[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1204-1222]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. LOTT. I believe we are prepared for the concluding presentation 
by the White House counsel.
  I yield the floor, Mr. Chief Justice.


                              THE JOURNAL

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there is no objection, the Journal of 
proceedings of the trial are approved to date. Under the provisions of 
Senate Resolution 16, the counsel for the President have 18 hours and 9 
minutes remaining to make their presentation of their case.
  The Presiding Officer now recognizes Mr. Counsel Kendall.
  Mr. Counsel KENDALL. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, 
managers from the House of Representatives, good afternoon. I am David 
Kendall of the law firm of Williams & Connolly. Since 1993 it has been 
my privilege to represent the President in the tortuous and meandering 
Whitewater investigation which, approximately a year ago, was 
transformed in a remarkable way into the Lewinsky investigation.
  I want to address this afternoon certain allegations of obstruction 
of justice contained in article II of the articles of impeachment. Mr. 
Manager Sensenbrenner remarked that no prior article allegation of 
obstruction of justice has ever reached this Chamber. So this is a case 
of first impression.
  Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills yesterday addressed the parts of article 
II pertaining to gifts and the President's conversations with Ms. 
Currie. I will cover, this afternoon, the remaining five subparts of 
article II. The evidence plainly shows that the President did not 
obstruct justice in any way and there is nothing in this article which 
would warrant his removal from office.
  As I begin, I want to thank you for your open minds, for your 
attention, for your withholding judgment until you have heard all of 
our evidentiary presentation. There are a lot of myths about what the 
evidence is in this case. Some of them are misunderstandings based upon 
erroneous media reports, some spring from confusion in the evidence 
itself, and some are the result of concerted partisan distortion.

[[Page 1205]]

  I want to talk to you this afternoon about what the record is and 
what the evidence actually shows. I apologize to you in advance if the 
process is tedious. What I think I have to request from you is your 
common sense and some uncommon patience. But the evidence--those 
stubborn facts--is critically important to inform your ultimate vote on 
these articles. I will do my best to avoid repetition and lawyer talk--
although I am a lawyer.
  In our trial memorandum, we gave you the citations to the evidence I 
am going to be referencing, so you can check the facts there. I want to 
say that I welcome your scrutiny.
  My presentation this morning consists of six parts. I would like, if 
I could, to give you those as milestones. I want to make some remarks 
generally about evidence, and then I want to consider the specific 
evidence which is relevant to each of the five subparts I am going to 
be talking about. I am going to do them out of numerical order but what 
I hope is in a logical order. I am going to cover article I first, then 
article II, then article V, article VII, and article IV. Ms. Mills, 
yesterday, has already covered III and VI.
  First of all, a few words about evidence. We have heard a great deal 
about the rule of law in the various presentations of the House 
managers. But what is at issue here--and I think Mr. Manager Graham 
made this point very well--it is a solemn obligation, which is 
constitutionally committed to this body. Your decision, whatever it is, 
is not going to have some kind of domino effect that ineluctably leads 
to that midnight knock at the door. The rule of law is more than 
rhetoric. It means that in proceedings like these, where important 
rights are being adjudicated, that evidence matters, fairness matters, 
rules of procedural regularity matter, the presumption of innocence 
matters, and proportionality matters. The rule of law is not the 
monopoly of the House managers, and it ought to be practiced in these 
proceedings, as well as talked about in speeches.
  We have heard a lot of pejorative rhetoric about legal hairsplitting 
that the President and his legal team have engaged in. As a member of 
that legal team, I paid attention to that rhetoric. But as I sat there 
listening to the various presentations, they struck me as somewhat odd, 
because one of the hallmarks of the rule of law is careful procedures 
and explicit laws which try to define rights for every citizen.
  It is not legal hairsplitting to raise available defenses, or to 
point out gaps in the evidence, or to make legal arguments based upon 
precedent, however technical and politically unpopular some of those 
arguments may be. And I think it is particularly important in a 
proceeding like this where the charge is an accusation of a crime. Mr. 
Manager McCollum was quite explicit in his argument that the first 
thing you have to determine here is whether the President committed any 
crimes.
  I am going to try to focus on the facts and the evidence concerning 
obstruction of justice. I don't think there is a need for me to go into 
the law; we have set forth the relevant legal principles in our trial 
memorandum. Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mills very ably covered some of the 
governing principles, and Ms. Mills played some videotape excerpts of 
experts, and the law on obstruction of justice is relatively settled. 
Indeed, our primary disagreement with the very able House managers 
concerns the evidence and what it shows.
  Now, in December the Judiciary Committee of the House of 
Representatives reported four articles of impeachment to the floor. Two 
of those--one alleging perjury in the President's January 17, 1998, 
deposition in the Paula Jones case, and one alleging abuse of power--
were specifically considered by the House and just as specifically 
rejected, although the House managers had very cleverly attempted to 
weave into their discussion of the two articles that were adopted some 
of the rejected allegations.
  Now, on the chart, article II alleges that the President has, in some 
way, impeded or covered up the existence of evidence relevant to the 
Paula Jones case. That is the whole focus of this article. It focuses 
on the alleged impact on the Paula Jones case. It is important because 
when we get to subpart (7), we will see that there is no way the 
allegations there could be a part of this article or impact the Paula 
Jones case.
  The President supposedly accomplished this obstruction of justice 
through--and here I quote--``one or more of the following acts . . .''
  Here, I think I should observe that this ``one or more'' menu, as it 
were, is plainly defective in a constitutional sense because, as we 
have pointed out in our answer and in our trial memorandum, and as Mr. 
Ruff has made clear in his presentation, such a format makes it 
impossible to assure that the constitutionally required two-thirds of 
Senators voting concur on any particular ground that is alleged. Since 
the Senate rules provide that you can't split up this menu--you have to 
cover all seven allegations together--it would be possible for the 
President to be convicted without that requisite two-thirds majority, 
because you might get 9 or 10 votes in favor of the article based on 
each of the 7 different grounds.
  The Constitution, of course, gives the House of Representatives the 
sole power of impeachment and has exercised that power to adopt article 
II. However, several of the allegations about what the President did to 
obstruct justice, supposedly in the House managers' presentation, are 
nowhere contained in these seven subparts; they are simply not there.
  For example, you heard repeatedly about the President's use in his 
deposition of the term ``alone''--was he ever alone with Ms. Lewinsky. 
The managers claim that that somehow obstructed justice. The allegation 
that this consisted of an impeachable offense, however, was rejected 
when the House of Representatives voted down one of the four articles 
alleging deposition perjury.
  You have also heard reference to the President's allegedly false and 
misleading answers to the 81 interrogatories sent to the President in 
November by the House Judiciary Committee. Again, an article based upon 
those interrogatory answers was voted down in the House of 
Representatives.
  I would like you to bear in mind an image which Mr. Manager 
Hutchinson and Counsel Ruff share in some way. You will see that they 
didn't share it entirely. Mr. Manager Hutchinson referred to the 
``seven pillars of obstruction.'' Mr. White House Counsel Ruff referred 
to the seven shifting ``sand castles of speculation.'' It won't 
surprise you that I agree with Mr. Ruff's characterization. But the 
important point is that there are 7 grounds in this article; there are 
not 8, there are not 19, there are 7 charges. That is what the House 
enacted and that is what we are going to address and rebut.
  Before considering the five subparts of article II that I am going to 
be addressing, I would like to say a few words about the different 
kinds of evidence you are going to have to consider. There is, first, 
direct evidence. Now, this isn't the most probative kind of evidence, 
because it is the least ambiguous. It comes directly from the five 
senses of the witness. For example, when the witness testifies about 
something the witness did, that is direct evidence.
  From the House managers' very skillful presentation, you would not be 
aware of the large amount of direct evidence which is in the record 
which refutes and contradicts the allegations of obstruction of 
justice. I am going to cover that in detail this afternoon.
  The second kind of evidence is what the law calls circumstantial, and 
this describes any evidence which is probative only if a certain 
conclusion or inference is drawn from the evidence. Circumstantial 
evidence is admissible, but, by its definition, it is to some degree 
ambiguous because it is not direct. Its probative power--or its value--
depends upon the strength of the inference you can logically draw from 
it.
  Let me give you an example. You walk out of your house in the morning 
and you see the sidewalk is completely wet. You might conclude that it 
has rained the night before and you might be reasonably confident in 
that conclusion. However, were your sharp eyes to

[[Page 1206]]

focus further and observe your neighbor's sprinkler sitting right by 
the sidewalk, dripping from the sprinkler head, you might want to 
revise your conclusion.
  Circumstantial evidence is often subject to several different 
interpretations, and for this reason it has to be viewed very 
carefully. As one court has stated, ``Circumstantial evidence presents 
a danger that the trier of fact may leave logical gaps in the proof 
offered and draw unwarranted conclusions based on probabilities of low 
degree.''
  If a criminal charge is to be based on conclusions drawn from 
circumstantial evidence rather than on direct evidence, those 
conclusions have got to be virtually unavoidable. Most of the 
obstruction case presented--and they have recognized this, and Mr. 
Manager Hutchinson recognized it on Saturday--is based on 
circumstantial evidence, and that evidence is, at best, profoundly 
ambiguous. They told you that they have painted a picture with 
circumstantial evidence. I think what they have in fact done is given 
you a Rorschach test.
  I would like to now turn to the five subparts of article I which I 
intend to cover. And I want to describe, as to each, the relevant 
direct evidence in the record, the circumstantial evidence, and the 
portions of the managers' presentation which do not in fact constitute 
either kind of evidence but in fact represent speculation, theorizing, 
and hypothesis. What I believe you will find is that the direct 
evidence disproves the charges of obstruction and the managers have had 
to rely on contradictory and unpersuasive circumstantial evidence to 
try to make their case.
  Subpart (1) of article II alleges that the President encouraged Ms. 
Lewinsky to execute an affidavit in the Paula Jones case ``that he knew 
to be perjurious, false and misleading.'' The House managers allege 
that during a December 17 telephone conversation Ms. Lewinsky asked the 
President what she could do if she were subpoenaed in the Jones case 
and the President responded, ``Well, maybe you could sign an 
affidavit.'' And that is a statement the President does not dispute 
making.
  It is hard to believe, but this statement of the President to Ms. 
Lewinsky, advising her of the possibility of totally lawful conduct, is 
the House managers' entire factual basis for supporting the first 
allegation in subpart (1). The managers don't claim that the President 
advised her to file a false affidavit. That is not what subpart (1) 
alleges. And there is no evidence in the record anywhere to support 
such an allegation. Nor do the managers allege he even told her, 
advised her, urged her, or suggested to her what to put in her 
affidavit. The charge which the managers have spun out of this single 
statement by the President is refuted by the direct evidence.
  First of all, Ms. Lewinsky has repeatedly and forcefully denied any 
and all suggestion that the President ever asked her to lie. In her 
proffer--and a proffer, of course, is an offer made to a prosecutor to 
try to get immunity--she made in her own handwriting on February 1, 
1998, she stated explicitly that, ``Neither the President nor anyone on 
his behalf asked or encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie.''
  In an FBI interview conducted on July 27, she made two similar 
statements. And you see them up here on the chart: ``Neither the 
President or Jordan ever told Lewinsky that she had to lie.''
  ``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed Lewinsky to say 
anything or to lie.''
  And it was the FBI agent who transcribed those two comments.
  I would like to focus upon the fact that she told the FBI the 
President never directed her ``to say anything or to lie.''
  I think that is particularly telling as the direct evidence in the 
context of this allegation that the President supposedly urged her to 
file an affidavit that he knew would be false.
  Finally, in Ms. Lewinsky's August 20 grand jury testimony, she 
stated--and she had to volunteer to do it--``No one ever asked me to 
lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.''
  ``No one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my 
silence.''
  Is there something difficult to understand here?
  It is interesting to see how the House managers try to establish that 
somehow the President asked Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. But 
their argument essentially begs the question. They argue that the 
President in fact somehow encouraged her to lie because both parties 
knew the affidavit would have to be false and misleading to accomplish 
the desired result.
  But again there is no evidence to support this conjecture, and in 
fact the opposite is true. Both Ms. Lewinsky and the President have 
testified repeatedly that, given the particular claims being made in 
the Jones case, they both honestly believe that a truthful, albeit 
limited, affidavit might--``might''--establish that Ms. Lewinsky had 
nothing relevant to offer in the way of testimony in the Jones case.
  The President explained in his grand jury testimony on at least five 
occasions in response to the prosecutor's question that he believed Ms. 
Lewinsky could execute a truthful but limited affidavit that would have 
established there was no basis for calling her as a witness to testify 
in the Jones case.
  For example, the President told the grand jury, ``But I'm just 
telling you that it's certainly true what she says here, that we didn't 
have--there was no employment, no benefit in exchange, there was 
nothing having to do with sexual harassment. And if she defined sexual 
relationship in the way I think most Americans do . . . then she told 
the truth.''
  Or again, the President told the grand jury:

       I've already told you that I felt strongly that she could 
     issue, that she could execute an affidavit that would be 
     factually truthful, that might get her out of having to 
     testify. . . . And did I hope she's be able to get out of 
     testifying on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want her to 
     execute a false affidavit? No, I did not.

  It is important to bear in mind that the Paula Jones case was a 
sexual harassment case, although it turned out to be legally 
groundless, and it involved allegations of nonconsensual sexual 
solicitations. Ms. Lewinsky's relationship to the President had been 
consensual. She knew nothing whatsoever about the allegations in the 
Jones case. There is no evidence in the record that she had ever been 
in Arkansas in her life. And in any event, the Jones case arose out of 
factual allegations dating from May of 1991 when the President was 
Governor of Arkansas, long before Ms. Lewinsky had even met the 
President.
  Now, it is not simply the President who believed that in the 
circumstances here Ms. Lewinsky could have filed an affidavit which 
could have been truthful and which might have gotten her released from 
testifying in a Jones case deposition. Ms. Lewinsky also has testified 
that she might have been able to file a truthful affidavit which would 
have accomplished that purpose. For example, she told the FBI in an 
interview after she obtained immunity on July 29 that she had told 
Linda Tripp that the purpose of an affidavit was to avoid being 
deposed, and that she thought one could do this by giving only a 
portion of the whole story so the Jones lawyers would not think the 
person giving the affidavit added anything of relevance to their case.
  Again, in the same interview with the FBI, Ms. Lewinsky stated that 
the goal of such an affidavit was to be as benign as possible so as to 
avoid being deposed.
  Again, in her grand jury testimony on August 6, Ms. Lewinsky 
testified that:

       I thought that signing an affidavit could range from 
     anywhere--the point of it would be to deter or to prevent me 
     from being deposed and so that there could range from 
     anywhere between maybe just somehow somehow mentioning, you 
     know, innocuous things.

  It is not disputed that the President showed no interest in viewing a 
draft of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, did not review it, and, according to 
Ms. Lewinsky, said he did not need to see it. This fact is obviously 
exculpatory.

