[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1928-1958]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

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


                              The Journal

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


                           Order of Procedure

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

[[Page 1929]]

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

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

  Mr. Manager ROGAN. Who is this former intern who swore under oath to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Monica 
Lewinsky is an intelligent, articulate young woman who, until recently, 
held untarnished hope for tomorrow, like any other recent college 
graduate. That hope was drastically altered when she was subpoenaed in 
a lawsuit against the President of the United States.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

       But for the record, would you state your name once again, 
     your full name?
       A. Yes. Monica Samille Lewinsky.
       Q. And you're a--are you a resident of California?
       A. I'm--I'm not sure exactly where I'm a resident now, but 
     I--that's where I'm living right now.
       Q. Okay. You--did you grow up there in California?
       A. Yes.
       Q. I'm not going to go into all that, but I thought just a 
     little bit of background here.
       You went to college where?
       A. Lewis and Clark, in Portland, Oregon.
       Q. And you majored in--majored in?
       A. Psychology.
       Q. Tell me about your work history, briefly, from the time 
     you left college until, let's say, you started as an intern 
     at the White House.
       A. Uh, I wasn't working from the time I--
       Q. Okay. Did you--
       A. I graduated college in May of '95.
       Q. Did you work part time there in--in Oregon with a--with 
     a District Attorney--
       A. Uh--
       Q. --in his office somewhere?
       A. During--I had an internship or a practicum when I was in 
     school. I had two practicums, and one was at the public 
     defender's office and the other was at the Southeast Mental 
     Health Network.
       Q. And those were in Portland?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Okay. What--you received a bachelor of science in 
     psychology?
       A. Correct.
       Q. Okay. As a part of your duties at the Southeast Health 
     Network, what did you--what did you do in terms of working? 
     Did you have direct contact with people there, patients?
       A. Yes, I did. Um, they referred to them as clients there 
     and I worked in what was called the Phoenix Club, which was a 
     socialization area for the clients to--really to just hang 
     out and, um, sort of work on their social skills. So I--
       Q. Okay. After your work there, you obviously had occasion 
     to come to work at the White House. How did--how did you come 
     to decide you wanted to come to Washington, and in particular 
     work at the White House?
       A. There were a few different factors. My mom's side of the 
     family had moved to Washington during my senior year of 
     college and I wanted--I wasn't ready to go to graduate school 
     yet. So I wanted to get out of Portland, and a friend of our 
     family's had a grandson who had had an internship at the 
     White House and had thought it might be something I'd enjoy 
     doing.
       Q. Had you ever worked around--in politics and campaigns or 
     been very active?
       A. No.
       Q. You had to go through the normal application process of 
     submitting a written application, references, and so forth 
     to--to the White House?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Did you do that while you were still in Oregon, or were 
     you already in D.C.?
       A. No. The application process was while I was a senior in 
     college in Oregon.
       Q. Had you ever been to Washington before?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Obviously, you were accepted, and you started work when?
       A. July 10th, 1995.
  That image, the image of a young woman, very much like a family 
member or a friend that we might know, is an image that the President 
did not want America to see when his indiscretions with her became 
public. When that happened, the President painted Monica Lewinsky in a 
very different and callous light.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

       Q. Did the President then give you his account of what 
     happened between him and Monica Lewinsky?
       A. As I recall, he did.
       Q. What did the President tell you?
       A. He, uh--he spoke, uh, fairly rapidly, as I recall, at 
     that point and said that she had come on to him and made a 
     demand for sex, that he had rebuffed her, turned her down, 
     and that she, uh, threatened him. And, uh, he said that she 
     said to him, uh, that she was called ``the stalker'' by her 
     peers and that she hated the term, and that she would claim 
     that they had had an affair whether they had or they hadn't, 
     and that she would tell people.
       Q. Do you remember him also saying that the reason Monica 
     Lewinsky would tell people that is because then she wouldn't 
     be known by her peers as ``the stalker'' anymore?
       A. Yes, that's right.
       Q. Do you remember the President also saying that--and I'm 
     quoting--``I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain 
     for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again''?
       A. Yes. He told me that.
       Q. And that was in the same conversation that you had with 
     the President?
       A. Right, in--in that sequence.
       Q. Can you describe for us the President's demeanor when he 
     shared this information with you?
       A. Yes. He was, uh, very upset. I thought he was, a man in 
     anguish.

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

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

       Q. We're at that point that we've got a telephone 
     conversation in the morning with

[[Page 1930]]

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

       Q. Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of--I 
     would draw your attention to the cover stories. I have 
     alluded to that earlier, but, uh, did you talk about cover 
     story that night?
       A. Yes, sir.
       Q. And what was said?
       A. Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said something--
     you can always say you were coming to see Betty or bringing 
     me papers.
       Q. I think you've testified that you're sure he said that 
     that night. You are sure he said that that night?
       A. Yes.

