[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1794-S1799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           APPRECIATION OF SERVICE OF CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to extend a word of thanks to Chief 
Justice Rehnquist for his distinguished service in presiding over this 
trial.
  The Supreme Court sits just a few short yards from this Chamber. Yet, 
its Justices and its working remain largely unknown to those of us who 
serve here. Perhaps that conceptual distance successfully reflects the 
Framers' construct of legislative and judicial branches that act for 
the most part independently of one another.
  Suffice it to say that our knowledge of the Chief Justice was rather 
limited prior to the commencement of the impeachment trial. We knew of 
his reputation as a formidable intellect, as a scholar--including on 
the topic of impeachment--, and as an efficient manager of courtroom. 
We did not as a group know much more about him.
  What we learned during that course of that trial is that the Chief 
Justice brought his many estimable qualities to bear on this unique 
legal challenge. He brought a deep historical understanding of the 
impeachment process. He instilled confidence in each Senator that he 
would conduct himself in a manner faithful to the role prescribed for 
the chief justice by the Framers. All all times, he guided the trial 
with a firm and fair hand-not hesitating to use his judgment and common 
sense when appropriate, but never pressing a point of view on matters 
better left to the collective judgment of the Senate. He demonstrated a 
continuing respect and appreciation for the workings of this body. Last 
but not least, he brought a refreshing sense of humor to his task, 
which made our task as triers of fact somewhat more bearable.
  Although this was an historic occasion, no one who took part in it 
relished doing so. There is collective relief, I think, that this 
constitutional ordeal is now behind us. But as we look back at these 
past remarkable weeks, we can all take comfort and pride in knowing 
that this second impeachment trial in our nation's history was presided 
over by an individual of great intelligence, historical knowledge, and 
wit.
  These qualities made him uniquely suited to his task. The Senate and 
the entire nation owe a debt of thanks to Chief Justice Rehnquist for 
rendering such value and distinguished service.

   APPENDICES A-L TO SENATOR LEVIN'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL STATEMENT OF 
                           FEBRUARY 12, 1999

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as we close this chapter in the Senate's 
life and prepare our records for the annals of history, there are 
several points which I wish to highlight in a series of appendices.
  I ask unanimous consent that the appendices be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the appendices were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                               Appendix A

       The indisputable, underlying reality of the impeachment 
     case was that Monica Lewinsky's denial of a sexual 
     relationship with the President was part of a long-term 
     understanding and pattern, long before the subpoena in the 
     Paula Jones case.
       ``Q: Had you talked with him earlier about these false 
     explanations about what you were doing visiting him on 
     several occasions?
       A: Several occasions throughout the relationship. Yes. It 
     was a pattern of the relationship to sort of conceal it.''--
     Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, Part One; 
     Independent Counsel Appendices, Page 844.
       ``A Juror: Did you ever discuss with the President whether 
     you should deny the relationship if you were asked about it?
       A: I think I always offered that.''--Grand Jury Testimony 
     of Monica Lewinsky, Part One; Independent Counsel Appendices, 
     Page 1077.
       ``A: And she [Linda Tripp] told me that I should put it in 
     a safe deposit box because it could be evidence one day. And 
     I said that was ludicrous because I would never--I would 
     never disclose that I had a relationship with the President. 
     I would never need it.''--Grand Jury Testimony of Monica 
     Lewinsky, Part One; Independent Counsel Appendices, Page 
     1107.
       ``A Juror: And what about the next sentence also? Something 
     to the effect that if two people who are involved say it 
     didn't

[[Page S1795]]

     happen, it didn't happen. Do you recall him saying that to 
     you?
       A: Sitting here today, very vaguely . . . And this was--I 
     mean, this was early--obviously not something we discussed 
     too often, I think, because it was--it's a somewhat 
     unpleasant thought of having to deny it, having it even come 
     to that point.
       A Juror: Is it possible that you also had these discussions 
     after you learned that you were a witness in the Paula Jones 
     case?
       A: I don't believe so. No.
       A Juror: Can you exclude the possibility?
       A: I pretty much can.''--Grand Jury Testimony of Monica 
     Lewinsky, Part One; Independent Counsel Appendices, Page 
     1119.
                                  ____


                               Appendix B

       Did Ms. Lewinsky think her affidavit in the Paula Jones 
     case was false when she signed it?
       ``Ms. L had a physically intimate relationship with the 
     President. Neither the Pres. nor Mr. Jordan (or anyone on 
     their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L to lie. Ms. L was 
     comfortable signing the affidavit with regard to the `sexual 
     relationship' because she could justify to herself that she 
     and the Pres. did not have sexual intercourse.''--Proffer of 
     Monica Lewinsky to the Independent Counsel.
       ``Q: When he said that you might sign an affidavit, what 
     did you understand it to mean at that time?
       A: I thought that signing an affidavit could range from 
     anywhere between maybe just somehow mentioning, you know, 
     innocuous things or going as far as maybe having to deny any 
     kind of relationship.''--Grand Jury Testimony of Monica 
     Lewinsky, Part One; Independent Counsel Appendices, Page 844.
       ``Q: You were trying to be truthful throughout [the 
     proffer]?
       A: Exactly.''--Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 
     Part One; Independent Counsel Appendices, Page 1142.
       ``A: But I did some justifying in signing the affidavit, 
     so--
       Q: Justifying--does the word `rationalizing' apply as well?
       A: Rationalize, yes.''--Grand Jury Testimony of Monica 
     Lewinsky, Part One; Independent Counsel Appendices, Page 925.
                                  ____


