[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1370-1390]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
  Gracious God, You not only guide our steps, You order our stops for 
quiet times of prayer. We hear Your words spoken through the psalmist. 
``Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, 
I will be exalted in the earth''--Psalm 46:10. Help us absorb the true 
meaning of these words translating the original Hebrew. You call us to 
let up, leave off, let go, and truly know that You are God. You are in 
control. We cannot be still inside until we reaffirm that You are in 
control of us, this Nation, and this Senate. We exalt You El Shaddai, 
all-sufficient one; Adonai, our Lord; Jehovah-raah, our Shepherd who 
guides; Jehovah-rapha, who heals our bodies and our relationships; 
Jehovah-shammah, God who is here. Strengthen the Senators as they seek 
to exalt You, as these pages of American history are written during 
this trial. You bless the Nation that exalts You! Through Him who 
taught us to seek first Your kingdom and Your righteousness. Amen.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
  The Sergeant at Arms, James W. Ziglar, made proclamation as follows:

       Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to 
     keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the 
     United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of 
     impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against 
     William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.


                              The Journal

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there is no objection, the Journal of 
proceedings of the trial are approved to date.
  The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, we are now prepared to 
hear arguments regarding the subpoenaing of witnesses and the taking of 
their depositions. I understand the House managers will submit the list 
and begin their argument; the White House counsel will then state their 
arguments, with the House managers making the final closing statement. 
This period has been limited to 4 hours instead of the 6 hours that had 
been earlier indicated.
  I also expect a motion may be offered again to close the session with 
regard to deliberations by the Senators. I need some further 
consultation with Senator Daschle to confirm that. It could be that we 
could work it out without having to do the recorded vote. Therefore, 
votes could occur this evening--probably between 4:30 p.m. and 5 
o'clock.
  As always, we expect to take a break after about an hour and a half 
in the proceedings, and it may be a little bit longer than usual, so 
that if Senators were not able to grab a quick bite, they might be able 
to grab a little something in the cloakroom during that first break. So 
it might be a little longer than ordinary. And I expect that will occur 
sometime around 1:30 approximately.
  Before we begin, since I see that there are still a few Senators who 
are not in the Chamber, I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. Chief 
Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. If all Senators, counsel and managers would return to their 
desks, I believe we are ready to begin.
  Mr. Chief Justice, again, just for the information of all Senators, 
what happens next is I believe that a manager will be recognized on 
behalf of the House to present a motion with regard to subpoenaing 
witnesses and then the presentations will begin first by the House 
managers and then by the White House counsel and then closed by the 
House managers to be spread over 4 hours, but that at approximately 
1:30 we will take a break so that we can assess how to proceed the 
balance of the day, and perhaps even get a bite to eat if Senators 
hadn't had that opportunity. It won't be an extended break, but it will 
be longer than normal.
  I believe we are ready to proceed, Mr. Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant on behalf 
of the House managers.


      Motion for Appearance of Witnesses and Admission of Evidence

  Mr. Manager BRYANT. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a motion to present.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The manager will send the motion to the desk. The 
clerk will read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion of the United States House of Representatives for 
     the appearance of witnesses at a deposition and to admit 
     evidence not in the Record.

       Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by 
     and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully 
     submits to the United States Senate its motion for the 
     appearance of witnesses at a deposition and to admit evidence 
     not in the record in connection with the Impeachment Trial of 
     William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
       The House moves that the Senate authorize and issue 
     subpoenas for the appearance of the following witnesses at a 
     deposition for the purpose of providing testimony related to 
     the Impeachment Trial:
       1. Monica S. Lewinsky;
       2. Vernon Jordan; and
       3. Sidney Blumenthal.
       Further, the House moves that the Senate admit into 
     evidence the following material not currently in the record:
       1. the affidavit of Barry Ward, Law Clerk to the Honorable 
     Susan Webber Wright, U.S. District Court Judge for the 
     Eastern District of Arkansas;
       2. the sworn declaration of T. Wesley Holmes, and 
     attachments thereto; and
       3. certain telephone records which document conversations 
     between Monica S. Lewinsky and William Jefferson Clinton, 
     including a 56-minute exchange on December 6, 1997.
       Additionally, the House petitions the Senate to request the 
     appearance of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the 
     United States, at a deposition, for the purpose of providing 
     testimony related to the Impeachment Trial.

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, as modified by 
the order of January 25, the managers on the part of the House of 
Representatives and counsel for the President each have 2 hours to 
present their arguments on this motion.
  The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.
  Mr. Manager McCollum.
  Mr. Manager McCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the Senate, we are here today to 
argue for the presentation of witnesses, and I want to state at the 
outset a couple of observations of mine regarding this.
  The House managers have always understood the Senate's sense of the 
rules on these matters, and we don't question that fact. But I think it 
is important, to set the record clear here today, to say at the outset 
that we have always believed, and we still do believe, that 10 or 12 
witnesses are what we should have and should have been permitted to 
call to prove our case. We

[[Page 1371]]

have estimated that this could be done in a matter of 2 weeks at the 
outside, including all cross-examination. That is what we think the 
normal order would have been; it is what we think it should have been. 
But we have been told again and again, and we believe it is true, that 
if we made such a request it would not be approved. And a few weeks ago 
we thought--maybe even a few days ago--that we could submit a list of 
maybe five or six witnesses and there would be a reasonable chance that 
for deposition they would be approved and maybe two or three of them 
actually could be presented here live in the Chamber.
  Now we have been led to believe, and we think it is an accurate 
assessment, that in order to get a vote to approve the opportunity to 
take depositions alone, whether or not anyone is called, we cannot 
submit more than two or three witnesses to you.
  That is what we have done today. We have submitted a motion for 
simply three witnesses: Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney 
Blumenthal.
  The two people who know the most about this are Monica Lewinsky and 
President William Jefferson Clinton, and while we have not submitted to 
you today the name of President Clinton in our motion, we strongly urge 
that if you allow us to have witnesses, which we believe you should, 
that you, in addition--or even if you don't--on your own call President 
Clinton here to testify. We think that it is exceedingly important that 
you have an opportunity, we have an opportunity for you to examine him 
and these other witnesses to get at the truth of this matter and to end 
all the speculation that would resolve this matter and let you draw the 
proper inferences and conclusions.
  I will simply say that I am going to make a brief outline of the 
matter of why we should have witnesses for you, the three we are asking 
for, and I will be followed in order, so you can get some sequence to 
this, by Manager Bryant, who will discuss in detail the reason why we 
think it is appropriate to call specifically Monica Lewinsky; Manager 
Hutchinson, who will discuss Mr. Jordan as a witness; and Manager 
Rogan, who will discuss Mr. Blumenthal.
  If our motion is granted--I want to make this very, very clear--at no 
point will we ask any questions of Monica Lewinsky about her explicit 
sexual relations with the President, either in deposition or, if we are 
permitted, on the floor of the Senate. They will not be asked. That, of 
course, assumes that White House counsel does not enter into that 
discussion, and we doubt that they would.
  Secondly, we do not see why the entire process of deposing and 
calling all of these witnesses right here live would have to take more 
than just a very few days, 2, 3, 4, 5, maybe early next week at the 
latest. There is no reason why it has to be longer than that. We 
absolutely reject the argument that some were making--and I do not know 
why they were making it--that somehow, if we have a single witness out 
here, it is going to mean weeks and weeks of protracted delay in this 
trial.
  That is not so, and certainly not so with the three witnesses we are 
asking you today to permit us to present.
  I also want to address the argument that has been made by some that 
witnesses should only be permitted if there is new evidence.
  Now, we believe, we managers, that we will present to you new 
evidence with the witnesses that we have asked you to let us depose, 
but think through this with me for one moment. Under the rules you have 
set up, if we take depositions, which we are required to do, of every 
one of these witnesses, at the end of the day when those depositions 
are completed, all the new evidence that we could imagine certainly 
will be--from those three witnesses--in those depositions, and the 
argument will be made, I am sure, that there is no reason to have a 
live witness out here at all.
  That had to be a preconceived notion by somebody who thought of that 
in the first place. If that is the argument, that should not be the 
standard. It should be one of the standards but not the standard, not 
the sole standard. There is a lot more to a witness, and the reason why 
you need to have a witness out here, than simply new evidence.
  In real criminal trials, virtually all witnesses are deposed before 
they are brought to trial, and then the counsel on each side decide 
which witnesses they will call. They are called. They are examined. 
They are cross-examined. And unless a witness is deceased or laid up or 
there is some other extraordinary reason why that witness isn't there, 
especially a key witness, then the witness normally is here live.
  It is especially true in a case like this where much of the evidence, 
not necessarily all of it--there is quite a bit of direct evidence--but 
much of the evidence is circumstantial and requires you to draw, as 
many finders of fact do all across this country every day, inferences 
and conclusions that involve the credibility of the witness, that 
involve the way it is said, that involve inflections and spontaneity of 
the witness, the exchange of the counsel asking the question and the 
witness, and a description and flavor of which you simply can't get 
without having the person here to observe.
  That is what jurors do all the time. I think it is especially 
important, as well, because there is conflicting testimony.
  Now, I do not suppose we have a stand here today, but you have in 
front of you a credibility of witness instruction I think we passed 
out. We would like for you to keep it. It is a credibility of witness 
instruction that--here it is over here on this side. It is a 
credibility of witness instruction that is longer than that. I just 
excerpted a part of it and put it up here on this board. I know you 
can't all see that but you should have this sheet. If you don't, please 
ask for it. This is a jury instruction that is given in the District of 
Columbia. It is something that is given here as a part of our Federal 
system. And it is important, I think, for this particular paragraph, to 
read it, to understand it, because you wouldn't even write this jury 
instruction if you didn't expect to have live witnesses:

       In reaching a conclusion as to the credibility of any 
     witness, you may consider any matter that may have a bearing 
     on the subject.

  That is part of the instruction.

       You may consider the demeanor and behavior of the witness.

  I think that is important. It is the third paragraph you looked at, 
the bottom paragraph.

       You may consider the demeanor and the behavior of the 
     witness on the witness stand; the witness' manner of 
     testifying; whether the witness impresses you as a truthful 
     person; whether the witness impresses you as having an 
     accurate memory and recollection; whether the witness has any 
     motive for not telling the truth; whether the witness had a 
     full opportunity to observe the matters about which he or she 
     has testified; whether the witness has any interest in the 
     outcome of this case or friendship or hostility toward other 
     people concerned with this case.

  Demeanor, manner, truthfulness, how the witness impresses you--if you 
don't have that witness here, and it is a critical witness, there is no 
way as a trier of fact you can make those judgments fairly. There just 
isn't any way. We think that it is terribly critical, not only that we 
are permitted to depose these witnesses, but with respect particularly 
to Monica Lewinsky and perhaps all three of them, that we be permitted 
to bring those witnesses here at the end of the day and examine them 
and let the President's counsel examine them.
  The arguments of the President's counsel have been, to some extent, 
to you and to me--and I have heard it repeated several times--that 
somehow circumstantial evidence is not that important, that it is 
somehow inferior to direct evidence. I am not going to pass out a jury 
instruction on that again. You have already heard us talk about that. 
The reality is the jury instruction, if we passed one out to you today, 
would say exactly what we said before: Circumstantial evidence is given 
the same weight, the same weight as direct evidence. Inferences have to 
be drawn.
  I don't know any case in this country in a criminal matter--or 
rarely; I should not say ``any.'' I suppose there

[[Page 1372]]

is a confession that always you get once in a while and you read about 
it in the paper. But in almost every criminal case, you have to draw 
inferences; there has to be circumstantial evidence of some sort. There 
is nothing wrong with that. President's counsel has said that somehow 
the nature of the evidence means that you should automatically acquit 
him. I just don't buy that at all.
  What are inferences? Let's put inferences up for a second so you can 
look at that. Inferences are on this side. This is another jury 
instruction. I don't know if you have got this one, but we will give it 
to you. This is another one that is given out:

       An inference is a deduction or a conclusion which you . . . 
     as finders of facts--are permitted to draw . . . from the 
     facts which have been established by either direct or 
     circumstantial evidence. In drawing inferences you should 
     exercise your common sense. . . . You are permitted to draw 
     from the facts which you find to be proven, such reasonable 
     inferences as would be justified in light of your experience.

  A few days ago one of the White House counsel, Mr. Kendall, attempted 
to make you think it was very difficult to prove a crime by 
circumstantial evidence. You may remember Mr. Kendall told the story 
about a fellow who came out of his house one morning and he saw his 
driveway was wet and he immediately thought it must have rained last 
night. But, Mr. Kendall said, this man noticed right after that that 
his neighbor's water sprinkler was dripping and he thought, well, maybe 
the water sprinkler caused it to be wet. And he used that 
illustration--ended the story right there--of how difficult 
circumstantial evidence is and how likely you might draw the wrong 
conclusion from inferences.
  Mr. Kendall didn't allow you to proceed with the next commonsense 
step that shows how powerful circumstantial evidence can be. Let's 
suppose the man got up in the morning, he walked out of his house, he 
saw that his driveway was wet, he thought maybe it had rained. He 
immediately observed the water sprinkler was dripping. He thought, 
well, maybe the water sprinkler caused it and he looked down the street 
then and looked at not only his neighbor's sidewalk where it was wet as 
well as his, and the driveway, but he looked at his neighbor's. And he 
looked at several others all around his neighborhood and they were dry.
  The obvious conclusion from circumstantial evidence is the neighbor's 
water sprinkler caused his sidewalk or his driveway to be wet and it 
didn't rain. It is a kind of a reasonable, commonsense, inferential, 
circumstantial conclusion you are allowed to draw. You are the finders 
of fact, and I think that that suggestion was wrong.
  But this is why we need witnesses. You need to be able to see the 
temperament, you need to be able to have the background, you need to be 
able to have the feel or the flavor to draw those inferences properly.
  In the impeachment case before you, you have both direct and 
circumstantial evidence that the President engaged in a pattern of 
obstruction, perjury, and witness tampering designed to deny the court 
in the Jones case what Judge Wright had determined that Jones had a 
right to discover in order to prove her claim. You have to use your 
common sense to get at this. Seeing, hearing, observing those live 
witnesses is important.
  If you remember at the outset of this case, at the outset of these 
proceedings, I tried to draw your attention to what this was about in a 
nutshell. Some have said it is a theory of the case. The White House 
wants to call it speculation. It is not speculation. It is what, from 
all the evidence--especially once you have heard Monica Lewinsky and 
Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal, I think adding the flavor that you 
need to have, adding the body language you need to observe, adding the 
credibility that you need to establish in this--I think that is the 
proper inference and the proper conclusion you need to draw.
  What was that nutshell? I won't bore you with going into every detail 
again, but I want to remind you what the record, we think, shows that 
this additional witness presentation would augment and be very 
important to. It shows the President had a well-thought-out scheme. He 
resented the Jones lawsuit. He was alarmed when Monica Lewinsky's name 
appeared on the witness list and even more alarmed when Judge Wright 
issued her order signaling the court would hear the evidence of the 
relationship.
  To keep his relationship with Monica Lewinsky from the court once it 
was apparent to him he was going to have to testify, he knew he would 
have to lie to the court. To succeed at this, he decided he had to get 
Monica Lewinsky to file a false affidavit to try to avoid her 
testifying. He needed to get her a job to make her happy, to make sure 
she executed the affidavit and then stick with her lies if questioned.
  Then the gifts were subpoenaed. He had to have her hide the gifts, 
the only tangible evidence that could link him to her. She came up with 
the idea of giving them to Betty Currie and the President seized on 
that. Who would think to ask Betty? Then he would be free to lie to the 
court in the deposition. But after this, he realized he had to make 
sure Betty would lie and cover for him. He got his aides convinced to 
repeat his lies to the grand jury and the public, and all this worked 
until the dress showed up. Then he lied to the grand jury to try to 
cover up and explain away his prior crimes.
  The President knowingly, intentionally, willfully set out on a course 
of conduct in December 1997 to lie to the Jones court, to hide his 
relationship, and to encourage others to lie and hide evidence to 
conceal the relationship with Monica Lewinsky from the court.
  That is the straightforward case that we presented. It is there. But 
it is very important that you recognize this is not speculation but it 
is supported by the evidence. But it needs to have the witnesses here.
  I am not going to go into every one of the articles. I am not going 
to go over all that again. You have them in front of you. But you know 
there are four provisions, four different provisions of the perjury 
article, and there are seven counts in the obstruction article. And, in 
addition to the seven counts, we believe you have the right to consider 
the lies the President made in the civil Paula Jones deposition as a 
part of his obstruction of justice, as written in the body of that 
article.
  Why do I raise what is there on the table? Well, you can find the 
President guilty of any one of the perjury or obstruction of justice 
charges. In our judgment, if you find him guilty of any one, you can 
convict him and you can remove him from office. We think that is 
appropriate. We think that you should, that every one of them rises to 
that level.
  I want to make a point to you, too, for example, about the first one 
in the perjury, about the nature and details of his relationship with 
Monica Lewinsky. Let's just say for a minute, so you will get this one 
clear, if I could beg your indulgence, there were a lot of questions 
raised out here about particular statements that might be perjurious, 
some of which may have sounded a little bit more stretched to you than 
others did. But the body and the gravamen of that is that they are all 
grand jury perjury about that relationship. Cumulatively, that is what 
you are voting on. You are not voting on each and every one of these; 
particularly ``the'' singular lie that hangs the President of the 
United States. And there are four--there are three more in addition to 
that to look at. So, please, look at all of them.
  We also strongly believe that each of these constitutes high crimes 
and misdemeanors. It is very hard for us to conceive that there is a 
different standard for impeaching the President and impeaching a judge. 
We know that has been argued to you out here, but it is very hard for 
us to conceive of this. On the other hand, I am aware that many of you 
believe, and I am sure some of you at least do--I hope it is not many, 
but I said many--that no matter whether or not the President is guilty 
of the perjury and obstruction of justice, everything that is in here 
in great detail, everything we have told you, there are some of you who 
believe that none of that rises to the level of a high