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

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

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

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

  Members of the Senate, these are but a few highlights of a broad 
tapestry of corruption that Mr. Manager Hutchinson and I will develop 
for you this morning through videotape testimony and through other 
evidence.
  Before we proceed to that, it is worth briefly recounting the 
circumstances that elevated the President's initial indiscretions to 
the level of impeachable offenses. The lesson is not complex. It is 
quite elementary.
  In all the things we do in life, life is about making choices. 
Parents teach children that bad choices bring sorrow and consequences. 
We do that because the failure to impose meaningful consequences for 
bad choices brings about more bad choices. That simple primer on life 
encapsulates the political and personal legacy of Bill Clinton, his 
continuing pattern of indulging all choices and accepting no 
consequences. This is demonstrated by the actions he took leading to 
his impeachment and trial before the Senate.
  In May 1991, an incident allegedly occurred that led the President to 
make a bad choice. According to Paula Jones, a subordinate government 
employee, then-Governor Clinton made a crude and unwelcome sexual 
advance on her. She later filed a legal claim for sexual harassment 
against him.
  In November 1995, the President made another bad choice. He began a 
physical relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern. He chose 
to begin a physical relationship with her. This was not, as he told the 
grand jury, a relationship that began as a friendship only to later 
blossom into intimacy. The President impulsively began using her for 
his gratification the very day he first spoke with her. Later, he made 
the bad choice of continuing the relationship after Monica became a 
paid Government employee.
  An important note. As regrettable as his choice was here, any 
accountability for the private aspect of this should not be determined 
by the Congress of the United States. It should be determined by his 
family. Had the President's bad choice simply ended with this 
indiscretion, we would not be here today. Adultery may be a lot of 
things, but it is not an impeachable offense.
  Unfortunately, the President's bad choices only grew worse. In 
December 1997, the President made a bad choice. In order to avoid any 
possible legal accountability to Paula Jones, he chose to destroy her 
lawful right to proceed with her case. And this is how he did it: 
During the so-called discovery portion of the Paula Jones case, Federal 
Judge Susan Wright ordered the President to answer questions under oath 
about any intimate relationship he may have had with subordinate female 
government employees while he was Governor or President.
  Why did Judge Susan Wright order him to answer these questions? She 
did it because sexual harassers in the workplace usually do not commit 
their offenses in the open. Typically they get their victims alone and 
isolated. Predators know if they can do this, one of two things 
generally will happen. Out of fear and intimidation the victim will 
submit, or out of fear and intimidation the victim will not submit but 
the victim will not tell anybody about it.
  There usually is no other way for a sexual harassment victim to learn 
if there is evidence of a pattern of similar conduct by a predator 
without being able to ask these kinds of questions in a sexual 
harassment case. Without this information, a harassment victim in the 
workplace generally would not be able to prove her case. This is why 
courts routinely order defendants to answer these kinds of questions in 
almost every sexual harassment case in the country.
  Now, President Clinton vigorously pursued legal arguments and motions 
to avoid answering these questions about his sexual relations with 
subordinate government employees. Yet, after hearing his arguments, 
Judge Susan Wright ordered the President to answer under oath these 
routine questions. And by the way, Paula Jones also was required to 
provide truthful answers under oath as part of the trial

[[Page 1931]]

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

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

  Now, you have heard that before. As you can see, Mr. Jordan defends 
his actions and, by implication, defends the actions of the President. 
You can weigh his intentions, but his intentions are not the issue, 
because regardless of your view of Mr. Jordan and his motivations, they 
are irrelevant. His view as to whether there is a connection between 
the job and the testimony is not an issue. It is not an issue as to 
whether Ms. Lewinsky thought there was a connection between the job and 
the testimony. It is not an issue as to whether Revlon thought there 
was a connection between the job and the testimony.
  There is only one issue, and that is whether the President viewed 
that there was a connection between those two. And it is the President 
who, under the law, had to have the corrupt intent, and that is the 
question that you have to answer. And I believe that the evidence will 
show that regardless of what anyone else believed, he knew the direct 
connection.
  Now, after each of you hears the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. 
Jordan, some of you will conclude that surely he had to know that there 
was an inappropriate relationship between the President and Ms. 
Lewinsky. And why do I say that? Well, Ms. Lewinsky will testify that 
he made it clear--that she made it clear to Mr. Jordan that there was 
that type of relationship. At first, she sort of is careful about it, 
but then she just ultimately tells him, as you will see from her 
testimony. But Mr. Jordan also, for those who have listened to his 
testimony, refers to mother wit, and his oft relied upon mother wit 
would have told him as well, under the circumstances, that there is 
something more going on.
  If he knew about the relationship, he had to know that all was not as 
it should be in what the President was asking him to do. The President 
requested a job for Ms. Lewinsky at the same time he was monitoring the 
filing of a false affidavit and knowing she was a witness in a case 
against him: All indicated that the job was not a favor for a young 
friend but it was a favor for someone in high office that had to be 
accomplished in order to assure the cooperation of a dangerous

