was no discussion about the content of her testimony during that call.
And the testimony you have seen today confirms that answer
resoundingly. There is no evidence to support the charge in subpart (2)
either. The managers did not even try to elicit it.
The President did not obstruct justice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony
explodes these two claims arising out of the December 17 telephone
call.
Now let's turn to the allegation in article (2) concerning gifts.
Subpart (3) charges that:

On or about December 28, 1997, [the President] corruptly
engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal
evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights
action brought against him.

Now, the managers have indicated to you that Ms. Lewinsky provided
testimony useful to their case with respect to the President's
involvement in the transfer of gifts to Ms. Currie. We must have
attended a different deposition. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony
provides powerful support for the position that Ms. Lewinsky decided on
her own to keep from the Jones lawyers the gifts she had received from
the President. It provides powerful support for the position that she
had her own reasons and concerns for keeping the gifts from them. And
it provides powerful support for the position that she never discussed
either the topic of gifts or her own reasons for concern with the
President before making her own independent decision on how to handle
the gifts.
Perhaps most notably, her testimony also provides corroboration for
the President's testimony that he told her she had to turn over to the
Jones lawyers what gifts she had. That is new evidence. But it
undermines the managers' case, it doesn't help it.
In one of the most extraordinary points in the deposition--and we
will get to this in a moment--we learned that the Office of Independent
Counsel failed to disclose to the House, to the Senate, to the
President, Ms. Lewinsky's exculpatory statement on this point.
Since the OIC evidently had chosen not to share the information with
us, with the House or with this body, we owe the managers a small debt
of gratitude for allowing us to learn of it here.
Now let's look at the record with respect to the phone calls giving
rise to the gift pickup. The managers repeatedly asserted at the outset
that they could prove Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky and not the other
way around. They claimed they had found a cell phone record documenting
that initial call to arrange to pick up the gifts. As Mr. Manager
Hutchinson said tantalizingly at the start of these proceedings:

Well, it was not known at the time of the questioning of
Monica Lewinsky, but since then, the cell phone record was
retrieved. And you don't have it in front of you, but it will
be available. The cell phone record was retrieved that showed
on Betty Currie's cell phone calls that a call was made at
3:32 p.m. from Betty Currie to Monica Lewinsky and--

Still under quotes--

this confirms the testimony of Monica Lewinsky that the
followup to get the gifts came from Betty Currie.

That is what Mr. Manager Hutchinson promised the record would show.
But that is not, in the end, what the record now shows. There is no
evidence that the cell phone call initiated the process, as the
managers claimed, and since there is no evidence that that call from
Ms. Currie was the call initiating the process, there is no documentary
evidence that Ms. Currie initiated the process. It is that simple. The
proof has failed.
What the record does show is that there was a cell phone call that
day, a proposition that no one has ever disputed. Ms. Lewinsky
testified to the managers that she recalls a cell phone call that day.
Let's look at the testimony. This passage that you are about to see
addresses the calls between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie on December 28.
Ms. Lewinsky has just described Ms. Currie's call to her about picking
something up, and this is what follows.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Did--did you have other telephone calls with her that
day?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What was the purpose of those conversations?
A. I believe I spoke with her a little later to find out
when she was coming, and I think that I might have spoken
with her again when she was either leaving her house or
outside or right there, to let me know to come out.
Q. Do--at that time, did you have the caller
identification--
A. Yes, I did.
Q. --on your telephone?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you at least on one occasion see her cell phone
number on your caller-ID that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Nowhere does Ms. Lewinsky say which call was the cell phone call. In
fact, if anything, it is logical to assume that it is the call from Ms.
Currie announcing her imminent arrival which, of course, says nothing
about how the visit was initially planned, and no one ever has disputed
that Ms. Currie picked up the box. The fact that she might have called
to say, ``I'm downstairs now,'' is of no additional evidentiary value
whatsoever.
Left without a documentary record, the managers assert that there is
new testimonial evidence of other calls on December 28 that somehow
corroborate their theory of the case. But the new testimony doesn't
even establish who made the other calls that day, and the record
already had evidence of other calls on that day. Ms. Lewinsky mentioned
such calls to the grand jury. Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie spoke often,
especially in that time period. There were phone calls.
There is nothing new here. Ms. Currie has one recollection; Ms.
Lewinsky has a different recollection. Indeed, when asked by Mr.
Manager Bryant whether there was any doubt in her mind that it was
Betty Currie who called her, Ms. Lewinsky stated simply, ``That's how I
remember this event.''
Straining for something beyond this absolutely unresolvable conflict,
the managers promised evidence to tip the balance, and they produced
none. The much-touted cell phone call utterly fails to establish who
initiated the gift pickup by Ms. Currie.
It is, therefore, clear that the deposition testimony does not
advance the managers' case with respect to the gifts, but it sure
advances the defense case. Remember, Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena
on December 19 requesting gifts she had received from the President.
She met with her lawyer, Frank Carter, on December 22, and she did not
speak to the President in the interim.
In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky testified at some length
about how she decided what to bring her attorney, Frank Carter, in
response to that request for gifts. As we will see, she decided on her
own that she would bring only innocuous things to produce, things that
any intern might have in his or her possession.
Again, this was on December 22, well before the December 28 meeting
with the President at which the managers and the articles say the plan
to hide the gifts was hatched. Ms. Lewinsky explained to the managers
what she did and why she did it. Let's listen.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Did, uh, did you bring with you to the meeting with Mr.
Jordan, and for the purpose of carrying it, I guess, to Mr.
Carter, items in response to this request for production?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss those items with Mr. Jordan?
A. I think I showed them to him, but I'm not 100 percent
sure. If I've testified that I did, then I'd stand by that.
Q. Okay. How did you select those items?
A. Uh, actually, kind of in an obnoxious way, I guess. I--I
felt that it was important

[[Page S1309]]

to take the stand with Mr. Carter and then, I guess, to the
Jones people that this was ridiculous, that they were--they
were looking at the wrong person to be involved in this. And,
in fact, that was true. I know and knew nothing of sexual
harassment. So I think I brought the, uh, Christmas cards,
that I'm sure everyone in this room has probably gotten from
the President and First Lady, and considered that
correspondence, and some innocuous pictures and--they were
innocuous.
Q. Were they the kind of items that typically, an intern
would receive or, like you said, any one of us might receive?
A. I think so.
Q. In other words, it wouldn't give away any kind of
special relationship?
A. Exactly.
Q. And was that your intent?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss how you selected those items with
anybody?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Did Mr. Jordan make any comment about those items?
A. No.
Q. Were any of these items eventually turned over to Mr.
Carter?
A. Yes.

As an aside, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Manager Rogan, it is
also clear from that excerpt that Ms. Lewinsky knew nothing of sexual
harassment. That is what she said.
So it is clear from this tape that well before December 28 Ms.
Lewinsky had made her own decision for her own reasons not to produce
the gifts. She remained firm in this decision for her own reasons on
December 28 when the President gave her more gifts. Let's watch again.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Okay. Did--he gave you some gifts that day, and my
question to you is what went through your mind when he did
that, when you knew all along that you had just received a
subpoena to produce gifts. Did that not concern you?
A. No, it didn't. I was happy to get them.
Q. All right. Why did it--beyond your happiness in
receiving them, why did the subpoena aspect of it not concern
you?
A. I think at that moment--I mean, you asked me when he
gave me those gifts. So, at that moment, when I was there, I
was happy to be with him. I was happy to get these Christmas
presents. So I was nervous about the case, but I had made a
decision that I wasn't going to get into it too much--
Q. Well--
A. --with a discussion.
Q. --have you in regards to that--you've testified in the
past that from everything that the President had told you
about things like this, there was never any question that you
were going to keep everything quiet, and turning over all the
gifts would prompt the Jones attorneys to question you. So
you had no doubt in your mind, did you not, that you weren't
going to turn these gifts over that he had just given you?
A. Uh, I--I think the latter half of your statement is
correct. I don't know if you're reading from my direct
testimony, but--because you said--your first statement was
from everything the President had told you. So I don't know
if that was--if those were my words or not, but I--no, I
was--I--it--I was concerned about the gifts. I was worried
someone might break into my house or concerned that they
actually existed, but I wasn't concerned about turning them
over because I knew I wasn't going to, for the reason that
you stated.