[[Page 1207]]

If the President were truly concerned about what was going into Ms. 
Lewinsky's affidavit, surely he would have wanted to review it prior to 
his summation.
  Now, to counter this inference, the House managers offer speculation. 
Mr. Manager McCollum tried to downplay the significance of this fact by 
asking you to engage in sheer surmise. He said on Friday:

       I doubt seriously [the President] was talking about 15 
     other affidavits of somebody else and didn't like looking at 
     affidavits anymore. I suspect and I would suggest to you that 
     he was talking about 15 other drafts of this proposed 
     affidavit since it had been around the Horn a lot of rounds.

  Well, as the able House manager himself stated, this suggestion is 
mere suspicion, speculation; it flies in the face of Ms. Lewinsky's 
direct testimony. There is evidence of only a few drafts, and there is 
no evidence that the President ever saw any draft.
  Now, Ms. Lewinsky was under no obligation to volunteer to the Paula 
Jones lawyers every last detail about her relationship with the 
President, and the fact that the President did not advise her or 
instruct her to do so is neither wrong nor an obstruction of justice. 
The fact is that the limited truthful affidavit might have established 
that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony was simply not relevant to the Jones 
case.
  The President knew and had told Ms. Lewinsky that a great many other 
women he knew who had been subpoenaed by the Paula Jones lawyers had 
tried to avoid the burden, the expense, and the humiliation of a 
deposition by filing an affidavit in support of a motion to quash the 
deposition subpoena and by arguing in the affidavit that the subpoenaed 
woman had no relevant evidence for the Jones case. The Jones lawyers 
were casting a very wide net for evidence that they could use to 
embarrass the President. The discovery cutoff in the case was fast 
approaching--that is the point at which you can't take any more 
discovery--and there was some chance both Ms. Lewinsky and the 
President felt that she could escape deposition through an accurate but 
limited affidavit.
  Moreover, there is significant evidence in the record that at the 
time she executed her affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky honestly could believe, 
honestly believed that she could deny a sexual relationship given what 
she believed to be the definition of that term. In an audiotape 
conversation which Linda Tripp, secretly recorded, Ms. Lewinsky 
declared:

       I never even came close to sleeping with the President. We 
     didn't have sex.

  Again, I would remind you of Mr. Craig's presentation yesterday 
concerning Ms. Lewinsky's understanding of the term ``sexual 
relations,'' which was the same as the President's.
  There is another part of the chronology here--and a circumstantial 
evidence case often rests heavily on chronology--that the House 
managers simply ignore in their attempt to fit some of the facts into a 
sinister pattern. Ms. Lewinsky's name appeared on the Paula Jones 
witness list which, the managers tell us accurately, the President's 
lawyers reviewed with him on Saturday, December 6. She was one of a 
great many people named on the witness list.
  Now, if the President's concern was so intense about the appearance 
of her name on the list, would he have waited until December 17 to talk 
to her? There is no explanation for this delay, which is consistent 
with intense concern on the President's part, except that her 
appearance with a lot of others was not particularly troubling to him. 
The main reason for his phone call on December 17 to Ms. Lewinsky, the 
unrebutted evidence shows, is that he wanted to tell Ms. Lewinsky that 
Betty Currie's brother had died. Indeed, 3 days after that telephone 
call, Ms. Lewinsky attended the funeral of Ms. Currie's brother on 
December 20.
  Now, insofar as you want to draw inferences from the chronology of 
events in December, this long delay is circumstantial evidence that the 
President felt no particular urgency either to alert Ms. Lewinsky that 
her name was on the witness list or make any suggestions to her about 
an affidavit. Remember her repeated testimony which is direct evidence: 
No one ever asked her to lie.
  Now, subpart (2) of article II alleges that the President obstructed 
justice by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky, in that same late night telephone 
call--two of these articles rest on that same telephone call--to give 
perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when she was called 
to testify personally in the Jones litigation.
  Now, it was interesting to me that a couple of days ago the House 
managers released a response to our presentation and they concede here 
that the President and Ms. Lewinsky did not discuss the deposition that 
evening of December 17 because Monica--they call her Monica--had not 
been subpoenaed.
  Well, that is true. There was no deposition subpoena received by Ms. 
Lewinsky until 2 days later. Now, the lawyers in the room know 
something about what witness lists are and what they contain that the 
civilian part of the world may not know. As lawyers get ready to go to 
trial, and the judge requires them to put their witnesses on the 
witness list, you put every witness you can think of who might 
conceivably be relevant--from Mr. Aardvark to Ms. Zanzibar. All of them 
go on the witness list. And that is what had happened here. It wasn't 
until you get something like a subpoena for a deposition that you know 
a witness is really going to be a significant player in the trial.
  Well, let's look at the allegations here. And remember, these 
allegations focus on December 17, 2 days before Ms. Lewinsky is going 
to receive her subpoena. I think you logically begin with the direct 
evidence, and the direct evidence is the testimony of the two people 
involved in the telephone conversation, Ms. Lewinsky and the President. 
Ms. Lewinsky has repeatedly stated that no one ever urged her to lie 
and that this plainly applies to this December 17 conversation. She 
said, in her handwritten proffer that I had on the chart earlier, that 
the President did not ask her or encourage her to lie. She made that 
statement when talking to the independent counsel, when her fate was in 
the hands of the independent counsel, when her immunity agreement could 
be broken and she could be prosecuted. She has, nevertheless, continued 
to maintain that nobody asked her ever to lie. She said in the July 27 
FBI interview neither the President nor Mr. Jordan ever told her she 
had to lie, and she said that in her grand jury testimony.
  It is interesting to hear all the ways that the House managers--and 
they are very skillful--try to minimize the importance of this direct 
evidence. You would think Ms. Lewinsky's statements under oath were 
irrelevant to this case. She gave this testimony, for the most part, 
when she was subject to prosecution for perjury. It simply cannot be 
blandly dismissed because it was given under this threat. Indeed, Mr. 
Manager Hutchinson--and I would like to quote him--shares this same 
belief with me. He told you, standing right here, ``that Ms. Lewinsky's 
testimony is credible and she has the motive to tell the truth because 
of her immunity agreement with the independent counsel, where she gets 
in trouble only if she lies.''
  Likewise, the President has consistently insisted he never asked Ms. 
Lewinsky to lie. In his grand jury testimony last August, he said that 
he and Ms. Lewinsky ``might have talked about what to do in a non-legal 
context at some point in the past,'' if anybody inquired about their 
relationship, although he had no specific memory of such a 
conversation. And he testified that they did not talk about this in 
connection with Ms. Lewinsky's testimony in the Jones case.
  He was asked by one of the prosecutors:

       In that conversation, [on December 17] or in any 
     conversation in which you informed her she was on the witness 
     list, did you tell her, you know, you can always say that you 
     were coming to see Betty or bringing me letters? Did you tell 
     her anything like that?
       [The President:] I don't remember. She was coming to see 
     Betty. I can tell you this. I absolutely never asked her to 
     lie.

  There is, thus, no direct testimony from anybody that on December 17 
the

[[Page 1208]]

President asked Ms. Lewinsky to lie if called to testify in the Jones 
case. Here the House managers don't really even rely on circumstantial 
evidence to refute the direct testimony of the two relevant witnesses. 
They rely, instead, on what they assert is logic. They claim that while 
the President maybe didn't specifically tell her to lie, he somehow 
suggested that she give a false account of their relationship. What you 
should infer, according to them, is based upon what they may have said 
about their relations at other times, previous times to this late night 
December 17 phone call, the President somehow suggested that she say 
the same thing at her deposition, something like, ``You know, you can 
always say you were coming to see Betty, or that you were bringing me 
letters.''
  Their claim boils down, however, to the inferences to be drawn from 
the uncontested fact that in the past, before this time, before this 
December 17 phone call, the President and Ms. Lewinsky had discussions 
about what she should say if asked about the visits to the Oval Office.
  Both have acknowledged that. Not surprisingly, at the time these 
conversations occurred they were both concerned to conceal their 
improper relationship from others while it was going on. Cover stories 
are an almost inevitable part of every improper relationship between 
two human beings. By its very nature the relationship is one that has 
to be concealed and, therefore, misleading cover stories inevitably 
accompanied that relationship.
  Now, to say that is not to excuse it or to exonerate it or justify 
it; but, rather, to emphasize that the testimony about ``visiting 
Betty'' or ``bringing me letters'' is in the record, but it is not 
linked in any way to the December 17 phone call or to any testimony or 
affidavit with regard to the Jones case. Here again, I want to go to 
the direct evidence that is relevant on count 2, because it undercuts 
the managers' suggestion that this discussion of the cover stories 
actually occurred in the context of discussion about the Paula Jones 
case.
  Now, here on a chart we have a blowup of Ms. Lewinsky's--part of Ms. 
Lewinsky's handwritten proffer to the independent counsel on February 
1, which makes it clear that she does recall having a discussion with 
the President in which he said that if anyone questioned her about 
visiting him, she should say she was either bringing him letters or 
visiting Betty Currie. But Ms. Lewinsky states, ``there is truth to 
both of these statements.'' It was a cover story but there was some 
truth in it.
  She also went out of her way in this proffer to emphasize that, while 
she did not recall precisely when the discussions about cover stories 
occurred, they occurred ``prior to the subpoena in the Paula Jones 
case.'' That is what you see in her paragraph 11. Her paragraph 11 
refers back to paragraph 2. And her point is that, while she and the 
President did have these discussions, it was not in the context of her 
testimony.
  In paragraph 4 also, as you see from the chart or from your handout, 
as to the contents of any possible testimony, Ms. Lewinsky wrote that 
to the best of her recollection she did not believe she discussed the 
content of any deposition during the December 17 conversation with the 
President.
  Now, in an FBI interview on July 31, after she had received immunity 
from the independent counsel, the FBI agent noted what Ms. Lewinsky had 
told him:

       Lewinsky advised, though they did not discuss the issue in 
     specific relation[ship] to the Jones matter, she and Clinton 
     had discussed what to say when asked about Lewinsky's visits 
     to the White House.

  This is direct evidence. Nobody denies that there was discussion of 
cover stories early in the relation, but there is no evidence that it 
occurred in connection in any way with the Jones case.
  Again, despite Ms. Lewinsky's direct and unrefuted testimony about 
the December 17 telephone call, the House managers asked you to 
conclude that the President must have asked her to testify falsely, 
because she had, by her own account, on prior occasions, assured the 
President that she would deny the relationship.
  Think for a moment about that: They ask you to accept their 
speculation, in the face of contradictory evidence from both parties, 
and use that as a basis on which to remove the President. Again, Ms. 
Lewinsky never stated that she told the President anything about 
denying their relationship on December 17, or at any other time, after 
she had been identified as a witness. Indeed, she testified in the 
grand jury that that discussion did not take place after she learned 
she was a witness in the Jones case. And, again, we have her grand jury 
testimony displayed on the chart. A grand juror is asking a question.
  Question:

       Is it possible that you also had these discussions [about 
     cover stories denying the relationship] after you learned 
     that you were a witness in the Paula Jones case?
       [Ms. Lewinsky]: I don't believe so.

  A juror--and these jurors were very good at questioning witnesses 
throughout this proceeding:

       Can you exclude that possibility?
       [Ms. Lewinsky]: I pretty much can. I really don't remember 
     it.

  Direct testimony given when Ms. Lewinsky was covered by an immunity 
agreement that can only be divested by her perjuring herself.
  There is another thing that I think is relevant here, and that is 
that Ms. Lewinsky has stated several times that while these were cover 
stories, they were not untrue. In her handwritten proffer, as you have 
seen, she stated that she asked the President what to say if anyone 
asked her about her visits. He said you could mention Betty Currie or 
bringing me letters. And she added there was truth to both of these 
statements and that ``[n]either of those statements [was] untrue.'' 
Indeed, she testified to the grand jury that she did, in fact, bring 
papers to the President and that on some occasions, she visited the 
Oval Office only to see Ms. Currie.
  Question by a grand juror:

       Did you actually bring the President papers at all?
       Yes.
       All right. Tell us a little bit about that.
       It varied. Sometimes it was just actually copies of letters 
     . . .

  Again, in her August 6, 1998, grand jury appearance, Ms. Lewinsky 
testified:

       I saw Betty every time that I was there . . . most of the 
     time my purpose was to see the President, but there were some 
     times when I did just go see Betty but the President wasn't 
     in the office.

  Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie were friends, and they did have a 
separate social relationship.
  The managers assert that these stories were misleading, and the House 
committee report on the articles of impeachment declared that these 
stories about Ms. Currie and delivering papers was a ``ruse that had no 
legitimate business purpose.'' In other words, while the so-called 
stories were literally true, the explanations might have been 
misleading. But the literal truth here, while it may appear legalistic 
and hairsplitting, is, in fact, a defense to both the perjury and the 
obstruction of justice charges under the rule of law. While the 
President and Ms. Lewinsky had discussed cover stories while their 
improper relationship was in progress, there is simply no evidence that 
they discussed this at any time when Ms. Lewinsky was a witness in the 
Jones case.
  The next subpart I want to consider is subpart (5). Subpart (5) 
alleges that at the deposition, the President allowed his attorney to 
make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing 
an affidavit in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the 
judge.
  It alleges obstruction solely because the President did not say 
anything when his attorney, Mr. Bennett, cited Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit 
in an unsuccessful argument to Judge Wright that evidence concerning 
Ms. Lewinsky should not be admitted at that point because it was 
irrelevant to the Jones case. At one point, Mr. Bennett, the 
President's lawyer, states that, according to the affidavit, ``there is 
no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.''

[[Page 1209]]

  This claim, which also is presented in the perjury section, as Mr. 
Craig pointed out, is deficient as an allegation of obstruction, both 
as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.
  But I will say one thing. The direct evidence on this point is 
uniquely available because there is only one witness who can testify 
about what was in his thoughts at a given moment, and the President has 
testified at great length in his grand jury testimony about what he was 
thinking at this point.
  The President told the grand jury that he was simply not focusing 
closely on the exchange between the lawyers, but was instead 
concentrating on his own testimony.
  He said:

       I'm not even sure I paid much attention to what he [Mr. 
     Bennett] was saying. I was thinking. I was ready to get on 
     with my testimony here and they were having these constant 
     discussions all through the deposition.

  And again the President testifies:

       I didn't pay any attention to this colloquy that went on. I 
     was waiting for my instructions as a witness to go forward. I 
     was worried about my own testimony.

  I think Mr. Craig provided you with a background yesterday that I 
won't repeat here, but I would refer you to, about what was on the 
President's mind at the time.
  Mr. Manager McCollum made a very polished and articulate presentation 
to you, and he predicted that the President's lawyers were going to 
argue that the President sat in silence because he wasn't paying 
attention. We have, indeed, argued this, and it is the truth based upon 
what the President has testified he was thinking about. But Mr. 
McCollum went on to argue that there was circumstantial evidence 
available from the videotape of the President at this deposition.
  He stated:

       We've already seen the video. And you know that he was 
     looking so intently. Remember, he was intensely following the 
     conversation with his eyes. I don't know how anybody can say 
     this man wasn't paying attention. He certainly wasn't 
     thinking about anything else. That was very obvious from 
     looking at the video.