[[Page 1373]]

crime and misdemeanor and that the President should not be removed from 
office.
  On the other hand, I think that the majority of you do believe that, 
if the President committed all of this, surely it would rise to the 
level of high crimes and misdemeanors. How can you leave a man in 
office who is President of the United States who has so intentionally, 
through his scheme that he has concocted to deny the court justice, 
deny information to a person who is trying to plead their case, gone 
through it systematically and lied again and again and again and then 
went intentionally, calculatingly, and lied to the grand jury about it 
again?
  It is very hard to conceive of that. But I also suspect that most of 
you at the end of the day will question some of these and, as I said 
earlier, you don't have to conclude that he committed all of them to 
convict him, certainly not to find him guilty of the charges, but 
somewhere in between. Is it 50 percent of them? Is it seven-eighths of 
them? How many of them does it take? What is the weight for some of 
you? Each one of you will be judging this differently.
  But in that process, there is no doubt in my mind that you need to go 
through the process of looking and hearing from these witnesses to make 
that decision, and if you have a doubt, not in your own mind, maybe 
some of you have no doubt at all that he is guilty of any and all of 
these crimes, but if you think one of your other colleagues does have 
that doubt at this moment, for gosh sakes, let's let the witnesses come 
here and let us have the chance to erase that doubt in the way you 
normally do in a trial.
  For a few of the criminal charges under the articles of impeachment, 
under both of them, it is our judgment that the President's guilt is so 
clear and convincing and compelling that we don't think that any 
witnesses are needed to be called in deposition or in person.
  First, contrary to the impressions that the White House counsel would 
like to leave you, it should be clear to anybody reading the record 
that the President committed perjury before the grand jury when he told 
that he never touched certain body parts of Ms. Lewinsky, which 
touching the President admitted would clearly be within the definition 
of sexual relations in the Jones case.
  Ms. Lewinsky testified that he touched these parts on a number of 
different occasions in a manner clearly within the President's 
understanding of that definition. The record contains testimony from at 
least six different friends and counselors with whom Ms. Lewinsky spoke 
and described these details contemporaneously as they occurred.
  White House counsel has repeatedly tried to dismiss this absolutely 
clear perjury by claiming that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is 
uncorroborated and, therefore, you couldn't prove perjury to the court. 
They say again and again and again, it is a ``he says-she says'' 
situation.
  This is a gross misstatement of the law. Even if there were no 
corroborating witnesses--and there are in this case--a person could be 
and would be convicted of perjury before any court in this country 
based on the evidence that is in this record now. We don't have to 
bring anything else in here, and we are not planning to do so to prove 
that.
  The law covering grand jury perjury, which has been on the books 
since 1970, does not require a corroborating witness and does not 
require corroborating evidence. There are more than 100 people serving 
in Federal prison today who have been convicted under this 1970 grand 
jury statute for perjury where it is one person's word against another, 
several of them for lies about sexual relations.
  All you need to convict is to accept Monica Lewinsky had no motive to 
lie about this, the President did, and you have to draw the inferences 
you logically can from the chain of events that are in this record. But 
even though you don't need any corroborating testimony, there is 
corroborating testimony. There are the six people--friends and 
counselors--with whom she talked about this contemporaneously. Again, 
the White House counselors have tried to persuade you, wrongly, that 
you should not consider this, that this would not be admissible, these 
corroborating witnesses in any courtroom in the country, they say, and 
that is not true.
  There are at least three exceptions to the hearsay rule which would, 
in all probability, permit those prior consistent statements to come in 
and corroborate that testimony.
  The bottom line is the perjury of the President in this case is as 
plain as day on the record, and we don't need to call any witnesses on 
this matter. And we also believe there are a number of other perjuries 
in that grand jury, that I am not going to go into detail about, that 
are just as plain on the record. We don't need to call witnesses that 
he perjured himself when he told the grand jury it was his goal to be 
truthful in the Jones deposition. That is what he told the grand jury. 
It was his goal to be truthful.
  The record is replete with many lies that he told in that deposition 
and, in the face of telling the grand jury that his goal was to be 
truthful, he committed perjury.
  Nor do we believe that any witness needs to be called to further 
establish the President's guilt of the crime that is obstruction of 
justice and witness tampering in the case where he met Betty Currie on 
the day after his Jones deposition and suggested to her all those false 
declaratory statements that we have been over so many times in here.
  Betty Currie's testimony in this matter is undisputed on the record. 
The White House counsel's argument that the President was just 
refreshing his memory is absurd on its face.
  The same is true of the obstruction of justice and perjury charges 
related to allowing his attorney during the Jones deposition to make 
false and misleading statements with regard to Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit 
and then lying about not even paying attention to the attorneys' 
exchange with the judge on this matter. The record is clear. You 
watched the videotape on it. Inferences are perfectly appropriate to be 
drawn from body language. You saw it on the videotape. You saw it. No 
more witnesses are needed. The President committed these crimes.
  On the other hand, we believe that you do need--we need to bring in 
witnesses to resolve conflicting testimony to give you a true picture 
of the President's scheme to lie and conceal evidence for the other 
obstruction of justice charges and certainly for the last perjury 
charge. They are more complex. They are more dependent on 
circumstantial evidence and inferences you logically have to draw. And 
that is why you need to hear from Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and 
Sidney Blumenthal, to tell you about these things themselves.
  When you do, you are just plain going to get a different flavor; you 
are going to feel the sense of this. We believe you will find at the 
end of the day, once you have done that, even though you don't need to 
use this standard, that the President is guilty of the entire scheme we 
presented to you in every detail beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Remember, you don't need to convict him to find him guilty of all of 
the crimes we have suggested by any stretch of the imagination. You 
don't need to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. That is not 
required of you. But we can understand why many of you or some of you 
might.
  The reality is that we are in a position--you are in a position--
where you need, though, to make these determinations, and to make them 
you need to have the witnesses. In any courtroom where you are going to 
certainly judge something beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to assess 
the credibility of the witnesses where you have conflicting testimony.
  One point in that regard, too, is, we have heard White House counsel 
say a number of times that somehow the fact that there is so much 
conflicting testimony makes our case weaker. That is not so. Again, 
unless the bad guy admits he is guilty, when you go to trial in a 
criminal case you always have

[[Page 1374]]

conflicting testimony, at least you certainly have the accused denying 
it, and very, very frequently, most often, you have a lot of other 
people who are conflicting.
  The fact that there is conflict is something for the triers of fact 
to resolve, but, again, resolve by listening to the witnesses, checking 
their demeanor, watching their body language, determining their 
credibility, feeling the case-flow, seeing how it fits together, 
watching.
  I am not going to be the one describing what Monica Lewinsky is going 
to show you if she comes in here. I am going to tell you, even if we 
depose her, having had the opportunity to talk with this intelligent 
and very impressionable young woman the other day, I can tell you that 
she herself will convey this story to you in a way that it cannot be 
conveyed off a piece of paper. It just cannot be.
  I suppose that is why the White House counselors are so afraid of our 
calling any witnesses. They don't want you to have the opportunity to 
see that, an opportunity you can only get the full flavor of if not 
only you let us take the depositions, but you at least let us call her 
live here on the floor, preferably with our other two witnesses as 
well.
  They know that the written record conceals this. There is no way to 
lift that out. There is no way for you to see the relationship, how she 
responds to the questions, how she answers, how she conducts herself in 
making it very apparent what the President's true meaning and intent 
was.
  If you remember, a lot of this is his state of mind. In the not too 
distant future, Monica Lewinsky is going to be free of the gag order 
and is going to go out and talk to people freely. She should. At that 
point in time, she is going to have the public judging her, and they 
are going to be judging this case, as will history, and I suggest that 
the public at that point in history as well will be judging you and not 
judging the Senate well if it doesn't let her come here and testify.
  Let me briefly turn to the last thing I want to do. I want to 
describe, so you know what it is, the three additional pieces of new 
evidence we would like admitted in this motion.
  First is the affidavit of Barry W. Ward who had been a law clerk to 
Judge Wright during the consideration of the Jones case. None of this, 
I think, should be controversial, but we do have it, and I want to 
cover it briefly. In his affidavit, he attests to the fact that at 
President Clinton's deposition in the Jones case, that he, Mr. Ward, 
was sitting at the conference table next to Judge Wright, that he was 
able to observe the colloquy between the judge and Mr. Bennett.
  You recall, Mr. Bennett was engaged in this colloquy about the 
affidavit of Monica Lewinsky. And that is what you saw, the film 
footage of the President and the questions. Was the President 
observant? Was he watching? Was he keen? And that affidavit goes to 
that point. And it is the testimony of Mr. Ward with regard to the fact 
that the President was observant.
  Secondly, we have a piece of new evidence, and that is the 
declaration of the Jones attorney, T. Wesley Holmes, and the attached 
copies of the subpoena in that case, the subpoena in that case to Betty 
Currie, dated January 22, 1998, along with proof of service, dated 
January 27, 1998.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. It is my 
understanding that Senate Resolution 16 says----
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Vermont is advised it takes 
unanimous consent to allow a parliamentary inquiry in the proceeding.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Chief Justice, I object to the references the manager 
is making to new information. It is my understanding that from Senate 
Resolution 16, the material outside the record may only be presented in 
connection with a motion to expand the record. This new information--we 
have skirted it already with the Lewinsky interview this weekend, but 
now the latest that Mr. Manager McCollum states, I would say 
respectfully, expands that record and, indeed, we are not at that 
point.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes. I think the motion that the managers have 
made is a motion to authorize the presentation of evidence that is not 
in the record. And so I think that is a fair comment. I overrule the 
objection.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chief Justice.
  Mr. Manager McCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  The attachments to Mr. Holmes' declaration is the proof of the 
subpoena being issued to Betty Currie in January, on January 22, 1998, 
along with service in the Jones case on January 27, 1998, and a copy of 
the supplemental witness list, including the name of Betty Currie, 
which was served on January 23, 1998. And in his declaration, Mr. 
Holmes explains that Ms. Currie was subpoenaed because of testimony 
given by President Clinton in his deposition and because of reliable 
information which the attorneys had received to this effect--that Ms. 
Currie was an instrumental person in facilitating Monica Lewinsky's 
meetings with the President and central to their ``cover story,'' as 
Mr. Holmes refers to it. He explicitly denies that any ``Washington 
Post'' article played any part in the decision of the Jones attorneys 
to subpoena Ms. Currie.
  And in the third and final piece of new evidence that we ask you to 
take in and accept is a declaration and accompanying documents with 
regard to a telephone conversation showing that a conversation occurred 
on December 6 for 56 minutes between the President and Ms. Lewinsky, 
which we believe that is what it shows. Obviously, the phone records 
show the phone records. And they state what they are. But we suggest to 
you that that is relevant information because it confirms what we think 
the testimony in the record otherwise would lead you to believe.
  At this point in time, having given you an overview and having given 
you this amount of new evidence, I want to turn the microphone over and 
yield to my colleague, Mr. Bryant, the rest of the time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.
  Mr. Manager BRYANT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I inquire as to our time 
remaining?
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Just under 90 minutes.
  Mr. Manager BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  Distinguished Senators, a recent letter from Manager Hyde to Senator 
Daschle stated that it has always been the position of the House 
managers that a trial with the benefit of relevant witnesses is in the 
best interest of the Senate and the American people. The defense 
attorneys for the President, as well as others in this body, have 
publicly stated that they do not want witnesses.
  Through the question-and-answer session that we have just 
participated in over the last few days, some in this body have made it 
clear that they would prefer a few sharply focused witnesses limited 
only to the most relevant witnesses. We heard this. And as a result of 
our submission this morning, you will see that we have proposed three 
witnesses.
  Now, as background, we have brought this down from some 15 witnesses 
that we initially thought we would like to call. We eliminated, 
obviously, many witnesses that we would still like to call. But with 
respect for this body, and certainly the sensitivity that we feel, we 
heard that three witnesses would be probably the best situation.
  I think from, again, the tone of the questions, the directness of 
many of the questions, we did get that message clearly. And from these 
three witnesses we feel that we have the broadest coverage of the two 
articles of impeachment.
  Within the obstruction article, there are in essence seven so-called 
counts, seven instances that we allege. And with these three witnesses, 
we managed to cover six of those seven, with the one that we don't 
quite cover being the tampering with Betty Currie. As you will note she 
is not on that list. But, again, bringing this down to three, we had to 
eliminate, again, some