                               Appendix C

       House Managers implied that when the President allegedly 
     told John Podesta Ms. Lewinsky threatened him, the President 
     was lying. But Monica Lewinsky did write a threatening letter 
     to President Clinton.
       ``If you believe the aides testified truthfully to the 
     grand jury about what the President told them about his 
     relationship, the President told them many falsehoods, 
     absolute falsehoods. So when the President described them 
     under oath to the grand jury as truths, he lied and committed 
     the crime of perjury. One example of this comes from Deputy 
     Chief John Podesta. . . [a]nother is Sidney Blumenthal. His 
     testimony was that on January 23 the President told him that. 
     . . Lewinsky threatened him and said that she would tell 
     people that they had had an affair. . .''--House Manager 
     McCollum, Congressional Record, January 15, 1999, Page S266.
       ``Q: You mentioned that in that July 3rd letter that you 
     sent to the President through Betty you made a reference to 
     the fact that you might have to explain things to your 
     parents. What did you mean by that?. . . Were you meaning to 
     threaten the President that you were going to tell, for 
     example, your father about the sexual relationship with the 
     President?
       A: Yes and no.''--Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 
     Part One; Independent Counsel Appendices, Page 807.
                                  ____


                               Appendix D

       There was much debate about the consequences of calling 
     live witnesses. The President's lawyers argued that calling 
     witnesses would require them to engage in extensive discovery 
     and would significantly stretch-out the trial. It is relevant 
     in evaluating that claim to look at the impeachments of Judge 
     Nixon and Judge Alcee Hastings. In both of those cases, the 
     Judges' attorneys were given extensive discovery, including 
     Justice Department files, to prepare their defense. See 
     letter of Senator Wyche Fowler, Chairman of the Senate 
     Impeachment Trial Committee, and letter of Professor Terence 
     Anderson, University of Miami School of Law, below:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1989.
     John C. Keeney,
     Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, 
         Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Keeney: As Chairman of the Senate Impeachment 
     Trial Committee on the Articles of Impeachment against Judge 
     Nixon, I write to request the Department's assistance in the 
     Committee's efforts to assure that Judge Nixon receives a 
     fair trial in the Senate. The Committee has determined that 
     it would make a useful contribution to the trial process if 
     the Department were willing to permit the Committee, through 
     its staff, to review the documents (excluding grand jury 
     materials governed by Rule 6(e)) in the possession of the 
     Department, including those possessed by the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, that were requested by Judge Nixon in his 
     June 1, 1989 letter to the Attorney General, which was the 
     subject of your response on June 21, 1989.
       The review would be consistent with that conducted in the 
     case of the Hastings impeachment matter. That is, the focus 
     of the review would be to determine if there is evidence that 
     the investigations were conducted in a manner intended to 
     mislead a court or trier of fact as to Judge Nixon's guilt or 
     innocence. In the event that it is determined that particular 
     documents should properly be made part of the pending 
     impeachment proceedings, and accordingly made available to 
     the parties for use at trial, the committee would hear from 
     the Department prior to disclosing any documents that you 
     believe contain particularly sensitive matters, so that we 
     may address any continuing concerns that you have. No 
     documents or portions of documents would be made available to 
     the parties without the consent of the Department.
       Your expeditious response to this request would be most 
     helpful to the committee in attempting to complete discovery 
     by July 31st.
           Sincerely,
     Wyche Fowler, Jr.
                                  ____

                            The University of Miami School of Law,
                               Coral Gables, FL, January 28, 1999.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate.

                   Discovery Precedents From Hastings

       Dear Senator Levin: Ms. Linda Gustitus asked that I 
     describe the process by which and the materials to which I 
     was given access as counsel for then Judge Hastings during 
     the impeachment trial proceedings before the United States 
     Senate. After the matter was referred to an Impeachment Trial 
     Committee, I submitted requests for production of documents 
     to the House, to the Investigating Committee of the Judicial 
     Council of the Eleventh Circuit, to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, and the Justice Department. Over the initial 
     objections of the House Managers, at the ``request'' of the 
     Impeachment Trial Committee I received documents from all but 
     the Justice Department. In lieu of direct production, the 
     Impeachment Trial Committee examined the sensitive Justice 
     Department materials to determine what should be supplied. I 
     was also permitted to take at least three discovery 
     depositions. The proceedings that resulted in this production 
     are reported in Report of the Senate Impeachment Trial 
     Committee on the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Alcee 
     L. Hastings, S. Hrg. 101-194, Pt. I (Pretrial Matters).
       By way of illustrations I enclose an appendix to a 
     memorandum that I submitted to the Impeachment Trial 
     Committee. That appendix describes in some detail the 
     materials that I received from the FBI and my estimate that 
     in the aggregate the production amounted to about 16,000. The 
     enclosed copy was reproduced from S. Hrg. 101-194, Pt. I at 
     433-436. Please let me know if I can be of further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                              Terence J. Anderson.
                                                 Professor of Law.

                               Appendix E

       Many of us in the Senate thought the House of 
     Representatives failed to meet its responsibilities by not 
     calling witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee. A 
     review of impeachments shows that in every impeachment but 
     the one (where the subject of the impeachment was mentally 
     incompetent and the House relied on the record of his 
     decisions as a judge), the House called fact witnesses. 
     According to information obtained by my staff from the 
     Congressional Research Service, there have been 16 
     impeachments by the House. 14 of those impeachments have 
     resulted in trials in the Senate; two did not because the 
     impeached officials resigned.
       15 of those impeachments had fact witnesses in the House; 
     one didn't. That was the case of Judge Pickering. He was 
     impeached for being mentally incapacitated. There were 
     charges of drunkenness and ``ungentlemanly language'' in the 
     courtroom. The articles against him, however, all dealt with 
     his rulings and decisions that ``proved'' he was mentally 
     incompetent. During the House inquiry, a number of affidavits 
     were presented.
                                  ____


                               Appendix F

       Independent counsel Kenneth Starr intervened in the Senate 
     impeachment trial by obtaining a court order addressed to 
     Monica Lewinsky requiring her to meet privately with House 
     Managers, based on a motion and ex parte hearing with no 
     notice to the Senate counsel or White House counsel. The 
     independent counsel then mischaracterized his own action in 
     seeking that order, describing it as seeking an 
     ``interpretation'' rather than an ``order''.
       See the letters to Kenneth Starr, Robert Bittman, Jacob 
     Stein, & Robert Bittman; the Emergency Motion on Immunity 
     Agreement; the letter to Congressman Henry Hyde; the letter 
     to Sen. Daschle; Congressman Hyde's press release; the order 
     of Judge Norma Holloway Johnson and the transcript of Mr. 
     Starr's remarks as follow:


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                 January 21, 1999.
     Hon. Kenneth W. Starr,
     Office of Independent Counsel,
     Washington, DC.