  We all saw the video during the House managers' presentations, and we 
saw a lot of the President at the deposition yesterday when Mr. Craig 
played the first part of it. If you observe the President throughout 
the time you have seen him on the video in the deposition, you will 
conclude that the look on his face was no different from what it was 
during other discussions or arguments of counsel about evidentiary or 
procedural matters. The videotape does not, fairly considered, indicate 
that the President was, in fact, focusing on the lengthy colloquy among 
the lawyers or that he knowingly made a decision not to correct his own 
lawyer.
  The President has received a great deal of criticism, because at one 
point in his grand jury testimony, when asked about Mr. Bennett's 
statement, the President responds to the prosecutor that whether Mr. 
Bennett's statement is true depends on what the meaning of the word 
``is'' is. That is, ``there is no sex of any kind.''
  That has gotten its share of laughs. But when you read the 
President's grand jury transcript in context, this was a serious 
matter, and it is apparent that the President was not in any way 
describing what was in his own mind at the time of the deposition, but 
he rather was discussing Mr. Bennett's statement from the vantage point 
of the President's later grand jury testimony. He is interpreting what 
his own lawyer was saying. Mr. Craig pointed this out yesterday.
  That interpretation is not perjury in article I, and it is not 
obstruction of justice in article II. What the exchange was was that 
the President, in response to one of the prosecutors, explains why, on 
one reading Mr. Bennett's statement, it may not be false.
  Now, it may be hairsplitting and it may be professorial and it may be 
technical, but the important thing is it is a retrospective assessment. 
The President is not talking about himself. He is talking about how to 
construe Mr. Bennett's statement. And what he says is, there is a way 
in which Mr. Bennett's statement at the deposition is accurate; that 
is, if Mr. Bennett was referring to the relationship between the 
President and Ms. Lewinsky on that date, it was an accurate statement 
because the improper relationship was over a long time earlier.
  Now, the relevant point here is that the President's disquisition on 
the word ``is'' and its meaning was not an attempt to explain his own 
thinking at the time of the deposition, but was rather his later 
interpretation of what Mr. Bennett had said at the deposition.
  In light of the President's direct unequivocal testimony, this 
speculation about what was in his mind is simply baseless, and there 
is, in fact, no evidence to support the charge leveled in subpart (5) 
of article II.
  There is another reason to reject the charge; and that is, that the 
law imposes no obligation on the client to monitor his or her lawyer's 
every statement and representation, particularly in a civil deposition, 
in which the client is being questioned, clients are routinely advised 
to focus on the questions posed, think carefully about the answer, 
answer only the question asked and ignore distractions. And sometimes, 
sad to say, the statements of one's own lawyer can be a distraction. 
And those of you who are lawyers and have defended people in 
depositions know that that is the advice you give the client.
  There was good reason for the President to be thinking about his own 
testimony and leave the legal fencing to the lawyers, because whatever 
else may be said about him, there can be no doubt that the Jones case 
itself was a vehicle for partisan attack on the President and that he 
was going to be facing a series of hostile and difficult questions at 
the deposition.
  Now, Judge Wright ultimately ruled that, giving Ms. Jones every 
benefit of the doubt, she had failed both legally and factually to 
present allegations that merited going to trial. But while it was 
legally meritless, while it was going on, the case did impose a 
significant toll on the President both personally and politically.
  And let's be clear about one other thing while we are looking at this 
deposition and while you review the significance of the President 
listening in silence to Mr. Bennett's conduct. As Mr. Craig described 
yesterday, Judge Wright, in fact, interrupted Mr. Bennett in mid 
sentence as he was describing Ms. Jones' affidavit. She didn't allow 
him to complete his objection in which he cited the Lewinsky affidavit. 
She quickly interjected--and this is sometimes what judges do to the 
most learned of lawyers--she quickly interjected and said, ``No, just a 
moment, let me make my ruling.'' And then she proceeded to allow the 
very line of questioning that Mr. Bennett was trying to prevent. So the 
President's silence, whatever motivated it, had absolutely no impact on 
the conduct of the Jones deposition.
  And also let's be clear about one other thing: Nothing about this 
interchange between Mr. Bennett and Judge Wright blocked the ability of 
the Jones lawyers to obtain information about the President's 
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky because the Jones lawyers had been 
briefed the night before in great detail by Ms. Linda Tripp. Ms. Tripp 
had already gotten her own immunity agreement from the Office of 
Independent Counsel and had set up a lunch with Ms. Lewinsky at the 
Ritz-Carlton Hotel the day before the deposition, Friday, January 16. 
And at that lunch, of course, Ms. Lewinsky was apprehended by the 
Office of Independent Counsel and held for the next 12 hours. In the 
meantime, however, Ms. Tripp goes back to her home where she meets with 
the Jones lawyers that Friday night before the deposition and loads 
them up with all the information she has obtained from her illegal, 
secret audiotaping of Ms. Lewinsky. That is why they were able to ask 
the questions they did with such specificity and conviction.
  Indeed, there is one point in the examination of the President where 
he says to the Jones lawyer who is examining him, Mr. Fisher--he asked 
the question. And Fisher says, ``Sir, I think this will come''--he 
asked a question about ``Can you tell me why you are asking these 
specific questions?'' and Fisher replies, ``Sir, I think this will

[[Page 1210]]

come to light shortly, and you'll understand.''
  Well, how ironic that I am making a presentation today on January 21 
because it did come to light--just as Mr. Fisher knew it would; just as 
Ms. Tripp knew it would--it came to light 1 year ago exactly when the 
story broke in the Washington Post. This fleeting exchange between Mr. 
Bennett and Judge Wright before she overruled his objection could not 
and didn't have any impact on the Jones lawyers' conduct.
  Now, I want to look briefly at one other part of subpart (5) because 
it alleges--continues to make one other allegation: Such false and 
misleading statements at the deposition by Mr. Bennett allegedly were 
subsequently acknowledged by Mr. Bennett in a communication with the 
judge.
  Now, if you look at Mr. Bennett's letter, however, that is not at all 
what the letter says. Mr. Bennett wrote to the judge on September 30 of 
last year. This is after the referral had come to Congress and after 
the House of Representatives had seen fit to release Ms. Lewinsky's 
grand jury testimony. Mr. Bennett does not, as the article alleges, 
acknowledge that he himself made false and misleading statements or 
that the President, either by his word or silence, made such 
statements. What Mr. Bennett does do in this letter, as you can see, is 
call the court's attention to the fact that Ms. Lewinsky herself had 
testified before a Federal grand jury in August. And--contrary to her 
earlier statements--she stated that portions of her affidavit were, 
according to her, false and misleading. Mr. Bennett's letter, bringing 
this to the judge's attention, was a matter of professional obligation 
and responsibility. It in no way is evidence supporting subpart (5).
  Take a break?
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.


                                 Recess

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Kendall, indicating that he is about 
halfway through his presentation----
  Mr. Counsel KENDALL. That is correct, sir.
  Mr. LOTT. I would, then, ask unanimous consent we have a temporary 
recess for 15 minutes.
  There being no objection, at 2:09 p.m., the Senate recessed until 
2:30 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by 
the Chief Justice.
  Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe the Senate is ready to proceed 
now with the presentation by Counsel Kendall.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Counsel Kendall.
  Mr. Counsel KENDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  Subpart (7)--we have two more subparts to go. I will take them out of 
order. Subpart (7) of article II alleges that the President obstructed 
justice when he relayed or told certain White House officials things 
about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that were false and 
misleading. This is another example of double billing in the two 
articles. This charge is leveled in article I, and it appears here in 
article II. Yesterday, Mr. Craig explained why these statements didn't 
constitute perjury, and I would like to take just a few minutes this 
afternoon to explain why they don't constitute an obstruction of 
justice, either.
  First of all, and most obviously, there is no way--I said this in the 
beginning--there is no way that the statements of the aides could be in 
any way part of a scheme to deny Ms. Jones of evidence. I think on this 
ground alone subpart (7) fails, because if you look at what is alleged 
in article II, it is that the President obstructed justice in order to 
delay, impede, et cetera, existence of testimony related to Ms. Jones' 
lawsuit. There is no way here that whatever the President said to an 
aide could have done that.
  The statements, which this subpart (7) addresses, were statements 
that the President made very shortly after the Lewinsky publicity had 
broken to Mr. Bowles, Mr. Podesta, Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Ickes, none 
of whom were witnesses in the Paula Jones case. They were on none of 
the witness lists, and they had no evidence at all relevant to the 
Paula Jones case since they had been working for the President. They 
weren't working for the President when he was Governor of Arkansas in 
May of 1991, and they weren't individuals subject to discovery. So 
these four aides just had no evidence whatsoever that they could 
contribute to the Paula Jones case.
  But there is another more fundamental reason why this article is 
flawed as a matter both of the evidence and the law. The President has 
admitted misleading his family, his staff, and the Nation about his 
conduct with Ms. Lewinsky. And he has expressed profound regret for 
that conduct. Subpart (7), however, alleges that he should be impeached 
and removed from office simply because he failed to be candid with 
these particular four White House aides and misled them about the 
nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
  These allegedly impeachable denials to the four aides occurred, as I 
said, right after the publicity broke. And one of them occurred on 
January 21, last year, and then also on the 23rd and the 26th. This was 
at the very time the President denied he had had sexual relations with 
Ms. Lewinsky in nearly identical terms on national television to 
whoever throughout the United States happened to be watching at that 
time.
  Having made this denial to the entire country, it simply is absurd to 
regard it any differently when made to four aides in the White House 
directly and person-to-person rather than through the medium of 
television. The President talked to these individuals about the 
Lewinsky matter because of his personal relationship and his direct 
professional exposure to them on a daily basis. He spoke to them, 
however, misleadingly in an attempt to allay their concern once the 
allegations about Ms. Lewinsky become public.
  No discovery here--never yet found a place in which discovery would 
benefit the case for either side--but no discovery here is going to 
illuminate the record in any way. These four witnesses have testified 
before the independent counsel's grand jury on several occasions.
  I think it is important to observe also that there is no way this 
interchange between the President and his aides could have affected 
evidence because his statements to them were hearsay which they would 
have reported accurately to the grand jury when asked. And by 
``hearsay,'' all they can testify to is what the President told them, 
and they could do that accurately. But their own testimony, based on 
whatever knowledge or observation or direct sensory evidence they might 
have, was not affected in any way by the President's statement. None of 
these aides had any independent knowledge of the relationship between 
the President and Ms. Lewinsky and, therefore, the only evidence they 
do offer would be a hearsay repetition of what the President had told 
them. And that was the same public denial that he had told everyone, 
including, presumably, any member of the grand jury who had his or her 
television set on on that Monday, January 26.
  But under the strained theory--you really have to focus on this--
under this theory, any citizen of the United States who heard that 
denial could form the basis for an allegation of impeachable conduct 
and removal of the President from office.
  I think this subpart (7) of article II fails for a number of reasons 
not related to the Paula Jones case, and it violates common sense.
  Let me turn to subpart (4). This subpart alleges that the President 
obstructed justice when he intensified and succeeded in an effort to 
secure job assistance for Ms. Lewinsky in order to corruptly prevent 
her truthful testimony. The claim here is of a quid pro quo, a ``this 
for that.'' His job assistance was allegedly in order to prevent her 
truthful testimony.
  I want to note a couple of things here. First of all, this word 
``intensified''--this word ``intensified'' is a pretty slippery word. 
It doesn't say ``originated'' or ``began.'' It says ``intensified.'' 
And that allegation implicitly recognizes--it tries to avoid the thrust

[[Page 1211]]

of its own logic--it recognizes that the job search Ms. Lewinsky was 
conducting had begun long before there was any connection to the Paula 
Jones case, and the undisputed facts are going to reveal that Vernon 
Jordan and others were trying to help her long before she appeared on 
the list of witnesses Ms. Jones was considering calling.
  The second thing I want to emphasize is the quid pro quo nature of 
the allegation. Quid pro quo is a good Latin term meaning ``this for 
that.'' In ``order to'' is the allegation of subpart (4). The job 
assistance was ``in order to'' prevent Ms. Lewinsky's truthful 
testimony.
  Well, I want to review the evidence a bit because there is not only 
no evidence in the record; there is a lot of contradictory evidence, 
both direct and circumstantial. We have heard a great deal in the 
various presentations about Mr. Jordan's assistance to Ms. Lewinsky. 
But I was surprised to sit right over there through 11 hours 52 
minutes, by my watch, of the House managers' very able presentation, 
and I heard almost nothing about what actually happened in New York 
City as a result of Mr. Jordan's efforts. But when we review the 
evidence--and it is all right here. Don't worry, I am not going to 
review every page of it. But it is all here. When we review this 
evidence which is available--all you have to do is read it--we get a 
very different picture from what we got from the able House managers. 
There is no secret about it, nor is there any conflict in the testimony 
of these witnesses. There is no need for further discovery here, as I 
will show, because the testimony is consistent.
  Now, the proof that is in the record is that there was no corrupt 
linkage, no assistance whatsoever which was designed and focused to get 
Ms. Lewinsky to do anything--nothing which tied the job assistance to 
what was going on in the Jones case. Mr. Jordan did help open doors, 
and Ms. Lewinsky went through those doors, and she either succeeded or 
failed on her own merits. Two of the companies declined to offer her a 
job, and at the third she did get an entry-level job, which she 
received on her own merits.
  There was no fix, no quid pro quo, no link to the Jones case. And 
also there was no urgency to Mr. Jordan's assistance to her. He started 
assisting her well before she showed up on the Jones witness list, and 
he helped her whenever he could, consistent with his own heavy travel 
schedule. There is the allegation of a quid pro quo, but there is 
nothing in the evidence to support the ``pro'' part of it.
  What the House managers have tried to do--and they are skillful 
prosecutors, they are able, they are experienced, they are polished, 
and they know what they are doing--they have tried to juxtapose 
unrelated events and, by a selective chronology, tried to establish 
causation between two wholly unrelated sets of events. And there an old 
logical fallacy--you have had enough Latin today--that just because 
something comes after something, it was caused by the preceding event. 
It is like the rooster crowing and taking credit for the sun coming up. 
When you look at the House managers' case, there is a lot of that going 
on, because we will see there is no real existence of causal connection 
and we will also see that a lot of the chronology you have been given 
is erroneous.
  As I said earlier, there is no evidence, either direct or 
circumstantial, to support this quid pro quo allegation.
  Now, let's start with the direct evidence, the most logical place to 
begin. It could not be more unequivocal. Let's start with Ms. Lewinsky. 
First of all, her New York job search began on her own initiative long 
before any involvement in the Jones case. Moving to New York was her 
own idea, and it was one she raised in July of 1997. This geographical 
move did not affect in any way her exposure to a subpoena in the Paula 
Jones case.
  Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of course, a witness can 
be subpoenaed in any Federal district, no matter where the case is 
pending. And, indeed, a great many of the depositions in the Paula 
Jones case took place outside the State of Arkansas. For this reason, 
Mr. Manager Barr's assertion that the President wanted Ms. Lewinsky to 
go to New York because it would ``make her much more difficult, if not 
impossible, to reach as a witness in the Jones case'' is entirely 
untenable; she was just as vulnerable to subpoena in New York as she 
was in Washington. And, indeed, she was already under subpoena in 
January when she was finalizing her move. This contention just does not 
withstand scrutiny.
  Now, Ms. Lewinsky testified:

       I was never promised a job for my silence.