[[Page 1375]]

witnesses we would have preferred to call.
  Also, based on what we have read and what we have heard, it is clear 
that a very few have already determined that even assuming the truth of 
the articles of impeachment--the perjury and obstruction of justice--
that they are insufficient to convict this President of high crimes and 
misdemeanors. Since each of you, as Senators, must consider this matter 
and vote your own conscience with impartial justice, that is apparently 
your individual decision, although with all due respect, I would 
suggest a premature decision before all the proof and all the arguments 
are made.
  One example of not having heard a complete case is Ms. Lewinsky. She 
is probably the most relevant witness, that is, aside from the 
President himself who so far has indicated through his counsel that he 
will not testify; and I might add also has not answered the questions 
that at least some Senators sent to the White House for his answering, 
based on his attorney's statement that he would be willing to answer 
questions.
  So with that aside, Ms. Lewinsky is probably the most important 
witness left. And wouldn't you at least like to see and hear from her 
on this? As the triers of fact, wouldn't you want to observe the 
demeanor of Ms. Lewinsky and test her credibility--as I say, look into 
the eyes and test the credibility of these witnesses? Compare her 
version of the testimony to the contested events. And remember, the 
President's attorneys, in numerous ways, in their vigorous defense of 
the President, have challenged Ms. Lewinsky's version of the facts.
  I believe the majority of other Senators have not yet reached a final 
determination, and it is to you now that I make this further 
proposition. If there is one witness you and the American people 
honestly do need to hear, it is Ms. Lewinsky. As you probably read in 
the newspapers, her lawyers don't want her to testify. They are good 
lawyers, and they don't want to have her out here.
  And despite the protestations of the White House and their attorneys 
during the House hearings that they wanted to hear fact witnesses, we 
now know absolutely and without a doubt the White House does not want 
to hear Ms. Lewinsky--does not want you to hear Ms. Lewinsky. And Ms. 
Lewinsky, if the truth be known, probably does not want to come in here 
and testify.
  These are not our witnesses. We didn't get this case in a brown 
envelope. We sort of didn't have any choice in selecting the witnesses. 
The witnesses are all out there--basically White House employees, 
friends of the White House, or former employees. These are not going to 
be our friends if they come in and testify. They are not going to be 
sympathetic to us, although we can anticipate that they would tell the 
truth. And that certainly would be our belief with Ms. Lewinsky if she 
were called.
  We believe she understands her responsibility, despite any feelings 
that she might have about the President, or the job that he is doing as 
President, that she understands the responsibility to tell the truth.
  And Senators, she does have a story to tell. And given the link that 
she has, that common thread that she has in most of the charges of 
these articles of impeachment, I would suggest that she should be 
permitted to testify.
  I would go further to say that a closure of this case is somehow 
necessary, and without the direct presentation by Ms. Lewinsky, we 
all--political and public--would be denied the complete picture that 
she should be able to give us to better sort this out. As Manager 
Graham said yesterday, please don't leave us all hanging for the 
answers we so dearly need.
  Is this good, is it bad or is it ugly? We managers believe that it is 
bad, ugly and illegal. We all like to talk about the Constitution, and 
it is a great document. The opportunity to confront witnesses is 
present in that Constitution, and it can be argued that this principle 
of confrontation of witnesses against you should apply to these 
proceedings. While we realize that confrontational right is one that 
belongs to the criminal defendant in the Constitution, in this case 
apparently any right to confront Ms. Lewinsky and other witnesses is 
being waived by the President and his lawyers since they don't want to 
call witnesses in these proceedings.
  Isn't it time, though, for the rest of us to make that choice that we 
do want to see and hear some witnesses? Her testimony, in particular, 
would be extraordinarily enlightening in resolving factual disputes 
about the very charges for which we ask you to convict the President of 
the United States for the felonies of perjury and obstruction of 
justice. These particular charges go to the very heart of our cobranch 
of government, the Judiciary. And Members of the Senate, in terms of 
the impact on our judicial system in the search for truth, there is no 
difference between a person lying, which is perjury, and a person 
paying another person to lie, which is bribery. The bribery is in the 
Constitution and the perjury is not specifically mentioned.
  In terms of this proposition of proportionality, is the 106th Senate 
prepared to have as its record of sexual harassment laws that perjury 
about sex is not illegal? After all, that is what this whole 
proportionality argument is about, that if it is about sex it is OK to 
lie. Because Senator Bumpers said that upwards of 80 percent of his 
divorce cases from his Arkansas practice of law involve lying, that 
does not legitimize perjury, nor should it provide any authority for 
this Senate to somehow legitimize perjury if it is just about sex.
  We allege that the President, in a reasoned and in a calculated 
manner, prevented Paula Jones from obtaining truthful testimony and 
evidence that might have helped her lawsuit. At the time the President 
attempted his coverup efforts, he, obviously, felt the disclosure of 
that information in the Paula Jones case would be material and helpful 
to her. The President not only committed himself to illegal actions, 
but he enlisted others to assist, some knowingly, and others, perhaps, 
unknowingly.
  Ms. Lewinsky is one of these who, interestingly enough, might fit 
into both categories of knowing and unknowingly at different times. She 
would be able to share with this Senate the so-called tone and tenor of 
her conversations with the President. Who else can do that but she or 
the President?
  This tone and tenor and observing her demeanor and listening to her 
talk about that filing of the affidavit and those things, and how the 
President talked to her and how she read what he said and exactly what 
he did say, these are all very important, because as we know in 
Washington, and so many other places where there is a lot of power and 
prestige and so forth, there are actions that can be prompted without 
even a direct specific order. Things can get done even without it being 
said just by the tone and tenor, the gestures, the appearance and so 
forth of certain things. Often these direct words, as I said, are not 
necessary. And Ms. Lewinsky can tell you about some of these occasions.
  An appropriate examination--and an appropriate cross-examination, I 
might add; let's don't limit the White House attorneys here--of Ms. 
Lewinsky on the factual disputes of the affidavit and their cover 
story, wouldn't that be nice to hear? The concealment of gifts--what 
really happened there and the job search--why did she get the job 
within 48 hours of the affidavit, after months of unsuccess? Wouldn't 
it be nice to hear Ms. Lewinsky's version of this when it is so 
important to the overall case of obstruction of justice?
  These are just a few examples where the Senate could be helped by her 
testimony, and it very well could be dispositive, and it is even 
possible that she could help the President in some ways. But I assure 
you that she is an impressive young lady, and I suspect that she still 
very much does admire the President and the work that he is doing for 
this country. Yet, she would be a person who in all likelihood would be 
forthcoming.
  If you have not made up your mind, and, indeed, if you have further 
interest in resolving many of the facts here,

[[Page 1376]]

I do commend Ms. Lewinsky for your consideration. It would be my intent 
to lead her through direct examination, the perjury charge, as it is 
alleged with the President, by having her simply affirm those 
provisions of her written testimony which are the ones that are 
generally referred to as salacious, without specifically mentioning 
those words.
  On the more complicated obstruction of justice, the pattern of 
obstruction of justice which does not involve these salacious details 
and matters, they will be addressed more specifically. It would be my 
intent for immediate clarification and to dissolve discrepancies and 
different inferences that have been drawn by House managers and defense 
counsel for the President, to ask her about the December 28 transfer of 
Ms. Lewinsky's gifts from the President--transfer to Ms. Currie, 
particularly the cellular telephone call that has been put into issue 
by the defense team, about her conversation with the President and her 
offer to allow him to review this false affidavit before she submitted 
it to her lawyer and eventually to the court, and his comment that he 
didn't need to review it because he had seen 15 others just like it. 
Wouldn't you like to know what are we talking about--15 others? Fifteen 
drafts or 15 other type of affidavits in other cases?
  She would also be asked about her job interviews and her discussions 
with the President about these job interviews over a period of time, 
which are very important, her discussions with Vernon Jordan, and 
specifically why she felt that the interview that she did with Revlon 
the day after she signed the affidavit, her impression that it went 
poorly, whereas we heard--not testimony, but statements in the 
presentation of White House lawyers that, in fact, it didn't go poorly, 
it went very well, but she felt it went so poorly that she went 
immediately out to call Vernon Jordan. Why? Why not hear her come in 
and tell us why she did that?
  There will, of course, be other matters of record that she can 
clarify, and certainly being available to the White House defense team 
she will be vigorously cross-examined. I am sure that might also 
clarify other matters.
  It is my feeling that a fair and comprehensive examination without 
interruption could be conducted of Ms. Lewinsky in 2 to 4 hours, and 
depending on the length of cross-examination by White House attorneys, 
we may not need any redirect examination.
  While defense counsel for the President and others for the 
President--I heard it so many times, I am not sure exactly who said 
this so I don't want to attribute to defense counsel, and maybe they 
haven't even said it, but there has been word out of the White House 
that if we call one witness, we might as well settle into a siege here 
in the Senate; we will be here for months and months and months. I 
suggest that is an outrageous statement, that we will need that amount 
of time to pursue this case if witnesses are called.
  We are confident that that, basically in its best case, is an attempt 
to discourage you from calling witnesses; and in its worst case, 
unfortunately, is a veiled threat that they will be dilatory and drag 
this out for months and months if the Senate would allow.
  House managers are establishing a good-faith effort to cut our 
witnesses, as I said, down to three people, and to commit to reasonable 
times of examination with the assurance that we will finish this as 
quickly as we can and we will hope and perhaps the Senate their defense 
team.
  Witnesses can be called and a fair trial could be accomplished if all 
concerned would agree. Would the Senate consider requesting the 
President's defense team to also select 3 or fewer witnesses in an 
effort to move this process along? And we think, too, that the 
depositions, while they are important, if they are solely for the 
purpose of discovery, I ask, why would the White House need to discover 
what Vernon Jordan has to say, what Betty Currie has to say, or Sidney 
Blumenthal, or John Podesta--any of these witnesses? They would have to 
take Monica Lewinsky's deposition, but any other discovery deposition, 
it seems to me, they have complete access to already.
  As I close, I want to leave you with some words that have been of 
some comfort to me, and I think we have all needed some comfort at 
times during these proceedings. It is a very short quote of the opening 
remarks of Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino in 1974. Again, in 
part, he says:

       We know that the very real security of this Nation lies in 
     the integrity of its institutions and the informed confidence 
     of its people.

  He talked about the Nixon hearings.

       We will conduct our deliberations in that spirit. It has 
     been said that our country, troubled by too many crises in 
     recent years, is too tired to consider this one. In the first 
     year of the Republic, Thomas Paine wrote, ``Those who expect 
     to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the 
     fatigue of supporting it.''

  Back to Rodino:

       Now for almost 200 years, Americans have undergone the 
     stress of preserving their freedom and the Constitution that 
     protects it. It is now our turn.

  Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I respectfully ask you to permit 
the House managers to call these 3 named witnesses and add this 
additional evidence. I thank you. I yield to Mr. Manager Hutchinson.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.
  Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of 
the Senate, my responsibility is to address the testimony of Vernon 
Jordan and the need to call him as a witness in this case.
  Before I go into the details of that, let me just reflect for a 
moment on the Senate trial process. I said many days ago that I had 
confidence in the United States Senate, and I thought that at this 
particular juncture it might be good if I reassured you that I still 
had confidence in the United States Senate. When I think about the 
trial process that we are going through, I have to compliment you on 
the fact that you have structured a bipartisan process. I think that is 
important because you gave this process credibility. So you did the 
right thing, and I, for one, am pleased with what you were able to 
accomplish in that endeavor.
  Now, whenever you achieve a bipartisan process, you have to make 
compromises along the way. And the result is a format that is not 
particularly helpful to the trial managers, the House managers, who 
wish to call witnesses. We have struggled through that. But 
notwithstanding the present difficulty, I still compliment you and 
thank you for what you have done in achieving that bipartisan 
consensus. I think back to that meeting that I had early on, and some 
other managers, with the bipartisan group of Senators from this body--
and I now look at some from both sides of the aisle--and I went in 
there with this high-minded thought that we could make a case for 
witnesses because of what the other managers have described as the tone 
and demeanor of witnesses. Well, that was quickly brushed aside by them 
saying, ``No, no, no, we want to hear about what conflicts exist in the 
testimony; just tell us what the conflicts are because that is a strong 
case for calling witnesses.'' Well, that threw me back on my heels. So 
I went back and, as you know, in the question and answer session I 
addressed the question of conflicts. I think we did a good job of 
outlining the conflicts between various witnesses.
  Well, then I was informed that, ``We really are not as interested in 
the conflicts because the conflicts exist in the current transcript. 
Therefore, really, we want to know what new information and what 
dynamic these witnesses can add.'' That threw me back for a curve. So 
we looked at this again and we tried to make a case.
  I'm going to show you what new dynamics and questions can be asked. 
Ultimately, when you take the depositions, many of those questions are 
going to be answered. So you come back full circle to where we started 
in the beginning--that ultimately I hope witnesses are called so you 
can evaluate their credibility, determine their demeanor, and assess 
the truth in this case. I think that is important. I know people talk 
about me as being a former Federal prosecutor. Actually, at one time, I 
confess, I represented a defendant in a murder case. This gentleman was 
charged with murder, and the prosecution in Logan County, Arkansas

[[Page 1377]]

--near Senator Bumpers' hometown--decided they wanted to handle one of 
the key witnesses by deposition, as that person was out of State. I 
objected and objected, because I thought that witness ought to be in 
the courtroom. The judge overruled me and said, ``You can go take the 
deposition and the defense counsel will be there to cross-
examination.'' So we traipsed off to the other State and took this 
witness' deposition, and she made a lousy witness. I said she would not 
be believed for anything because of the way she appeared. Well, we 
brought the transcript back to the courtroom. The prosecution, over my 
objection, put the transcript into the record and, all of a sudden, 
that cold transcript was believable --particularly when they had it 
read by another witness that didn't look anything like the original 
lady. My client was convicted, but that case was reversed in the 
Arkansas supreme court because the court said it was important that the 
jury look into the eyes of the witness, see the demeanor of that 
witness and determine the credibility.
  So ultimately, we come back to that same point--that somehow you are 
going to have to resolve the conflicts. I know of only one way to do 
it. We have tried to be extraordinarily helpful and cooperative with 
the United States Senate. I came in with this idea that we were going 
to present this case with 14 or 15 witnesses. Clearly, that is off the 
table. We have narrowed this down to 3 witnesses; that is tough to 
decide, but we believe that represents the basic heart of the 
obstruction of justice case and gets to at least 6 of the 7 elements, 
so that you can evaluate that. But we want to assist you, clearly, in 
getting to the truth, but also to bring this matter to a conclusion 
fairly and as expeditiously as possible.
  Now, let's look to Mr. Vernon Jordan. Should he be called as a 
witness in this case? His testimony goes to the heart of one of the 
elements of obstruction of justice--that is, the job search and the 
false affidavit, and the interconnection between those. I have tried, 
during my presentation of this case, to present portions of his 
testimony--excerpts, if you will, from his testimony. But you will see 
that he has testified 5 times before the Federal grand jury. I have 
read all of this. I am not going to ask for a show of hands, but how 
many of you have read all of this? And so you have had to rely upon a 
trial--an ordeal by lawyers, rather than a trial by witnesses because I 
have had to present the testimony of Vernon Jordan in excerpt fashion 
with limited quotes here and there--as the defense counsel has done 
likewise. That makes it difficult because the problem is, one, you are 
hearing it from her, but, second, it is not a story, it is excerpts, 
and there is no way you can assess the truth because of that.
  If you look at the times that Mr. Jordan has testified before the 
grand jury: March 3, 1998; March 5, 1998; May 28, and June 9; the last 
time he ever testified was June 9, 1998--let's look at what has 
happened since then, since Mr. Jordan last testified before the grand 
jury. I believe these charts are in front of you.
  July 22, Ms. Currie testified before the grand jury. So any of the 
facts we gain from Ms. Currie were not utilized in the last examination 
of Vernon Jordan.
  August 6, what happened on that date? Ms. Lewinsky testified before 
the grand jury and she revealed some new facts during that time that 
Mr. Jordan has never had an opportunity to explain, respond to, or 
answer. I will go into that. One of them is about disposing of notes. 
The second one is about drafting the affidavit. And, of course, by that 
time the DNA on the dress had been revealed.
  Then the next thing that happened was the President's revelation to 
the Nation that this relationship did exist. And then he testified 
before the grand jury. All of the facts revealed from those instances 
were not revealed at the time Vernon Jordan last testified before the 
grand jury.
  Obviously, any lawyer would understand there are naturally questions 
that arise from each of those incidents that could be posed to Mr. 
Jordan. Why has that not been done? Quite frankly, I have talked to, as 
I mentioned the other day, the attorney for Mr. Jordan. I have not 
talked to Mr. Jordan personally. I think that clearly the Senate does 
not want us to do that until we get past this next hurdle. But those 
are the things that need to be resolved.
  Let me address briefly three areas of conflicts and testimony between 
Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky that point up other areas of questioning 
that would be appropriate that he should have the opportunity to 
explain.
  I have been accused of being harsh to Mr. Jordan, and I don't mean to 
be that way. There have been certain things that have been stated by 
witnesses in this case that ought to be explained, that ought to be 
questioned of Mr. Jordan. But we need to have good answers to these 
questions. We need to know those answers.
  The first conflict--I will get to that--is between Mr. Jordan's 
testimony and Ms. Lewinsky's testimony about whether Mr. Jordan knew 
the true nature of the relationship with the President.
  In Mr. Jordan's testimony of May 28, he was asked a question, 
``You're saying no one to your recollection ever suggested or alleged a 
sexual relationship prior to the 18th of January between Monica 
Lewinsky and the President.'' The answer: ``That is correct.''
  That was on May 28. Ms. Lewinsky was asked the same series of 
questions months later--in August of 1998--and she indicated, she 
testified, ``And I remarked that I really didn't look at him as the 
President''--that, ``I saw him more as a man and reacted to him more as 
a man and got angry at him like a man and just a regular person. Mr. 
Jordan asked me what I got angry at the President about. So I told him 
when he doesn't call me enough or see me enough.''
  Another statement:

       And so after we had the conversation I was just talking 
     about with Mr. Jordan, he said to me, ``Well, you know what 
     your problem is,'' and I said, ``What?'' He said, ``Don't 
     deny it,'' and he said, ``You're in love. That's what your 
     problem is.''