     Re: Interview of Monica Lewinsky.

       Dear Independent Counsel Starr: I am writing to you as the 
     Lead Manager of the Managers of the Impeachment Trial of 
     William Jefferson Clinton, currently underway in the United 
     States Senate. We are in the

[[Page S1796]]

     process of selecting witnesses for testimony in these 
     proceedings. The attorneys for Monica Lewinsky have declined 
     to make her available for an interview.
       We have reviewed a copy of Ms. Lewinsky's Immunity 
     Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 1(c) of that Agreement, it 
     would appear that she is required to submit to interviews and 
     debriefings if so requested by the Office of Independent 
     Counsel.
       We would like to arrange an interview with Ms. Lewinsky 
     prior to any such testimony. We would be happy to accommodate 
     her wishes as to the precise time and location of that 
     interview. However, it is important that this interview be 
     scheduled to take place on the earliest possible date, 
     specifically Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Your assistance 
     with this interview will be appreciated.
       Thank you for your prompt attention.
           Sincerely,

                                                Henry H. Hyde,

                                         On Behalf of the Managers
     on the Part of the House.
                                  ____

                                                    Law Offices of


                                               Plato Cacheris,

                                 Washington, DC, January 21, 1999.
     Robert J. Bittman, Esquire
     Deputy Independent Counsel, Office of the Independent 
         Counsel, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: In your call today you mentioned that the 
     managers requested Ms. Lewinsky's cooperation by way of an 
     interview. As I told you, we believe it is inappropriate for 
     Ms. Lewinsky to be placed in the position of a partisan--
     meeting with one side and not the other--in this unique 
     proceeding. Therefore, we have recommended against interviews 
     with either side.
           Sincerely,
     Jacob A. Stein.
     Plato Cacheris.
                                  ____



                                          Independent Counsel,

                                 Washington, DC, January 21, 1999.
     Jacob A. Stein, Esq.
     Stein, Mitchell & Mezines,
      Washington, DC.
     Plato Cacheris, Esq.
     Law Offices of Plato Cacheris,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Jake and Plato: Pursuant to her Immunity Agreement 
     with this Office, we hereby request that Monica Lewinsky meet 
     for an interview with the House of Representatives' 
     Impeachment Managers this Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, 
     January 22, 23, or 24, 1999.
       As you will recall, both parties contemplated congressional 
     proceedings at the time we entered into the Immunity 
     Agreement. The Agreement specifically requires Ms. Lewinsky 
     to ``testify truthfully . . . in any . . . congressional 
     proceedings.'' It further requires Ms. Lewinsky to ``make 
     herself available for any interviews upon reasonable 
     request,'' and stipulates that these interviews may include 
     ``representatives of any other institutions as the OIC may 
     require.''
       While I understand Ms. Lewinsky's misgivings, I must 
     disagree with one statement in your letter to me today: your 
     assertion that submitting to an interview would make Ms. 
     Lewinsky into a partisan. The Managers are acting on behalf 
     of the House of Representatives as a whole, not on behalf of 
     a political party. There task is constitutional in nature.
       Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert J. Bittman,
     Deputy Independent Counsel.
                                  ____



                                    Stein, Mitchell & Mezines,

                                 Washington, DC, January 22, 1999.
     Robert J. Bittman, Esquire
     Office of the Independent Counsel
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: 
       1. We have your January 21, 1999 letter.
       2. The Agreement does not require Ms. Lewinsky to be 
     interviewed by the House Managers or any Congressional body.
       3. Paragraph 1.C. of the Agreement states: ``Ms. Lewinsky 
     will be fully debriefed concerning her knowledge of and 
     participation in any activities within the OIC's 
     jurisdiction. This debriefing will be conducted by the OIC, 
     including attorneys, law enforcement agents, and 
     representatives of any other institutions as the OIC may 
     require. Ms. Lewinsky will make herself available for any 
     interviews upon reasonable requests.''
       4. This paragraph deals with OIC debriefings, not OIC's 
     acting as an agent for others.
       5. The Senate itself has provided its own rules for witness 
     interviews. As we understand them, there first must be a 
     deposition with equal access. As of now the Senate has not 
     voted for depositions.
       6. Ms. Lewinsky will, of course, respond to a subpoena to 
     appear and testify before the Senate. Yesterday, we raised 
     with you the issue of immunity for any proposed congressional 
     testimony. You opined that your office could grant such 
     immunity in conformance with Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6002, 
     6005. It is our understanding that only the Senate by 
     majority vote can do that. We would appreciate your supplying 
     your legal authority for your position.
           Sincerely,
     Jabob A. Stein.
     Plato Cacheris.
                                  ____


 [In the United District Court for the District of Columbia, Misc. No. 
                              99-  (NHJ)]

                      In Re Grand Jury Proceedings


  emergency motion of the united states of america for enforcement of 
                           immunity agreement