Now, when Ms. Lewinsky raised the issue of gifts with the President
on December 28, she did not state he even answered. Her recollection of
whether he said anything has been murky, as we have heard discussed
here. And in her recent deposition she declined to resolve the
inconsistencies in favor of the version the managers have advanced.
And then what happened after she left on December 28? As Ms. Lewinsky
recounted the subsequent events, Ms. Currie later called and arranged
to pick up something. But what? According to Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie
never said ``gifts'' when she called. Ms. Lewinsky assumed that was
what she was calling about--that is her testimony--no doubt because
they had been on her mind for the reasons we have just heard explained.
Now, the managers attempt to respond to all this by saying over and
over, yes, but the President never told Ms. Lewinsky she had to produce
the gifts he had given her. They attempt to convert his silence into a
failure to perform a legal duty and then to convert that failure to
perform a legal duty into a high crime.
But are we really sure that he didn't tell her to produce the gifts?
Remember, the President volunteered on his own in the grand jury that
Ms. Lewinsky had raised the subject of gifts with him. That was long
before he knew she had said it. And remember, he said what his response
was: ``You have to give them whatever you have.''
Now, the managers would have you believe Ms. Lewinsky rejected that
recollection wholesale, that she said he never said any such thing.
They need that to be the case. But it is not so, we now learn, no
thanks to Mr. Starr's agents.
Let's watch.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Okay. Now, were you ever under the impression from
anything that the President said that you should turn over
all the gifts to the Jones lawyers?
A. No, but where this is a little tricky--and I think I
might have even mentioned this last weekend--was that I had
an occasion in an interview with one of the--with the OIC--
where I was asked a series of statements, if the President
had made those, and there was one statement that Agent Phalen
said to me--I--there were--other people, they asked me these
statements--this is after the President testified and they
asked me some statements, did you say this, did you say this,
and I said, no, no, no. And Agent Phalen said something, and
I think it was, ``Well, you have to turn over whatever you
have.'' And I said to you, ``You know, that sounds a little
bit familiar to me.''
So that's what I can tell you on that.
Q. That's in the 302 exam?
A. I don't know if it's in the 302 or not, but that's what
happened.
Q. Uh-huh.

This is extraordinary testimony. Why? Because Ms. Lewinsky apparently
corroborated the President. She recognized those words when she heard
them. She didn't refute the President. And the OIC never told us that
that was what she said. Never told the House. Never told this body. We
had no idea about Ms. Lewinsky's recollection until we heard her
testimony. We can only wonder--in troubled disbelief--how much more we
still don't know. The President did not obstruct justice. Ms.
Lewinsky's testimony seriously undermines the gift claim that is before
you.
We have reviewed the first three subparts of article II. Now, let's
look quickly at the fourth.
Ms. Lewinsky's testimony also confirms what has been clear throughout
these proceedings: That her New York job search efforts began in
October 1997, well before Ms. Lewinsky was ever named a potential
witness in the Jones case; and that Mr. Jordan first became involved in
the job search effort in November, early November, also before she
became a witness; that Ms. Lewinsky had received a job offer in New
York from the United Nations in November also, and also well before
there was any indication she would be a witness; and that Mr. Jordan
and Ms. Lewinsky had several contacts related to her job search in
November, despite the fact that both of them were traveling
extensively, including out of the country in that period.
In fact, Ms. Lewinsky makes it clear in this testimony that she and
Mr. Jordan began arranging the meeting that took place on December 11
before Thanksgiving, before anyone knew Ms. Lewinsky's name would be on
a witness list--all of this, of course, before anyone knew Ms.
Lewinsky's name would be on a witness list. If the fact that the
assistance to Ms. Lewinsky preceded her appearance on the witness list
needed confirmation, it has been confirmed again.
But there is more. What has also been confirmed is Ms. Lewinsky's
grand jury testimony that, ``No one ever asked me to lie. And I was
never promised a job for my silence.'' We have repeatedly reminded this
body of these plain and simple words with their plain, simple and
exculpatory meaning.
The House managers repeatedly have tried to suggest that these words
must mean something else. But at no time in their hours of questioning
Ms. Lewinsky did they question her about this pivotal assertion
regarding the job search allegation. They did not ask her to explain
it, to amend it, to qualify it. They did not challenge it. They did not
confront it. They didn't dare. They knew the answer. They knew there
was no quid pro quo. And their failure to elicit a response speaks
volumes.
The President did not obstruct justice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony
undermines this job search claim, as well. Plain and simple, the
evidence is to the contrary.
Now, Mr. Manager Bryant remarked on Thursday that after deposing Ms.
Lewinsky he felt like the actor Charles Laughton in the film ``Witness
for the Prosecution.'' As counsel for the President, I would
respectfully submit that another famous role of Charles

[[Page S1310]]

Laughton might be the more fitting reference. It is that of the dogged,
tireless, obsessed Inspector Javert once played by Mr. Laughton in the
1935 movie version of ``Les Miserables.''
The most recent testimony of Ms. Lewinsky has seriously damaged the
managers' case and has confirmed that it is time for this tireless
pursuit of the President to come to an end.
I turn now to my partner, Mr. Kendall, who will discuss Mr. Jordan's
recent testimony.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.

Recess

Mr. LOTT. I think I see in the Chief Justice's eyes the desire for--
--
(Laughter.)
Mr. LOTT. --a 15-minute break. Let's return as shortly after 3:30 as
is possible.
Thereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the Senate recessed until 3:42 p.m.;
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Chief
Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I believe the White House
counsel has an additional presenter at this time.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes White House Counsel Kendall.
Mr. Counsel KENDALL. Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the
Senate, distinguished House Managers, I am going to deal with Vernon
Jordan's videotape deposition. That deposition was taken on February 2,
this last Tuesday, and it produced nothing at all which was significant
and new. Time and again, Mr. Manager Hutchinson cited Mr. Jordan's
previous grand jury testimony, and time and again Mr. Jordan confirmed
and recited his previous grand jury testimony.
The managers had a full and fair opportunity to take Mr. Jordan's
testimony, and they, indeed, had time to spare. They used just about 3
hours of their allotted 4-hour time. And they discovered nothing that
was not contained in the previous 900 pages of Mr. Jordan's grand jury
testimony which has been taken in his March 3, March 5, May 5, May 28,
and June 9 appearances before the OIC grand jury. Assertions by counsel
is not the same thing as proof. And I think that it is clear when you
watch the actual video as we have done today of the three witnesses
whose testimony the managers took earlier this week.
For example, with respect to Mr. Jordan, Mr. Manager Hutchinson, who
did a first-rate job of interrogation as you can see from the video,
told you last Thursday that he needed to have in evidence the
videotape, and you admitted it into evidence, because--and I quote--
``Mr. Jordan's testimony goes to the connection between the job search,
the benefit provided to a witness, and the solicited false testimony
from that witness.''
Mr. Manager Hutchinson also asserted more than once last Thursday
that Mr. Jordan's testimony will prove that the President was
controlling the job search. There is only one problem with these
assertions. When you actually look at the videotape and listen to what
Mr. Jordan testified to, there is no support for these propositions.
There is no direct evidence and there is no circumstantial evidence. It
is plain that to help somebody find a job is an acceptable activity. It
is only when this is tied, as the second article of impeachment alleges
it is tied, to some obstruction in the Paula Jones case that it becomes
illegal. And, when fairly considered, Mr. Jordan's testimony provides
no evidence whatsoever of that.
Mr. Jordan was a long-time and close personal friend of the
President.

(Text of videotape presentation:)
Q. It's probably not bad from Washington standards.
Would you describe the nature of your relationship with
President Clinton?
A. President Clinton has been a friend of mine since
approximately 1973, when I came to your State, Arkansas, to
make a speech as president of the National Urban League about
race and equal opportunity in our Nation, and we met then and
there, and our friendship has grown and developed and matured
and he is my friend and will continue to be my friend.
Q. And just to further elaborate on that friendship, it's
my understanding that he and his--and the First Lady has had
Christmas Eve dinner with you and your family for a number of
years?
A. Every year since his Presidency, the Jordan family has
been privileged to entertain the Clinton family on Christmas
Eve.
Q. And has there been any exceptions in recent years to
that?
A. Every year that he has been President, he has had, he
and his family, Christmas Eve with my family.
Q. And have you vacationed together with the Clinton
family?
A. Yes. I think you have seen reels of playing golf and
having fun at Martha's Vineyard.
Q. And so you vacation together, you play golf together on
a semi-regular basis?
A. Whenever we can.