  This is Monica Lewinsky referring to what Mr. Jordan had said.
  So clearly those are relevant questions that need to be readdressed 
to Mr. Jordan because they were raised by Ms. Lewinsky in subsequent 
testimony that have never been asked to him in that fashion.
  There is a conflict in the testimony between Mr. Jordan and Ms. 
Lewinsky about whether the subpoena was discussed at the December 22 
meeting. Mr. Jordan testified in March that, ``We did not talk about 
the subpoena. She wanted to know about her job. That was the purpose of 
her coming.'' And the question was, ``Anything beyond that?'' The 
answer was, ``No.''
  And that is March 6 of 1998. Ms. Lewinsky testified contrary.
  Let's turn our attention then to December 22, which is the day she 
met with Frank Carter. ``And I think you said you were going to meet 
with Mr. Jordan.'' Answer: ``So I came to see Mr. Jordan earlier, and I 
also wanted to find out if he had in fact told the President that I had 
been subpoenaed.''
  That was her testimony which is in direct conflict--that the subpoena 
was discussed on the same day that she went to see Mr. Carter about the 
representation.
  Where is the relevance in this?
  If you recall, Mr. Jordan said it didn't take an Einstein to figure 
out that, whenever you combine whenever she got the subpoena, that it 
changed the circumstances.
  Here you have three problems. You have a job search, you have a 
witness in court, and if you combine that with the knowledge of a 
relationship, those are three dynamite issues combining together that 
should cause anyone--not just one change of circumstances but it 
elevates it to a higher level of danger because of the correlation 
between each of those three separate facts--each of these conflicts, 
and the testimony of Monica Lewinsky goes to those key fundamental 
issues. And Mr. Jordan has never been asked sufficiently about those 
areas.
  The third conflict--this is key--is the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. 
Mr. Jordan testified that he never talked to Ms. Lewinsky about Linda 
Tripp. That is his March 5, 1998, testimony.

[[Page 1378]]

But Ms. Lewinsky testifies in her August 6 testimony about a meeting 
with Mr. Jordan on December 31.
  This is the third exhibit. I will read that:

       And I met Mr. Jordan for breakfast on . . . the morning of 
     [December] 31st, at the Park Hyatt Hotel. And in the course 
     of the conversation I told him that I had had this friend, 
     Linda Tripp . . . and I was a little bit concerned because 
     she had spent the night at my home a few times and I 
     thought--I told Mr. Jordan, I said, well, maybe she's heard 
     some--you know--I mean, maybe she saw some notes lying 
     around. And Mr. Jordan said, ``Notes from the President to 
     you?'' And I said, ``No, notes from me to the President.'' 
     And he said, ``Go home and make sure they're not there.''

  This is Ms. Lewinsky's testimony of August 6 before the grand jury.
  And before anything is said, I am not accusing anyone of anything. 
But let me tell you, it would be significant if Mr. Jordan is asked a 
question if that is a true statement and he says yes. It is significant 
to the case. If he says no, that is significant because there is a 
clear conflict in the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky. And her testimony goes 
to the heart of the issue. If he says, ``I don't remember,'' which is a 
third alternative--by the way, I hate giving these prospective 
witnesses all my questions--but if he says, ``I don't remember,'' that 
does not put the issue in dispute with Ms. Lewinsky and establishes 
really her recollection of the incident.
  So I could go through more. I could go through more conflict with Ms. 
Lewinsky about whether Mr. Jordan saw the unsigned draft copy of her 
affidavit, a key issue in this case. Ms. Lewinsky testifies one way. 
Mr. Jordan did not have the benefit of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony when he 
was asked earlier in the grand jury. So that needs to be addressed with 
him.
  There is a conflict with Ms. Lewinsky on whether they discussed the 
contents of the affidavit--not just whether they saw the signed 
affidavit, but whether the contents were discussed. The question to Mr. 
Jordan was, ``Did you ever discuss with Ms. Lewinsky what she was going 
to include in the affidavit?'' Answer: ``I was not Ms. Lewinsky's 
lawyer. The answer to that is no.''
  But he goes on and elaborates on that. Ms. Lewinsky testified that 
she and Jordan did have a conversation about deleting a certain 
sentence in the affidavit and reworking that.
  That is what I just covered on the contents of the affidavit.
  Let me just go to one other on the conflict where the affidavit was 
discussed at their last meeting. Mr. Jordan testified in March that she 
came into the office:

       She gave me a tie. I said, ``Monica, I am really busy, 
     thank you.'' And she thanked me, and she is gone.

  ``Any subsequent conversation?'' The answer: ``No.''
  Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is:

       I stopped in to see him for five minutes to thank him for 
     giving me the job, and I gave him a tie.

  She further testified,

       I believe I showed him a copy of the affidavit.

  Clear conflict, very important, once again showing a connection 
between the job, the false affidavit, and, of course, if you tie in the 
other aspect about the relationship, it gets very significant and 
something that needs to be further inquired about.
  So there are some of the conflicts between the testimony, and an area 
that we need to inquire of Mr. Jordan about.
  The notes to the President that Ms. Lewinsky said she had a 
conversation with him about, that has never been addressed to Mr. 
Jordan whatsoever.
  The December 19 meeting we need to explore more with Mr. Jordan. This 
is the meeting when Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed. She called Mr. Jordan. 
He says, ``Come over.'' She goes over there to meet with Mr. Jordan, 
and during that meeting, according to the telephone logs, Mr. Jordan 
received a call from the President of the United States. Mr. Jordan has 
testified that he told the President that Ms. Lewinsky got subpoenaed.
  That appears to be exactly during the meeting--the conversation he is 
having with Ms. Lewinsky.
  I think appropriate questions to Mr. Jordan are: Did you excuse Ms. 
Lewinsky from the meeting? Did you have a private conversation with the 
President about the subject that you were talking to Ms. Lewinsky 
about? And when you renewed your conversation with Ms. Lewinsky, did 
you in fact tell her about your conversation with the President? If Ms. 
Lewinsky was not told about that conversation, I think there is some 
significance there, that things were going on that people were 
compartmentalizing and not sharing with the other interested parties, 
and I think that is significant and that needs to be explored. His 
involvement with reviewing the affidavit needs to be developed, and the 
conflicts, his knowledge of the nature of the relationship with Ms. 
Lewinsky.
  So all of these need to be further explored. There are a number of 
unanswered questions.
  One final area. I obviously have a number, but I don't want to 
belabor this point. There was testimony I mentioned about Mr. Isikoff 
and how Betty Currie felt compelled to go see Mr. Jordan about Mr. 
Isikoff inquiring about the courier records on the gifts from Ms. 
Lewinsky to the President. There is some indication that that 
information might have been shared with Mr. Frank Carter because Ms. 
Lewinsky testified that she received a page from Mr. Carter, her 
attorney, about the Isikoff call, the Isikoff request. How did that 
information get to Mr. Carter? I think there are some legitimate 
questions that should be asked there.
  So we would respectfully ask the Senate to permit us to call Mr. 
Jordan as a witness, to depose him. But, further, we hope we will be 
able to call him so that you can evaluate the conflicts that I am sure 
exist now, that very likely will exist later on as well. The story 
needs to be told. The truth should be determined. Justice should be 
accomplished. That is done not through lawyers up here talking, it is 
not done through transcripts, but through witnesses. Edmund Burke said 
that to fail to hear the evidence is to fail to hear the cause. I know 
that you have transcripts, but I would contend to you that to fail to 
hear these witnesses is in essence to fail to hear the cause.


                                 Recess

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, could I inquire about the balance of the 
time remaining for the House managers?
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes. The managers have 52 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Do they intend to use more of their time now?
  Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that we take a 30-
minute break at this point.
  There being no objection, at 1:22 p.m., the Senate recessed until 
1:59 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by 
the Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a unanimous consent request to 
propound. We have discussed this with Senator Daschle and it has been 
cleared.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the 
arguments by the managers and the White House counsel today on the 
motion to subpoena witnesses, it be in order at that point only for 
Senator Harkin or Senator Wellstone to make a motion to open that 
debate pursuant to his motion timely filed, and that the Senate proceed 
immediately to the vote, pursuant to the impeachment rules.
  I further ask that following that vote, if defeated, it be in order 
to move to close the session for deliberations on the motion to 
subpoena witnesses, as provided under the impeachment rules of the 
Senate and proceed to immediate vote.
  If we have any change in either one of these, certainly we would have 
to ask for consent on that and would notify Members to that effect.
  I further ask that if the Senate votes to proceed to closed session, 
those deliberations be limited to 3 hours equally divided between the 
two leaders, notwithstanding the 5-minute allocation of time under the 
impeachment rule.
  I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate concludes its 
business

[[Page 1379]]

today, it stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that pursuant to S. Res. 16, the 
votes occur immediately upon convening on Wednesday, first on the 
motion to dismiss, and if defeated, the motion to subpoena witnesses 
without intervening action or debate.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe, Mr. Chief Justice, we are ready to proceed with 
White House counsel.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Counsel Kendall.
  Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Justice, we reserve our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well.
  Mr. Kendall.
  You are going to use it now? You have 52 minutes remaining. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan.
  Mr. Manager ROGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the 
Senate. When I was a trial judge back in California, there was 
something I had to do in every single case, whether it was a criminal 
or civil case, and that was to advise the triers of fact --in that 
particular case, the jury--that what the lawyers say is not evidence. 
This is a universal warning that is given in courtrooms throughout the 
country to the triers of fact, because the law prefers that those 
people who have to make the determination as to what the facts are make 
that determination based not only on interpretation of the evidence, 
but based upon what the evidence actually is. And that has been the 
underpinning of our argument before this body from the very first day 
as to why witnesses are needed--not to accommodate us, but for the 
Senate to be able to make the ultimate conclusion as to what is the 
truth.
  A perfect example of why the evidence should come from witnesses 
rather than lawyers can be seen from the fact that throughout these 
proceedings lawyers on both sides have tried to characterize what is 
the evidence and tried to characterize the interpretation that this 
body should adopt.
  I am reminded when we were before the Judiciary Committee, just 
before we voted articles of impeachment, White House counsel suggested 
to our committee, as they do before this body, that the President's 
state of mind during his various statements under oath were intended to 
mislead people but to be truthful. They say the President didn't lie. 
Instead, they say he carefully crafted these hypertechnical definitions 
to protect himself from any perjury charge.
  We believe the evidence will show that by so doing, Paula Jones was 
denied the information a Federal judge said she was entitled to have 
and, thereby, perjury and obstruction of justice lie.
  Before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ruff reaffirmed this was the 
President's strategy. This is what Mr. Ruff told our committee:
  Question to Mr. Ruff:

       I do want to make sure I understand your position. From the 
     beginning, the President has taken the position that he never 
     lied to the American people or lied while giving testimony 
     under oath. Essentially claims he simply misled [them] with a 
     different definition, and he was sending the same message 
     both to the American people and the court.

  Answer by Mr. Ruff:

       I think that is fair, Congressman. Yes.

  Question:

       And he did that intentionally, because in his own mind he 
     drew a distinction between the technical definition of 
     ``sexual relations'' and the definition of ``improper 
     relationship,'' or something along those lines, which is how 
     he now characterizes his relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

  Answer by Mr. Ruff:

       Yes, I think that's correct.

  Question:

       You suggested earlier in your testimony this distinction is 
     one he has drawn since the Jones deposition. My notes 
     indicate you said the definitions are one that he held in his 
     mind in January and in August and he has so testified.

  Answer by Mr. Ruff:

       Yes.

  Question:

       In determining whether the President either perjured 
     himself or lied under oath in this matter, you are asking the 
     committee to look to his state of mind from the beginning of 
     this whole episode and make that determination?

  Answer:

       Yes.

  Members of this body, we suggest that the evidence has shown, and the 
evidence will further show by the calling of the witnesses that we 
propose, that the President denied under oath specific facts that were 
relevant to the case, relevant to the Jones case, relevant to the 
perjury and obstruction investigation by the grand jury, and, in so 
doing, among the other lies that my colleagues have pointed out, we 
will show that he lied to his aides.
  This is important, because he, the President, admitted he knew that 
his aides were potential witnesses in a criminal investigation before 
the grand jury. This is the portion of the grand jury transcript where 
the President testified about his conversations with key aides once the 
Monica Lewinsky story became public.
  Question to the President:

       Did you deny it to them or not, Mr. President?
       Answer: . . . I did not want to mislead my friends, but I 
     wanted to find language where I could say that. I also, 
     frankly, did not want to turn any of them into witnesses, 
     because I--and, sure enough, they all became witnesses.
       Question: Well, you knew they might be witnesses, didn't 
     you?
       Answer: And so I said to them things that were true about 
     this relationship. That I used--in the language I used, I 
     said, there's nothing going on between us. That was true. I 
     said, I have not had sex with her as I defined it. That was 
     true. And did I hope that I would never have to be here on 
     this day giving this testimony? Of course. But I also didn't 
     want to do anything to complicate this matter further. So, I 
     said things that were true. . . .

  The President's position is they were misleading, but they were true. 
No lies, and that is precisely what Mr. Ruff told the Judiciary 
Committee, and that is the position that White House counsel takes 
before this body.
  Remember, the grand jury was conducting a criminal investigation. 
They were seeking evidence of possible perjury and obstruction of 
justice, and the White House contends before this body that the 
President did nothing to obstruct their investigation. The evidence 
shows that he did. One of those witnesses who will demonstrate that to 
this body is the President's own aide, Sidney Blumenthal. That is why 
we request this body to allow Mr. Blumenthal to be deposed, and, 
further, we hope that you will allow him the opportunity to testify 
before you so that you can gauge his credibility and his demeanor as he 
presents the answers that we expect he will give.
  Mr. Blumenthal's testimony puts him in direct conflict with the 
claims of the President and shatters the myth of the President's 
truthful but misleading answers given under oath.
  Just for a quick way of background, Mr. Blumenthal, on January 21, 
1998, was an assistant to the President. That was the day the Monica 
Lewinsky story broke in the national press through the Washington Post. 
That story broke in the morning.

  Later the same day, Mr. Blumenthal met both with the First Lady and 
then with the President to discuss these news revelations. One month 
later, Mr. Blumenthal was called to testify before the grand jury. His 
testimony was not particularly helpful during that time because, 
through most of the questioning that involved conversations that he had 
at the White House, Mr. Blumenthal claimed executive privilege.
  That issue was apparently litigated, and then he returned in June to 
testify before the grand jury twice, on June 4 and on June 25, 1998.
  When Mr. Blumenthal was free to share his recollections of the 
events, this is how Mr. Blumenthal characterized his meetings with 
President and Mrs. Clinton before the grand jury. It is interesting to 
note, by the way, that there was a dual lie going on here from the 
President. The President was lying to his wife, who could never be 
called as a witness against him, but he was also lying to his aides 
whom he admitted could be called.
  This is from Mr. Blumenthal's testimony on June 4.

       The First Lady said that she was distressed that the 
     President was being attacked, in

[[Page 1380]]

      her view, for political motives, for his ministry of a 
     troubled person. She said that the President ministers to 
     troubled people all the time . . . and he does so out of 
     religious conviction and personal temperament.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       And the First Lady said he had done this dozens if not 
     hundreds of times with people, the President came from a 
     broken home and this was very hard to prevent him from trying 
     to minister to these troubled people.
       So I related that conversation to the President. . . . And 
     I said to him that I understand that you . . . want to 
     minister to troubled people, that you feel compassionate, but 
     that part of the problem with troubled people is that they're 
     . . . troubled. . . .
       I said, ``However, you're President and these troubled 
     people can just get you in incredible messes . . . you have 
     to cut yourself off from them.''
       And he said, [meaning the President, he said,] ``It's very 
     difficult for me to do that, given how I am. I want to help 
     people.''