       The United States of America, by Kenneth W. Starr, 
     Independent Counsel, respectfully submits this motion for an 
     order requiring Ms. Lewinsky to comply with the terms of her 
     Immunity Agreement (the ``Agreement'') with the Office of the 
     Independent Counsel (``OIC''). Ms. Lewinsky has refused an 
     OIC request that she be debriefed by the House of 
     Representatives, as required by the Agreement. The United 
     States respectfully requests that this Court orders Ms. 
     Lewinsky to comply with the Agreement by allowing herself to 
     be debriefed.
     I. Factual background
       As this Court is no doubt aware, the United States Senate 
     is currently conducting an Impeachment Trial of the President 
     of the United States. According to public reports, it is 
     expected that the House will be required to submit to the 
     Senate its motion to call witnesses as early as Monday, 
     January 25. Again according to public reports, some potential 
     witnesses have spoken with the House Managers as the Managers 
     attempt to determine which witnesses should be mentioned in 
     their motion to the Senate.
       On January 21, 1999, House Judiciary Committee Chairman 
     Henry J. Hyde, on behalf of the House of Representatives, as 
     represented by its duly-appointed Managers, asked for the 
     OIC's assistance in having Ms. Lewinsky debriefed by the 
     House. See Letter from Henry J. Hyde to Kenneth W. Starr 
     (Jan. 21, 1999) (Attachment A). The House stressed that it 
     needs this debriefing to occur no later than Sunday, January 
     24.
       That same day, the OIC sent a letter to Ms. Lewinsky's 
     counsel requesting that Ms. Lewinsky allow herself to be 
     debriefed by the House Managers. See Letter from Robert J. 
     Bittman, Deputy Independent Counsel, to Jacob A. Stein, Esq. 
     and Plato Cacheris, Esq. (Jan. 21, 1999) (Attachment C). At 
     approximately 1:20 p.m. this afternoon, Ms. Lewinsky informed 
     the OIC that she does not intend to comply with this request. 
     See Letter from Jacob A. Stein and Plato Cacheris to Robert 
     J. Bittman (Jan. 22, 1999) (Attachment D).
     II. The immunity agreement plainly requires Ms. Lewinsky to 
         be debriefed by any institution that the OIC specifies
       Ordinary contract law principles govern immunity 
     agreements. See In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings, Misc. 
     No. 98-59 (NHJ), slip op. at 12 (D.D.C. May 1, 1998) (under 
     seal) (``Courts generally interpret immunity and proffer 
     agreements, like plea agreements, under principles of 
     contract law.''), appeal dismissed sub nom. In re Sealed 
     Case, 144 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam); accord 
     United States v. Black, 776 F.2d 1321, 1326 (6th Cir. 1985) 
     (``Like a plea agreement, an immunity agreement is 
     contractual in nature and may be interpreted according to 
     contract law principles.''); United States v. Irvine, 756 
     F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (``Generally 
     speaking, a cooperation-immunity agreement is contractual) in 
     nature and subject to contract law standards.''); United 
     States v. Hembree, 754 F.2d 314, 317 (10th Cir. 1985) 
     (characterizing an immunity agreement as ``simply a 
     contract'').
       Under contract law, an agreement is interpreted according 
     to its plain terms. See Nicholson v. United States, 29 Fed. 
     Cl. 180, 191 (1993). The operative portion of the Immunity 
     Agreement states: ``C. Ms. Lewinsky will be fully debriefed 
     concerning her knowledge of and participation in any 
     activities within the OIC's jurisdiction. This debriefing 
     will be conducted by the OIC, including attorneys, law 
     enforcement agents, and representatives of any other 
     institutions as the OIC may require. Ms. Lewinsky will make 
     herself available for any interviews upon reasonable 
     request.'' Immunity Agreement para. 1.C (emphasis added) 
     (Attachment E). This provision follows paragraph 1.B, which 
     expressly requires Ms. Lewinsky to ``testify truthfully . . . 
     in . . . congressional proceedings.''
       By the plain terms of the Agreement, Ms. Lewinsky has 
     agreed to be debriefed by representatives of any institution, 
     when so required by the OIC. She is also required to ``make 
     herself available for any interviews upon reasonable 
     request.'' The duly-appointed House Managers represent the 
     House of Representatives, which plainly is an institution. 
     The OIC has unambiguously requested that Ms. Lewinsky submit 
     to each debriefing. Accordingly, Ms. Lewinsky must allow 
     herself to be debriefed by the House Managers or she will 
     have violated the Agreement.
       To be sure, Ms. Lewinsky has the right to have her 
     ``debriefing . . . conducted by the OIC.'' The OIC, of 
     course, is fully willing to conduct these debriefings, if Ms. 
     Lewinsky so desires. The suggestion in her counsel's letter 
     that this provision is void if the OIC is ``acting as an 
     agent for other,'' Attachment D at para. 4, is contrary to 
     the Agreement, as there is no such limitation on Ms. 
     Lewinsky's duties. A party to an agreement may not invent 
     clauses to a contract that are not contained therein.
       In any event, the OIC is not acting as an agent for the 
     House Managers. The OIC has its own, continuing duty to 
     provide the House with information relating to impeachment. 
     See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 595(c).
       Ms. Lewinsky's counsel's other suggestion--that a 
     debriefing would be contrary to

[[Page S1797]]