  You can't get any plainer than that. She testified that her job 
search had no relation to anything that she might do in the Jones case. 
In her July 27 interview with the FBI, the FBI agent recorded her 
statement that there was no agreement with the President, with Mr. 
Jordan, or anyone else that she had to sign a Jones affidavit before 
getting a job in New York. She told the FBI agent explicitly that she 
had never demanded from Mr. Jordan a job in exchange for a favorable 
affidavit and neither the President nor Mr. Jordan nor anyone else had 
ever made this proposition to her.
  Now, Mr. Jordan, who is an eloquent and exceedingly articulate man, 
took care of that claim in his own grand jury testimony. He was asked 
about any connection between the job search and the affidavit. He said 
there was absolutely none. He said on March 5 as far as he was 
concerned these were two entirely separate matters. And in his grand 
jury appearance on May 5 he was asked whether the two were connected, 
and Mr. Jordan said, ``Unequivocally, indubitably, no.''
  The President has likewise testified that there was no connection 
between the Jones case and Ms. Lewinsky's job search. He told the grand 
jury:

       I was not trying to buy her silence or get Vernon Jordan to 
     buy her silence. I thought she was a good person. She had not 
     been involved with me for a long time in any improper way, 
     several months, and I wanted to help her get on with her 
     life. It is just as simple as that.

  Quid pro quo? No. The uncontested facts bear out these categorical 
denials of the three most involved people. Ms. Lewinsky began looking 
for a job in July of 1997, and the event which hardened her resolve to 
move to New York was a report by her ostensible good friend, Ms. Linda 
Tripp, on or about October 6 that one of Ms. Tripp's friends at the 
National Security Council said that Ms. Lewinsky would never ever get a 
job in the White House again.
  Now, it turns out that this disclosure, like so much else Ms. Tripp 
said, is false. Ms. Tripp's NSC friend said no such thing. But it did 
have a profound impact on Ms. Lewinsky, who described it as the straw 
that broke the camel's back. It was plain to her then that she was 
never going to be able to get another White House job.
  Mr. Jordan's assistance of Ms. Lewinsky began about a month before 
Ms. Lewinsky learned--about 6 weeks before she learned she was a 
possible witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she had 
discussed with Linda Tripp sometime in late September or early October 
the idea of asking for Mr. Jordan's assistance, and Ms. Lewinsky 
indicated she could not recall if it were her idea or Linda Tripp's 
idea, but in any event Mr. Jordan became involved sometime later at the 
direction not of the President but of Ms. Currie, who was a long-time 
friend of Mr. Jordan and who had discussed with Ms. Lewinsky her job 
search. Now, Ms. Currie had previously assisted Ms. Lewinsky in making 
contact with Ambassador Bill Richardson at the U.N. Ms. Lewinsky's 
first meeting was with Mr. Jordan on November 5, and Ms. Lewinsky 
testified that the meeting lasted about 20 minutes and that they had 
discussed a list of possible employers she was interested in. She never 
told Mr. Jordan that there was any time constraint on his assistance, 
and both she and Mr. Jordan traveled a great deal out of the country 
and in the country in that November-December period.
  Now, Mr. Jordan testified unequivocally that he never, at any time, 
felt any particular pressure to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. This is plain 
and powerful and unrebutted testimony. He

[[Page 1212]]

was asked in the grand jury if you recall any ``kind of a heightened 
sense of urgency by Ms. Currie or anyone at the White House'' about 
helping Ms. Lewinsky during the first half of December?
  And he replied, ``Oh, no, I do not recall any heightened sense of 
urgency. What I do recall is that I dealt with it as I had time to do 
it.''
  Now, let me just pause here and observe that if there had been any 
improper motive or any sinister effort to silence Ms. Lewinsky, it 
would have been extremely easy for the President to have arranged for 
her to be hired at the White House. If there were some corrupt intent 
to silence her, that was an obvious solution because she very much 
wanted to go back to work at the White House. It mattered to her a 
great deal. But, while she was interviewed a couple of times by White 
House officials in the summer of 1997, those interviews never resulted 
in a job offer. The fix was not in. There was no corrupt effort to 
bring Ms. Lewinsky back, give her a White House job or, indeed, 
transfer her in any way from her Pentagon job.
  Now, she continued her job search efforts with the assistance of some 
of the White House people. In late October or early November, she told 
her boss at the Pentagon, Mr. Kenneth Bacon, that she wanted to leave 
and move to New York City. She enlisted his assistance in trying to 
help her get a private sector job, and he helped her because she had 
done good work for him. He had a positive impression and testified that 
he wanted to do whatever he could for her.
  In November of 1997, her supervisor at the Pentagon indicated that 
Ms. Lewinsky gave notice of an intention to quit her Pentagon job at 
the year end.
  Now, before we get to the private sector firms that Ms. Lewinsky went 
to, I want to pause and make the point that she had a United Nations 
delegation job in her back pocket. Back pocket is a male image--perhaps 
in her purse. She had it in her hand and available, all during this 
period.
  In early October at the request of Ms. Currie, Mr. Podesta--John 
Podesta, who was then the White House Deputy Chief of Staff--had asked 
Ambassador Bill Richardson to consider Ms. Lewinsky for a position at 
the U.N. The Ambassador testified that he did not take this as a 
``pressure call.'' He said ``there was no pressure anywhere by 
anybody'' to hire Ms. Lewinsky.
  Ms. Currie testified to the grand jury, without contradiction, that 
she was acting on her own, as Ms. Lewinsky's friend, in trying to help 
her.
  Now, Ms. Lewinsky interviewed for the U.N. position on October 31 
with Ambassador Richardson. And he, through his staff, offered her a 
job on November 3. Ambassador Richardson testified to the grand jury 
that he never spoke to the President or Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky, 
that he was impressed by her, that he made the offer on the merits, and 
that no one had pressured him to hire her.
  He testified specifically to the grand jury on April 30, ``This was 
my decision to hire her. I did not do it under any pressure or 
anything. I felt that she would be suitable for the job, and I didn't 
feel I had to report to anybody. It's not in my nature. I don't take 
pressure well on personnel matters. I'm a Cabinet member. I don't have 
to account for anything. This was mine, my choice, my decision. And I 
stand behind it.''
  He also declared, ``What I did was routine.''
  This fact was highly significant, because although this job was not 
precisely the job Ms. Lewinsky wanted, it was a job in New York, and 
she kept this open until January 5 when she finally turned it down. 
Now, it was Mr. Manager Bryant who referred to this in passing--just 
kind of walked around it. He disparaged it in the way a good trial 
lawyer does--recognize it is there, but then move around and away from 
it. But it is an important fact and it tears a very large hole in their 
circumstantial evidence case. Because she had in her hand, I will say, 
this job offer all through this period of November and December and 
into January. It wasn't precisely what she wanted but it was a good 
job. It was in New York City. And there was no urgent necessity for 
her, connected with her private sector job search. Once again, quid pro 
quo? No.
  Now, there is a lot of further direct evidence concerning her job 
search. And this is contained in a great many interviews in grand jury 
transcript from the people at the various New York firms Mr. Jordan 
contacted on Ms. Lewinsky's behalf. Again, there is simply no direct 
evidence whatsoever from any of these people of any kind of quid pro 
quo treatment. While Mr. Jordan made the contacts on her behalf, there 
was no urgency about them. There was no pressure, and they were wholly 
unrelated to the Jones case.
  Let's recognize the obvious here. The President's relation, improper 
relation with Ms. Lewinsky, had been over for many months. He continued 
to see her from time to time. He did what he could to be of assistance 
to her as she sought employment in New York because, as he testified, 
she was a good person, and he was trying to help her get on with her 
life.
  Mr. Jordan was able to open some doors, but once open, there was no 
inappropriate pressure. He really opened three doors for her: at 
American Express, at Young & Rubicam, and at Revlon. And she batted one 
for three. And actually in job searches, as in baseball, I, at least, 
will take that batting average any day of the week. But she succeeded 
on her own once she was through the door, and her getting through the 
door had no relation to the Paula Jones case.
  Let's, first of all, take a look at what happened with American 
Express and see whether in direct or circumstantial evidence there is 
any evidence of a quid pro quo here. The independent counsel conducted 
a very large number of interviews and also summoned a great many 
witnesses from each of these three sets of companies. Mr. Jordan was a 
member of the American Express board of directors, and he telephoned a 
Ms. Ursula Fairbairn, the Executive Vice President of Human Resources 
at American Express on December 10 or 11. And he told Ms. Fairbairn 
that he wanted to send her the resume of a talented young woman in 
Washington, to see whether she matched up to any openings at American 
Express.
  Ms. Fairbairn told the FBI that it was not at all unusual for 
American Express board members or other company officers to recommend 
young people for employment. Ms. Fairbairn said Mr. Jordan did not, in 
fact, mention any White House connection that the applicant had, and he 
exerted no pressure at all on her to hire the applicant. Ms. Fairbairn 
recalled that Mr. Jordan made another employment recommendation about 2 
months earlier and indicated this was simply not an unusual request.
  Now, the Office of Independent Counsel also--you see it on the 
chart--interviewed Thomas Schick at American Express. He is the 
Executive Vice President for Corporate Affairs and Communications.
  Ms. Fairbairn had sent the name and resume to Mr. Schick because she 
thought that is where Ms. Lewinsky might fit in, and he interviewed Ms. 
Lewinsky on December 23 in Washington. He decided after this interview 
not to hire Ms. Lewinsky because she was--he felt she was lacking in 
experience and he also thought that American Express was probably not 
the right kind of company for her, given what she had told him she was 
interested in at the interview, and that she probably would be better 
off going to a public relations firm.
  The decision not to hire, he told the FBI, was entirely his own. He 
felt no pressure to either hire or not hire Ms. Lewinsky and never 
talked to Mr. Jordan at any time during this process. Once again, quid 
pro quo? No.
  The second company--actually two companies. It is Young & Rubicam and 
Burson-Marsteller. Mr. Jordan called Peter Georgescu, the chairman and 
CEO of Young & Rubicam, the large New York advertising agency. Mr. 
Jordan had no formal connection with the company, but he had been a 
friend of Mr. Georgescu's for over 20 years.

[[Page 1213]]

  Mr. Georgescu was interviewed by investigators of the Office of 
Independent Counsel and said that sometime in December 1997, Mr. Jordan 
had telephoned him and had asked him to take a look at a young person 
from the White House for possible work in the New York area.
  Mr. Georgescu had responded, ``We'll take a look at her in the usual 
way.'' And he stated that that was a kind of a code between him and Mr. 
Jordan, and it meant that if there was an opening for which she was 
qualified, she would be interviewed and hired, but there would be no 
special treatment. He testified that Mr. Jordan understood that, and he 
also said that Mr. Jordan did not engage in any kind of sales pitch 
about Lewinsky.
  Mr. Georgescu said that he then initiated an interview on behalf of 
Ms. Lewinsky, but his own involvement was arm's length, and that she 
succeeded or failed totally on her own merits.
  He recalled that Mr. Jordan had made another similar request on a 
previous occasion, and he said that he and Mr. Jordan frequently 
exchanged opinions about people in the advertising business on an 
informal basis.
  As a result of this telephone call, Ms. Lewinsky was interviewed by 
another person, a Ms. Celia Berk, who was the managing director of 
human resources at Burson-Marsteller, a public relations firm that was 
a division of Young & Rubicam. According to Ms. Berk, this interview 
was handled ``by the book,'' and while Ms. Lewinsky's interviews were a 
little bit accelerated, they went through the normal steps.
  Ms. Berk testified that nobody put any pressure on her. She said that 
while both she and the director of corporate practice at Burson-
Marsteller, Erin Mills, and another corporate practice associate, Ziad 
Toubassy, had all liked Ms. Lewinsky and felt she was well qualified, 
the chairman of the corporate practice group, Mr. Gus Weill had decided 
not to hire Lewinsky.
  Ms. Mills testified that the procedure under which Ms. Lewinsky was 
considered involved nothing out of the ordinary. Not a single one of 
these witnesses testified there was any urgency connected with Mr. 
Jordan's request.
  Ms. Mills also told the FBI that despite the fact that Ms. Lewinsky 
had been referred by the chairman of Young & Rubicam, their 
consideration of her was entirely objective. She thought that Ms. 
Lewinsky was poised and qualified for an entry-level position, but Mr. 
Weill decided to take a pass. Once again, quid pro quo? No.
  Mr. Jordan was a member of the board of directors of Revlon, a 
company wholly owned by MacAndrews & Forbes Holding company, and Mr. 
Jordan's law firm had done legal work for both of these companies.
  The corporate structure here is complicated, but I will be talking 
basically about two firms: Revlon--I think we all know what Revlon 
does--and its parent company, MacAndrews & Forbes Holding.
  Mr. Jordan telephoned his old friend, Mr. Richard Halperin, at the 
holding company on December 11 and said that he had an interviewee or 
he had an applicant that he wanted to recommend, and he gave Mr. 
Halperin some information about her. Mr. Halperin testified to the 
grand jury that it wasn't unusual for Mr. Jordan to call him with an 
employment recommendation. He had done so at least three other times 
that Mr. Halperin could recall.
  On this occasion, Mr. Jordan told Mr. Halperin on the telephone that 
Ms. Lewinsky was bright, energetic, enthusiastic, and he encouraged Mr. 
Halperin to meet with her. Mr. Halperin didn't think there was anything 
unusual about Mr. Jordan's request, and he testified that in the 
telephone call Mr. Jordan did not ask him to consider Ms. Lewinsky on 
any particular timetable, no acceleration of any kind. Indeed, far from 
there being some heightened sense of urgency, Mr. Halperin explicitly 
told the FBI that there was no implied time constraint or requirement 
for fast action.
  Ms. Lewinsky came up to New York City and she interviewed with Mr. 
Halperin on December 18, 1997. Mr. Halperin described her as follows: 
As a ``typical young, capable, enthusiastic Washington, DC-type 
individual.'' I don't know if that is pejorative or not----
  (Laughter.)
  Who described her primary interest as being in public relations. He 
and Ms. Lewinsky talked about the various companies that MacAndrews & 
Forbes controlled, and Ms. Lewinsky identified Revlon as a company that 
she would like to be considered at, and Mr. Halperin decided to send 
her there for an interview.
  Mr. Halperin sent her resume to another person at the holding 
company--not at Revlon, at the holding company--to a Mr. Jaymie Durnan 
who was a senior vice president there. He got the resume in mid-
December, and he decided to interview her in early January.
  You have at the holding company two sets of interviews of Ms. 
Lewinsky going on. When he returned in early January, Mr. Durnan also 
scheduled an interview. He met with Ms. Lewinsky on January 8. His 
decision was made entirely independently of Mr. Halperin's decision, 
and he wasn't even aware Mr. Halperin had seen Ms. Lewinsky when he met 
with her on January 8.
  Mr. Durnan met with Ms. Lewinsky in the morning and he thought--now 
there is his view and you are going to get two views of this 
interview--Mr. Durnan thought she was an impressive applicant for 
entry-level work. He was impressed with her, particularly by her work 
experience at the Pentagon, he told the FBI. He felt she would fit in 
with the parent company, but there were not any openings there.
  Based upon what she had said her interests were, he decided to send 
her resume over to Revlon, because he thought it matched up well with 
her interests. He sent the resume over, and he left a message--and now 
we are going to come to a Revlon person--he left a message with Ms. 
Allyn Seidman, who was the senior vice president of corporate 
communications at Revlon.
  Now cut to Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Lewinsky had had a very good interview 
with Mr. Halperin, both she and Mr. Halperin thought. However, for 
reasons the record doesn't make clear, Ms. Lewinsky's impression of the 
Durnan interview was dismal. She thought the interview had not gone 
well. She thought it had gone poorly. She described herself as being 
upset and distressed. She had no idea of his positive reaction to her. 
And this is not just a late analysis. He had already sent the resume. 
He sent the resume over to Revlon immediately after their interview. 
But in any event, Ms. Lewinsky was afraid it had gone poorly, that she 
had embarrassed Mr. Jordan. So she called up Mr. Jordan.
  And on that same day--later--January 8, Mr. Jordan spoke, by 
telephone, to the CEO of MacAndrews & Forbes, his friend, Mr. Ronald 
Perelman. He mentioned to Mr. Perelman that Ms. Lewinsky had 
interviewed at MacAndrews & Forbes, but he made no specific request and 
he did not ask Mr. Perelman to specifically intervene in any way.
  Now, later that day--and I know this is complicated--Mr. Durnan 
happened to speak--Mr. Durnan is the second interviewer that Ms. 
Lewinsky happened to speak to--happened to speak to Mr. Perelman, and 
Perelman mentioned he had a call from Mr. Jordan about a job candidate. 
Perelman then said to Durnan, ``Let's see what we can do.'' And Durnan 
indicated he already, on his own initiative, had been working on this, 
had talked to Ms. Lewinsky, had sent her resume over to Revlon.
  Mr. Perelman, later that day, phoned Mr. Jordan back to say 
everything is all right, she appeared to be doing a good job, the 
resume was over at Revlon. Mr. Jordan expressed no urgency, no time 
constraints. Mr. Perelman didn't say anything out of the ordinary had 
happened, because it had not.
  Now, later that same day, after speaking to Mr. Perelman, Mr. Durnan 
phoned Ms. Seidman at Revlon, and sent the resume over earlier in the 
day. He didn't say that Mr. Perelman had mentioned Ms. Lewinsky to him. 
He simply said to Ms. Seidman: Look, I sent you a resume. I have met 
with the young woman. If you think she is good, you should hire her.