It has been, since the start of this investigation, well known that
Mr. Jordan was active in helping Ms. Lewinsky secure employment in New
York, and also that he construed this request which came to him through
Betty Currie as having come from the President himself. In his May 28
grand jury testimony, for example, Mr. Jordan testified that Betty
Currie is the President's secretary. ``She was the person who called me
at the behest of the President, I believe, to ask me to look into
getting Monica Lewinsky the job.''
And, again, on June 9, Mr. Jordan testified to the grand jury that,
``The President asked me to help get Monica Lewinsky a job.''
Mr. Manager Hutchinson played an excerpt, which I will not play
again, which once more repeats that testimony.
Mr. Jordan, however, made clear that while he recommended Ms.
Lewinsky for a job at three New York firms which he had some connection
with, the decision to hire her was the company's, and he put no
pressure of any kind on these companies to hire Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed,
she received an offer at one company, Revlon, and failed to obtain one
from American Express or Burson-Marsteller.
(Text of video presentation:)

Q. Okay. Do you believe that you are acting in the
company's interest or the President's interest when you were
trying to secure a job for Ms. Lewinsky?
A. Well, what I knew was that the company would take care
of its own interest. This is not the first time that I
referred somebody, and what I know is, is that if a person
being referred does not meet the standards required for that
company, I have no question but that that person will not be
hired. And so the referral is an easy thing to do; the
judgment about employment is not a judgment as a person
referring that I make. But I do have confidence in all of the
companies on whose boards I sit that, regardless of my
reference, that as to their needs and as to their
expectations for their employees that they will make the
right decisions, as happened in the American Express
situation.
American Express called and said: We will not hire Ms.
Lewinsky. I did not question it, I did not challenge it,
because they understood their needs and their needs in
comparison to her qualifications. They made a judgment.
Revlon, on the other hand, made another judgment.
I am not the employer. I am the referrer, and there is a
major difference.
Q. Now, going back to what you knew as far as information
and what you conveyed to Revlon, you indicated that you did
not tell Mr. Halperin that you were making this request or
referral at the request of the President of the United
States.
A. Yes, and I didn't see any need to do that.
Q. And then, when you talked to Mr.--
A. Nor do I believe not saying that, Counselor, was a
breach of some fiduciary relationship.
Q. And when you had your conversation with Mr. Perelman--
A. Right.
Q. --at a later time--
A. Right.
Q. --you do not remember whether you told him--you do not
believe you told him you were calling for the President--
A. I believe that I did not tell him.
Q. --but you assumed that he knew?
A. No. I did not make any assumptions, let me say. I said:
Ronald, here is a young lady who has been interviewed. She
thinks the interview has not gone well. See what you can do
to make sure that she is properly interviewed and evaluated--
in essence.
Q. And did you reference her as a former White House
intern?
A. Probably. I do not have a recollection of whether I
described her as a White House intern, whether I described
her as a person who had worked for the Pentagon. I said this
is a person that I have referred.
I think, Mr. Hutchinson, that I have sufficient, uh,
influence, shall we say, sufficient character, shall we say,
that people have been throughout my career able to take my
word at face value.
Q. And so you didn't need to reference the President. The
fact that you were calling Mr. Perelman--
A. That was sufficient.
Q. --and asking for a second interview for Ms. Lewinsky,
that that should be sufficient?
A. I thought it was sufficient, and obviously, Mr. Perelman
thought it was sufficient.

[[Page S1311]]

Q. And so there is no reason, based on what you told him,
for him to think that you were calling at the request of the
President of the United States?
A. I think that's about right.
Q. And so, at least with the conversation with Mr. Halperin
and Mr. Perelman, you did not reference that you were acting
in behalf of the President of the United States. Was there
anyone else that you talked to at Revlon in which they might
have acquired that information?
A. The only persons that I talked to in this process, as I
explained to you, was Mr. Halperin and Mr. Perelman about
this process. And it was Mr. Halperin who put the--who got
the process started.
Q. So those are the only two you talked about, and you made
no reference that you were acting in behalf of the President?
A. Right.
Q. Now, the second piece of information was the fact that
you knew and the President knew that Ms. Lewinsky was under
subpoena in the Jones case, and that information was not
provided to either Mr. Halperin or to Mr. Perelman; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.

The most critical thing about this deposition is it contained no
evidence of any kind which supports the central allegation of article
II, the obstruction of justice article, that Mr. Jordan's job search
assistance was tied to Ms. Lewinsky testifying in a certain way or that
the President intended Mr. Jordan's assistance to corruptly influence
her testimony. Mr. Jordan was unequivocal about the fact that he had
frequently helped other people and that here there was no quid pro quo,
no tie-in of any kind. Indeed, he provided direct evidence of this
fact.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Mr. Jordan, you were asked questions about job
assistance. Would you describe the job assistance you have
over your career given to people who have come to you
requesting help finding a job or finding employment?
A. Well, I've known about job assistance and have for a
very long time. I learned about it dramatically when I
finished at Howard University Law School, 1960, to return
home to Atlanta, Georgia to look for work. In the process of
my--during my senior year, it was very clear to me that no
law firm in Atlanta would hire me. It was very clear to me
that, uh, I could not get a job as a black lawyer in the city
government, the county government, the State government or
the Federal Government.
And thanks to my high school bandmaster, Mr. Kenneth Days,
who called his fraternity brother, Donald L. Hollowell, a
civil rights lawyer, and said, ``That Jordan boy is a fine
boy, and you ought to consider him for a job at your law
firm,'' that's when I learned about job referral, and that
job referral by Kenneth Days, now going to Don Hollowell, got
me a job as a civil rights lawyer working for Don Hollowell
for $35 a week.
I have never forgotten Kenneth Days' generosity. And given
the fact that all of the other doors for employment as a
black lawyer graduating from Howard University were open to
me, that's always--that's always been etched in my heart and
my mind, and as a result, because I stand on Mr. Days'
shoulders and Don Hollowell's shoulders, I felt some
responsibility to the extent that I could be helpful or got
in a position to be helpful, that I would do that.
And there is I think ample evidence, both in the media and
by individuals across this country, that at such times that I
have been presented with that opportunity that I have taken
advantage of that opportunity, and I think that I have been
successful at it.
Q. Was your assistance to Ms. Lewinsky which you have
described in any way dependent upon her doing anything
whatsoever in the Paula Jones case?
A. No.

That is direct evidence. That is not circumstantial evidence. That is
unimpugned direct evidence.
Mr. Manager Hutchinson emphasized that Mr. Jordan now admits that he
met with Ms. Lewinsky for breakfast on December 31. But Mr. Jordan also
conceded in his deposition that, while he has no direct recollection of
it, he also met with Ms. Lewinsky on November 5, a date well before any
of the many managerial-selected dates for the beginning of the corrupt
conspiracy here.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. . . . Now, when was the first time that you recall that
you met with Monica Lewinsky?
A. If you've read my grand jury testimony--
Q. I have.
A. --and I'm sure that you have--there is testimony in the
grand jury that she came to see me on or about the 5th of
November. I have no recollection of that. It was not on my
calendar, and I just have no recollection of her visit. There
is a letter here that you have in evidence, and I have to
assume that in fact that happened. But as I said in my grand
jury testimony, I'm not aware of it, I don't remember it--but
I do not deny that it happened.
Q. And Ms. Lewinsky has made reference to a meeting that
occurred in your office on November 5, and that's the meeting
that you have no recollection of?
A. That is correct. We have no record of it in my office,
and I just have no recollection of it.
Q. And in your first grand jury appearance, you were firm,
shall I say, that the first time you met with Ms. Lewinsky,
that it was on December 11th?
A. Yes. It was firm based on what my calendar told me, and
subsequently to that, there has been a refreshing of my
recollection, and I do not deny that it happened. By the same
token, I will tell you, as I said in my grand jury testimony,
that I did not remember that I had met with her.
Q. And in fact today, the fact that you do not dispute that
that meeting occurred is not based upon your recollection but
is simply based upon you've seen the records, and it appears
that that meeting occurred?
A. That is correct.

The managers' theory is that it wasn't the original job assistance
which constitutes obstruction of justice, it was, rather, the
intensification of it which began at a certain point--and that point
has varied.
When you boil it all down, when you look at Mr. Jordan's deposition
or read his grand jury testimony, you see that he acted for Ms.
Lewinsky on two different occasions. On December 11 he made three phone
calls for her to New York firms, and then on January 8, when she
thought an interview had gone badly, he made another phone call, this
time to Mr. Perelman. That is all he did.
Now, you also will recall, I think, that the managers' original
theory was that what catalyzed this job search intensification, what
really kick-started it, was the entry of an order in the Paula Jones
case by Judge Wright on December 11.
Mr. Manager Hutchinson told you on January 14 that what triggered--

Let's look at the chain of events. The judge--the witness
list came in, the judge's order came in, that triggered the
President into action and the President triggered Vernon
Jordan into action. That chain reaction here is what moved
the job search along. . . . Remember what else happened on
that day, December 11. Again, that was the same day that
Judge Wright ruled that the questions about other
relationships could be asked by the Jones attorneys.