  Then Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President said Dick Morris 
suggested that the President go on television and admit in a national 
address whatever he may have done wrong.
  Once again Mr. Blumenthal testified:

       And I said to the President, ``What have you done wrong?'' 
     And he said, ``Nothing. I haven't done anything wrong.'' 
     [And] I said, ``Well, then, that's one of the stupidest ideas 
     I've ever heard. Why would you do that if you've done nothing 
     wrong?''
       And it was at that point that he gave his account of what 
     happened to me and he said that Monica--and it came very 
     fast. He said, ``Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual 
     demand on me.'' He rebuffed her. He said, ``I've gone down 
     that road before, I've caused pain for a lot of people and 
     I'm not going to do that again.''
       She threatened him. She said that she would tell people 
     they'd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among 
     her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or 
     said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the stalker 
     anymore.
       And I repeated to the President that he really needed never 
     to be near people who were troubled like this, that it was 
     just--he needed not to be near troubled people like this. And 
     I said, ``You need to find some sure footing here, some solid 
     ground.''
       And he said, ``I feel like a character in a novel. I feel 
     like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that 
     is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out. I 
     feel like the character in the novel Darkness at Noon.''
       And I said to him, I said, ``When this happened with Monica 
     Lewinsky, were you alone?'' He said, ``Well, I was within 
     eyesight or earshot of someone.''
       I said, ``You know, there are press reports that you made 
     phone calls to her and that there's voice mail. Did you make 
     phone calls to her?''
       He said that he remembered calling her when Betty Currie's 
     brother died and that he left a message on her voice machine 
     that Betty's brother had died and he said she was close to 
     Betty and had been very kind to Betty. And that's what he 
     recalled.

  And then in his June 24 deposition, Mr. Blumenthal expanded on this 
thinking. He was asked the question:

       In your conversation with the President when he stated that 
     Monica Lewinsky threatened to disclose an affair, or 
     fabricate an affair in a public disclosure, did you 
     understand him to be saying that if the President didn't 
     concede or didn't agree to have some [type] of sexual contact 
     with her, that she would report an affair?

       Answer: My understanding was that she demanded to have 
     sexual relations. He rejected her. And she said that--this is 
     --I recall him saying--that, ``They called me the Stalker.'' 
     That's what Lewinsky said. ``And if I can say we had an 
     affair, then they won't call me that,'' something like that.
       Question: Now, you previously characterized Ms. Lewinsky's 
     comments to the President as a threat, if you will?
       Answer: Right, yeah, I would interpret--that's my 
     understanding.

  Then Mr. Blumenthal told the grand jury about the impact the 
President's emphatic denials had upon his state of mind-- the mind of a 
potential grand jury witness.

       Question: In response to my question how you responded to 
     the President's story about a threat or discussion about a 
     threat from Ms. Lewinsky, you mentioned you didn't recall 
     specifically. Do you recall generally the nature of your 
     response to the President?

  Answer by Mr. Blumenthal:

       It was generally sympathetic to the President. And I 
     certainly believed his story. It was a very heartfelt story, 
     he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Question: Did the President explain to you what Monica 
     Lewinsky's trouble was that he was helping?
       Answer: No.
       Question: And you never asked him?
       Answer: No.
       Question: Did anyone else, including the First Lady, tell 
     you what Monica Lewinsky's trouble was that the President was 
     ministering about?
       Answer: No.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Question: What did you understand the President to mean by, 
     he had done nothing wrong?
       Answer: My understanding was that the accusation against 
     him, which appeared in the press that day, was false, that he 
     had not done anything wrong.
       Question: That he had not had any sort of sexual 
     relationship?
       Answer: He had not had a sexual relationship with her and 
     had not sought to obstruct justice or suborn perjury.

  Mr. Blumenthal then went on to say he then asked the President about 
some of these reports that there were phone calls between him and 
Monica Lewinsky.

       Question: Did the President say anything to you about 
     telephone calls with Monica Lewinsky?
       Answer: As I testified, I had said to him that there were 
     reports that his voice was on her voice mail, her tape 
     machine at home to take message--message machine. And he said 
     to me that he could recall that after Betty's brother died he 
     may have called Monica because Monica had been very close to 
     Betty. And Betty didn't have a way of relating to her that 
     her brother had died, so that he had called and left a 
     message that Betty's brother died.
       Question: Did he suggest to you that that was the only call 
     he had ever made to Monica Lewinsky?
       Answer: That's the only one he told me about.
       Question: Did you ask him if there were any more calls than 
     that?
       Answer: He said that's the only one he could remember.

  Well, we now know certainly from White House logs that ``the only one 
the President remembered'' isn't quite true, that in fact I believe it 
was over 50 telephone conversations between the President and Monica 
Lewinsky. And it begs the question: Why was the President, on the day 
this story broke, pulling his aides in to relay information that the 
President knew was patently false when he knew that they were potential 
witnesses before the grand jury?
  Now, it is important to remember that this testimony from Mr. 
Blumenthal was given 1 month before Monica Lewinsky decided to opt to 
cooperate with the Office of Independent Counsel. Thus, these questions 
were asked of him in a vacuum without the benefit of Ms. Lewinsky's 
extensive testimony, as well as the President's own grand jury 
testimony. And the House managers agree that these and other areas need 
to be more fully explored with the gentleman under oath in light of the 
later revelations that occurred surrounding this case.
  Now, we know a couple of things. We know that the Monica Lewinsky 
story broke on January 21. We know that the President spoke to Sidney 
Blumenthal the very same day. We know that the President said he knew 
his aides could be potential witnesses before the grand jury. And we 
also know that Mr. Blumenthal was called three times before the grand 
jury--once in February, twice in June.
  There is an important question that was never asked Mr. Blumenthal 
during his testimony. It could not have been asked because at the time 
he testified, the revelation that the President shared with America in 
August and Monica Lewinsky's revelation had not yet been aired. If the 
President knew that Mr. Blumenthal was going to be a witness, a 
potential witness before the grand jury, if 6 months after this story 
broke the President presumably knew that his aide had gone down, not 
once but twice, to the grand jury, I would like to know from Mr. 
Blumenthal: Did the President ever come up to you and say something to 
you? Did he ever say to you: Do you remember that story I told you back 
in January? Well, now that you're actually going to be a witness, I 
know that you're going down to testify before the grand jury, I don't 
want you to give the grand jury a false impression. I don't want you to 
give false information to the grand jury. I don't want you to be a cog 
in the wheel of an obstruction of giving the grand jury the opportunity 
to hear the truth. I need to recant for you what I told you.
  There is no evidence of that. And we would like to find that out. And 
the

[[Page 1381]]

only way we can do that is by deposing Mr. Blumenthal and hopefully 
bringing him in and sharing that information with this body.
  Another area we would like to inquire about is the area of a 
potential plan to destroy Monica Lewinsky if she ever decided to 
cooperate with law enforcement authorities. Mr. Blumenthal told the 
grand jury that, following the Monica Lewinsky news revelations, White 
House aides held twice-a-day staff briefings, at 8:30 in the morning 
and at 6:45 in the evening, every day to discuss, among other topics, 
the media impact of the Lewinsky scandal and how to deal with it in the 
press.
  Mr. Blumenthal testified that the primary purpose of these meetings 
was to discuss press strategy.
  In making his presentation to the Judiciary Committee last month, 
chief investigative counsel, David Schippers, related some of the 
quotes that emanated in the press following the Lewinsky story. I want 
to read a few paragraphs from Mr. Schippers' presentation:

       Worst of all, in order to win, it was necessary to convince 
     the public, and hopefully, those grand jurors who read the 
     newspapers, that Monica Lewinsky was unworthy of belief. If 
     the account given by Monica to Linda Tripp was believed, then 
     there would be a tawdry affair in and near the oval office. 
     Moreover, the President's own perjury and that of Monica 
     Lewinsky would surface. How do you do this? Congressman 
     Graham showed you. You employ the full power and credibility 
     of the White House and the press corps of the White House to 
     destroy the witness.

  Mr. Schippers then quoted from several news sources. Now, this is 
just a few days after the President told Mr. Blumenthal that Monica was 
known as ``the stalker.''

       Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best 
     way to destroy ``that woman'' as President Clinton called 
     Monica Lewinsky. Should they paint her as a friendly 
     fanaticist or as a malicious stalker?

  Again, January 30th:

       It's always very easy to take a mirror's eye view of this 
     thing, look at this thing from a completely different 
     direction and take the same evidence and posit a totally 
     innocent relationship in which the President was a victim of 
     someone, rather like the woman who followed David Letterman 
     around.

  From another source, ``One White House aide called reporters. . .''

       One White House aide called reporters to offer information 
     about Monica Lewinsky's past, her weight problem, and what 
     the aide said was her nickname ``the stalker.''

  Just hours after the story broke, one White House source made 
unsolicited calls offering that Lewinsky was the troubled product of 
divorced parents.
  And the reference goes on and on. You can find the complete reference 
in the committee report.
  Now the question is, Was this a mere coincidence that the President's 
false statements to Mr. Blumenthal about Monica Lewinsky being a 
``stalker'' quickly found their way into press accounts, even though 
those accounts are attributed by the press to sources inside the White 
House? The answer to the question is, yes, it is a coincidence, 
according to White House counsel. And we heard that from them just 3 
days ago. Mr. Ruff said in his presentation, and I am quoting:

       The White House, the President, the President's agents, the 
     President's spokespersons, no one has ever trashed, 
     threatened, maligned, or done anything else to Monica 
     Lewinsky. No one.

  Mr. Blumenthal needs to be questioned now under the light of the 
facts as we now know them. All we have from Mr. Blumenthal are the 
facts as he testified before the revelations saw the light of day, and 
he needs to be questioned for the benefit of those who must make a 
determination of credibility and the determination of guilt or 
innocence. This is the reason we have included Mr. Blumenthal on our 
proposed list. He is just one example of several aides whose testimony 
is already before you in the record. But we feel it would be beneficial 
not only for the body to hear him, but certainly to question him in 
light of the revelations that occurred following his grand jury 
testimony.
  Mr. Chief Justice, with that, we reserve the balance of our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well, the Chair recognizes Mr. Counsel 
Kendall for the White House.
  Mr. Counsel KENDALL. Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentleman of the 
Senate, House managers, the purpose of the managers' motion and what I 
am going to address, is whether you need to add any evidence to the 
record before you. And that is all I am going to address. Now, I am 
tempted--it is like waving a red flag at the bull to take on the 
substantive arguments that have been presented here as to why the 
President is guilty. I am going to refrain from doing that, but my 
refraining from doing that is not because I agree with them, but that 
we have already addressed them. I think here that the proper procedure 
is just address the need for new evidence to add to the record before 
you.
  The managers' case is in no way--no way--harmed by being unable to 
call witnesses at this point. The independent counsel conducted a wide-
ranging investigation. It was intense. It was comprehensive of every 
conceivable allegation against the President after the Lewinsky 
publicity erupted on January 21, 1998. In the record of publicly 
available materials, which the Senate has asked the House managers to 
certify, the actual number of pages is somewhat understated, because as 
I mentioned before, frequently four or five pages of transcript are 
reproduced on a single page of the bound. But, in fact, there are over 
10,000 pages of grand jury testimony, over 800 pages of other testimony 
such as depositions, 3,400 pages of documentary evidence, 1,800 pages 
of audio transcripts, and 800-some pages of FBI interviews.
  The Office of Independent Counsel has an unlimited budget with 
unlimited investigative resources, ranging from the FBI to private 
investigators. Its agents interviewed people all over the country, used 
several different grand juries, conducted hundreds of interviews, even 
called people back from abroad. If the OIC could have turned up 
anything that was negative or prejudicial, it would be in those 
volumes. You can rest assured that they did their best to find that 
evidence.
  And the Starr team has been fully supportive of the pro impeachment 
forces in the House of Representatives; indeed, so supportive that the 
independent counsel's ethics advisory professor, Sam Dash, resigned to 
protest Mr. Starr's zealous advocacy of the impeachment of the 
President.
  Just this week, Mr. Starr and his staff have aggressively continued 
to support the House managers during these Senate proceedings. Some 
commentators have commented that the independent counsel is, perhaps, 
the honorary 14th House manager.
  Now, I rehash this all not to cast aspersions at Mr. Starr, but to 
remind the Senate that after 5 years and $50 million President Clinton 
may be the most investigated person in America. I would certainly say 
this for Mr. Starr: He is thorough. He is thorough. After all the work 
that has been done for them by the independent counsel, there is simply 
no way that the House managers are prejudiced by not being able to add 
to this record at this point.
  Now, Mr. Manager McCollum repeated this morning that we are afraid of 
witnesses. We are not. We have reviewed in detail in our presentations 
what the evidence shows about both the perjury and the obstruction of 
justice allegation. We are not at all afraid of what the witnesses 
would say. Indeed, we know what they are going to say because it is all 
right there in the volumes before you. We think that you have 
everything there on the basis in which you can make a fair judgment and 
achieve a fair resolution. The managers' hope to call more witnesses is 
simply a product of their desire, their hope, their prayer, that 
something will come to rescue their case.
  Let's be clear about one thing: Any delay in the process necessary 
for us to have fair discovery is on their heads. Our point here is that 
there is simply no need to go outside this record, because what you 
have before you is voluminous, and it is a completely adequate basis 
for your decision.
  As I pointed out the other day in the questioning period, the only 
thing left out of this record is evidence that might be exculpatory or 
helpful to the President. And if we must, we will as

[[Page 1382]]