     Senate Rules, see Attachment D at para. 5--is equally without 
     merit. Senate Resolution 16 (106th Cong.) states, in relevant 
     part: ``If the Senate agrees to allow either the House or the 
     President to call witnesses, the witnesses shall first be 
     deposed and the Senate shall decide after deposition which 
     witnesses shall testify, pursuant to the impeachment rules.'' 
     Although it is plain that depositions may not be conducted 
     absent a vote of the Senate, nothing in this resolution 
     restricts the ability of the House to debrief witnesses in a 
     non-deposition setting. Indeed, it would be strange for the 
     Senate to prohibit the House and the President from doing the 
     investigation necessary to determine whether they wish to 
     call witnesses and which witnesses to list in their motions.
     III. This court should grant an order requiring Ms. Lewinsky 
         to comply with the immunity agreement or forfeit its 
         protection
       Under the Agreement, this Court has the authority to 
     determine whether Ms. Lewinsky has ``violated any provision 
     of this Agreement.'' Immunity Agreement para. 30. ``[A] 
     declaratory judgment will ordinarily be granted only when it 
     will either serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal 
     relations in issue or terminate and afford relief from the 
     uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving right to the 
     proceeding.'' Tierney v. Schweiker, 718 F.2d 456 (D.C. Cir. 
     1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, a 
     declaratory judgment will resolve the uncertainty arising 
     from this controversy between the OIC and Ms. Lewinsky by 
     settling whether she has the right to refuse to be debriefed 
     without forfeiting the protections of the Agreement.
       Indeed, declaratory judgment is a common remedy when a 
     party to a contract intends conduct that may be a breach: `` 
     `(A) party to a contract is not compelled to wait until he 
     has committed an act which the other party asserts will 
     constitute a breach, but may seek relief by declaratory 
     judgment and have the controversy adjudicated in order that 
     he may avoid the risk of damages or other untoward 
     consequence.' '' (Application of President & Directors of 
     Georgetown College, Inc.) 331 F.2d 1000, 1002 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 
     1964) (quoting Keener Oil & Gas v. Consolidated Gas Utilities 
     Corp., 190 F.2d 985, 989 (10th Cir. 1951)); see Gilbert, 
     Segall & Young v. Bank of Montreal, 785 F. Supp. 453. 462 
     (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Fine v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., 
     393 F. Supp. 1304, 1309-10 (E.D. La. 1975). Accordingly, this 
     Court has the power to issue a declaratory judgment before 
     Ms. Lewinsky's actions become irreversible.
     IV. Conclusion
       The Immunity Agreement plainly requires that Ms. Lewinsky 
     allow herself to be debriefed by any institution at the 
     request of the OIC. Ms. Lewinsky has the right to insist that 
     the OIC conduct the debriefing, but she must comply with the 
     plain terms of the Immunity Agreement. Accordingly, the 
     United States respectfully requests that this Court enter an 
     order requiring Ms. Lewinsky to submit to debriefing by the 
     House.
       The Senate's schedule requires the House to submit its 
     motion to call witnesses as early as Monday, and the House 
     has stressed its need to debrief Ms. Lewinsky this weekend. 
     Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that 
     this Court act on this motion as an emergency matter. 
     Specifically, we request a hearing on this matter today.
       Respectfully submitted,
     Kenneth W. Starr,
       Independent Counsel.
     Robert J. Bittman,
       Deputy Independent Counsel.
     Joseph M. Ditkoff,
       Associate Independent Counsel.
     Richard C. Killough,
       Assistant Independent Counsel.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                 January 23, 1999.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Manager Hyde: We understand that the Office of 
     Independent Counsel, on behalf of the House Managers, sought 
     a court order to compel Ms. Lewinsky to submit to an 
     interview with the Managers in preparation for her possible 
     testimony. We further understand that Chief Judge Norma 
     Holloway Johnson has granted the order sought by the 
     Independent Counsel.
       As you know, Senate Resolution 16, which was passed by a 
     100-0 vote just over two weeks ago, expressly deferred any 
     consideration or action related to additional witness 
     testimony until after opening presentations, a question-and-
     answer period and an affirmative vote to compel such 
     testimony. These actions by the Managers, undertaken without 
     notice to the Senate or the President's Counsel, raise 
     profound questions of fundamental fairness and undermine the 
     ability of this body to control the discovery procedures that 
     will take place under the imprimatur of its authority.
       In light of these concerns, we ask that you withdraw any 
     and all requests to Mr. Starr that he assist your efforts to 
     interview Ms. Lewinsky. The Senate, in a matter of days, will 
     have an opportunity to formally address this issue pursuant 
     to the procedures established by Senate Resolution 16. 
     Moreover, we insist that you take no action related to the 
     proposed interview of any witness until such time as the 
     Senate has given you the authority to do so.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Harry Reid.
       [Also signed by 43 Senators.]
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                 January 23, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Democratic Leader: I am in receipt of your letter 
     of today expressing your concern with the House of 
     Representatives' request to interview Monica Lewinsky.
       It has always been the position of the House Managers that 
     a full trial with the benefit of relevant witnesses is in the 
     best interest of the Senate and the American people. 
     Representatives of President Clinton and many Senators have 
     publicly stated that they want the Senate to preclude the 
     testimony of witnesses. Many other Senators have made it 
     clear that they prefer the witness lists for both sides to be 
     sharply focused and limited to only the most relevant 
     witnesses. The Managers have been mindful of these Senators' 
     concerns.
       It is clear that the two most important witnesses in this 
     trial are President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. Yesterday, I 
     wrote to Majority Leader Lott and you to express the 
     Managers' willingness to participate in the fair examination 
     of the President if the Senate chooses to invite him to 
     testify. The presentation of the President's counsel ended 
     just two days ago. We are in the process of evaluating that 
     presentation and determining what witnesses we will request 
     the Senate to call. We believe that interviewing Ms. Lewinsky 
     will help us make this determination. Counsel for the 
     President may have already interviewed witnesses or may wish 
     to interview witnesses they will propose to the Senate. That 
     is their prerogative. The Senate has required us to submit a 
     proffer of anticipated testimony of any proposed witnesses. 
     Interviews of potential witnesses will assist the parties in 
     providing the Senate with informative proffers.
       The House of Representatives has not violated S. Res. 16. 
     When the House passed H. Res. 10 appointing the Mangers, it 
     authorized that the Managers may ``in connection with the 
     preparation and the conduct of the trial, exhibit the 
     articles of impeachment to the Senate and take all other 
     actions necessary, which may include * * * sending for 
     persons and papers . . . .'' Implicit in this authority is 
     the ability to conduct interviews and gather additional 
     information relevant to the articles of impeachment.
       The Managers, who represent the House of Representatives, 
     retain powers separate and apart from the Senate. The 
     Managers are not, just as the President's Counsel are not, an 
     office or subset of the Senate. The Managers, like the 
     President's Counsel, may conduct activities, such as further 
     investigation and legal research, that are not specifically 
     authorized by the Senate.
       Senate Resolution 16 does not prohibit the Managers from 
     conducting further investigation or interviews of witnesses. 
     If the resolution was intended to restrict the Managers in 
     this way, we believe that it would violate principles of 
     bicameralism, the ability of each House to establish its own 
     rules of procedure, and would therefore be an 
     unconstitutional infringement on the prerogatives of the 
     House.
       Implicit in the right of the Managers to report to the 
     House amendments to articles of impeachment, is the right of 
     the Managers to receive and evaluate additional information. 
     For example, if the Managers received additional exculpatory 
     or inculpatory information, they could file amendments to the 
     articles of impeachment in the House.
       Senate Resolution 16 set a schedule for deciding whether to 
     depose witnesses. The decision to depose witnesses is subject 
     to a request from the House Managers. The House Managers have 
     decided that they need to talk with Ms. Lewinsky before 
     making a recommendation to the Senate to depose her. The 
     action of the House Managers is not unusual. It is not 
     unfair, and it is not contrary to the rules of the Senate.
       With all due respect to the Senate, the rules and the 
     constitutional principles of bicameralism do not require that 
     the House obtain the permission of the Senate merely to 
     conduct an interview of a potential witness. A decision to 
     merely interview a witness as opposed to conducting a 
     deposition, does not interfere with the Senate's ability to 
     control the procedures set forth under S. Res. 16.
           Sincerely,

                                                Henry J. Hyde,

                                  On behalf of the Managers on the
                             Part of the House of Representatives.