That was the theory then. This is now. We demonstrated, in our own
presentation, of course, that that order was entered late in the day at
a time when Mr. Jordan was high over the Atlantic in an airplane on his
way to Amsterdam.
Mr. Manager Hutchinson's very able examination did not try to
resuscitate that theory. He didn't even make the attempt. He didn't ask
Mr. Jordan about the December 11 order.
So today we have a different time line. We have a new chart and a new
time line. Let's look at this.
This is Mr. Manager Hutchinson's chart this morning. What is critical
here? Well, we learned today that it is the December 5 date that is
critical. That is when the witness list was faxed to the President's
counsel, and that is what triggered the succeeding chain of events. Mr.
Manager Hutchinson remarked, if I heard him correctly, that whenever
you are talking about obstruction of justice, it ties together, it all
fits together.
Let's look at his chart. We see that December 11 is on here, but
Judge Wright's order has dropped off entirely, unless it is there where
I don't see it. Judge Wright's order is now not part of the chain of
causation.
We look at December 7. We ask ourselves what happened then; this is 2
days after the witness list came in. It must have been something
nefarious, because the President and Jordan meet. But Mr. Manager
Hutchinson did not represent to you that they even talked about the
Jones litigation or Ms. Lewinsky because they didn't. The managers told
you that in their trial brief, and it has been Mr. Jordan's consistent
testimony.
On December 11, Mr. Jordan did have a meeting with Ms. Lewinsky. That
was originally set up not on December 8, you will recall, but back in
November when Ms. Lewinsky had agreed to call Mr. Jordan when he
returned from his travel.
So the chronology here produces no even circumstantial evidence of
some linkage between the Paula Jones case and Mr. Jordan's job search.
It is also significant, I think, while the witness list came in on
December 5, the President met with his lawyers on December 6, the
President doesn't call Ms. Lewinsky until December 17 and

[[Page S1312]]

Mr. Jordan doesn't learn about the fact that Ms. Lewinsky is on the
witness list until December 19. There does not seem to be a lot of
urgency here.
Let's review the nefarious conspiracy that we have heard about today
to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. We are told today that Vernon Jordan had no
corrupt intent, that Ms. Lewinsky had no corrupt intent, and that
Revlon had no corrupt intent. Rather, it was the President who somehow
spun out this conspiracy. But I ask you, where, in all of the
voluminous record, is there any evidence, either direct or
circumstantial, that the President somehow tied these things together
through Mr. Jordan? It is a shell game, but the game doesn't have any
shell in it, and I think this is the loneliest conspiracy in human
history, if it was a conspiracy. But it wasn't.
On the subject of quid pro quo, I want to play two excerpts, and part
of these I ask your indulgence. They were played in part by Mr. Manager
Hutchinson, but I think they deserve to be seen in their full context.
In one of them you are going to hear Mr. Jordan say that he was running
the job search, he was in control of the job search. I think that is
true about the Vernon Jordan job search. Ms. Lewinsky's job search had
also been proceeding with Mr. Richardson--Mr. Jordan was not involved
in any way with that--and through her superior at the Pentagon, Mr. Ken
Bacon. Let's listen to the full context and listen for any evidence of
a quid pro quo.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

BY MR. HUTCHINSON:
Q. Mr. Jordan, let me go back to that meeting on December
11th. I believe we were discussing that. My question would
be: How did the meeting on December 11 of 1997 with Ms.
Lewinsky come about?
A. Ms. Lewinsky called my office and asked if she could
come to see me.
Q. And was that preceded by a call from Betty Currie?
A. At some point in time, Betty Currie had called me, and
Ms. Lewinsky followed up on that call, and she came to my
office, and we had a visit.
Q. Ms. Lewinsky called, set up a meeting, and at some point
sent you a resume, I believe.
A. I believe so.
Q. And did you receive that prior to the meeting on
December 11th?
A. I--I have to assume that I did, but I--I do not know
whether she brought it with her or whether--it was at some
point that she brought with her or sent to me--somehow it
came into my possession--a list of various companies in New
York with which she had--which were her preferences, by the
way--most of which I did not know well enough to make any
calls for.
Q. All right. And I want to come back to that, but I
believe--would you dispute if the record shows that you
received the resume of Ms. Lewinsky on December 8th?
A. I would not.
Q. And presumably, the meeting on December 11th was set up
somewhere around December 8th by the call from Ms. Lewinsky?
A. I--I would not dispute that, sir.
Q. All right. Now, you mentioned that she had sent you a--I
guess some people refer to it--a wish list, or a list of jobs
that she--
A. Not jobs--companies.
Q. --companies that she would be interested in seeking
employment with.
A. That's correct.
Q. And you looked at that, and you determined that you
wanted to go with your own list of friends and companies that
you had better contacts with.
A. I'm sure, Congressman, that you too have been in this
business, and you do know that you can only call people that
you know or feel comfortable in calling.
Q. Absolutely. No question about it. And let me just
comment and ask your response to this, but many times I will
be listed as a reference, and they can take that to any
company. You might be listed as a reference and the name
``Vernon Jordan'' would be a good reference anywhere, would
it not?
A. I would hope so.
Q. And so, even though it was a company that you might not
have the best contact with, you could have been helpful in
that regard?
A. Well, the fact is I was running the job search, not Ms.
Lewinsky, and therefore, the companies that she brought or
listed were not of interest to me. I knew where I would need
to call.
Q. And that is exactly the point, that you looked at
getting Ms. Lewinsky a job as an assignment rather than just
something that you were going to be a reference for.
A. I don't know whether I looked upon it as an assignment.
Getting jobs for people is not unusual for me, so I don't
view it as an assignment. I just view it as something that is
part of what I do.
Q. You're acting in behalf of the President when you are
trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a job, and you were in control of
the job search?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, going back--going to your meeting that we're
talking about on December 11th, prior to the meeting did you
make any calls to prospective employers in behalf of Ms.
Lewinsky?
A. I don't think so. I think not. I think I wanted to see
her before I made any calls.
Q. And so if they were not before, after you met with her,
you made some calls on December 11th?
A. I--I believe that's correct.
Q. And you called Mr. Richard Halperin of McAndrews &
Forbes?
A. That's right.
Q. You called Mr. Peter--
A. Georgescu.
Q. --Georgescu. And he is with what company?
A. He is chairman and chief executive officer of Young &
Rubicam, a leading advertising agency on Madison Avenue.
Q. And did you make one other call?
A. Yes. I called Ursie Fairbairn, who runs Human Resources
at American Express, at the American Express Company, where I
am the senior director.

* * * * *

Q And what did you basically communicate to each of these
officials in behalf of Ms. Lewinsky?
A I essentially said that you're going to hear from Ms.
Lewinsky, and I hope that you will afford her an opportunity
to come in and be interviewed and look favorably upon her if
she meets your qualifications and your needs for work.
Q Okay. And at what level did you try to communicate this
information?
A By--what do you mean by ``what level''?
Q In the company that you were calling, did you call the
chairman of human resources, did you call the CEO--who did
you call, or what level were you seeking to talk to?
A Richard Halperin is sort of the utility man; he does
everything at McAndrews & Forbes. He is very close to the
chairman, he is very close to Mr. Gittis. And so at McAndrews
& Forbes, I called Halperin.
As I said to you, and as my grand jury testimony shows, I
called Young & Rubicam, Peter Georgescu as its chairman and
CEO. I have had a long-term relationship with Young & Rubicam
going back to three of its CEOs, the first being Edward Ney,
who was chairman of Young & Rubicam when I was head of the
United Negro College Fund, and it was during that time that
we developed the great theme, ``A mind is a terrible thing to
waste.'' So I have had a long-term relationship with Young &
Rubicam and with Peter Georgescu, so I called the chairman in
that instance.
At American Express, I called Ms. Ursie Fairbairn who is,
as I said before, in charge of Human Resources.
So that is the level--in one instance, the chairman; in one
instance a utilitarian person; and in another instance, the
head of the Human Resources Department.
Q And the utilitarian connection, Mr. Richard Halperin, was
sort of an assistant to Mr. Ron Perelman?
A That's correct. He's a lawyer.
Q Now, going to your meeting on December 11th with Ms.
Lewinsky, about how long of a meeting was that?
A I don't--I don't remember. You have a record of it,
Congressman.
Q And actually, I think you've testified it was about 15 to
20 minutes, but don't hold me to that, either.
During the course of the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, what
did you learn about her?
A Uh, enthusiastic, quite taken with herself and her
experience, uh, bubbly, effervescent, bouncy, confident, uh--
actually, I sort of had the same impression that you House
Managers had of her when you met with her. You came out and
said she was impressive, and so we come out about the same
place.
Q And did she relate to you the fact that she liked being
an intern because it put her close to the President?
A I have never seen a White House intern who did not like
being a White House intern, and so her enthusiasm for being a
White House intern was about like the enthusiasm of White
House interns--they liked it.
She was not happy about not being there anymore--she did
not like being at the Defense Department--and I think she
actually had some desire to go back. But when she actually
talked to me, she wanted to go to New York for a job in the
private sector, and she thought that I could be helpful in
that process.
Q Did she make reference to someone in the White House
being uncomfortable when she was an intern, and she thought
that people did not want her there?
A She felt unwanted--there is no question about that. As to
who did not want her there and why they did not want her
there, that was not my business.
Q And she related that--
A She talked about it.
Q --experience or feeling to you?
A Yes.
Q Now, your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky was on December 11th,
and I believe that Ms. Lewinsky has testified that she met
with the President on December 5--excuse me, on December 6--
at the White House and complained that her job search was not
going anywhere, and the President then talked to Mr. Jordan.
Do you recall the President talking to you about that after
that meeting?
A I do not have a specific recollection of the President
saying to me anything about