[[Page 1214]]

  According to Mr. Durnan, Mr. Perelman never said or implied that Ms. 
Lewinsky had to be hired. And indeed, Mr. Durnan had already 
interviewed her and formed a positive impression. According to Ms. 
Seidman, who is at Revlon, Mr. Durnan gave her a similar account that 
he gave to the grand jury. He said she ought to interview Ms. Lewinsky, 
make her own decision, hire her if she thought she was a good candidate 
only.
  The record is crystal clear that Ms. Seidman over at Revlon had no 
knowledge that Mr. Perelman had ever spoken to anyone about Ms. 
Lewinsky. Ms. Seidman testified that she made an independent assessment 
of Ms. Lewinsky. She interviewed her the next day. She told the grand 
jury that she found Ms. Lewinsky to be ``a talented, enthusiastic, 
bright young woman who was very eager. I liked that in my department.''
  At the conclusion of the interview, she intended to make an offer to 
Ms. Lewinsky, but it was contingent on the opinion of two other 
people--a Ms. Jenna Sheldon, who is the manager of human resources at 
Revlon, and Ms. Nancy Risdon, who is the manager of public relations 
for corporate affairs. Ms. Seidman testified that after they both 
interviewed Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Risdon told her that she found her very 
impressive, and Ms. Sheldon had also been very impressed. Ms. Risdon 
told the FBI that she had been impressed with Ms. Lewinsky who, 
although she had no public relations experience, was ``bright and 
articulate.'' On the basis of all this, Ms. Seidman decided to offer 
Ms. Lewinsky an entry-level job as public relations administrator. The 
offer was made, and Ms. Lewinsky accepted. And, I repeat, the record 
evidence is uncontradicted that the fix was not on at all in this 
process.
  This was the third company Ms. Lewinsky had interviewed with, and on 
this series of interviews she was successful. Nobody in any of these 
companies suggested there was any quid pro quo link. The only person--
the only person--in this record who talked about trying to have Ms. 
Lewinsky use signing of the affidavit as leverage to get a job was none 
other than Linda Tripp, that paragon of fateful friendship.
  On the audiotapes, it is Ms. Tripp who frequently urges Ms. Lewinsky 
not to sign an affidavit until she has a job in New York. It is not 
clear if Ms. Tripp knew about the UN job that Ms. Lewinsky had. She--on 
the audiotape, Ms. Lewinsky sometimes professes agreement with Ms. 
Tripp's advice, saying she will not sign an affidavit until she has a 
job. But, as Ms. Lewinsky testified to the grand jury--and, again, Ms. 
Lewinsky is testifying under the threat of perjury, which will blow 
away her immunity agreement--she was lying to Ms. Tripp when she said 
she would wait to sign the affidavit until she got a job.
  As Ms. Lewinsky testified to the grand jury, her statement to Ms. 
Tripp about Mr. Jordan assisting her in a quid pro quo sense was not 
true. She said it only because Ms. Tripp was insisting that she promise 
her not to do this. But, in fact, the affidavit was already signed when 
Ms. Lewinsky made that promise. Once again, quid pro quo? No. That is 
some of the direct evidence.
  Now, let's look at the circumstantial evidence, the alleged 
circumstantial evidence. The quid pro quo theory rests on assumptions 
about why things happened and, on the facts, about when things 
happened. The former requires logic, but the second is a matter of 
fact.
  I mentioned previously that article II of the subpart (4) here uses 
the word ``intensified.'' It didn't say that the job search began as an 
effort to silence Ms. Lewinsky. It only says that it ``intensified'' as 
a result of that process.
  The original charge made by the independent counsel--and it is there 
in the independent counsel's referral at page 181--was an allegation 
that the President helped Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a 
time when she would have been a witness against him. However, the House 
committee looked at the evidence I think in the five volumes and, even 
though they have not referred to it here very much, decided that that 
theory would not get off the runway. So they revised their claim and 
gave us a kind of wimpified version, alleging not initiation but 
intensification.
  Now, under the right circumstances, it is plain that helping somebody 
find a job is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. There is nothing 
wrong with it. Mr. Manager Hutchinson told you that --and I quote 
here--``There is nothing wrong with helping somebody get a job. But we 
all know there is one thing forbidden in public office: we must avoid 
quid pro quo, which is: This for that.''
  Now, he went on to assert that the President's conduct ``crossed the 
line,'' as he put it, when the job search assistance became ``tied and 
interconnected''--those are his words--with the President's desire to 
get a false affidavit. And then he went on to say, ``You will see''--
that is a prediction that Mr. Manager Hutchinson made to you--``You 
will see that they are totally interconnected, intertwined, 
interrelated; and that is where the line has crossed into 
obstruction.''
  Now, Mr. Manager Hutchinson pointed to a critical event for their 
quid pro quo theory, and that is the entry on December 11, 1997, by 
Judge Wright, the judge in the Paula Jones case, of an order pertaining 
to discovery in the Paula Jones case. This is the critical event, 
according to the managers. But let's look closely at this so-called 
``critical event'' because it's the only claim--only factual claim--the 
managers make of some causal relationship between the job search and 
the Jones case. And that claim is dead wrong; and it is demonstrably 
dead wrong.
  The managers have argued that what brought Mr. Jordan into action to 
help Ms. Lewinsky find a job, what really jump-started the process, was 
Judge Wright's December 11 order. And that order concerned discovery of 
relationships the President had--allegedly had--during the search 
period of time with women who were State or Federal employees.
  In the House, Chief Counsel Schippers powerfully made the point about 
how important this December 11 order was. ``. . . why the sudden 
interest,'' he asked, ``why the total change in focus and effort? 
Nobody but Betty Currie really cared about helping Ms. Lewinsky 
throughout November, even after the President learned that her name was 
on the prospective witness list. Did something happen [that moved] the 
job search from a low to a high priority on that day?
  Oh, yes, something happened. On the morning of December 11, 1997, 
Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered that Paula Jones was entitled to 
information regarding'' these other women.
  Now, Mr. Manager Hutchinson, again, emphasized the impact of this 
December 11 order was dramatic. He stood here and told you that the 
President's attitude suddenly changed, and what started out as a favor 
for Betty Currie in finding Ms. Lewinsky a job dramatically changed 
into something sinister after Ms. Lewinsky became a witness.

       And so what triggers [this is Manager Hutchinson]--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 [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.

  Mr. Manager Hutchinson presented in his very polished and able 
presentation a chart. It was exhibit 1. I have taken the liberty of 
borrowing it for our own purposes. You see the key is outlined in 
detail what happened on December 11. The very first item is that 
``Judge Susan Webber issues order allowing testimony on Lewinsky.'' The 
second meeting between Lewinsky and Jordan, ``leads provided/
recommendation calls placed,'' and then, later, the ``President and 
Jordan talk about a job for Lewinsky.''
  Well, that is what the chart says. But when you look at the 
uncontested facts, this isn't even smoke and mirrors. It is worse.
  First of all, Ms. Lewinsky entered Mr. Jordan's building for their 
meeting

[[Page 1215]]

at 12:57 on December 11. As we see here from the chart, the entry chart 
of Mr. Jordan's law firm, Ms. Lewinsky's name is misspelled, and she 
identified this as her entry into the law firm. But this did not spring 
from, magically, the entry of the judge's order. It was scheduled 3 
days earlier, on December 8. And even that telephone call was pursuant 
to an agreement made between Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan two weekends 
before then. It had nothing, whatever, to do with the judge's order.
  Indeed, after her first meeting with Mr. Jordan on November 5, Ms. 
Lewinsky testified that she had a follow-up conversation by telephone 
with Mr. Jordan around Thanksgiving, and he advised her he was working 
on the job search as he had time for it. He asked her to call him back 
in early December. Mr. Jordan testified he was out of the country from 
the day after Thanksgiving until December 4. He also testified that on 
December 5--this is before the witness list--Ms. Currie called and 
reminded him that Ms. Lewinsky was expecting his call. He asked Ms. 
Currie to have Ms. Lewinsky call him. She does so on December 8 and 
they agreed to meet at Mr. Jordan's office on December 11.
  So this meeting, this sinister meeting, was arranged by three people 
who had no knowledge whatever about the Paula Jones witness list at the 
time they acted. Now, Ms. Lewinsky herself was also out of Washington 
for most of the period from Thanksgiving to December 4, first in Los 
Angeles and then overseas.
  Inexplicably, but I think significantly, because it says something 
about the strength of the case, the House managers ignore this key 
piece of testimony that when the meeting was set up it is 
uncontradicted. The point is that the contact between Mr. Jordan and 
Ms. Lewinsky resumed in December not because of something having to do 
with the order, but because they had agreed it would. The gap is 
attributable--the gap in timing--to Mr. Jordan's travel schedule.
  Now, let's look at when this discovery order was entered. It was, in 
fact, entered late in the day of December 11 after the conclusion of a 
conference call among all the counsel in the Paula Jones case. We have 
here on the chart a blowup of the clerk's minutes.
  Now, it is a great accommodation to lawyers when in a case a judge 
will have conference telephone calls because it means you don't have to 
travel to a different city. There were a number of these held in the 
Jones case. This was a conference call that began, as the clerk's 
minutes indicate, at 5:33 p.m. Little Rock time, in the afternoon. That 
would be 6:33 in Washington, DC. It ended at 6:50 p.m. in Little Rock, 
or 7:50 in Washington, DC.
  Now, quite late in the conference call Judge Wright took up other 
matters and advised counsel that an order on the plaintiff's motion to 
compel testimony had been filed and Barry--Barry Ward, the judge's 
clerk--will fax a copy of the order on that motion to compel counsel. 
So, some time after 7:50 p.m. counsel get the witness list. Notice that 
this proceeding is so late in the day, I don't know if you can see it, 
but when the clerk's minutes are filed, they are filed not on December 
11, but on December 12.
  Finally, while we don't even have evidence of a telephone call 
between the President and Mr. Jordan--we are back now to Mr. Manager 
Hutchinson's chart No. 1--we don't have any evidence that the 
President, in fact, ever placed a call to Mr. Jordan on this date. The 
President was out of the city. But if the call occurred, it must have 
occurred by 5:55 p.m.
  Now, let's, again, look at this chart. December 11 is so important 
that the managers have put it on the chart twice. It is the only date 
on the chart that appears twice. ``The President and Jordan talk about 
a job for Lewinsky.'' Clearly what they are telling you is that first 
you get the order. That energizes, that jump starts the process, and 
then the President talks to Vernon Jordan. As I said, if a call 
occurred on that day, the earliest you could have had any knowledge of 
the order would have been 7:50 p.m.
  There is a problem, though, when you think that maybe the President 
and Vernon Jordan talked on this date, even if we don't have evidence 
of it. And the problem is that at 7:50 p.m., Mr. Vernon Jordan was high 
over the Atlantic Ocean in an airplane. He was on his way to Amsterdam. 
He testified that ``I left on United Flight 946 at 5:55 from Dulles 
Airport.'' That is where Mr. Jordan was on the evening of December 11. 
He had taken off even before the conference call.
  This makes no sense. The managers' theory just makes no sense. His 
meeting with Ms. Lewinsky and his calls on her behalf had taken place 
earlier in the day. The President could not have spoken to him about 
the entry of Judge Wright's discovery order. The entry of that order 
had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Jordan's assistance to Ms. 
Lewinsky. This claim of a causal relation totally collapses when you 
look a the evidence.
  Now, the charts purporting to show causation are also riddled with 
error. I only want to show a few of them. Again, we borrowed the chart 
from Mr. Manager Hutchinson, his chart No. 7. Now he showed you this 
chart and it purports to be an account of what happened on January 5, 
1998. You see how the President and Ms. Lewinsky appear to be 
conferring about the affidavit that she is going to be filing in the 
Jones case. But when you look at the real facts, the chart becomes a 
fiction.
  Mr. Manager Hutchinson told you:

       Let's go to January 5th. This is a sort of summary of what 
     happened on that day.
       Ms. Lewinsky meets with her attorney, Mr. Carter, for an 
     hour. Carter drafts the affidavit for Ms. Lewinsky just a few 
     minutes later . . .