 [From the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, 
                        Henry J. Hyde, Chairman]

                  Managers' Response to Judge's Ruling

       (Washington, D.C.)--Paul McNulty, chief spokesman for the 
     House Managers, made the following statement today following 
     Judge Johnson's ruling that Monica Lewinsky must cooperate 
     with the managers' request for an interview, in keeping with 
     her immunity agreement:
       ``Monica Lewinsky received extraordinary protection in 
     exchange for her truthful testimony. Judge Johnson ruled that 
     she has an obligation to cooperate in the search for truth.
       ``Ms. Lewinsky's testimony has never been more important 
     than it is now. In the last four days, the White House has 
     challenged the reliability of her testimony in a number of 
     key instances relating to her conversations with the 
     President and Ms. Currie.

[[Page S1798]]

       ``Ms. Lewinsky can resolve some of these crucial conflicts, 
     and House Managers have a responsibility to interview her 
     before deciding to call her as a witness. This is Lawyering 
     101--any good lawyer would talk to a witness before deciding 
     to put her on the witness stand. When the House of 
     Representatives appointed the Managers, it also granted them 
     the investigative authority necessary to find the truth.
       ``The White House's protests are psuedo-objections designed 
     to divert attention from the President's behavior.''
                                  ____


  [In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 
                         Misc. No. 99-32 (NHJ)]

                      In re Grand Jury Proceedings


                                 order

       Upon consideration of the Emergency Motion of the United 
     States of America for Enforcement of Immunity Agreement, it 
     is hereby ordered that the Motion is granted. It is further 
     ordered that Monica S. Lewinsky allow herself to be debriefed 
     by the House Managers, to be conducted by the Office of the 
     Independent Counsel if she so requests, or forfeit her 
     protections under the Immunity Agreement between Ms. Lewinsky 
     and the OIC.

     January 23, 1999.
                                           Norma Holloway Johnson,
     Chief Judge.
                                  ____


          Excerpt from CBS Radio Transcript, January 24, 1999


 kenneth starr delivers remarks concerning the upcoming interview with 
                   monica lewinsky; Washington, d.c.

       QUESTION: Sir, people are saying on the Capitol Hill that 
     you're trying to influence the trial by bringing back Monica, 
     before they had a chance to vote.
       What do you say about that?
       STARR: Well, as I indicated, we had a request from the Lead 
     Manager, Chairman Hyde, it was a formal request. And we 
     responded as I felt that we were obligated to do to that 
     request. And we then took what I felt was the appropriate 
     action and we went to court.
       I want to make it very clear that Chief Judge Johnson has 
     only interpreted the agreement between Ms. Lewinsky, who's 
     advised by her very able lawyers, and our office. She did not 
     direct an order in any sense other than to interpret the 
     meaning of the agreement, which we asked her to interpret. 
     So, I want it to be very, very clear that the judge was 
     simply acting at our request to interpret the terms of the 
     agreement, which we believe are quite clear.
       QUESTION: Senator Harkin said yesterday that Judge Johnson 
     may not have acted on, you know, constitutionally. Do you 
     have any comment on that?
       STARR: Well we think that we have taken the appropriate 
     action in going to the court and the court acted 
     appropriately in interpreting the agreement, which is all 
     that she did. So if there is an issue, the issue has to be 
     one that's entrusted to the wisdom of the Senate. And their 
     relationship with the House managers.
       But from our standpoint, the agreement we felt was clear, 
     we asked the judge to determine whether our interpretation of 
     the agreement was clear. And she has issued her ruling.
                                  ____


                               Appendix G

       Although the House Managers argued strenuously about the 
     need to call witnesses in the Senate trial, their position in 
     the House of Representatives on the same subject was the 
     opposite.
       ``Well, they've already testified . . . I don't think we 
     need to reinvent the wheel. To keep calling people to 
     reiterate what they've already said under oath.''--Rep. Henry 
     Hyde, CNN, October 10, 1998.
       ``I don't really believe that we need more live testimony 
     from those type of witnesses. We have sworn testimony from 
     Monica Lewinsky, from Betty Currie, from all the principal 
     players. We also have sworn testimony from corroborating 
     witnesses to their testimony . . . And--and . . . I don't 
     think we need any former witnesses. I don't think we need to 
     bring any in.''--Rep. Bill McCollum, NBC ``Saturday Today'', 
     November 28, 1998.
       ``Bringing in witnesses to rehash testimony that's already 
     concretely in the record would be a waste of time and serve 
     no purpose at all.''--Rep. George Gekas, New York Times, 
     November 6, 1998.

                               Appendix H

       Although the House Managers argued strenuously about the 
     need to call witnesses in the Senate trial, they also claimed 
     that the record conclusively proved the President's guilt.
       ``A reasonable and impartial review of the record as it 
     presently exists demands nothing less than a guilty 
     verdict.''--House Manager Bryant, Congressional Record, 
     January 14, 1999, Page S232.
       ``Finally, before turning to that merger of the law and the 
     facts, which I believe will illustrate conclusively that this 
     President has committed and ought to be convicted on perjury 
     and obstruction of justice . . .''.--House Manager Barr, 
     Congressional Record, January 15, 1999, Page S274.
       ``[L]adies and gentlemen of the Senate, there are 
     conclusive facts here that support a conviction.''--House 
     Manager Bryant, Congressional Record, February 8, 1999, Page 
     S1358.