[[Page S1313]]

having met with Ms. Lewinsky. The President has never told me
that he met with Ms. Lewinsky, as best as I can recollect.
I--I am aware that she was in a state of anxiety about going
to work. She was in a state of anxiety in addition because
her lease at Watergate, at the Watergate, was to expire
December 31st. And there was a part of Ms. Lewinsky, I think,
that thought that because she was coming to me, that she
could come today and that she would have a job tomorrow. That
is not an unusual misapprehension, and it's not limited to
White House interns.
Q I mentioned her meeting with the President on the same
day, December 6th. I believe the record shows the President
met with his lawyers and learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the
Jones witness list. Now, did you subsequently meet with the
President on the next day, December 7th?
A I may have met with the President. I'd have to--I mean,
I'd have to look. I'd have to look. I don't know whether I
did or not.
Q If you would like to confer--I believe the record shows
that, but I'd like to establish that through your testimony.
MS. WALDEN: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. HUTCHINSON:
Q All right. So you met with the President on December 7th.
And was it the next day after that, December 8th, that Ms.
Lewinsky called to set up the job meeting with you on
December 11th?
A I believe that is correct.
Q And sometime after your meeting on December 11th with Ms.
Lewinsky, did you have another conversation with the
President?
A Uh, you do understand that conversations between me and
the President, uh, was not an unusual circumstance.
Q And I understand that--
A All right.
Q --and so let me be more specific. I believe your previous
testimony has been that sometime after the 11th, you spoke
with the President about Ms. Lewinsky.
A I stand on that testimony.
Q All right. And so there's two conversations after the
witness list came out--one that you had with the President on
December 7th, and then a subsequent conversation with him
after you met with Ms. Lewinsky on the 11th.
Now, in your subsequent conversation after the 11th, did
you discuss with the President of the United States Monica
Lewinsky, and if so, can you tell us what that discussion
was?
A If there was a discussion subsequent to Monica Lewinsky's
visit to me on December the 11th with the President of the
United States, it was about the job search.
Q All right. And during that, did he indicate that he knew
about the fact that she had lost her job in the White House,
and she wanted to get a job in New York?
A He was aware that--he was obviously aware that she had
lost her job in the White House, because she was working at
the Pentagon. He was also aware that she wanted to work in
New York, in the private sector, and understood that that is
why she was having conversations with me. There is no doubt
about that.
Q And he thanked you for helping her?
A There's no question about that, either.
Q And on either of these conversations that I've referenced
that you had with the President after the witness list came
out, your conversation on December 7th, and your conversation
sometime after the 11th, did the President tell you that Ms.
Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Jones case?
A He did not.
Q And did you consider this information to be important in
your efforts to be helpful to Ms. Lewinsky?
A I never thought about it.

Mr. Jordan found out about Ms. Lewinsky's subpoena on December 19
when a weeping Ms. Lewinsky telephoned him and came to his office. Mr.
Manager Hutchinson played that excerpt from the testimony this morning.
I won't replay it. Mr. Jordan then did what I think is best called due
diligence. He talked to Ms. Lewinsky, got her a lawyer, asked her
whether there was any sexual relationship with the President, and was
assured that there was not. That same evening, he went to the White
House and made a similar inquiry of the President and he received a
similar response.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q And still on December 19th, after your meeting with Ms.
Lewinsky, did you subsequently see the President of the
United States later that evening?
A I did.
Q And is this when you went to the White House and saw the
President?
A Yes.
Q At the time that Ms. Lewinsky came to see you on December
19th, did you have any plans to attend any social function at
the White House that evening?
A I did not.
Q And in fact there was a social invitation that you had at
the White House that you declined?
A I had--I had declined it; that's right.
Q And subsequent to Ms. Lewinsky visiting you, did you
change your mind and go see the President that evening?
A After the--a social engagement that Mrs. Jordan and I
had, we went to the White House for two reasons. We went to
the White House to see some friends who were there, two of
whom were staying in the White House; and secondly, I wanted
to have a conversation with the President.
Q And this conversation that you wanted to have with the
President was one that you wanted to have with him alone?
A That is correct.
Q And did you let him know in advance that you were coming
and wanted to talk to him?
A I told him I would see him sometime that night after
dinner.
Q Did you tell him why you wanted to see him?
A No.
Q Now, was this--once you told him that you wanted to see
him, did it occur the same time that you talked to him while
Ms. Lewinsky was waiting outside?
A It could be. I made it clear that I would come by after
dinner, and he said fine.
Q Now, let me backtrack for just a moment, because whenever
you talked to the President, Ms. Lewinsky was not inside the
room--
A That's correct.
Q --and therefore, you did not know the details about her
questions on the President might leave the First Lady and
those questions that set off all of these alarm bells.
A [Nodding head up and down.]
Q And so you were having--is the answer yes?
A That's correct.
Q And so you were having this discussion with the President
not knowing the extent of Ms. Lewinsky's fixation?
A Uh--
Q Is that correct?
A Correct.
Q And, regardless, you wanted to see the President that
night, and so you went to see him. And was he expecting you?
A I believe he was.
Q And did you have a conversation with him alone?
A I did.
Q No one else around?
A No one else around.
Q And I know that's a redundant question.
A It's okay.
Q Now, would you describe your conversation with the
President?
A We were upstairs, uh, in the White House. Mrs. Jordan--we
came in by way of the Southwest Gate into the Diplomatic
Entrance--we left the car there. I took the elevator up to
the residence, and Mrs. Jordan went and visited at the party.
And the President was already upstairs--I had ascertained
that from the usher--and I went up, and I raised with him the
whole question of Monica Lewinsky and asked him directly if
he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and the
President said, ``No, never.''
Q All right. Now, during that conversation, did you tell
the President again that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed?
A Well, we had established that.
Q All right. And did you tell him that you were concerned
about her fascination?
A I did.
Q And did you describe her as being emotional in your
meeting that day?
A I did.
Q And did you relate to the President that Ms. Lewinsky
asked about whether he was going to leave the First Lady at
the end of the term?
A I did.
Q And as--and then, you concluded that with the question as
to whether he had had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?
A And he said he had not, and I was satisfied--end of
conversation.
Q Now, once again, just as I asked the question in
reference to Ms. Lewinsky, it appears to me that this is an
extraordinary question to ask the President of the United
States. What led you to ask this question to the President?
A Well, first of all, I'm asking the question of my friend
who happens to be the President of the United States.
Q And did you expect your friend, the President of the
United States, to give you a truthful answer?
A I did.
Q Did you rely upon the President's answer in your decision
to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job?
A I believed him, and I continued to do what I had been
asked to do.
This morning, a very short portion of the President's grand jury
testimony was played. The sound was not very good. It was a very short
snippet, but it relates to what happened between Mr. Jordan and the
President in that December 19, late-night meeting at the White House.
The snippet that was played for you was:

Q And Mr. Jordan informed you of that, is that correct?

``That'' being the subpoena.

A No, sir.

That leaves the misleading impression in his grand jury testimony the
President did not acknowledge this visit with Mr. Jordan. The question
right above the one that was quoted, however, was the following:

Q You were familiar, weren't you, Mr. President, that she
had received the subpoena? You have already acknowledged
that.

[[Page S1314]]

The answer was, ``Yes, sir, I was.''
And then two pages later, the President was asked by the OIC:

Q Did you, in fact, have a conversation with Mr. Jordan on
the evening of December 19, 1997, in which he talked to you
about Monica being in Mr. Jordan's office, having a copy of
the subpoena and being upset about being subpoenaed?

And the President's answer was:

I remember that Mr. Jordan was in the White House on
December 19 for an event of some kind, that he came up to the
residence floor and told me that he had--that Monica had
gotten subpoenaed or Monica was going to have to testify and
I think he told me he recommended a lawyer for her. I believe
that's what happened, but it was a very brief conversation.

So I think it is absolutely clear that there is no conflict between
the President's testimony and Mr. Jordan's testimony about this. Mr.
Jordan had recommended Ms. Lewinsky and took her to the lawyer's
office, to a lawyer, a Mr. Frank Carter, a respected Washington, DC,
lawyer, to whom Mr. Jordan had recommended other clients. (Text of
videotape presentation:)

Q Now, you have referred other clients to Mr. Carter during
your course of practice here in Washington, D.C.?
A Yes, I have.
Q About how many have you referred to him?
A Oh, I don't know. Maggie Williams is one client that I--I
remember very definitely.
I like Frank Carter a lot. He's a very able young lawyer.
He's a first-class person, a first-class lawyer, and he's one
of my new acquaintances amongst lawyers in town, and I like
being around him. We have lunch, and he's a friend.

Q And is it true, though, that when you've referred other
clients to Mr. Carter that you never personally delivered and
presented that client to him in his office?
A But I delivered Maggie Williams to him in my office. I
had Maggie Williams to come to my office, and it was in my
office that I introduced, uh, Maggie Williams to Mr. Carter,
and she chose other counsel. I would have happily taken
Maggie Williams to his office.
Gary, I will skip the next two videotapes 21 and 22. I hear a sigh of
relief.
I want to use the next videotape--and I am almost through --to
correct the record as to one point that was made by the managers on
Thursday. And again, this representation was important because it
asserted an interconnection between the job search assistance and
testimony in the Jones case.
We were shown a chart on Thursday and it was a chart that was
entitled ``Interconnection Between Job Help and Testimony.''
Managers' version:

Q [so you] Talk to her both about the job and her concerns
about parts of the affidavit.