  And Mr. Manager Hutchinson continued:

       Frank Carter drafts the affidavit. She is so concerned 
     about it, she calls the President. The President returns Ms. 
     Lewinsky's phone call.

  Now, the suggestion here--and this is our old circumstantial evidence 
problem--the suggestion from this fact pattern is that Ms. Lewinsky 
obtained a draft affidavit from her lawyer, Mr. Carter, on January 5, 
and then in a call with the President later that day she offered it to 
him for his review.
  Possible? Yes. True? No. The facts here simply do not bear out this 
chart. Why is that? Well, it is because Mr. Carter's grand jury 
testimony is very clear that he drafted the affidavit on the morning of 
January 6, and he even billed for it on that morning. He did not draft 
it, and Ms. Lewinsky did not have it, on January 5. There is no 
causation here, no linkage. The theory on this chart doesn't stand up, 
and if I may take something else from the House managers--not simply 
their chart, but to borrow Mr. Manager Bryant's expression, ``that dog 
won't hunt.''
  Ms. Lewinsky could not have offered to show the President a draft 
affidavit she herself could not have had on January 5. The idea that 
the telephone call on that day is about that affidavit is sheer, 
unsupported speculation and, even worse, it is speculation demolished 
by fact.
  Let's kick the tires of another exhibit. Chart No. 8, which was shown 
to you by Mr. Manager Hutchinson, purports to describe the events of 
January 6. Again, it sets forth a chain of events which makes it look 
as though Mr. Jordan was himself intimately involved in drafting Ms. 
Lewinsky's affidavit. Mr. Manager Hutchinson told you when he showed 
you this chart--and I want to quote his exact words:

       The next exhibit is January 6. On this particular day, Ms. 
     Lewinsky picks up the draft affidavit. At 2:08 to 2:10 p.m., 
     she delivers that affidavit. To whom? Mr. Jordan. . . . At 
     3:48, he telephones Ms. Lewinsky about the draft affidavit, 
     and at 3:49--you will see in red--both agree to delete a 
     portion of the affidavit that created some implication that 
     maybe she had been alone with the President.
       So Mr. Jordan was very involved in the drafting of the 
     affidavit and the contents of that.

  That is the theory proposed by the chart. That is the hypothesis they 
offer on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. But there are 
problems that absolutely destroy that because when we look beyond the 
suggestive juxtaposition and consider material overlooked by the 
managers, a very different picture emerges.

[[Page 1216]]

  The key ``fact'' that chart 8 tries to establish is the statement 
that at 3:49 Mr. Jordan telephoned Ms. Lewinsky to discuss the draft 
affidavit, and they allegedly agreed ``to delete an implication that 
she had been alone with the President.''
  There is a very serious difficulty with this ``theory.'' The chart 
blithely states that ``both agree[d] to delete [the] implications that 
she had been alone with the President.'' But that is not what evidence 
shows.
  Ms. Lewinsky testified that she spoke to Mr. Jordan because she had 
concerns about the draft affidavit. According to her testimony, when 
asked whether Mr. Jordan agreed with what were clearly Ms. Lewinsky's 
ideas about changes in the affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky said, ``Yes, I 
believe so.''
  Now, Mr. Jordan recalled the conversation in which Ms. Lewinsky 
raised the subject of her draft affidavit. He remembered her saying 
that she ``had some questions about the draft of the affidavit.'' But 
his testimony was emphatic that he was ``not interested in the 
details,'' that the ``problems she had with what had been drafted for 
her signature [were] for her to work out with her counsel,'' and that 
``you [Ms. Lewinsky] have to talk to your lawyer about it.'' And Ms. 
Lewinsky did talk to her lawyer about it.
  The record is perfectly clear about that. Indeed, it could not be 
clearer, although you would not know this from chart 8, that the idea 
of deleting the reference to her being alone with the President came 
from her own lawyer, Mr. Carter. He testified to the grand jury--this 
is the lawyer who actually drafted the affidavit. He was referring to a 
passage about Ms. Lewinsky being alone with the President and he said:

       Paragraph 6 has in its [draft] form as the last part of the 
     last sentence ``and would not have been a `private meeting, 
     that is not behind closed doors'. . . .''

  According to Mr. Carter:

       This paragraph was modified when we sat down in my office 
     [on January 7], the day after the events described on chart 
     8.

  Mr. Carter further testified that ``before the meeting on the 7th, it 
was my opinion that I did not want to give Paula Jones' attorney any 
kind of a hint of a one-on-one meeting. What I told Monica was, ``If 
they ask you about it, you will tell them about it. But I'm not putting 
it in the affidavit. I am not going to give them that lead to go after 
in the affidavit, because my objective is not to have you be deposed.''
  It is clearly Mr. Carter who deleted the reference to being alone 
with the President. The bottom line is that the insinuations on that 
chart just don't survive scrutiny.
  I want to say a final thing about all the charts involving 
circumstantial evidence. You remember how many telephone calls were up 
on these charts. I am going to let you in on a little secret--a secret 
that a lot of you who are lawyers know. It is pretty easy to get 
telephone call records and to identify telephone calls. But it is a 
common trick to put them up, even though you don't know what is going 
on in the telephone calls, and ask people to assume some insidious 
relationship between events and the telephone call. No matter how many 
telephone calls are listed on the chart, you don't know, without 
testimony, what was happening in that phone call, unless the mere 
existence--and there are cases where the mere existence of a phone call 
is probative, but not in these cases. Here they are trying to weave a 
web, and no particular call is of significant importance.
  The incontroverted evidence shows that, in fact, Mr. Jordan spoke to 
the President on many, many, many occasions. He was a friend; he has 
been a friend of the President since 1973, and a call between them was 
a common occurrence. When asked in the grand jury if Mr. Jordan 
believed that the pattern of telephone calls to the President was 
``striking,'' Mr. Jordan replied, ``It depends on your point of view. I 
talk to the President of the United States all the time, and so it's 
not striking to me.''
  Mr. Jordan also testified that he never had a telephone conversation 
with the President in which Ms. Lewinsky was the only topic.
  The House managers ask you to believe, simply on faith, that if two 
things happen on the same day, they are related. This relation may be 
logical, but it is not necessarily factual. I just want to make this 
point with a couple of telephone calls. Take Mr. Manager Hutchinson's 
chart for January 17, 1998, the day of the President's deposition in 
the Jones case.
  This chart suggests that there are two calls between Mr. Jordan and 
the President after the President had concluded his deposition. One 
call is at 5:38, and the other is at 7:02. The chart does not tell you 
several important things. First, these two calls each lasted 2 minutes. 
Second, and more significantly, Mr. Jordan testified to the grand jury 
as to both telephone conversations:

       On Saturday, the 17th, in the two conversations I had with 
     the President of the United States, we did not talk about 
     Monica Lewinsky or his testimony in the deposition.

  Mr. Jordan was asked:

       Or [about] the questions asked of him in the deposition?

  And he replied:

       That is correct.

  In another exchange, the prosecutors asked Mr. Jordan:

       Did the President ever indicate to you [in the January 17 
     telephone conversations] that Monica Lewinsky was one of the 
     topics that had come up?

  Jordan replied:

       He did not.

  The prosecutors asked:

       Did the President ever indicate to you [in these two 
     conversations] that your name had come up in the deposition 
     as it related to Monica Lewinsky?

  And Mr. Jordan answered:

       He did not.

  The managers, in the absence of evidence that anyone endeavored to 
obtain Ms. Lewinsky a job in exchange for her silence, indeed, in the 
face of direct testimony of all of those involved that this did not 
happen, ask you to simply speculate. They ask you to speculate that 
since they have thrown a lot of telephone calls up there, they must 
have some sinister meaning. And they ask you to speculate that a lot of 
those phone calls must have been about Ms. Lewinsky, and they ask you 
to speculate further that in one of those unidentified, unknown phone 
calls, somebody must have said, ``Let's get Ms. Lewinsky a job in 
exchange for her silence.''
  There is no evidence for that. It is not there. It is just a theory.
  With regard to all this evidence about the job search, when you look 
at these dates, when you have the right chronology in mind, and when 
you look at the relevant and uncontested facts, these facts are there; 
they don't have to be discovered: There is no, no evidence of 
wrongdoing of any kind in connection with Ms. Lewinsky's job search 
effort in New York City. This is not a case of the managers' 
presentation resting on even circumstantial as opposed to direct 
evidence. They don't even have circumstantial evidence here. All they 
have is a theory about what happened, which isn't based on any evidence 
either direct or circumstantial.
  Nothing in this evidence is really contested when you get right down 
to it; strictly as a matter of who said what to whom when. When lawyers 
ask you to ``keep your eye on the big picture,'' when they ask you, 
``don't lose the forest for the trees,'' or ``don't get lost in the 
details,'' that is usually because the details--the stubborn facts--
refute and contradict the big picture.
  So it is here. You can keep adding zero to zero to zero for a very 
long time, and indeed forever, and you will still have zero. The big 
picture here just doesn't exist. And no matter how many times the House 
managers keep making the assertion, there is just no evidence of any 
kind.
  I realize that it has taken us a good bit of time and painstaking--
perhaps even painful--attention for each one of you to walk through 
these facts in a lawyerly manner. I am also keenly aware of the old 
saying that when all is said and done with a lawyer, there is more said 
than done. But we needed to take a look carefully and specifically at 
this evidentiary material with regard to these five grounds in the same

[[Page 1217]]

way that Ms. Mills took you through very specifically yesterday with 
regard to the other two grounds to try and dispel the popular 
misconception that we were either unwilling or unable to rebut the 
facts. We have rebutted the facts.
  The simple fact is that there is no evidence indirectly to support 
the allegation that the President obstructed justice in his December 17 
telephone call with Ms. Lewinsky, in his statements to his aides, in 
his statements to Betty Currie with relation to gifts, or the job 
search. It sometimes has been claimed by the managers that we have 
adopted a ``so what'' defense trying to take lightly or to justify the 
improper actions that are at the root of this case. Well, Senators, 
with all respect, that argument is easy to assert, but it is false, a 
straw man asserted, only to be knocked down.
  We have tried in our presentations the last few days and today to 
treat the evidence in a fair and a candid and a realistic way about the 
facts as the record reveals them. We have tried to show you that the 
core charges of obstruction of justice and perjury cannot be proven. We 
are not saying that the alleged conduct doesn't matter. We are saying 
that perjury didn't occur, and obstruction of justice didn't happen.
  We haven't tried to sugar-coat or excuse conduct that is wrong. I 
think that Mr. Manager Buyer used the right phrase when he referred to 
``self-inflicted wounds.'' There is no doubt that there are self-
inflicted wounds here, wounds that are very real and very painful and 
very troubling. There is just no question about that. The question 
before you is whether these self-inflicted wounds rise to such a level 
of lawless and unconstitutional conduct that they leave you no 
alternative, no choice but to assume the awesome responsibility for 
reversing the results of two national elections.
  On that question, what the situation demands is not eloquence, which 
the very able managers have in abundance, but rather a relentless focus 
on the facts, the law, and the Constitution, all of which are on the 
side of the President.
  It is a great honor for me to stand here. This body has been called 
``the anchor of the Republic.'' And it is that constitutional ability, 
that political sanity, that is needed now. There is a story, which is 
perhaps apocryphal, that when Thomas Jefferson returned from France 
where he served as Ambassador while his colleagues were writing the 
Constitution, that he met with George Washington, and he asked 
Washington why they had found it necessary to create the Senate. 
Washington is said to have silently removed the saucer from his teacup 
and poured the tea into the saucer and told Jefferson that like the act 
he had just performed, the Senate would be designed to cool the passion 
of the moment. Historically, this place has been really a haven of 
sanity, balance, wisdom in debating controversial issues which have 
been passionately felt, with candor, with courage, and civility.
  So once again, I think it is your responsibility and yours alone, 
committed to you by the Constitution, to make a very somber judgment. 
The President has spoken powerfully and personally of his remorse for 
what he has done.
  Others have pointed out the poisonous partisanship that led the other 
body to argue for impeachment on the most narrowly partisan vote in its 
history.
  I think that the bipartisan manner, however, in which you have 
conducted this impeachment trial is a welcome change from the events of 
the last year.
  We ask only that you give this case and give this country 
constitutional stability and the political sanity which this country 
deserves. The President did not commit perjury. He did not obstruct 
justice, and there are no grounds to remove him from office.
  Thank you.


                                 Recess

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that we recess 
the proceedings for 15 minutes, but that Senators be prepared to resume 
at 5 minutes after 4, because we have to hear the eloquence of one of 
our former colleagues.
  There being no objection, at 3:49 p.m., the Senate recessed until 
4:10 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 Senate is 
prepared now to hear the final presentation to be made by White House 
counsel, and at the conclusion of that, I will have a brief wrapup, a 
statement to make about how we hope to proceed on Friday and generally 
on Saturday. I will do that at the close of this presentation. I yield 
the floor, Mr. Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Counsel Bumpers to 
continue the presentation in the case of the President.
  Mr. COUNSEL BUMPERS. Mr. Chief Justice, my distinguished House 
managers from the House of Representatives, colleagues, I have seen the 
look of disappointment on many faces, because I know a lot of people 
really thought they would be rid of me once and for all. (Laughter.)
  I have taken a lot of ribbing this afternoon. But I have seriously 
negotiated with some people, particularly on this side, about an offer 
to walk out and not deliver this speech in exchange for a few votes. 
(Laughter.)
  I understand three have it under active consideration. (Laughter.)
  It is a great joy to see you, and it is especially pleasant to see an 
audience which represents about the size of the cumulative audience I 
had over a period of 24 years. (Laughter.)
  I came here today for a lot of reasons. One was that I was promised a 
40-foot cord. I have been shorted 28 feet. Chris Dodd said he didn't 
want me in his lap. I assume he arranged for the cord to be shortened.
  I want to especially thank some of you for your kind comments in the 
press when it received some publicity that I would be here to close the 
debate on behalf of the White House counsel and the President.
  I was a little dismayed by Senator Bennett's remark. He said, ``Yes, 
Senator Bumpers is a great speaker, but he was never persuasive with me 
because I never agreed with him.'' (Laughter.)
  I thought he could have done better than that. (Laughter.)
  You can take some comfort, colleagues, in the fact that I am not 
being paid, and when I finish, you will probably think the White House 
got their money's worth. (Laughter.)
  I have told audiences that over 24 years, I went home almost every 
weekend and returned usually about dusk on Sunday evening. And you know 
the plane ride into National Airport, when you can see the magnificent 
Washington Monument and this building from the window of the airplane--
I have told these students at the university, a small liberal arts 
school at home, Hendrix--after 24 years of that, literally hundreds of 
times, I never failed to get goose bumps.
  The same thing is true about this Chamber. I can still remember as 
though it was yesterday the awe I felt when I first stepped into this 
magnificent Chamber so full of history, so beautiful. And last Tuesday, 
as I returned, after only a short 3-week absence, I still felt that 
same sense of awe that I did the first time I walked in this Chamber.
  Colleagues, I come here with some sense of reluctance. The President 
and I have been close friends for 25 years. We fought so many battles 
back home together in our beloved Arkansas. We tried mightily all of my 
years as Governor and his, and all of my years in the Senate when he 
was Governor, to raise the living standard in the delta area of 
Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana, where poverty is unspeakable, with 
some measure of success; not nearly enough.
  We tried to provide health care for the lesser among us, for those 
who are well off enough they can't get on welfare, but not making 
enough to buy health insurance. We have fought about everything else to 
improve the