                               Appendix I

       At times, the House Managers took different and oft-time 
     conflicting positions on the need to call witnesses in the 
     Senate trial.
       ``I submit that the state of the evidence is such that 
     unless and until the President has the opportunity to 
     confront and cross-examine witnesses like Ms. Lewinsky, and 
     himself, to testify if he desires, there could not be any 
     doubt of his guilt on the facts.''--House Manager Bryant, 
     Congressional Record, January 14, 1999, Page S232.
       ``[I]f we had Mr. Jordan on the witness stand--which I hope 
     to be able to call Mr. Jordan--you would need to probe where 
     his loyalties lie, listen to the tone of his voice, look into 
     his eyes and determine the truthfulness of his statements. 
     You must decide whether he is telling the truth or 
     withholding information.''--House Manager Hutchinson, 
     Congressional Record, January 14, 1999, Page S234.
       ``The case against the President rests to a great extent on 
     whether or not you believe Monica Lewinsky. But it is also 
     based on the sworn testimony of Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie, 
     Sidney Blumenthal, John Podesta and corroborating witnesses. 
     Time and again, the President says one thing and they say 
     something entirely different . . . . But if you have serious 
     doubts about the truthfulness of any of these witnesses, I, 
     again, as all my colleagues do, encourage you to bring them 
     in here.''--House Manager McCollum, Congressional Record, 
     January 15, 1999, Page S266.
       ``[O]n the record, the weight of the evidence, taken from 
     what we have given you today, what you can read in all these 
     books back here . . . I don't know what the witnesses will 
     say, but, I assume if they are consistent, they'll say the 
     same that's in here.''--House Manager McCollum, Congressional 
     Record, January 15, 1999, Page S266-S267.
       ``[N]o one in this Chamber at this juncture does not know 
     all the facts that are pertinent to this case. That is a 
     magnificent accomplishment on the part of the managers.''--
     House Manager Gekas, Congressional Record, January 15, 1999, 
     Page S267.
                                  ____


                               Appendix J

       The House of Representatives articles were intended to 
     charge President Clinton with specific crimes.
       ``[T]his honorable Senate must do the right thing. It must 
     listen to the evidence; it must determine whether William 
     Jefferson Clinton repeatedly broke our criminal laws and thus 
     broke his trust with the people.''--House Manager 
     Sensenbrenner, Congressional Record, January 14, 1999, Page 
     S227.
       ``Moreover, in engaging in this course of conduct, 
     referring here to the words of the obstruction statute found 
     at section 1503 of the Criminal Code, the President's actions 
     constituted an endeavor to influence or impede the due 
     administration of justice in that he was attempting to 
     prevent the plaintiff in the Jones case from having a `free 
     and fair opportunity to learn what she may learn concerning 
     the material facts surrounding her claim'. These acts by the 
     President also constituted an endeavor to `corruptly persuade 
     another person with the intent to influence the testimony 
     they might give in an official proceeding'. Such are the 
     elements of tampering with witnesses found at section 1512 of 
     the Federal Criminal Code.''--House Manager Barr, 
     Congressional Record, January 15, 1999, Page S274-S275.
       ``Under both sections of the Federal Criminal Code, that 
     is, 1503, obstruction, and 1512, obstruction in the form of 
     witness tampering, the President's conduct constituted a 
     Federal crime and satisfies the elements of those statutes.--
     House Manager Barr, Congressional Record, January 15, 1999, 
     Page S275.
       ``The evidence, however, clearly establishes that the 
     President's statement constitutes perjury, in violation of 
     section 1623 of the U.S. Federal Criminal Code for the simple 
     reason the only realistic way Ms. Lewinsky could get out of 
     having to testify based on her affidavit. There was no other 
     way it could have happened. The President knew this. Ms. 
     Lewinsky knew this. And the President's testimony on this 
     point is perjury within the clear meaning of the Federal 
     perjury statute. It was willful, it was knowing, it was 
     material, and it was false.--House Manager Barr, 
     Congressional Record, January 15, 1999, Page S275.
       ``Please keep in mind also, it is not required that the 
     target of the defendant's actions actually testify falsely. 
     In fact, the witness tampering statute can be violated even 
     when there is no proceeding pending at the time the defendant 
     acted in suggesting testimony. As the cases discussed by 
     Manager Cannon demonstrate, for a conviction under either 
     section 1503, obstruction, or 1512, obstruction by witness 
     tampering, it is necessary only to show it was possible the 
     target of the defendant's actions might be called as a 
     witness. That element has been more than met under the facts 
     of this case.--House Manager Barr, Congressional Record, 
     January 15, 1999, Page S276.
       ``In my opening statement before this body, I outlined the 
     four elements of perjury: An oath, intent, falsity, 
     materiality. In this case, all those elements have been 
     met.''--House Manager Chabot, Congressional Record, February 
     8, 1999, Page S1341.
       ``In the past month, you have heard much about the 
     Constitution; and about the law. Probably more than you'd 
     prefer; in a dizzying recitation of the U.S. Criminal Code: 
     18 U.S.C. 1503. 18 U.S.C. 1505. 18 U.S.C. 1512. 18

[[Page S1799]]

     U.S.C. 1621. 18 U.S.C. 1623. Tampering. Perjury. Obstruction. 
     That is a lot to digest, but these are real laws and they are 
     applicable to these proceedings and to this President.''--
     House Manager Barr, Congressional Record, February 8, 1999, 
     Page S1342.
                                  ____


                               Appendix K

       Though written in his diary almost 200 hundred years ago, 
     John Quincy Adams' thoughts on the impeachment of Justice 
     Samuel P. Chase, who was acquitted, are relevant to the 
     impeachment of President Clinton.
       On the day that Justice Chase was acquitted in 1805, John 
     Quincy Adams wrote the following:
       ``. . . This was a party prosecution, and is issued in the 
     unexpected and total disappointment of those by whom it was 
     brought forward. It has exhibited the Senate of the United 
     States fulfilling the most important purpose of its 
     institution. . . It has proved that a sense of justice is yet 
     strong enough to overpower the furies of factions; but it 
     has, at the same time, shown the wisdom and necessity of that 
     provision in the Constitution which requires the concurrence 
     of two-thirds for conviction upon impeachments.''