Answer, according to the managers' version, ``That is correct.''
When we actually looked at the testimony which we will see in just a
second, the question is:

Q Did you, in fact, talk to her about the job and her
concerns about parts of the affidavit?
A I have never in any conversation with Ms. Lewinsky talked
to her about the job, on the one hand, or job being
interrelated with the conversation about the affidavit. The
affidavit was over here. The job was over here.

I don't suggest any intentional misrepresentation, but I think the
record deserves to be corrected.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q Do you know why you would have been calling Mr. Carter on
three occasions, the day before the affidavit was signed?
A Yeah. I--my recollection is--is that I was exchanging or
sharing with Mr. Carter what had gone on, what she had asked
me to do, what I refused to do, reaffirming to him that he
was the lawyer and I was not the lawyer. I mean, it would be
so presumptuous of me to try to advise Frank Carter as to how
to practice law.
Q Would you have been relating to Mr. Carter your
conversations with Ms. Lewinsky?
A I may have.
Q And if Ms. Lewinsky expressed to you any concerns about
the affidavit, would you have relayed those to Mr. Carter?
A Yes.
Q And if Mr. Carter was a good attorney that was concerned
about the economics of law practice, he would have likely
billed Ms. Lewinsky for some of those telephone calls?
A You have to talk to Mr. Carter about his billing.
Q It wouldn't surprise you if his billing did reflect a--a
charge for a telephone conversation with Mr. Jordan?
A Keep in mind that Mr. Carter spent most of his time in
being a legal services lawyer. I think his concentration is
primarily on service, rather than billing.
Q But, again, based upon the conversations you had with
him, which sounds like conversations of substance in
reference to the affidavit, that it would be consistent with
the practice of law if he charged for those conversations?
A That's a question you'd have to ask Mr. Carter.
Q They were conversations of substance with Mr. Carter
concerning the affidavit?
A And they were likely conversations about more than Ms.
Lewinsky.
Q But the answer was yes, that they were conversations of
substance in reference to the affidavit?
A Or at least a portion of them.
Q In other words, other things might have been discussed?
A Yes.
Q In your conversation with Ms. Lewinsky prior to the
affidavit being signed, did you in fact talk to her about
both the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?
A I have never in any conversation with Ms. Lewinsky talked
to her about the job, on one hand, or job being interrelated
with the conversation about the affidavit. The affidavit was
over here. The job was over here.
Q But the--in the same conversations, both her interest in
a job and her discussions about the affidavit were contained
in the same conversation?
A As I said to you before, Counselor, she was always
interested in the job.
Q Okay. And she was always interested in the job, and so,
if she brought up the affidavit, very likely it was in the
same conversation?
A No doubt.
Q And that would be consistent with your previous grand
jury testimony when you expressed that you talked to her both
about the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?
A That is correct.
Q Now, on January 7th, the affidavit was signed. Subsequent
to this, did you notify anyone in the White House that the
affidavit in the Jones case had been signed by Ms. Lewinsky?
A Yeah. I'm certain I told Betty Currie, and I'm fairly
certain that I told the President.
Q And why did you tell Betty Currie?
A I'm--I kept them informed about everybody else that was--
everything else. There was no reason not to tell them about
that she had signed the affidavit.
Q And why did you tell the President?
A The President was obviously interested in her job search.
We had talked about the affidavit. He knew that she had a
lawyer. It was in the due course of a conversation. I would
say, ``Mr. President, she signed the affidavit. She signed
the affidavit.''
Q And what was his response when you informed him that she
had signed the affidavit?
A ``Thank you very much.''
Q All right. And would you also have been giving him a
report on the status of the job search at the same time?
A He may have asked about that, and--and part of her
problem was that, you know, she was--there was a great deal
of anxiety about the job. She wanted the job. She was
unemployed, and she wanted to work.
Q Now, I think you indicated that he was obviously
concerned about--was it her representation and the affidavit?
A I told him that I had found counsel for her, and I told
him that she had signed the affidavit.
Q Okay. You indicated that he was concerned, obviously,
about something. What was he obviously concerned about in
your conversations with him?
A Throughout, he had been concerned about her getting
employment in New York, period.
Q And he was also concerned about the affidavit?
A I don't know that that was concern. I did tell him that
the affidavit was signed. He knew that she had counsel, and
he knew that I had arranged the counsel.

In his presentation, Mr. Manager Hutchinson discussed the breakfast
with Ms. Lewinsky, which Mr. Jordan now concedes he had, on December
31. He showed you the restaurant bill. I am not going to dwell long on
that because it really is not relevant to article II.
First of all, it is nowhere alleged as a ground of obstruction of
justice. Mr. Manager Hutchinson referred to the 7 pillars of
obstruction in article II. Those are 7 different factual grounds. This
alleged obstruction is nowhere in the grounds.
There is plainly a conflict in the testimony between Ms. Lewinsky and
Mr. Jordan; although Mr. Jordan, as you will recall, vehemently denies
ever giving that instruction, saying in the videotape played this
morning: ``I'm a lawyer and I'm a loyal friend, but I'm not a fool.
That's ridiculous. I never did that.''
The second reason why I think this is irrelevant is, it was not
presented as a separate ground for impeachment by the independent
counsel. It was identified--the fact of the conflicted testimony was
identified, but it was not urged as a separate ground, despite the
very, very energetic investigation of Mr. Starr. We have heard a lot in
this case about ``dogs that won't hunt.'' In my mind, this is like a
Sherlock

[[Page S1315]]

Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark. If the independent counsel
didn't raise it, that is significant. Finally, it has nothing
whatsoever to do with the President, by anybody's contention.
Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to raise a question now, which arose
in the final stage of the Vernon Jordan deposition. Mr. Manager
Hutchinson had taken the deposition. I had asked a couple of questions
in response. After I had concluded, Mr. Jordan made a statement
defending his own integrity to which Mr. Manager Hutchinson objected. I
propose--since the issue has arisen of his integrity and since Mr.
Jordan is an honorable man and has had a distinguished career--that I
be allowed to play the approximately 2-minute segment of his own
statement about his integrity.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the managers object?
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chief Justice, it is my understanding
that that is not a part of the Senate record, and therefore it would
not be appropriate to be played under the rules of the Senate.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. But is it a part of the deposition of him that was
taken?
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. It is not a part of the deposition that was
entered into the Senate record under the Senate rules.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Well, the Parliamentarian advises me that Division
I of the motion on Thursday, which was approved, would prevent the
playing of that. So the Chair will rule that that is not acceptable.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, is
recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. I was one of the Senators at that deposition. I think it
would be extremely interesting to hear it. It was taken at the
deposition. I ask unanimous consent that it----
Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Vermont may appeal the decision
of the Chair, which is that it not be played, ask consent for----
Mr. LEAHY. I'm asking unanimous consent, under the circumstances and
because it is so short, that the deposition--and it would clarify that
part of the deposition Mr. Jordan took, which has been videotaped--be
allowed to be shown here on the floor.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Objection.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Objection is heard.
Counsel may proceed.
Mr. Counsel KENDALL. I would like to recognize my colleague. Well, I
think that concludes our presentation.
Mr. Counsel RUFF. We yield back the remainder of our time, Mr. Chief
Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. The managers have 31 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.
Mr. Manager BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. We will conclude
our roughly half hour by responding to as many of the contentions and
statements raised by counsel for the White House as we can. I first
want to talk, I suppose, about the statement that we heard back a
couple of weeks ago, which was repeated today by one of the White House
counsels, that ``the managers want to win too much.''
This is not a game. This is not a game to anyone here. There are
extraordinary consequences to what we are doing and what we have been
doing and what your decision will be. The stakes are very high. We
don't need to take a poll to do what we did. I am reminded of the
testimony of the President and Dick Morris taking the poll to determine
whether to tell the truth or not, and then after deciding the public
would not forgive his perjury, he said, ``We will just have to win.''
But that's not the attitude the House managers have in bringing this
case here. The managers fully appreciate the seriousness and the
consequences of this. We want to do the right thing. We are not here
just to win. We want to help the Senate in this constitutional process
do the constitutional thing--not only for the precedent of this Senate
but for the precedent of future generations in terms of how the courts
now and later will view obstruction of justice and perjury. We believe
this is a constitutional effort and not a game.
The question about snippets, that we just put some snippets on the
air today--we wanted to call live witnesses. We wanted Ms. Lewinsky to
be here and let everybody examine her fully and completely. But we are
working with a timeframe, and we brought up those points in her
testimony and in Mr. Jordan's testimony and Mr. Blumenthal's testimony
that we felt proved our case.
With regard to the issue that Ms. Seligman raised about filing a
false affidavit, she ran that testimony many times. I thought we ran
the President's earlier in these hearings several times, but I think
she beat our record with that testimony. I appreciate that.
But what that is important for is not what Ms. Lewinsky felt was
going on that night; but I think it perfectly illustrates what I told
you the other day about her testimony. While she was truthful and while
she gave us the testimony she had to give us to keep her immunity
agreement, where there were some blanks to fill in, or where there was
something that could be bent, she did so.
As they pointed out on the question of the linkage between filing an
affidavit and this cover story, it was so obvious that they were
connected that the OIC did not ask that question, ``Did you think about
this when you''--and that. It was obvious. But he did not ask that
question. She was right; the question was not asked. So when she, Ms.
Lewinsky, had an opportunity in these hearings when I asked her, she
said, ``Well, you know, I really didn't link the two together.'' Let's
not throw away all of our common sense here.
She gets a phone call in the middle of the night with a message that
you are on the witness list, and she says three things occurred: You
are on the witness list, you can file an affidavit, and you can use a
cover story. Why else would the President raise the issue of a cover
story at 2:30 in the morning if he didn't intend for her to use that?
But keep in mind, too, it really doesn't matter how she appreciated
this. It really matters what the President intended. And he intended to
let her know that she was on the list, she could be subpoenaed, she
could file an affidavit, and she could use the cover story.
And in fact she did use that cover story. She went to her lawyer, Mr.
Carter, and told him that. And it was incorporated into the draft
affidavit that she went to take papers to the President to sign, and in
those cases she may have been alone. But they didn't like the specter
of her being alone. So they struck that provision out of the final
affidavit. But they did attempt to use it.
But keep in mind also that it is the President's intent. And his
intent was to interfere with justice in the Paula Jones case and to
have her give a false affidavit. And that is why he so suggested that.
On the gifts to people, is it really an issue? Is there really an
issue here? There is some fabulous lawyering over here. But there is no
issue here. Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no doubt in her mind
that Ms. Currie initiated the call. That is all there is to this issue.
The fact that there were other calls in the day, the fact that one of
the other calls may have been at 3:30, really are moot points. The
issue is, if Betty Currie initiated that phone call, the only impetus
for her to initiate that call had to come from the President. She was
not in that conversation that morning. The President had to tell her,
and apparently did so, because she made the call.