[[Page 1218]]

educational standards for a State that for so many years was at the 
bottom of the list, or near the bottom of the list, of income, and we 
have stood side by side to save beautiful pristine areas in our State 
from environmental degradation.
  We even crashed a twin engine Beech Bonanza trying to get to the 
Gillett coon supper, a political event that one misses at his own risk. 
We crashed this plane on a snowy evening at a rural airport off the 
runway sailing out across the snow, jumped out--jumped out--and ran 
away unscathed, to the dismay of every politician in Arkansas. 
(Laughter.)
  The President and I have been together hundreds of times at parades, 
dedications, political events, social events, and in all of those years 
and all of those hundreds of times we have been together, both in 
public and in private, I have never one time seen the President conduct 
himself in a way that did not reflect the highest credit on him, his 
family, his State and his beloved Nation.
  The reason I came here today with some reluctance--please don't 
misconstrue that, it has nothing to do with my feelings about the 
President, as I have already said--but it is because we are from the 
same State, and we are long friends. I know that necessarily diminishes 
to some extent the effectiveness of my words. So if Bill Clinton, the 
man, Bill Clinton, the friend, were the issue here, I am quite sure I 
would not be doing this. But it is the weight of history on all of us, 
and it is my reverence for that great document--you have heard me rail 
about it for 24 years--that we call our Constitution, the most sacred 
document to me next to the Holy Bible.
  These proceedings go right to the heart of our Constitution where it 
deals with impeachment, the part that provides the gravest punishment 
for just about anybody--the President--even though the framers said we 
are putting this in to protect the public, not to punish the President.
  Ah, colleagues, you have such an awesome responsibility. My good 
friend, the senior Senator from New York, has said it well. He says a 
decision to convict holds the potential for destabilizing the Office of 
the Presidency. And those 400 historians--and I know some have made 
light about those historians, are they just friends of Bill?
  Last evening, I went over that list of historians, many of whom I 
know, among them C. Vann Woodward. In the South we love him. He is the 
preeminent southern historian in the Nation. I promise you--he may be a 
Democrat, he may even be a friend of the President, but when you talk 
about integrity, he is the walking personification, exemplification of 
integrity.
  Well, colleagues, I have heard so many adjectives to describe this 
gallery and these proceedings--historic, memorable, unprecedented, 
awesome. All of those words, all of those descriptions are apt. And to 
those, I would add the word ``dangerous,'' dangerous not only for the 
reasons I just stated, but because it is dangerous to the political 
process. And it is dangerous to the unique mix of pure democracy and 
republican government Madison and his colleagues so brilliantly crafted 
and which has sustained us for 210 years.
  Mr. Chief Justice, this is what we lawyers call ``dicta''--this costs 
you nothing. It is extra. But the more I study that document, and those 
4 months at Philadelphia in 1787, the more awed I am. And you know what 
Madison did--the brilliance was in its simplicity--he simply said: 
Man's nature is to get other people to dance to their tune. Man's 
nature is to abuse his fellow man sometimes. And he said: The way to 
make sure that the majorities don't abuse the minorities, and the way 
to make sure that the bullies don't run over the weaklings, is to 
provide the same rights for everybody. And I had to think about that a 
long time before I delivered my first lecture at the University of 
Arkansas last week. And it made so much sense to me.
  But the danger, as I say, is to the political process, and dangerous 
for reasons feared by the framers about legislative control of the 
Executive. That single issue and how to deal with impeachment was 
debated off and on for the entire 4 months of the Constitutional 
Convention. But the word ``dangerous'' is not mine. It is Alexander 
Hamilton's--brilliant, good-looking guy--Mr. Ruff quoted extensively on 
Tuesday afternoon in his brilliant statement here. He quoted Alexander 
Hamilton precisely, and it is a little arcane. It isn't easy to 
understand.
  So if I may, at the expense of being slightly repetitious, let me 
paraphrase what Hamilton said. He said: The Senate had a unique role in 
participating with the executive branch in appointments; and, two, it 
had a role--it had a role--in participating with the executive in the 
character of a court for the trial of impeachments. But he said--and I 
must say this; and you all know it--he said it would be difficult to 
get a, what he called, well-constituted court from wholly elected 
Members. He said: Passions would agitate the whole community and divide 
it between those who were friendly and those who had inimical interests 
to the accused; namely, the President. Then he said--and these are his 
words: The greatest danger was that the decision would be based on the 
comparative strength of the parties rather than the innocence or guilt 
of the President.
  You have a solemn oath, you have taken a solemn oath, to be fair and 
impartial. I know you all. I know you as friends, and I know you as 
honorable men. And I am perfectly satisfied to put that in your hands, 
under your oath.
  This is the only caustic thing I will say in these remarks this 
afternoon, but the question is, How do we come to be here? We are here 
because of a 5-year, relentless, unending investigation of the 
President, $50 million, hundreds of FBI agents fanning across the 
Nation, examining in detail the microscopic lives of people--maybe the 
most intense investigation not only of a President, but of anybody 
ever.
  I feel strongly about this because of my State and what we have 
endured. So you will have to excuse me, but that investigation has also 
shown that the judicial system in this country can and does get out of 
kilter unless it is controlled. Because there are innocent people--
innocent people--who have been financially and mentally bankrupt.
  One woman told me 2 years ago that her legal fees were $95,000. She 
said, ``I don't have $95,000. And the only asset I have is the equity 
in my home, which just happens to correspond to my legal fees of 
$95,000.'' And she said, ``The only thing I can think of to do is to 
deed my home.'' This woman was innocent, never charged, testified 
before a grand jury a number of times. And since that time she has 
accumulated an additional $200,000 in attorney fees.
  Javert's pursuit of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables pales by 
comparison. I doubt there are few people--maybe nobody in this body--
who could withstand such scrutiny. And in this case those summoned were 
terrified, not because of their guilt, but because they felt guilt or 
innocence was not really relevant. But after all of those years, and 
$50 million of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate--you name it--nothing, 
nothing. The President was found guilty of nothing--official or 
personal.
  We are here today because the President suffered a terrible moral 
lapse of marital infidelity--not a breach of the public trust, not a 
crime against society, the two things Hamilton talked about in 
Federalist Paper No. 65--I recommend it to you before you vote--but it 
was a breach of his marriage vows. It was a breach of his family trust. 
It is a sex scandal. H.L. Mencken one time said, ``When you hear 
somebody say, `This is not about money,' it's about money.'' (Laughter)
  And when you hear somebody say, ``This is not about sex,'' it's about 
sex.
  You pick your own adjective to describe the President's conduct. Here 
are some that I would use: indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, 
shameless. I promise you the President would not contest any of those 
or any others.
  But there is a human element in this case that has not even been 
mentioned. That is, the President and Hillary and Chelsea are human 
beings. This is intended only as a mild criticism of our

[[Page 1219]]

distinguished friends from the House. But as I listened to the 
presenters, to the managers, make their opening statements, they were 
remarkably well prepared and they spoke eloquently--more eloquently 
than I really had hoped.
  But when I talk about the human element, I talk about what I thought 
was, on occasion, an unnecessarily harsh, pejorative description of the 
President. I thought that the language should have been tempered 
somewhat to acknowledge that he is the President. To say constantly 
that the President lied about this and lied about that--as I say, I 
thought that was too much for a family that has already been about as 
decimated as a family can get. The relationship between husband and 
wife, father and child, has been incredibly strained, if not destroyed. 
There has been nothing but sleepless nights, mental agony, for this 
family, for almost 5 years, day after day, from accusations of having 
Vince Foster assassinated, on down. It has been bizarre.
  I didn't sense any compassion. And perhaps none is deserved. The 
President has said for all to hear that he misled, he deceived, he did 
not want to be helpful to the prosecution, and he did all of those 
things to his family, to his friends, to his staff, to his Cabinet, and 
to the American people. Why would he do that? Well, he knew this whole 
affair was about to bring unspeakable embarrassment and humiliation on 
himself, his wife whom he adored, and a child that he worshipped with 
every fiber of his body and for whom he would happily have died to 
spare her or to ameliorate her shame and her grief.
  The House managers have said shame, an embarrassment is no excuse for 
lying. The question about lying--that is your decision. But I can tell 
you, put yourself in his position--and you have already had this big 
moral lapse--as to what you would do. We are, none of us, perfect. 
Sure, you say, he should have thought of all that beforehand. And 
indeed he should, just as Adam and Eve should have, just as you and you 
and you and you and millions of other people who have been caught in 
similar circumstances should have thought of it before. As I say, none 
of us is perfect.
  I remember, Chaplain--the Chaplain is not here; too bad, he ought to 
hear this story. This evangelist was holding this great revival meeting 
and in the close of one of his meetings he said, ``Is there anybody in 
this audience who has ever known anybody who even comes close to the 
perfection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?'' Nothing. He repeated 
the challenge and, finally, a little-bitty guy in the back held up his 
hand. ``Are you saying you have known such a person? Stand up.'' He 
stood up and said, ``Tell us, who was it?'' He said, ``My wife's first 
husband.''
  Make no mistake about it: Removal from office is punishment. It is 
unbelievable punishment, even though the framers didn't quite see it 
that way. Again, they said--and it bears repeating over and over 
again--they said they wanted to protect the people. But I can tell you 
this: The punishment of removing Bill Clinton from office would pale 
compared to the punishment he has already inflicted on himself. There 
is a feeling in this country that somehow or another Bill Clinton has 
gotten away with something. Mr. Leader, I can tell you, he hasn't 
gotten away with anything. And the people are saying: ``Please don't 
protect us from this man.'' Seventy-six percent of us think he is doing 
a fine job; 65 to 70 percent of us don't want him removed from office.
  Some have said we are not respected on the world scene. The truth of 
the matter is, this Nation has never enjoyed greater prestige in the 
world than we do right now. I saw Carlos Menem, President of Argentina, 
a guest here recently, who said to the President, ``Mr. President, the 
world needs you.'' The war in Bosnia is under control; the President 
has been as tenacious as anybody could be about Middle East peace; and 
in Ireland, actual peace; and maybe the Middle East will make it; and 
he has the Indians and the Pakistanis talking to each other as they 
have never talked to each other in recent times.
  Vaclav Havel said, ``Mr. President, for the enlargement of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization, there is no doubt in my mind that it was 
your personal leadership that made this historic development 
possible.'' King Hussein: ``Mr. President, I've had the privilege of 
being a friend of the United States and Presidents since the late 
President Eisenhower, and throughout all the years in the past I have 
kept in touch, but on the subject of peace, the peace we are seeking, I 
have never, with all due respect and all the affection I held for your 
predecessors, known someone with your dedication, clear-headedness, 
focus, and determination to help resolve this issue in the best way 
possible.''
  I have Nelson Mandela and other world leaders who have said similar 
things in the last 6 months. Our prestige, I promise you, in the world, 
is as high as it has ever been.
  When it comes to the question of perjury, you know, there is perjury 
and then there is perjury. Let me ask you if you think this is perjury: 
On November 23, 1997, President Clinton went to Vancouver, BC. And when 
he returned, Monica Lewinsky was at the White House at some point, and 
he gave her a carved marble bear. I don't know how big it was. The 
question before the grand jury, August 6, 1998:

       What was the Christmas present or presents that he got for 
     you?
       Answer: Everything was packaged in the Big Black Dog or big 
     canvas bag from the Black Dog store in Martha's Vineyard and 
     he got me a marble bear's head carving. Sort of, you know, a 
     little sculpture, I guess you would call, maybe.
       Was that the item from Vancouver?
       Yes.

  Question, on the same day of the same grand jury,

       When the President gave you the Vancouver bear on the 28th, 
     did he say anything about what it means?
       Answer: Hmm.
       Question: Well, what did he say?
       Answer: I think he--I believe he said that the bear is 
     the--maybe an Indian symbol for strength--you know, to be 
     strong like a bear.
       Question: And did you interpret that to be strong in your 
     decision to continue to conceal the relationship?
       Answer: No.

  The House Judiciary Committee report to the full House, on the other 
hand, knowing the subpoena requested gifts, is giving Ms. Lewinsky more 
gifts on December 28 seems odd. But Ms. Lewinsky's testimony reveals 
why he did so. She said that she ``never questioned that we would not 
ever do anything but keep this private, and that meant to take whatever 
appropriate steps needed to be taken to keep it quiet.''
  They say:

       The only logical inference is that the gifts, including the 
     bear symbolizing strength, were a tacit reminder to Ms. 
     Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship, even in the 
     face of a Federal subpoena.

  She just got through saying ``no.'' Yet, this report says that is the 
only logical inference. And then the brief that came over here 
accompanying the articles of impeachment said, ``On the other hand, 
more gifts on December 28 . . .'' Ms. Lewinsky's testimony reveals her 
answer. She said that she ``never questioned that we were ever going to 
do anything but keep this private, and that meant to take whatever 
appropriate steps needed to be taken to keep it quiet.''
  Again, they say in their brief:

       The only logical inference is that the gifts, including the 
     bear symbolizing strength, were a tacit reminder to Ms. 
     Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship even in the 
     face of a Federal subpoena.