                               Appendix L


 Additional Statement of Senator Carl Levin regarding the Independent 
                                Counsel

       Mr. President, four and one half years ago, the Special 
     Court under the independent counsel law appointed Kenneth 
     Starr to investigate certain specific and credible 
     allegations concerning President Clinton's involvement in the 
     Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association of Little Rock, 
     Arkansas. Three and half years later--and after what appears 
     to be the most thorough criminal investigation of a sitting 
     President, Mr. Starr was unable to find any criminal 
     wrongdoing on the part of the President in what came to be 
     known as ``Whitewater.'' A similar conclusion was reached by 
     Mr. Starr with respect to additional investigations assigned 
     to Mr. Starr along the way--namely, allegations with respect 
     to the White House use of FBI files and the discharge of 
     White House employees from the White House Travel Office.
       A year ago Mr. Starr's investigation was coming to an end. 
     That's when Linda Tripp walked through Mr. Starr's door with 
     promises of taped phone conversations between Ms. Tripp and 
     Monica Lewinsky about Ms. Lewinsky's sexual relationship with 
     President Clinton. And what was the alleged crime? That 
     President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky were about to lie about 
     their relationship--if they were asked about it by the 
     attorneys for Paula Jones in her sexual harassment case 
     against President Clinton. Mr. Starr had to know that the 
     relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky 
     had been a consensual one. Mr. Starr had to know that, 
     because Ms. Tripp was informed by Ms. Lewinsky of every 
     aspect of her relationship with President Clinton. And at 
     this point--January 12, 1998--neither Monica Lewinsky nor 
     President Clinton had been deposed.
       I am convinced that no ordinary federal prosecutor, if 
     confronted with the same situation involving a private 
     citizen, would have pursued this case. But Mr. Starr was no 
     ordinary federal prosecutor. Without jurisdiction with 
     respect to these matters, he immediately gave Ms. Tripp 
     immunity in exchange for access to her tapes, and he wired 
     her to tape a private luncheon conversation with Ms. 
     Lewinsky. Shortly after Mr. Starr wired Ms. Tripp, he 
     confronted Ms. Lewinsky and, according to her, threatened her 
     with 27 years in prison and the prosecution of her mother in 
     order to get her cooperation and to tape Betty Currie, the 
     President, and/or Vernon Jordan. Mr. Starr brought his 
     enormous criminal investigative resources to bear on 
     testimony yet to be given in a civil lawsuit involving a 
     consensual, sexual relationship.
       At the time Ms. Lewinsky was threatened by Mr. Starr, her 
     affidavit in the Jones case had not been filed. She was still 
     in a position to retrieve it or amend it. Also, President 
     Clinton had not been deposed. He had not given his testimony 
     in the Paula Jones suit. In effect, Mr. Starr and his agents 
     lay in wait--waiting for the President to be surprised at the 
     Jones deposition with information about Monica Lewinsky. And 
     how did that information about Monica Lewinsky get in the 
     hands of the Jones attorneys? Ms. Tripp gave them the 
     information. And she was able to do that even though she was 
     under an immunity arrangement with Mr. Starr, because--as Mr. 
     Starr acknowledged to the House Judiciary Committee under 
     questioning--Mr. Starr's agents never directed Ms. Tripp to 
     keep her information confidential, even though Mr. Starr had 
     a major concern that the Lewinsky matter would leak to the 
     press. Mr. Starr's agents did not tell Ms. Tripp not to talk 
     to the Jones attorneys or anyone else in order to ensure that 
     the story would not leak to the press.
       So the enormous criminal investigative resources of the 
     federal government were brought to bear on the President of 
     the United States to catch him by surprise in a future 
     deposition in a civil proceeding on a matter peripheral to 
     the lawsuit, prior to any of the suspected unlawful conduct.
       Once the President testified in that civil suit, Mr. Starr 
     convened a grand jury to investigate the truthfulness of Mr. 
     Clinton's testimony. Again, using the virtually unlimited 
     resources of the federal government with respect to a 
     criminal investigation, Mr. Starr called countless witnesses 
     before the grand jury--recalling numerous witnesses multiple 
     times. Betty Currie testified on 5 different occasions; so 
     did Vernon Jordan. Monica Lewinsky testified 3 times and was 
     interviewed over 20 separate times. I don't believe any 
     regular prosecutor would have invested the time and money and 
     resources in the kind of investigation that Kenneth Starr 
     did.
       At the end, Mr. Starr wrote a report arguing for 
     impeachment to the House of Representatives. He didn't just 
     impartially forward evidence he thought may demonstrate 
     possible impeachable offenses.
       The Starr report spared nothing. Lacking good judgment and 
     balance, the Starr report contained a large amount of 
     salacious detail, and skipped over or dismissed important 
     exculpatory evidence, such as Monica Lewinsky's statement 
     that no one asked her to lie and no one promised her a job 
     for her silence. Mr. Starr violated the standards enunciated 
     by Judge Sirica when he addressed the status of the grand 
     jury report in the Watergate matter. In that case, Judge 
     Sirica wrote in granting Leon Jaworski, the Watergate 
     prosecutor, the right to forward grand jury information to 
     the House of Representatives:

       ``It draws no accusatory conclusions. . . It contains no 
     recommendations, advice or statements that infringe on the 
     prerogatives of other branches of government. . . It renders 
     no moral or social judgments. The Report is a simple and 
     straightforward compilation of information gathered by the 
     Grand Jury, and no more. . . The Grand Jury has obviously 
     taken care to assure that its Report contains no 
     objectionable features, and has throughout acted in the 
     interests of fairness. The Grand Jury having thus respected 
     its own limitations and the rights of others, the Court ought 
     to respect the Jury's exercise of its prerogatives.'' (In re 
     Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972, Grand Jury 
     Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of 
     Representatives, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 
     March 18, 1974.)

       What a far cry the Watergate grand jury report was from Mr. 
     Starr's. The Starr Report violates almost every one of the 
     standards laid out by Judge Sirica in the Watergate case.
       The House of Representatives the Judiciary Committee then 
     almost immediately released the Starr report and the 
     thousands of pages of evidence to the public.
       Because of that release--enormous damage had been done to 
     the public's sense of decorum and to appropriate limits 
     between public and private life.

                          ____________________