At the end of the examination of her testimony, or toward the end--it
was shown several times--we asked her, ``Did the President ever tell
you anything about the gifts?'' And she said, ``Not that I remember.''
And then later on in the segment, you also saw she was asked the
question again by me: ``OK. Were you ever under any impression or the
impression from the President that you should turn over all the gifts
to the Jones lawyers?'' And she said, ``No.'' Then she goes on to say,
``This gets a little tricky here, and it could be I heard the
statements from agents, or somewhere along the line, or perhaps that it
did sound familiar.''
I would suggest to you what happened there is that Mr. Carter--it is
clearly in the testimony and before all of us in the record--her own
lawyer told her she had to turn over all the records. That is where she
heard that.

[[Page S1316]]

But logic demands that you reject that view, because why would the
President, whose intent was to conceal this whole affair, ever think of
telling her that, ``You have to turn over all those gifts''? If he did
tell her that she had to turn over all of those gifts, why would she
immediately go out that afternoon and reject that instruction, and just
completely say, ``Well, I am going to forget what he told me to do, I
am going to call his secretary and have her come pick up these gifts
and store them for me''?
That is just not logical. Common sense tells us that didn't happen
that way, and Ms. Lewinsky was absolutely positive that there was no
doubt that Betty Currie initiated the call, and that is that.
Job search: Very quickly, this is not a bribery case. This is not
giving her a job, bribing her with a job to get her false testimony. It
is not a bribery case. If it was, we wouldn't be arguing about the
impeachability of obstruction of justice. It would be clear that
bribery is mentioned in the Constitution. It is about attempting to
corruptly persuade or influence the behavior of a witness. That is
exactly what that is about.
I would also close very quickly by telling you in the beginning that
I urged you to look at particularly obstruction of justice charges, the
result-benefit analysis. And I do not ever hear anybody talking about
that but me. So maybe I am off base here. But I ask you to consider
each of these seven pillars of obstruction that Mr. Hutchinson raised,
and look at the end results of those acts, and look at who benefited
from those results. And what I believe you would have found and can
still find is that each case resulted in impeding justice in the Paula
Jones case in some way that favored the President. And the benefit
naturally inured to the President.
I guess if you reject that result-benefit test, and if you accept
each and every argument of these extremely fine defense counsel that
the President wasn't behind any of this, then I guess you just have to
reach the conclusion that the President was the luckiest man in the
world, that people would commit crimes by filing false affidavits, by
hiding evidence, by going out and possibly trashing the witnesses and
giving false testimony in grand jury proceedings, and that--if that is
the way you feel about it, so be it; we will abide by your judgment.
But I suggest to you that the facts of this case are really not in
contest. They have been argued very well by defense counsel for the
White House.
I am about to exhaust my time. So I yield at this point to Mr.
Manager Hutchinson to make some remarks.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.
Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. This will be
very brief, and then I will yield to Mr. Graham.
Let's recall Ms. Monica Lewinsky to the stand for a brief moment.
Let's go to the Park Hyatt Hotel, December 31, 1997, breakfast between
Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

A. Well, the--sort of the--I don't know what to call it,
but the story that I gave to Mr. Jordan was that I was trying
to sort of alert to him that, gee, maybe Linda Tripp might be
saying these things about me having a relationship with the
President, and right now, I'm explaining this to you. These
aren't the words that I used or how I said it to him, and
that, you know, maybe she had seen drafts of notes, trying to
obviously give an excuse as to how Linda Tripp could possibly
know about my relationship with the President without me
having been the one to have told her. So that's what I said
to him.
Q. And what was his response?
A. I think it was something like go home and make sure--oh,
something about a--I think he asked me if they were notes
from the President to me, and I said no. I know I've
testified to this. I stand by that testimony, and I'm just
recalling it, that I said no, they were draft notes or notes
that I sent to the President, and then I believe he said
something like, well, go home and make sure they're not
there.
Q. And what did you do when you went home?
A. I went home and I searched through some of my papers,
and--and the drafts of notes I found, I sort of--I got rid of
some of the notes that day.
Q. So you threw them away?
A. Mm-hmm.
THE REPORTER: Is that a ``yes''?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry.

Thank you. This goes to the overall pattern of obstruction. It goes
to credibility. I believe it is relevant in this case, and I yield to
Mr. Graham.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham.
Mr. Manager GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. How much time do I
have?
The CHIEF JUSTICE. You have 18 minutes and some seconds.
Mr. Manager GRAHAM. I may yield back some of the seconds, I hope.
(Laughter.)
Point of agreement, rebuttal is to refocus, and the law allows that
for the person or the party with the burden, and we do have the burden.
Point of agreement, White House counsel says there is much more that
we need to know. There is much more we need know.
White House counsel said strongly, when these proceedings opened up,
the President is not guilty of obstruction of justice, the President is
not guilty of perjury. Refocus: No fair-minded person, in my opinion,
could come to any other rational conclusion than that our President
obstructed justice, that our President committed perjury in front of a
grand jury.
You vote your conscience. I have told you to do so. And if we
disagree at the end of the day, that is America at its best. I have
never suggested there was any reasonable doubt that this President
committed crimes. I will ask you at the conclusion of this case to
remove him with a clear conscience. You vote your conscience, and I
know it will be clear.
Refocus: The gifts--simply put, if you believe the President of the
United States in his grand jury testimony said: I told her, I said,
look, the way these things work is when a person gets a subpoena, you
have to give them whatever you have. That's the way--that's what the
rule--that's what the law is.

If you believe that, we need to congratulate our President because he
did, in fact, state the law correctly. He fulfilled his obligation as
Chief Executive Officer of the land. He fulfilled his obligation as an
honorable person by telling someone, who happened to be Ms. Lewinsky,
You are doing a bad thing here even by suggesting we do something with
these gifts. You need to turn them over because that is what the law
says.
If you believe that, that is the only time he really embraced the law
in this case, as I can see. Everything about him, in the way he
behaved, was 180 degrees out from that statement. That is the most
self-serving statement that flies in the face of every action he took
for months. The truth is that a reasonable person should conclude that
when Ms. Lewinsky approached him about what to do with the gifts, he
said, ``I'll have to think about that.'' And you know what, ladies and
gentlemen, he thought about it. And do you know what he did after he
thought about it? ``Betty, go get those gifts.'' And they wound up
under the bed of the President's secretary. And the people are
wondering what the heck happened here? What the heck happened here is
you have a man trying to hide his crimes.
Affidavit--where I come from, you call somebody at 2:30 in the
morning, you are up to no good.
(Laughter.)
That will be borne out, if you listen to the testimony and use your
common sense. He was up to no good. He told her, ``My heart is breaking
because you are on this witness list and maybe here's a way to get out
of it.'' That is the God's truth. That is what he did and that is wrong
and that is a crime.
The rule of law, what does it mean? It means that process and
procedure wins out over politics and personality. That means that
subpoenas have to be honored by the great and the small. That means
when subpoenas come, you can't, as the President, try to defeat them
because you are nobody special in the eyes of the law--except that you
are the guardian of the law. If you are special, you are special in a
more ominous way, not a lesser way.
When you file an affidavit in a court of law, nobody, because of
their position in society, has the right to cheat and to get somebody
to lie for them, even as the President. That means we are not a nation
of men or kings, we are a nation of laws. And that is what this case
has always been about to me.
This affidavit was false for a reason--because the President and Ms.