conscientious lawyers, seek out that helpful additional evidence 
through discovery.
  This body has been scrupulously fair in these proceedings, and I am 
confident it will be fair concerning our need for discovery if the 
``genie'' of discovery is let out of the bottle and live witnesses are 
deemed to be appropriate. Then we are going to need a fair period of 
time for our own discovery.
  But, again, the point today on this motion is that the managers have 
simply identified no particular need for witnesses, no specific areas 
of testimony that might contribute to what is already in the record 
and, indeed, no material questions--you can always think of questions 
that were unasked--but no material questions, given the allegation in 
the two articles that are not in the record before you.
  Just recall, in the House the managers believed that this was an 
adequate record to come to you and urge removal of the President. They 
rested on that record in the House, and they impeached an elected 
President on the basis of that record. They cannot now complain that it 
is, for some reason, unfair to submit this same record to you for 
judgment at this point. We are not afraid of or reluctant to call 
witnesses, but we think that at the end of the day, the addition of 
more testimony from the three witnesses you have heard about won't 
affect any evidentiary judgment you have to make.
  Mr. Manager Barr declared during his presentation a week ago Friday, 
on January 15, that this was in fact a relatively simple case, although 
we, the White House lawyers, would try to nitpick the evidence. He told 
you that what we have before us, Senators and Mr. Chief Justice, is 
really not complex--critically important, yes, but not essentially 
complex. The able House managers have kept insisting on their need for 
witnesses, but they haven't indicated what substantial, material, and 
relevant questions the witnesses would be asked, which haven't already 
been asked, or why such questions are essential or even relevant to the 
resolution of this proceeding.
  Frankly, I think this is because there just aren't that many more 
questions to ask of these witnesses. Mr. Manager McCollum kind of let 
the cat out of the bag on this one when, a week ago Friday, he told 
you, ``I don't know what the witnesses will say, but I assume if they 
are consistent, they will say the same thing that's in here.''
  I was surprised at some of the statements the managers made during 
the questioning period on Friday and Saturday. Mr. Bryant said, ``We 
would very much like to talk to some of these witnesses.'' And he 
added, ``It is very critical that you talk to the witness before having 
that witness testify.'' Mr. Manager McCollum stated, ``As a matter of 
fact, we think we would have been incompetent and derelict as 
presenters of the evidence if we hadn't talked to them first.'' Just 
this Sunday Mr. Manager Hyde, on ``Meet the Press,'' observed that the 
purpose of the court-ordered Office of Independent Counsel's chaperoned 
interview of Ms. Lewinsky last Sunday was to get a sense of what kind 
of a witness she would make.
  I say this respectfully, but I am duty-bound to observe that it is, 
in fact, a dereliction of duty to have come this far in the process, to 
have made this serious set of charges as have been made against the 
President to seek his removal, and not to have talked to the witnesses 
on whom they purport to rely. How can they have come this far and now 
tell you: Oh, yes, we now need to meet face to face with the witnesses? 
We don't know what they sound like, how credible they will be, but we 
have rested our judgment on this. We need to see them personally.
  This procedure, I submit to you, is just backward. First, they filed 
the charges, which have been spoon fed by Mr. Starr. They don't bother 
to check these out; they take them at face value, and now they finally 
want to talk to the witnesses, and they again use Mr. Starr to threaten 
Ms. Lewinsky with imprisonment unless she cooperates with them.
  Now, it is no answer to say that the witnesses didn't want to talk to 
us. There was a way to talk to them in the House of Representatives, 
and that was through the subpoena power that the House could have used 
if they had wanted to talk to their witnesses, if they had fulfilled 
the obligation they had before they proffered these charges to you.
  This has been a partisan process on the part of the House managers. 
In the House, they had the votes. They didn't think they needed to talk 
to witnesses. When you have the votes and the independent counsel on 
your side, you don't need to independently develop the evidence. 
Indeed, Sunday, on CNN, Mr. Manager Cannon provided some insight----
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I object to White House counsel's continual reference 
to comments made on television programs which are outside the record 
before the Senate.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. This is on a motion to call additional witnesses, 
and the argument has been very free form and kind of far reaching. I 
think this is a permissible comment, so I overrule the objection.
  Mr. Counsel KENDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I think Mr. 
Manager Cannon's comments did provide some insight into the need for 
witnesses or the justification for witnesses here. He noted that the 
Republicans had lost five seats in the November election, and he went 
on to say that, accordingly, the Republicans felt a need to speedily 
complete impeachment in the lame duck session before the 106th began 
its session. He said, ``Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were 
committed to being done by the time we got done,'' and that is where we 
got on that track with no witnesses.
  Now, they are trying to take a different track, and I think it comes 
from desperation. You have had the case analyzed before you; you have 
had the evidence in the case assessed. I think it has been demolished 
in an adversary proceeding.
  The House managers are like the character in David Copperfield, Mr. 
Micawber, who was always hoping that something would turn up. They 
continue to hope that something will turn up for them. They don't know 
what it is, but they believe they will know it when they see it and 
they hope if, for the first time in these proceedings, they actually 
talk to the witnesses on whom they have relied, they will find 
something to persuade you to overcome the evidence in the record.
  Now the managers have said, ``Well, we told the White House that they 
could have called witnesses in the House if they wanted to, and they 
chose not to do so, so it is really their fault.'' I respectfully 
submit to you that only in the world of Franz Kafka do you have to 
present evidence of your own innocence before you even hear the charges 
or the allegations against you.
  It was the burden of the House to establish, by an adequate 
evidentiary basis, a case for impeaching the President. They failed to 
do that, I respectfully submit. They are a little like a blackjack 
player who sees 20 on the table and has 19 and is going to try to draw 
that 2, hoping against the odds. Here they are simply gambling. And 
gambling may have its place as a recreation, but I don't think it has a 
place in this impeachment trial when the fate of the President is at 
stake.
  Now, I don't want to be uncharitable to the House managers--and they 
are able--but I think it is perhaps appropriate to remind you, as my 
partner Ms. Seligman did in her argument yesterday, that in their own 
Chamber the House managers sang a very different song about the need 
for witnesses. And to be fair, this was not just one manager; they sang 
as kind of a barbershop chorus. Most of them are on the record to this 
effect, and I think the very best witnesses you have about the need for 
witnesses are the House managers themselves.
  Let's listen to some of the comments of the managers on whether live 
witnesses needed to be heard to supplement the evidence in the many 
volumes already gathered by the independent counsel.

[[Page 1383]]

  For example, on November 5, Mr. Manager Hyde said:

       We believe the most relevant witnesses have already 
     testified at length about the matters in issue, and in the 
     interest of finishing our expeditious inquiry we will not 
     require most of them to come before us to repeat their 
     testimony.

  He added that, ``[Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp] have already 
testified under oath. We have their testimony. We don't need to 
reinvent the wheel.''
  The very next day, on November 6, Mr. Manager Gekas stated:

       Bringing in witnesses to rehash testimony that's already 
     concretely in the record would be a waste of time and serve 
     no purpose at all.

  On December 1, during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee 
to which the committee received testimony concerning the consequences 
of perjury and related crime, Mr. Manager Chabot stated:

       We could call more and more and more witnesses. We are 
     trying to get this wrapped up as expeditiously as possible. I 
     think both sides want to do that. If we call more witnesses 
     and drag this on into next year, then they are going to 
     scream because they say we are on a fishing expedition, we 
     have already got enough evidence.

  At that same period, Mr. Manager Canady said, of the need for 
witnesses:

       Now, we do have a responsibility to make certain that we 
     act on a solid basis. We should not move forward with 
     articles of impeachment on the basis of insubstantial 
     evidence. I think all of us agree on that. The fact of the 
     matter is that we have a mountain of sworn testimony. . . .

  On December 9, Congressman Coble, who was a member of the House 
Judiciary Committee, told us during our presentation on behalf of the 
White House:

       Mr. Ruff, I want to address a couple of myths and one myth 
     is that we have no evidence because there have been no fact 
     witnesses called . . .

  Five volumes sit alongside me. These are the same five volumes that 
are at our table that contain sworn testimony before a criminal grand 
jury, FBI interviews, depositions and other materials.
  Mr. Manager Hyde made two statements on the floor of the House of 
Representatives during the debate over the articles of impeachment 
which I think bear quotation here.
  On December 18, Mr. Manager Hyde stated:

       We had the facts, and we had them under oath. We had Ms. 
     Lewinsky's heavily corroborated testimony under a grant of 
     immunity that would be revoked if she lied; we accepted that 
     . . .

  And then the next day, on Saturday, December 19, Mr. Manager Hyde 
stated:

       No fact witnesses, I have heard that repeated again and 
     again. Look, we had 60,000 pages of testimony from the grand 
     jury, from depositions, from statements under oath. That is 
     testimony that we can believe and accept. We chose to believe 
     it and accept it. Why reinterview Betty Currie to take 
     another statement when we already have her statement? Why 
     interview Monica Lewinsky when we had her statement under 
     oath, and with a grant of immunity that if she lied, she 
     would forfeit?

  ``Why interview Monica Lewinsky when we had her statement under oath, 
and with a grant of immunity that if she lied, she would forfeit.''
  After the House voted its two articles of impeachment, the House 
managers still sought no need for live witnesses. On December 29, Mr. 
Manager Gekas stated:

       We are going to make the case that there is already enough 
     testimony under oath, in one grand jury testimony and 
     affidavits.

  Then again, a week later, Mr. Manager Gekas stated:

       In my judgment, there might not be any real rationale for 
     calling Linda Tripp or Betty Currie or Vernon Jordan if the 
     testimony of Monica Lewinsky is accepted as being what she 
     offered on grand jury terms.

  Rollcall reported on January 7 that Mr. Manager Cannon stated, 
regarding calling Ms. Currie as a witness in the Senate trial:

       I am reluctant to call [Ms. Currie] because it's a rotten, 
     nasty thing to do to a public servant.

  When confronted with this inconsistency, the managers, who are 
talented attorneys and successful Congressmen, have all argued, ``Oh, 
well. The forum has changed,'' as if it is no big deal for the House to 
impeach a President without witnesses. But it would be unconscionable 
for the Senate to acquit the President without first doing the 
``rotten, nasty thing''--Mr. Manager Cannon's phrase--to some 
witnesses. How can you have a trial, they protest, without witnesses? 
One might ask, How can you have a hearing without witnesses? But the 
House did. How can you impeach a President without witnesses? The House 
showed you.
  Finally, it is instructive to note that when the managers were 
presenting their case in the House in the Judiciary Committee, they did 
not declare that they would insist on witnesses when they got to the 
Senate. They did not tell their colleagues, We will not need witnesses 
in the House because we will have them in the Senate. No. They rushed 
this through the House because they had the votes and now they want to 
delay in the Senate because they are afraid they don't have the votes.
  There is no reason, we respectfully submit, to delay this Chamber, to 
drag out these proceedings and defer doing the business of the American 
people.
  I would like to discuss each of the five categories. I will call them 
categories. There are three witnesses. Then there are the two 
affidavits, and then there are the telephone records. There are really 
six. I would like to discuss these in terms of whether they add 
anything, or whether the managers have made a proffer that they add 
anything to the record which is now before you, because I think that is 
the question you have to determine.
  On this motion, you are not voting whether substantively to convict 
the President. You are simply determining, Is the record adequate?
  Let's first take Ms. Lewinsky. On Sunday the House managers, with the 
gentle assistance of the independent counsel prosecutors, were able to 
interview Ms. Lewinsky after schlepping her across the country from 
California. They did so despite the fact that the Senate had 
established by a 100-to-0 vote a procedure for the orderly calling of 
witnesses after discussion and debate. They did so after declining to 
interview Ms. Lewinsky at any time during the House proceedings when 
they could have compelled her appearance by the House subpoena power. 
And they did so without providing us here with any reliable record for 
what that ``talk-fest'' on Sunday may have produced.
  Newspaper reports indicate that the managers did not take notes. You 
will recall, of course, that during the questioning period on Saturday 
they explicitly rejected a request they received during the question 
period that they provide either an unedited transcript or a videotape 
of that interview to be sure that the interview would be open to 
scrutiny for fairness, and ascertain whether Ms. Lewinsky in that 
interview really did add anything to the record. They declined to do 
that. But when they emerged from the Mayflower Hotel on Sunday, after 
meeting for their sidewalk press conference, we heard some general 
statements generally commending Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Manager Bryant called 
her ``an impressive person.'' Mr. Manager Hutchinson praised her 
``intelligence and poise.''
  I thought to myself, where have we heard that before about Ms. 
Lewinsky? It was deja vu all over again. Of course, we heard from Mr. 
Jordan, from Ambassador Richardson, and from the people who interviewed 
Ms. Lewinsky for a job in New York. It is helpful that the House 
managers have now at least confirmed those observations in the record.
  At their press conference we heard the managers make some abstract 
pronouncements about what Ms. Lewinsky was going to add--she would be a 
valuable witness; she would be a helpful witness; and it was a 
productive meeting and a benefit to our case.
  That is what we heard. But Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, Mr. Plato Cacheris 
threw, if I might say, some cold water on those happy and optimistic 
pronouncements. It could not have been clearer in his comments that, 
not surprisingly, nothing new whatsoever had emerged from that session. 
You really didn't hear that. I think the House managers were quite 
honest about the session, because you heard nothing

[[Page 1384]]

about what had emerged from that today.
  Mr. Cacheris told the press conference--some of you may have seen it: 
Ms. Lewinsky answered all their questions; there was nothing new; she 
added nothing to the record that is already sitting before the Senate. 
She shouldn't be called to the Senate to testify.
  The New York Times reported yesterday that after the interview, Ms. 
Lewinsky told a friend: It went really well; I feel positive about it, 
but I didn't have anything new to say.
  Now, according to the Washington Post, the managers were focused on 
making sure Ms. Lewinsky had no intention of changing her testimony. 
The Washington Post went on to confirm that she did not indicate any 
desire to change her testimony in any way. And the Post article 
continues that, in fact, Lewinsky reaffirmed her grand jury statement 
that no one ever asked her to lie or offered her a job in exchange for 
a false affidavit in the Jones case.
  Now, as you are well aware, Ms. Lewinsky was interviewed extensively 
by the Office of Independent Counsel. She testified twice before the 
grand jury. She gave a lengthy deposition to the prosecutors. She was 
extensively interviewed by the agents. There are over 20 interview 
reports.
  I should also add that a great deal of this comes after the President 
was examined in the grand jury on August 17. Ms. Lewinsky has given 
detailed and explicit testimony, particularly in her August 26 
deposition, as to her account of the physical relationship she had with 
the President. Nothing at all would be added by further interrogation 
of her. Nothing could be gained by repetition in a Senate deposition or 
in the well of this body by a repetition of that testimony.
  I confess I don't fully understand--I seem to hear Mr. Manager Bryant 
and Mr. Manager McCollum say slightly different things about what they 
intended to present in the way of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. The record 
on that is what it is. But whenever I hear somebody tell me, as the 
very able Mr. Manager Bryant did, they don't need to cross-examine, 
really, I am reminded of what Senator Bumpers said, and he got it from 
H.L. Mencken, who probably got it from somebody else: The more they say 
they don't have to cross-examine, the more need I feel to cross-
examine.
  I don't know what they intended to do there, but in the grand jury 
the President plainly acknowledged an improper relationship with Ms. 
Lewinsky. He declined to answer further key questions about that. The 
Office of Independent Counsel did not seek either to compel him or it 
didn't seek to issue a new grand jury subpoena which would cause the 
President to come back and go through those explicit details.
  The testimony is what it is, and I don't think anything further from 
Ms. Lewinsky is going to in any material way affect it or even add to 
it.
  With regard to some of the conflicts that are there, I think we have 
addressed those in the question period. I am not going to go over them 
again in full. Did the improper relationship begin in November? Did it 
begin 6 or 7 weeks later? That conflict is utterly immaterial, I 
respectfully submit, in view of what the parties have acknowledged. Mr. 
Manager Hyde, indeed, stated in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on 
December 1 that that particular point did not strike him as a terribly 
serious count, and I agree with that.
  The managers have claimed, Mr. Manager Hutchinson claimed this 
morning, that there is a contradiction in the President, in the 
testimony of the President and Ms. Lewinsky with regard to cover 
stories. This is not true. We have gone over that again and again. 
There is nothing that links this testimony to any deposition in the 
Jones case. These were discussed, the record shows, in a nonlegal 
context.
  I don't think there is anything further to be gained from Ms. 
Lewinsky's testimony that is not already there in the record.
  Now, Mr. Vernon Jordan, let's take him. Mr. Manager Hutchinson was 
kind enough to leave up here his copies of Mr. Vernon Jordan's five 
appearances before the grand jury. He held them up on a chart. I think 
it is proper to point out that Mr. Jordan's testimony runs over 900 
pages. On March 3, the transcript is 196 pages; 2 days later, on March 
5, with the transcript running to 212 pages, Mr. Jordan emerged from 
the grand jury, and he made the following statement which I would like 
to play for you:
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

       First of all it is a fact that I helped Monica Lewinsky 
     find private employment in New York. Secondly, it is a fact 
     that I took Monica Lewinsky to a very competent lawyer, Frank 
     Carter, here in Washington, D.C. And thirdly, it is a fact 
     that I kept the President of the United States informed about 
     my activities. I want to say two further things. One is I did 
     not in any way tell her, encourage her, to lie. And secondly 
     that my efforts to find her a job were not a quid pro quo for 
     the affidavit that she signed.

  Mr. Jordan testified a third time before the grand jury on May 5, and 
that transcript runs to 285 pages. Finally, he testified two more 
times, on May 28, for 128 pages, and he observed as he exited the grand 
jury room, if we could have the videotape again:
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

       For the fourth time I have answered every question over and 
     over and over again. I suspect, however that I will have to 
     answer the same questions over and over and over again.

  And guess what. Mr. Jordan was clairvoyant because he was called back 
to the grand jury for a fifth time on June 9. He said as he exited:
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

       When I came here in March, early March, I said that I 
     helped Ms. Lewinsky get a lawyer. I helped her get a job. I 
     had assurances that there was no sexual relationship and I 
     did not tell her to lie. That was the truth then. And that is 
     the truth today. And I've testified five times, over and over 
     again to those truths.