  Is it perjury to say the only logical inference is something when the 
only shred of testimony in the record is, ``No, that was not my 
interpretation. I didn't infer that.'' Yet, here you have it in the 
committee report and you have it in the brief. Of course, that is not 
perjury.
  First of all, it is not under oath. But I am a trial lawyer and I 
will tell you what it is; it is wanting to win too badly. I have tried 
300, 400, maybe 500 divorce cases. Incidentally, you are being 
addressed by the entire South Franklin County, Arkansas Bar 
Association. I can't believe there were that many cases in that little 
town, but I had a practice in surrounding communities, too. In all 
those divorce cases, I

[[Page 1220]]

would guess that in 80 percent of the contested cases perjury was 
committed. Do you know what it was about? Sex. Extramarital affairs. 
But there is a very big difference in perjury about a marital 
infidelity in a divorce case and perjury about whether I bought the 
murder weapon, or whether I concealed the murder weapon or not. And to 
charge somebody with the first and punish them as though it were the 
second stands our sense of justice on its head.
  There is a total lack of proportionality, a total lack of balance in 
this thing. The charge and the punishment are totally out of sync. All 
of you have heard or read the testimony of the five prosecutors who 
testified before the House Judiciary Committee--five seasoned 
prosecutors. Each one of them, veterans, said that under the identical 
circumstances of this case, they would never charge anybody because 
they would know they couldn't get a conviction. In this case, the 
charges brought and the punishment sought are totally out of sync. 
There is no balance; there is no proportionality.
  But even stranger--you think about it--even if this case had 
originated in the courthouse rather than the Capitol, you would never 
have heard of it. How do you reconcile what the prosecutors said with 
what we are doing here? Impeachment was debated off and on in 
Philadelphia for the entire 4 months, as I said. The key players were 
Governor Morris, a brilliant Pennsylvanian; George Mason, the only man 
reputedly to be so brilliant that Thomas Jefferson actually deferred to 
him; he refused to sign the Constitution, incidentally, even though he 
was a delegate because they didn't deal with slavery and he was a 
strict abolitionist. Then there was Charles Pinckney from South 
Carolina, a youngster at 29 years old; Edmund Randolph from Virginia, 
who had a big role in the Constitution in the beginning; and then, of 
course, James Madison, the craftsman. They were all key players in 
drafting this impeachment provision.
  Uppermost in their minds during the entire time they were composing 
it was that they did not want any kings. They had lived under despots, 
under kings, and under autocrats, and they didn't want anymore of that. 
And they succeeded very admirably. We have had 46 Presidents and no 
kings. But they kept talking about corruption. Maybe that ought to be 
the reason for impeachment, because they feared some President would 
corrupt the political process. That is what the debate was about--
corrupting the political process and ensconcing one's self through a 
phony election; maybe that is something close to a king.
  They followed the British rule on impeachment, because the British 
said the House of Commons may impeach and the House of Lords must 
convict. And every one of the colonies had the same procedure--the 
House and the Senate. In all fairness, Alexander Hamilton was not very 
keen on the House participating. But here were the sequence of events 
in Philadelphia that brought us here today. They started out with 
maladministration and Madison said, ``That is too vague; what does that 
mean?'' So they dropped that. They went from that to corruption, and 
they dropped that. Then they went to malpractice, and they decided that 
was not definitive enough. And they went to treason, bribery, and 
corruption. They decided that still didn't suit them.
  Bear in mind one thing: During this entire process, they are 
narrowing the things you can impeach a President for. They were making 
it tougher. Madison said, ``If we aren't careful, the President will 
serve at the pleasure of the Senate.'' And then they went to treason 
and bribery. Somebody said that still is not quite enough, so they went 
to treason and bribery. And George Mason added, ``or other high crimes 
and misdemeanors against the United States.'' They voted on it, and on 
September 10 they sent the entire Constitution to a committee they 
called the Committee on Style and Arrangement, which was the committee 
that would draft the language in a way that everybody would 
understand--that is, well crafted from a grammatical standpoint. But 
that committee, which was dominated by Madison and Hamilton, dropped 
``against the United States.'' And the stories will tell you that the 
reason they did that was because they were redundant, because that 
committee had no right to change the substance of anything, and they 
would not have dropped it if they had not felt that it was redundant. 
Then they put it in for good measure. And we can always be grateful for 
the two-thirds majority.
  This is one of the most important points of this entire presentation. 
First of all, the term ``treason and bribery''--nobody quarrels with 
that. We are not debating treason and bribery here in this Chamber. We 
are talking about other high crimes and misdemeanors. And where did 
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' come from? It came from the English 
law. And they found it in English law under a category which said 
distinctly ``political'' offenses against the state.
  Let me repeat that. They said ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' was to 
be because they took it from English law where they found it in the 
category that said offenses distinctly ``political'' against the state.
  So, colleagues, please, for just one moment, forget the complexities 
of the facts and the tortured legalisms--and we have heard them all 
brilliantly presented on both sides. And I am not getting into that.
  But ponder this: If high crimes and misdemeanors was taken from 
English law by George Madison, which listed high crimes and 
misdemeanors as ``political'' offenses against the state, what are we 
doing here? If, as Hamilton said, it had to be a crime against society 
or a breach of the public trust, what are we doing here? Even perjury, 
concealing, or deceiving an unfaithful relationship does not even come 
close to being an impeachable offense. Nobody has suggested that Bill 
Clinton committed a political crime against the state.
  So, colleagues, if you are to honor the Constitution, you must look 
at the history of the Constitution and how we got to the impeachment 
clause. And, if you do that, and you do that honestly, according to the 
oath you took, you cannot--you can censor Bill Clinton, you can hand 
him over to the prosecutor for him to be prosecuted, but you cannot 
convict him. You cannot indulge yourselves the luxury or the right to 
ignore this history.
  There has been a suggestion that a vote to acquit would be something 
of a breach of faith with those who lie in Flanders field, Anzio, 
Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, and wherever. I did not hear that. I read 
about it. But I want to say, and, incidentally, I think it was Chairman 
Hyde who alluded to this and said those men fought and died for the 
rule of law.
  I can remember a cold November 3 morning in my little hometown of 
Charleston, AR. I was 18 years old. I had just gotten one semester in 
at the university when I went into the Marine Corps. So I was to report 
to Little Rock to be inducted. My it was cold. The drugstore was the 
bus stop. I had to be there by 8 o'clock to be sworn in. And I had to 
catch the bus down at the drugstore at 3 o'clock in the morning. So my 
mother and father and I got up at 2 o'clock, got dressed, and went down 
there. I am not sure I can tell you this story. And the bus came over 
the hill. I was rather frightened anyway about going. I was quite sure 
I was going to be killed, only slightly less frightened that Betty 
would find somebody else when I was gone.
  The bus came over the schoolhouse hill and my parents started crying. 
I had never seen my father cry. I knew I was in some difficulty. Now, 
as a parent, at my age, I know he thought he was giving not his only 
begotten son, but one of his begotten sons. Can you imagine? You know 
that scene. It was repeated across this Nation millions of times. Then, 
happily, I survived that war, saw no combat, was on my way to Japan 
when it all ended. I had never had a terrible problem with dropping the 
bomb, though that has been a terrible moral dilemma for me because the 
estimates were that we would lose as many as a million men in that 
invasion.

[[Page 1221]]

  But I came home to a generous government which provided me under the 
GI bill an education in a fairly prestigious law school, which my 
father could never have afforded. I practiced law in this little town 
for 18 years, loved every minute of it. But I didn't practice 
constitutional law. And I knew very little about the Constitution. But 
when I went into law school, I did study constitutional law, Mr. Chief 
Justice. It was very arcane to me. And trying to read the Federalist 
Papers, de Tocqueville, all of those things that law students are 
expected to do, that was tough for me. I confess.
  So after 18 years of law practice, I jumped up and ran for Governor. 
I served as Governor for 4 years. I guess I knew what the rule of law 
was, but I still didn't really have much reverence for the 
Constitution. I just did not understand any of the things I am 
discussing and telling you. No. My love for that document came day 
after day and debate after debate right here in this Chamber.
  Some of you read an op-ed piece I did a couple of weeks ago when I 
said I was perfectly happy for my legacy, that during my 24 years here 
I never voted for a constitutional amendment. And it isn't that I 
wouldn't. I think they were mistaken not giving you fellows 4 years. 
(Laughter.)
  You are about to cause me to rethink that one. (Laughter.)
  The reason I developed this love of it is because I saw Madison's 
magic working time and time again, keeping bullies from running over 
weak people, keeping majorities from running over minorities, and I 
thought about all of the unfettered freedoms we had. The oldest organic 
law in existence made us the envy of the world.
  Mr. Chairman, we have also learned that the rule of law includes 
Presidential elections. That is a part of the rule of law in this 
country. We have an event, a quadrennial event, in this country which 
we call a Presidential election, and that is the day when we reach 
across this aisle and hold hands, Democrats and Republicans, and we 
say, win or lose, we will abide by the decision. It is a solemn event, 
a Presidential election, and it should not be undone lightly or just 
because one side has the clout and the other one doesn't.
  And if you want to know what men fought for in World War II, for 
example, in Vietnam, ask Senator Inouye. He left an arm in Italy. He 
and I were with the Presidents at Normandy, on the 50th anniversary, 
but we started off in Anzio. Senator Domenici, were you with us? It was 
one of the most awesome experiences I have ever had in my life. 
Certified war hero. I think his relatives were in an internment camp. 
So ask him, what was he fighting for? Or ask Bob Kerrey, certified 
Medal of Honor winner, what was he fighting for? Probably get a quite 
different answer. Or Senator Chafee, one of the finest men ever to 
grace this body and certified Marine hero of Guadalcanal, ask him. And 
Senator McCain, a genuine hero, ask him. You don't have to guess; they 
are with us, and they are living, and they can tell you. And one who is 
not with us in the Senate anymore, Robert Dole, ask Senator Dole what 
he was fighting for. Senator Dole had what I thought was a very 
reasonable solution to this whole thing that would handle it fairly and 
expeditiously.
  The American people are now and for some time have been asking to be 
allowed a good night's sleep. They are asking for an end to this 
nightmare. It is a legitimate request. I am not suggesting that you 
vote for or against the polls. I understand that. Nobody should vote 
against the polls just to show their mettle and their courage. I have 
cast plenty of votes against the polls, and it has cost me politically 
a lot of times. This has been going on for a year, though.
  In that same op-ed piece, I talked about meeting Harry Truman my 
first year as Governor of Arkansas. I spent an hour with him--an 
indelible experience. People at home kid me about this because I very 
seldom make a speech that I don't mention this meeting. But I will 
never forget what he said: ``Put your faith in the people. Trust the 
people. They can handle it.'' They have shown conclusively time and 
time again that they can handle it.
  Colleagues, this is easily the most important vote you will ever 
cast. If you have difficulty because of an intense dislike of the 
President--and that is understandable--rise above it. He is not the 
issue. He will be gone. You won't. So don't leave a precedent from 
which we may never recover and almost surely will regret.
  If you vote to acquit, Mr. Leader, you know exactly what is going to 
happen. You are going to go back to your committees. You are going to 
get on with this legislative agenda. You are going to start dealing 
with Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, and all those things which 
the people of this country have a nonnegotiable demand that you do. If 
you vote to acquit, you go immediately to the people's agenda. But if 
you vote to convict, you can't be sure what is going to happen.
  James G. Blaine was a Member of the Senate when Andrew Johnson was 
tried in 1868, and 20 years later he recanted. He said, ``I made a bad 
mistake.'' And he said, ``As I reflect back on it, all I can think 
about is that having convicted Andrew Johnson would have caused much 
more chaos and confusion in this country than Andrew Johnson could ever 
conceivably have created.''
  And so it is with William Jefferson Clinton. If you vote to convict, 
in my opinion, you are going to be creating more havoc than he could 
ever possibly create. After all, he has only got 2 years left. So 
don't, for God sakes, heighten the people's alienation, which is at an 
all-time high, toward their Government. The people have a right, and 
they are calling on you to rise above politics, rise above 
partisanship. They are calling on you to do your solemn duty, and I 
pray you will.
  Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that that concludes the White 
House presentation. I remind all Senators that we will reconvene 
tomorrow beginning at 1 p.m. On Friday, under the provisions of Senate 
Resolution 16, we will begin the question and answer period for not to 
exceed 16 hours. The majority will begin the questioning, and as we go 
forward in that process, we will alternate back and forth across the 
aisle. I have discussed this proposition, obviously, with Senator 
Daschle, and we have discussed it in our conferences. We looked at a 
number of other alternatives, but we thought that this would be a fair 
way to proceed, that we would begin from this side with a Senator who 
will be named, and go to the other side, back and forth.
  We think this provides fairness and I hope all Members will entrust 
the Chief Justice to be fair during this portion of the deliberations, 
and for the managers and counsel to, of course, be succinct in their 
answers and respond to the question that is actually asked.
  At this time I would anticipate approximately 5 hours of questions 
and answers being used tomorrow, Friday. We would then reconvene on 
Saturday at 10 a.m., and again resume questioning, alternating back and 
forth. We have not set any definite time for Saturday. We will need to 
see how the questions go. We don't really know whether we will need 5 
hours or 10 hours or the full 16. But if we reach a point on Saturday 
where we need to conclude the day's proceedings and we feel there are 
still more questions that would need to be asked, then after 
communication on both sides of the aisle we would decide how to go 
forward.
  It is my hope that we can complete this questioning period during the 
day Friday and Saturday and conclude it Saturday. I hope the Senators 
will be thoughtful in their questions. They must be in writing. Please 
be brief with your written presentation. Dissertations would not be 
appreciated in writing at this point. And we will do our best, Mr. 
Chief Justice, to deal with the question of repetition or redundancy, 
and try to have some process that Senator Daschle and I will use to get 
the Senators' questions to the Chief Justice.
  I thank all Senators for their attention during the past 2 weeks, 
both in

[[Page 1222]]

the presentation of the case by the House managers and the presentation 
by the White House counsel. Obviously, the Senators have been here, 
attentive. We have listened. I think we have learned a great deal, and 
I appreciate the way the Senate has conducted itself.
  (The following notices of intent were received on Wednesday, January 
20, 1999:)

Notice of Intent To Suspend the Rules of the Senate by Senators Harkin 
                             and Wellstone

       In accordance to Rule V of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, I (for myself and for Mr. Wellstone) 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 
     debate by Senators on any motion to dismiss, any motion to 
     subpoena witnesses and/or to present any evidence not in the 
     record 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 
     directs 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 phrase ``without debate'', ``except 
     when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in that 
     case'' and ``, to be had without debate''.
                                  ____


    Notice of Intent To Suspend the Rules of the Senate by Senators 
                          Wellstone and Harkin

       In accordance to Rule V of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, I (for myself and for Mr. Harkin) 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 
     debate by Senators on any motion to dismiss, any motion to 
     subpoena witnesses and/or to present any evidence not in the 
     record 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 
     directs 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''.
                                  ____


Notice of Intent To Suspend the Rules of the Senate by Senators Harkin 
                             and Wellstone

       In accordance to Rule V of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, I (for myself and for Mr. Wellstone) 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 
     debate by Senators on a motion to dismiss 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 
     directs 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''.
                                  ____


    Notice of Intent To Suspend the Rules of the Senate by Senators 
                          Wellstone and Harkin

       In accordance to Rule V of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, I (for myself and for Mr. Harkin) 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 
     debate by Senators on a motion to dismiss 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 
     directs 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''.
                                  ____


Notice of Intent To Suspend the Rules of the Senate by Senators Harkin 
                             and Wellstone

       In accordance to Rule V of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, I (for myself and for Mr. Wellstone) 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 
     debate by Senators on a motion 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 
     directs 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''.
                                  ____


    Notice of Intent To Suspend the Rules of the Senate by Senators 
                          Wellstone and Harkin

       In accordance to Rule V of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, I (for myself and for Mr. Harkin) 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 
     debate by Senators on a motion 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 
     directs 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''.

                          ____________________