[[Page S1317]]

Lewinsky wanted it to be false. The job search? ``Mission
accomplished,'' says it all. ``Mission accomplished.''
It went from being no big deal to the biggest deal in the world with
a telephone bill--I don't know what the telephone bill was to get this
job, but it was huge. ``Mission accomplished.''
All these are crimes. All these are things that average Americans
should not be allowed to do. But I am going to tell you something. At
this point in time what is going on is that he is trying to conceal a
relationship about the workplace that would be embarrassing and that
would be illegal and that would help Ms. Jones and would hurt him. And
it is not just about his private life. But you can say this about the
President, he was trying to get her a job and he was trying to just get
her to file a false affidavit so this would go away. And he was trying
to hide the gifts. And that is bad but that is not nearly as bad as
what was to come.

Let me tell you what was to come, ladies and gentlemen. After the
deposition, when it was clear that Ms. Lewinsky may have been talking,
or somebody knew something they weren't supposed to know, the alarm
bells went off and concealing the relationship changed to redefining
the relationship. That is why he should not be our President. The
redefining of the relationship began very quickly after that
deposition. It started with the President's secretary, and it goes like
this: The President, on two occasions, under the guise of refreshing
his memory, makes the following statements to his secretary, ``You are
always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone? You
could see and hear everything? Monica came on to me and I never touched
her, right? She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.''
If you believe that is about refreshing your memory, you are not
being reasonable. That is about coaching a witness. But here is where
it gets to be nasty. Here is where it gets to be mean: ``Monica came on
to me and I never touched her, right? She wanted to have sex with me
and I couldn't do that.'' He didn't say it once, he said it twice, just
to make sure Ms. Currie would get the point.
Now that Ms. Lewinsky may be a problem, let me tell you how the
discussion goes. It is not from concealing; now it is redefining.
Conversation with Mr. Morris, after they did the poll about what to
do here, and ``We just have to win.'' The President had a followup
conversation with Mr. Morris during the evening of January 22, 1998,
the day after the story broke, when Mr. Morris was considering holding
a press conference to blast Ms. Lewinsky out of the water, the
President told Mr. Morris to be careful, to be careful. According to
Mr. Morris, the President warned him not to be too hard on Ms. Lewinsky
because ``there is some slight chance that she may not be cooperating
with Mr. Starr and we don't want to alienate her by anything we are
going to put out.'' In other words, don't blast her now, she may not be
a problem to us.
During this period of time, it went from concealing to redefining.
When he knew he had to win, what did he do? He went to his secretary
and he made her a sexual predator and him an innocent victim, and he
did it twice. But did he do it to anybody else? Did he redefine his
relationship to anybody else?
I now would like to have a clip from Mr. Blumenthal, please.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. You have a conversation with the President on the same
day the article comes out, and the conversation includes a
discussion about the relationship between him and Ms.
Lewinsky, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Next tape:

Q. Now, you stated, I think very honestly, and I appreciate
that, you were lied to by the President. Is it a fair
statement, given your previous testimony concerning your 30-
minute conversation, that the President was trying to portray
himself as a victim of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky?
A. I think that's the import of his whole story.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is the import of his whole story. That
story was told on the day this broke in the press, and it goes on. That
story is very detailed. It makes him the victim of a sexual predator
called Ms. Lewinsky. He had to rebuff her. He threatened her--she
threatened him, excuse me. And it goes on and on and on. And I have
always wondered, how did that story make it to the grand jury and how
did it make it into the press? We know how it made it to the grand
jury, because Mr. Blumenthal told it and the President told him and
they claimed executive privilege and the President never straightened
it out. Your President redefined this relationship, and your President
let that lie be passed to a grand jury. Your President obstructed
justice in a mean way.
Next statement.
(Text of videotape presentation:)
MR. McDANIEL: Page 49?
MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
MR. McDANIEL: Thank you.
BY MR. GRAHAM:

Q That's where you start talking about the story that the
President told you. Knowing what you know now, do you believe
the President lied to you about his relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky?
A I do.

Next statement.
(Text of videotape presentation:)

Q. Okay. Do you have any idea how White House sources are
associated with statements such as ``She's known as
`Elvira','' ``She's obsessed with the President,'' ``She's
known as a flirt,'' ``She's the product of a troubled home,
divorced parents,'' ``She's known as `The Stalker'''? Do you
have any idea how that got in the press?
MR. BREUER: I'm going to object. The document speaks for
itself, but it's not clear that the terms that Mr. Lindsey
has used are necessarily--any or all of them--are from a
White House source. I object to the form and the
characterization of the question.
MR. GRAHAM: The ones that I have indicated are associated
with the White House as being the source of those statements
and--
SENATOR SPECTER: Senator Edwards and I think that question
is appropriate and the objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea how anything came to be
attributed to a White House source.

Everybody wants this over so bad you can taste it, including me, but
don't let's leave a taste behind that history cannot stand. It was
shouted in this Chamber, ``For God's sakes, vote.''
Let me quietly, if I can, for God's sakes, get to the truth. For
God's sakes, figure out what kind of person we have here in the White
House. For God's sakes, spend some time to fulfill your constitutional
duty so that we can get it right, not just for our political moment but
for the future of this Nation.
When the President redefined this relationship, he did so by telling
a lie. He told a lie to a key White House aide, who repeated that lie
to a Federal grand jury, and in our system, ladies and gentlemen, that
is a crime. That lie made it into the public domain. That lie was mean.
That lie would have the effect of running this young lady over. You
think what you want to think, too, about Ms. Tripp, and I agree she is
not going to be in the hall of fame of friends, but let me tell you,
the best advice she gave that young lady was to keep that blue dress.
The final thing is that our President, in my opinion, and for you to
judge, in August of last year, after being begged not to by many
Members of this body and prominent Americans, appeared before a Federal
grand jury to answer for the conduct in this case, his conduct. We have
alleged that with forewarning and knowledge on his part, that instead
of clearing it up and making America a better place, instead of
fulfilling his role as the chief law enforcement officer of the land to
do honor to the law, instead of taking this burden off all Americans'
backs, he told a story that defies common sense, that he played a
butchery game with the English language that ``is'' maybe is not is,
and ``alone'' is not alone, and he told John Podesta, ``My relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky was not sexual, including oral sex.''
He went on and told an elaborate farce to a Federal grand jury that
they just didn't ask the right question and really the sexual
relationship did include one thing but not another. And he says he
never lied to his aide and he says he never lied to the grand jury.
Well, God knows he lied to somebody, and he lied to that grand jury,
and this whole story is a fraud and a farce. The last people in the
United States to straighten it out is the U.S. Senate. God bless you in
your endeavors.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. In light of the negative comments made against Mr. Jordan
by Manager Hutchinson and Manager Graham, I ask once again unanimous
consent that in fairness--

[[Page S1318]]

Mr. GREGG. Regular order.
Mr. LOTT. Regular order.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Regular order of business has been called for.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that, in fairness, Mr. Jordan's
2-minute testimony regarding his own integrity be shown to the Senate
at this time.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. I object.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, has all time been used or yielded back?
The CHIEF JUSTICE. All time has been used or yielded back.

notice of intent to suspend the rules

Notice of Intent to Suspend the Rules of the Senate by Senators Lott,
Daschle, Hutchison, Harkin, Collins, Specter, Wellstone, and Leahy

In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, I (for myself, Mr. Daschle, Ms. Hutchison, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Collins, Mr. Specter, and Mr.
Leahy) hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention
to move to suspend the following portions of the Rules of
Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials in regard to any deliberations by Senators
on the articles of impeachment during the trial of President
William Jefferson Clinton.
(1) The phrase ``without debate'' in Rule VII;
(2) the following portion of Rule XX: ``, unless the Senate
shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon
its decisions. A motion to close the doors may be acted upon
without objection, or, if objection is heard, the motion
shall be voted on without debate by the yeas and nays, which
shall be entered on the record''; and
(3) In Rule XXIV, the phrases ``without debate'', ``except
when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in that
case'' and ``, to be had without debate''.

Order of Procedure

Mr. LOTT. That concludes the presentations for today. The Senate will
reconvene as a Court of Impeachment on Monday at 1 p.m. At that time,
the managers and White House counsel will proceed to closing arguments
for not to exceed 3 hours each and further business will resume after
that.

Adjournment Until 1 p.m., Monday, February 8, 1999

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Court of Impeachment stand
adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, at 5:06 p.m. the Senate, sitting as a Court
of Impeachment, adjourned until Monday, February 8, 1999, at 1 p.m.

____________________