  One of the justifications Mr. Manager Hutchinson offered for calling 
Mr. Jordan was to explore an alleged conflict between Mr. Jordan and 
Ms. Lewinsky over whether Mr. Jordan had told her to go home and make 
sure that notes she had been keeping were not there. Here, I think Mr. 
Manager Hutchinson is referencing a statement that Ms. Lewinsky made in 
her proffer to the Office of Independent Counsel describing her 
recollection of a breakfast she believed she had with Mr. Jordan. It is 
in the appendix volume at page 716.
  Now, the thing to note, ladies and gentlemen, about this statement is 
its date. Ms. Lewinsky said this on February 1, 1998. She had written 
then that she expressed concern about Ms. Tripp to Mr. Jordan and that 
Ms. Tripp may have seen notes when she was in Ms. Lewinsky's house. 
According to the offer, ``Mr. Jordan asked if the notes were from the 
President. Ms. Lewinsky said that they were notes to the President. Mr. 
Jordan suggested to Ms. Lewinsky,'' the proffer says, ``that she check 
to make sure they were not there, or something to that effect,'' from 
Ms. Lewinsky.
  Now, contrary to this supposed conflict, Mr. Jordan was never asked 
in the grand jury on any of the five occasions he was there--all of 
which, I remind you, were after this February 1 proffer about this 
matter. He wasn't asked about it. It doesn't concern the President, in 
any event. And I think, most importantly, it is nowhere alleged, if you 
look in the actual articles--if you look at article II, nowhere is this 
conversation alleged in any way as a basis for impeachment, a basis for 
charging the President with obstruction. I think in fact it is a 
gratuitous smear of Mr. Jordan. And it certainly does not provide a 
basis for extending this proceeding to ask him questions about it.
  Now, Mr. Manager Hutchinson also claims that there is a conflict 
between the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan on the issue of 
whether they discussed specific changes that were subsequently made in 
her affidavit. He said to you that he thought that was a basis for 
calling them as witnesses. However, the record is clear, it could not 
be clearer, that the idea of certain deletions in the affidavit came 
from Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, Mr. Frank Carter.
  As I mentioned in my presentation on Thursday, Ms. Lewinsky discussed 
that she had talked to Mr. Jordan about some affidavit changes and he 
told her: Go talk to your lawyer.

[[Page 1385]]

  In any event, Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, Mr. Frank Carter, testified 
unequivocally to the grand jury: I don't recall Vernon ever asking me 
the substance of what Monica told me or tried to talk about the 
substance of what Monica told me. He clearly never told me how I should 
proceed or what I should do.
  Mr. Carter further testified that paragraph 6 of the affidavit in its 
draft form, the last part of the sentence, ``has certain words about 
the private meeting.''
  That paragraph, Mr. Carter--Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer--testified, was 
modified when we sat down in my office on January 7. He further 
testified that it was his idea before that meeting to take it out 
because he didn't want to give Ms. Jones' lawyers any hint of a one-on-
one meeting.
  There is simply no basis to call Mr. Vernon Jordan once again to have 
him go through the things he has testified about a great many times 
already.
  Now we come to Sidney Blumenthal. Mr. Manager Rogan very ably argued 
that there was a need to call Mr. Blumenthal because of Mr. 
Blumenthal's testimony as to what the President had told him, Sidney 
Blumenthal, in the aftermath of the explosion of publicity over the 
Lewinsky matter in January a year ago.
  First of all, there is no conflict here that is material because the 
President has never disputed Mr. Blumenthal or his aide's accounts of 
this conversation. Any dispute is wholly immaterial as to the two 
counts--the two articles of impeachment. The President was examined 
extensively about this subject in his own grand jury testimony and he 
testified as to what he tried to say. But he also added that in this 
period things were a ``blur,'' is a term he used one time; ``a 
blizzard'' was a term he used another time--that he had discussions 
with a number of his aides, including Mr. Blumenthal, he tried to be 
careful in what he said, he thought he was technically accurate, but he 
would not dispute and did not dispute their characterizations of what 
they recalled of the conversations with him.
  Again, Mr. Blumenthal--Mr. Rogan pointed this out--testified three 
times before the grand jury. His recollection of his conversations with 
the President has been analyzed in detail and a further round of 
deposition would add nothing of substance to that testimony. Indeed, 
the President's speech to the Nation the day of his grand jury 
testimony, when he spoke to the Nation on the evening of August 17, 
also represented an acknowledgment by the President that he had misled 
his aides, such as Sidney Blumenthal.
  As I indicated last Thursday, however, any statements to the White 
House staff could have had no impact whatsoever on the Paula Jones 
case, as article II alleges each of the seven grounds has, because Mr. 
Blumenthal had no firsthand knowledge of the President's relation with 
Ms. Lewinsky. He could only report to the grand jury what the President 
had told him, however misleading those statements of the President may 
have been at the time. There is no dispute here, there is no material 
reason to call Mr. Blumenthal, except to try to embarrass the President 
by the presentation of testimony from a member of his senior staff.
  Now, the next two things that the managers would seek to add to the 
record are not, they tell you, live witness testimony. But don't let 
that fool you. They want to put in two sworn declarations--like an 
affidavit--from two people. One of them is a Mr. Wesley Holmes, a 
lawyer for Ms. Paula Jones, and the other is Mr. Barry Ward.
  Now, I don't have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Wesley Holmes, but I do 
know Mr. Barry Ward. He is a very intelligent, very hard-working and 
knowledgeable young lawyer in Little Rock, AR, who works as a law clerk 
for Chief Judge Wright. He has got an encyclopedic knowledge of 
Razorback athletic lore. He has a lot of fine characteristics. He is 
very helpful as a law clerk and gets information to you and back very 
efficiently. But there is one thing Mr. Ward is not, and I am sure he 
would agree with that, he is not a mind reader. He is not a mind 
reader. There were a number of people in the room at the deposition. 
None of them were mind readers. They could all give their testimony 
about what they thought was going through the President's mind. The 
President has addressed that a number of times. You have seen the 
videotape.
  Now, the second witness is exceedingly interesting, and that is Mr. 
Holmes. And Mr. Holmes would give a sworn declaration to, among other 
things, say what he had in mind when he issued the witness subpoena to 
Betty Currie which was several days--which was days after the 
President's conversation with her on December 18.
  Well, he would be a very interesting witness to depose, let me tell 
you. This is one of Paula Jones' lawyers talking about offering a 
declaration about his litigation strategy. And I think the opportunity 
to depose him would provide a great deal of information about what 
really motivated the events of January 1998. I think we could show that 
there were a number of connections between the independent counsel, 
Linda Tripp, and the Paula Jones lawyers. But I don't think you need to 
get into that briar patch because Mr. Holmes is not a mind reader any 
more than Mr. Ward is. You simply don't need that testimony to 
illuminate the record.
  Now, the last category--let me just, before I leave that, make the 
point that while the managers would like very much to throw in a couple 
of sworn declarations, you should be assured of our need to take 
discovery and, in Mr. Holmes' case, take comprehensive discovery. I 
don't think anything in S. Res. 16--I don't know if you have gotten to 
this, but I don't read the resolution as authorizing simple hearsay 
evidence.
  We would need to depose the Paula Jones lawyers in some detail, and I 
think they have now waived significant legal protections that would 
make that possible.
  Finally, there was a category of telephone records. It is a little 
hard to address that category. Those are just documents. I don't think 
the record need be expanded by their addition, and I will tell you why.
  Telephone records, as I said the other day, really tell you nothing, 
unless--it is very important to time, to date a particular call. They 
really are inscrutable. You have to have the witness testify about what 
they mean. I don't see anything in there that would justify opening the 
record to add certain telephone records.
  Finally, I want to be candid with you. I don't want to be alarmist, I 
want to be honest, though, about what opening the door for discovery 
will mean for this process. I said before that the Senate had been fair 
in these proceedings, and it has been fair. I think the identification 
of a specific record which the parties could agree on, have in the 
sunlight, talk about, argue about, was the fair thing to do and the 
right thing to do. I think if discovery is inevitable, we will 
anticipate and believe that you will be fair in allowing us the 
discovery we are going to need.
  I ask you, if you would, to read our trial memorandum, because at 
pages 124 to 130 we have set forth there our need for discovery. It is 
not a new invention. Should the Senate decide to authorize the House 
managers to call additional witnesses live in this proceeding or have 
the depositions taken, we will be faced with a critical need for the 
discovery of evidence useful to our defense.
  I made the point that the discovery of evidence in the Office of the 
Independent Counsel proceeding was--not to put too fine a point on it--
not aimed at getting us exculpatory or helpful evidence. We need to be 
able to do that. We have never had the kind of compulsory process, the 
kind of ability to subpoena documents and witnesses that you will have 
in a garden variety civil case. We have not had access to a great deal, 
many thousands of pages of evidence which is, first of all, in the 
hands of the House managers that they got from the Office of 
Independent Counsel, but did not put into the public record, did not 
print up. We also need discovery of those other documents, witness 
testimony transcripts, interview notes, other materials, which may be 
helpful or exculpatory that are in the hands of the independent 
counsel.

[[Page 1386]]

  Our dilemma is this: We do not know what we do not know. That is what 
discovery means. You have to get discovery so you can find out what is 
available. It may not necessarily prolong a trial, but it makes you 
available to defend your client in the way you have to be able to do as 
a lawyer. It doesn't turn on the number of witnesses.
  The calling of these witnesses produces a need in us to be ready to 
examine them, to cross-examine them. It initiates a process that leaves 
us unprepared and exposed unless we have adequate discovery. This is a 
proceeding, I need not remind you--I know everyone recognizes its 
gravity--to remove the President of the United States. You have to give 
us, and I believe you will, the discovery that will enable us to 
represent the President adequately, competently and effectively.
  The sequence of discovery is also important. I want to be clear about 
that. It is all very well and I recognize how it happens for one side 
to say, ``Well, we are going to put on three witnesses and they can put 
on three witnesses.'' Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we don't know 
right now how to make a reasoned choice because we haven't had the 
discovery you would normally have to do that. We would first need to 
obtain and review the relevant documents. I have indicated where those 
are. We would then need to be able to depose relevant witnesses. We 
need to know whether the witness depositions that the House managers 
had taken would need to lead to other depositions there. Only at that 
point when we have had discovery of our witnesses will we be able to 
identify the witnesses we might want to call.
  This is a logical procedure, and I think those of you who have tried 
cases will recognize it as such. It is simply impossible from where we 
now are to see how a witness designated by the House managers can be 
fairly rebutted without ourselves having access to all of the available 
evidence.
  Given what is at stake, I think fundamental fairness requires fair 
discovery. We will be expeditious, but in the event the genie is out of 
the bottle, we need time, we need access to defend the President in the 
way any client ought to be defended.
  I think the Senate has wisely elected to proceed on a voluminous 
record, a record that is available for public scrutiny that was 
assembled by people not favorable to the President. I think you have 
enough evidence to make your decision on the basis of that record.
  But in the event you decide to expand it, affording us adequate 
discovery is essential if we are really going to practice the rule of 
law as I believe the Senate would intend for that rule of law to be 
practiced in its proceedings.
  But let me conclude by saying that I don't think, and I respectfully 
submit to you, that there is a need to prolong this process. We hope 
that you will render your decision in a manner that is speedy, and we 
are confident that you will decide to make that decision in a manner 
that is fair, and that this body will, as so often it has done in past 
times of crisis, be able to bring to the country both the closure and 
reconciliation that the country wants so very much. Thank you.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does counsel for the President have any more 
presentation?
  Mr. Counsel KENDALL. If I may, Mr. Chief Justice, I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. No, you can't reserve it. It is open, respond and 
rebuttal.
  Mr. Counsel KENDALL. I will then quitclaim the rest of my time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well.
  (Laughter.)
  Mr. Manager BRYANT. Mr. Chief Justice, may I inquire how much 
rebuttal time we have remaining?
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. Manager BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I will be brief and 
ask other managers to come up and follow me. I have four quick points 
to make.
  Before I get into that, I want to thank my distinguished colleague 
from DC, Mr. Kendall. Over my practice of law for several years, I have 
received a number of jabs before in the courtroom, but never so gentle 
and never so eloquently, and I thank you.
  I think his presentation was very good, but probably makes the best 
illustration of why witnesses are needed in that he has chosen to use 
selective quotes. He likes to use those quotes and point to the 
managers over there where we were quoted without a real context and 
certainly that is what this hearing has been about so far, both sides 
picking and choosing among quotes that best illustrate the point we 
want to make at the time.
  Really, what we need is the big picture, the entire, complete picture 
that witnesses and only witnesses can provide in this case.
  Let me go back to a couple of the selective quotes, and that is the 
quotes that we made back in the House when we were involved in the 
proceedings, which I would remind each one of you involved these very 
same stacks of books here, the record, that they have shown you in the 
past in a very, I guess very often form, that this is the record here; 
why do we need to go outside the record? That very same record was 
there in the House, and it was at that time Mr. Lowell, the minority 
counsel, was representing the President's interests, but also Mr. 
Kendall was there. In fact, both together examined Mr. Starr. That was 
when they were making the request for the witnesses, based on this very 
same record. Notwithstanding that, we need witnesses. I simply point 
that out to you to show you that Mr. Kendall and his very talented 
staff do not have a monopoly on consistency.
  Another example of selective quoting has to do with quotes made about 
our occasion to visit Ms. Lewinsky, to talk to her. This was the one 
witness we have not been able to talk to. He pulled those quotes out as 
if we need to talk to all the witnesses. We don't need to talk to all 
the witnesses, but we just need to sit down and talk with her. I might 
tell you she was ably represented by three attorneys. She had as many 
lawyers there as we did and perhaps more. So she was not imposed upon.
  I think in terms of my statement about discovery, I think I perhaps 
was misunderstood, but I certainly conceded the White House might want 
discovery to depose Ms. Lewinsky, but I still have a hard time 
determining why they would need to discover what Ms. Currie might want 
to say, who sits right outside the President's office every day, or 
what Mr. Jordan might say, who plays golf with Mr. Clinton every day, 
or Mr. Podesta, his former Chief of Staff.
  I am just trying to save this Senate some time and question why we 
would need to go through discovery of those types of people.
  My last point I would like to make before I bring Mr. Hutchinson in 
is Mr. Kendall makes a point, and I am not sure where they were going 
in perhaps trying to worse case this situation, in terms of taking 
forever and a day to conclude all kinds of witnesses. He alluded we 
needed to take all the lawyers of Paula Jones and question her 
motivation. I suggest to you that a real clue for her motivation for 
this lawsuit, we could say, was the 850,000 reasons motivation she 
received the other day. But let me end with that note and bring up Mr. 
Hutchinson who will continue this process.
  Thank you.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.
  Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. I thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I will just 
take a moment.
  Mr. Kendall did an outstanding job, as he always does, of making his 
case for not calling witnesses. I thought the most compelling example 
as to why we need witnesses was the fact that he called a live witness, 
Vernon Jordan. Mr. Jordan testified here in this Chamber. Why did they 
not present a transcript? Why did he want to bring a live witness? 
Because it was real. It was alive. He was more meaningful than a 
transcript. He told the story in short, concise ways that I have not 
been able to do during my presentation during

[[Page 1387]]

the last week. We would like to have the same opportunity, not through 
video, but to present a live witness so that he could cross-examine, so 
that we could question. I think that is a fair proceeding.
  Now, Mr. Kendall raised the point that the statements about the notes 
that Ms. Lewinsky testified she discussed with Mr. Jordan were 
referenced in her February 1998 proffer. When I was making my point, I 
was referencing her August grand jury testimony, not the February 
proffer, because my recollection is that the February proffer that was 
submitted by Mr. Ginsburg had subsequently become a subject of 
litigation because we were not able to reach an immunity agreement. So 
perhaps that was the reason that subject was not inquired into by the 
independent counsel. For whatever reason, my review of the transcripts 
is that that subject was never broached with Mr. Jordan. I do not 
profess perfect knowledge of it, but that is my understanding of it.
  And then finally I want to also look at the discovery that Mr. Bryant 
referenced. There was a gambling illustration that Mr. Kendall used 
about blackjack. But another part of poker is bluffs. And I don't know 
whether they are bluffing. I don't know whether they are serious about 
all the discovery that they need to have. But I know that lawyers do 
that sometimes to intimidate, to scare you away.
  But I think even more important is that the House managers have 
submitted to the rules of the Senate. We were not particularly happy 
about all of them, but we recognized it was important to have 
legitimacy in this process. We accept that. We move on.
  I hope that whatever rules of discovery, whatever limitations you 
wish to put, whatever timeframes you wish to put, that the White House 
counsel will be as amenable to the desire of this Senate and this 
Nation to conclude this as we have been in adopting what our desires 
are to your schedule.
  I yield to Mr. McCollum.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager McCollum.
  Mr. Manager McCOLLUM. Mr. Chief Justice, thank you very much.
  I want to make a couple of observations, and one of them seems pretty 
apparent. Mr. Kendall says they are not afraid and I was wrong in 
characterizing them as being afraid--the White House counsel--of 
calling witnesses. But I am going to tell you, I cannot rationalize any 
other way why he would be out here to make the pitch as hard as he is 
against witnesses, especially the sort of threat that this is going to 
go on and on and on if we open the door and we call three witnesses. 
You know, we are down from thinking we ought to have 10, 12, maybe 15 
witnesses, to 3--Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal. 
And we have introduced three--or proposed to introduce three very 
simple pieces of new evidence. That can't take a lot of discovery, the 
need to go further than that. You know, if he wants to produce 
witnesses, that is fine. But I just can't imagine why that opens that 
door.
  Mr. Holmes, he talks about, the attorney. What is the significance of 
that declaration or affidavit, that sworn declaration that we would 
like you to take in that says, ``well, we have to depose Mr. Holmes. 
That was put in very simply because the counsel on the other side--I 
don't accuse them of doing it intentionally--but the other day they 
misled us, I think unintentionally misled you, on the idea that the 
President, at the time he left the deposition in the Jones case and 
went over to talk to Betty Currie the next day, didn't and couldn't 
have had any idea that she was going to be called as a witness. In 
fact, I think they said she never was on the witness list and she never 
was subpoenaed.
  What Mr. Holmes' declaration does, as I said earlier, is bring into 
the record the subpoena that in fact was issued within a day or so of 
that time of when Betty Currie was talked to. Remember, she was talked 
to twice, the notice about it and her name being put on the witness 
list--that is what that is all about--and a general explanation of why 
they chose, as attorneys, to make that case, why they chose to put her 
name out there, and subpoena her, so it is clear on the record.
  Very simple. If you look at it--and I am sure you will have it before 
you--his declaration is very short. It is like three paragraphs. And it 
goes straight to the point. And it encloses these accompanying 
documents.
  I don't think you should, for one minute, think it opens the door to 
some great big, gigantic discovery period. That is simply an idle 
threat to intimidate, in my judgment--with a proper intimidation 
effort, proper tactic; I don't accuse him of anything improper--to try 
to discourage you from letting us have these three witnesses.
  Second, I want to point out that with respect to some of the things 
that I said, one thing I did say earlier is I don't know what all the 
witnesses would say if we called them. I don't know what they all would 
say, certainly. But I would expect them all to be consistent with what 
they have already said in their sworn testimony. And there is nothing 
inconsistent with my expecting them to be consistent on the facts.
  We already know with that sworn testimony in the case of Monica 
Lewinsky--she has immunity--that if she deviates and goes off of it, 
she can get herself in trouble. But by no means does my expectation 
that the testimony you already have will remain true mean that I don't 
think there are new things to be brought out or that you shouldn't have 
live witnesses here.
  And I thought it interesting that Mr. Kendall totally ignored the one 
thing that was most significant, in my mind, and that is, the whole 
idea that there is a need for witnesses out here to determine their 
credibility, to check their demeanor, to see how they respond to 
questioning, to do all of those things that I described earlier, that 
any reasonable attorney in any courtroom setting in this country in a 
criminal case--and you do have to decide whether the crimes were 
committed or not--would expect to do. So you can, as my colleagues have 
said, look them in the eye and make that determination yourself. He 
didn't even address that. And I think that that alone is sufficiently 
good reason to have a live witness here, as I said before to you.
  So with that in mind, I will yield to Mr. Rogan.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rogan.
  Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, Mr. 
Kendall made a very able and strong presentation. It was particularly 
effective when he brought up a series of quotations from House Members 
and House managers talking about the need for witnesses or the lack 
thereof. It would be more effective if it were presented in context, 
but it could not be, because the context of every single one of those 
quotations was in reference to the distinction between the House's 
function as the accusatory body versus the Senate's constitutional 
function of being the body where an impeachment case is tried. There he 
blurs the distinction. That is why in the Constitution a President is 
impeached solely on the majority vote. But removal requires at the 
trial a two-thirds vote.
  Now, Mr. Kendall's presentation begs the question, did the founders 
get it wrong when they designed this process? Did the founders simply 
intend for us to waste our resources rather than conserve them and 
simply do the very same thing, first in one body and then in the other, 
with the sole distinction that the only difference would be the 
ultimate vote? That was not their intent. That was not the procedure 
established by the Constitution. And it is not the procedure recognized 
throughout the country in court proceedings.
  There is a reason why courts of inferior jurisdiction will be able to 
hold a defendant in a criminal case to answer for trial at a 
preliminary hearing based on hearsay testimony, based on transcripts, 
based solely on police reports.
  But that defendant at a trial has a constitutional right to come 
forward. And the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is 
supremely guaranteed in the Constitution, because the Framers 
understood the difference, even if White House counsel refuses to 
acknowledge the difference.
  Now the argument they have really isn't with the House managers. 
Their

[[Page 1388]]

argument is with the precedence of the House. Their argument, in fact, 
is with people like the venerable Barbara Jordan, our late 
distinguished former colleague. She understood the difference between 
the House's function in an impeachment role versus the Senate's 
function. She said during the Rodino hearings in establishing the 
division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the 
Senate:

       Assigning to one the right to accuse and to the other the 
     right to judge, the Framers of the Constitution were very 
     astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the 
     same person.

  Now, in the words of Yogi Berra, ``I fear that we are going through 
deja vu all over again'' with Mr. Kendall's able proceeding, because 
what he has accentuated in this presentation has been accentuated by 
White House counsel ever since they first rose to address this body at 
the lectern, and that is the complaint that no witnesses were called 
before the House Judiciary Committee, and how wrong it is for members 
of the House managers now to assert the need and the right to have 
witnesses before this body when, in fact, no witnesses were called 
before the Judiciary Committee.
  Once again, he mistakes the function of the two Houses. But I would 
invite the Members of this body, if that is an issue concerning them, 
to go back and review the voluminous transcripts during the Judiciary 
Committee where Chairman Hyde did everything but get on his knees and 
beg the members of the President's defense team, beg our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, to identify for us which witnesses they 
wished to dispute, what facts they wanted to challenge, let us know who 
the witnesses are where there is a contention in the evidence, and 
despite their complaining, and despite their griping and despite their 
anger over a supposedly unfair process, they never once identified in 
the factual record whose testimony they wished to challenge.
  What we heard repeatedly, day after day in the hearing and outside 
before the cameras, was an attack upon the process rather than an 
identification of the issues where there are factual disputes. In fact, 
they refused to identify, despite the repeated pleas of Chairman Hyde, 
who those witnesses were that they felt were appropriate, because the 
chairman said, ``Tell us who they are, we will call them.''
  They champion the cause of witnesses in word but they do not champion 
the cause of witnesses in deed, at least not in the House, because the 
same people who were complaining of the unfairness in the House for not 
having witnesses suddenly have an allergic reaction to the concept of 
witnesses being called before this body where it counts the most, where 
the ultimate decision is to be made, where the triers of fact have to 
make the constitutional decision whether the case is sufficient for 
removal of the President.
  And Mr. Kendall's repeated hints and statements that somehow they 
were denied some form of due process in the House by not being able to 
call witnesses is patently unfair and does not withstand the test of 
the record. Chairman Hyde alluded to it a couple of days ago, and based 
upon Mr. Kendall's presentation, I feel it is worth a minute or two of 
this body's time. Mr. Kendall has stated in these proceedings, and I am 
quoting:

       We have never had the chance to call witnesses ourselves, 
     to examine them, to cross-examine them, to subpoena 
     documentary evidence--at no point in this process.

  The record is to the contrary:
  On October 5, the House passed a procedure by a voice vote which 
included the right to call witnesses. On October 21, the House 
Judiciary Committee staff met with Messrs. Ruff, Kendall and Craig. At 
that time, Judiciary Committee staff asked the White House to provide 
any exculpatory information and provide a list of any witnesses the 
President wished to call. On November 9, the House Judiciary Committee 
staff wrote to Messrs. Ruff, Kendall and Craig and again informed them 
of the President's right to call witnesses. On November 19, Independent 
Counsel Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee. The 
President's counsel was given the opportunity to question the 
independent counsel. The President's counsel did not ask a question 
relating to the facts of the independent counsel's report and 
allegations against the President. On November 25, Chairman Hyde wrote 
a letter to the President asking the President, among other things, to 
provide any exculpatory information and inform the committee of any 
witnesses he wished to call. On December 4, 2 working days before the 
presentation of the President to the Judiciary Committee, counsel for 
the President requested to put on 15 witnesses. The White House was 
allowed to present all 15 witnesses, and not a single one of the 15 
witnesses did they wish to call, that they asked to call, were factual 
witnesses.
  And so the complaints of unfairness are unfair.
  One other point I want to make, because again I see a reversal in 
roles, is that Mr. Kendall can't seem to decide in what type of 
``ogre'' role he wants to portray us, because he said in his 
presentation just a few minutes ago that we were somehow--at least he 
alluded to the fact we were somehow tools of Judge Starr and the Office 
of Independent Counsel. I was a little surprised to hear him suggest 
that Judge Starr spoon-fed us the charges, and that Judge Starr spoon-
fed them to us to the point where he didn't know whether Judge Starr 
should be deemed an honorary member of the House management team.
  Well, that is an interesting proposition, because it seemed to me 
just a day or two ago the same lawyers who are now making this 
allegation were claiming constitutional unfairness before this body and 
asking that this body dismiss the articles of impeachment. Why? Because 
the House Judiciary Committee and the managers didn't present the exact 
same charges that the independent counsel suggested. You can't have it 
both ways. You can't fashion the argument depending on what the result 
is being sought, and yet that is exactly what the managers with the 
White House counsel are attempting to do.
  Yesterday we were renegades who didn't follow the strict rules of 
Judge Starr and didn't give them proper notice. Now, of course, he is 
the marionette and we are the puppets doing his will.
  Members of this body, it is the job of the House of Representatives, 
it is the constitutional obligation of the House of Representatives, to 
act as the accusatory body in an impeachment proceeding. The 
Constitution gives the authority to this body the right to try that 
case. This is the place for trial. This is the place to determine 
guilt. This is the place to determine credibility. This is the place 
for witnesses.
  Mr. Chief Justice, I yield the remainder of our time to our 
distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hyde. Mr. Manager 
Hyde, you have 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. Manager HYDE. I won't use the entire 9 minutes.
  Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished counsel and Senators, I will be very 
brief. Mr. Rogan and my colleagues have handled this very well, but 
there are just a couple of things I want to talk about.
  It is disturbing, it is annoying, it is irritating when I hear that 
the counsel for the President had been cut off from information, that 
we have sequestered things. I pleaded with them to produce witnesses, 
made the subpoenas available to them. They have a positive allergy to 
fact witnesses.
  Oh, they will come up with academics. We saw a parade of professors. 
You know what an intellectual is? It is someone who is educated beyond 
their intelligence. I certainly don't mean that of some of those 
Harvard professors who they paraded out, even though we disagreed with 
them, but you would get eye strain looking for a fact witness.
  And it is remarkable, the flexibility they have, that they complain 
that we called no witnesses in the House. Now they are complaining that 
we are calling witnesses in the Senate as though

[[Page 1389]]

they don't understand the difference in the threshold. There we had to 
prove we had enough to submit to the Senate for a trial but not try it 
over there. And a majority vote prevails over there. Here, you have an 
extraordinary mountain to climb: a two-thirds vote and the trial is 
here, and that is the difference.
  And witnesses help you. They won't help me. I know the record. I am 
satisfied a compelling case is here for removal of the President. But 
they will help you. And we aren't dragging this out. We have been as 
swift as decency will let us be throughout this entire situation.
  Their defense has never been on the facts. If they can come up with a 
good fact witness that has something to say, we will see a reenactment 
of the Indian rope trick, it seems to me. We will see professors, 
though, if past is prologue. I don't know. But the threat of prolonged 
hearings, I suppose, is supposed to make you tremble. It doesn't to me, 
but then different things--different strokes, I guess, for different 
folks. Their defense has been to demonize Mr. Starr to a fare-thee-well 
and then yell about the process. That is their defense.
  I will be frank with you. I am not sure I could stand a lot more of 
that. But that is what they will do. As far as the information not 
available to them, maybe not. Maybe some of the stuff we got from the 
independent counsel was held in executive session, but it was available 
to Mr. Conyers, available to Abbe Lowell, available to every Democrat 
on the Judiciary Committee, and they went through it. I wrote with Mr. 
Conyers to Mr. Starr a letter saying, ``Show us what you didn't send 
us. Let's look at what you have over there. There might be some 
exculpatory material.'' Mr. Conyers sent his people over and they 
looked and they looked and they looked, and I would assume they were in 
touch with you folks. I would assume they were. If they weren't, they 
should have been. That is a breakdown in communication.
  We have a good case. We have an excellent case without the witnesses. 
But the witnesses help you. We have narrowed it down to three--a 
pitiful three. I should think you would want to proceed with that 
minimum testimony, and Mr. Kendall can try his cross-examination skills 
on them, and that I want to watch.
  Thank you.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The time of both sides has now expired. The Chair 
recognizes the majority leader.


                                 Recess

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, in view of the time that we have been in 
without a break, the next pending business is that we would want to 
have a motion by Senator Harkin or Senator Wellstone. Before we do 
that, I suggest that, without objection, we take a 15-minute break.
  There being no objection, at 3:42 p.m., the Senate recessed until 
4:04 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by 
the Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that during each 
day the Senate sits as a Court of Impeachment, it be in order for 
Senators to submit to the desk statements and introduce legislation.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Now, Mr. Chief Justice, I believe at this point it would be 
in order for a motion to be made that we go into open debate, if any, 
and then when that is dispensed with, we would go to the move to close 
and would deal with that issue, and then we would begin the closed 
session. And so I believe we are ready for a motion to be offered, if 
any, at this time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Harkin.


                      Motion to Suspend the Rules

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, in accordance with rule V of the 
Senate's Standing Rules, I filed a motion of intent to move to suspend 
the rules to open debate on this motion to subpoena witnesses. The 
motion is at the desk. It is No. 5, I believe.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for himself and Mr. 
     Wellstone, moves 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 subpoena witnesses during the trial of President 
     William Jefferson Clinton.
       (1) The phrase ``without debate'' in rule VII.
       (2) The following portion of rule XX: ``, unless the Senate 
     shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon 
     its decisions. A motion to close the doors may be acted upon 
     without objection, or, if objection is heard, the motion 
     shall be voted on without debate and by 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 in that case'' and 
     ``, to be had without debate.''

  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) is 
absent due to illness.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:

                         [Rollcall Vote No. 3]

              [Subject Harkin motion to suspend the rules]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 58. 
Two-thirds of those Senators voting, a quorum being present, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, that motion being defeated, I believe it 
is now in order to move to close the session so we can have debate on 
the question of the motion to subpoena witnesses.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. I so move, Mr. Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The motion carries.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to ask that Senators remain 
at their place, but I will put in a request for a quorum just 
momentarily so the appropriate arrangements can be made for the closed 
session.
  Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.


                             Closed Session

  (At 4:29 p.m., the quorum was dispensed with and the doors of the 
Chamber were closed. The proceedings of the

[[Page 1390]]

Senate were held in closed session until 8:01 p.m., at which time the 
following occurred:)


                              Open Session

  (At 8:01 p.m., the doors of the Chamber were opened and the Senate 
resumed proceedings in open session.)
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate return to open session.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the absence of an objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________