[[Page 1932]]

witness. That evidence will show that it is the President who suggested 
the assistance from Ms. Lewinsky and it is the President who suggested 
the false affidavit.
  Now, let's listen to the testimony, step by step, through the job 
search, through the signing of the false affidavit, to the 
encouragement to file the false affidavit on December 17, to the 
discussion of the gifts on December 28, through the tampering with the 
testimony of Betty Currie on two occasions, and then with the 
President's aide when they were called before the Federal grand jury, 
or prior to that.
  First, let's go to the job benefit to Ms. Lewinsky. How involved was 
the President in this activity? Let's first listen to the President as 
to what he said when he testified under oath in his deposition.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Q. Now, you mentioned that she had sent you a--I guess some 
     people refer to it--a wish list, or a list of jobs that she--
       A. Not jobs--companies.
       Q. --companies that she would be interested in seeking 
     employment with.
       A. That's correct.
       Q. And you looked at that, and you determined that you 
     wanted to go with your own list of friends and companies that 
     you had better contacts with.
       A. I'm sure, Congressman, that you too have been in this 
     business, and you do know

[[Page 1933]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Q. All right. And so there's two conversations after the 
     witness list came out--one that you had with the President on 
     December 7th, and then a subsequent conversation with him 
     after you met with Ms. Lewinsky on the 11th.
       Now, in your subsequent conversation after the 11th, did 
     you discuss with the President of the United States Monica 
     Lewinsky, and if so, can you tell us what that discussion 
     was?
       A. If there was a discussion subsequent to Monica 
     Lewinsky's visit to me on December the 11th with the 
     President of the United States, it was about the job search.
       Q. All right. And during that, did he indicate that he knew 
     about the fact that she had lost her job in the White House, 
     and she wanted to get a job in New York?
       A. He was aware that--he was obviously aware that she had 
     lost her job in the White House, because she was working at 
     the Pentagon. He was also aware that she wanted to work in 
     New York, in the private sector, and understood that that is 
     why she was having conversations with me. There is no doubt 
     about that.
       Q. And he thanked you for helping her?
       A. There's no question about that, either.
       Q. And on either of these conversations that I've 
     referenced that you had with the President after the witness 
     list came out, your conversation on December 7th, and your 
     conversation sometime after the 11th, did the President tell 
     you that Ms. Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the 
     Jones case?
       A. He did not.

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

[[Page 1934]]

  Let's listen again to Mr. Jordan.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Q. As I understand your testimony, too, the cover stories 
     were reiterated to you by the President that night on the 
     telephone--
       A. Correct.
       Q. --and after he told you you would be a witness--or your 
     name was on the witness list, I should say?
       A. Correct.
       Q. And did you understand that since your name was on the 
     witness list that there would be a possibility that you could 
     be subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case?
       A. I think I understood that I could be subpoenaed, and 
     there was a possibility of testifying. I don't know if I 
     necessarily thought it was a subpoena to testify, but--
       Q. Were you in fact subpoenaed to testify?
       A. Yes.
       Q. And that was what--

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Q. Okay. Let me ask it. Did you understand in the context 
     of the telephone conversation with the President that early 
     morning of December the 17th--did you understand that you 
     would deny your relationship with the President to the Jones 
     lawyers through use of these cover stories?
       A. From what I learned in that--oh, through those cover 
     stories, I don't know, but from what I learned in that 
     conversation, I thought to myself I knew I would deny the 
     relationship.
       Q. And you would deny the relationship to the Jones 
     lawyers?
       A. Yes, correct.
       Q. Good.
  Do you believe Monica Lewinsky? I believe her testimony is credible. 
She is not trying to hammer the President. She is trying to tell the 
truth as to her recollection of this 2 a.m. call to her by the 
President of the United States on December 17.
  The news is broken to her that she is on the witness list. It puts it 
in a legal context. This is a 24-year-old ex-intern. She might not have 
the legal sophistication of the President, but the President certainly 
knows the legal consequences as to his actions. What he is telling a 
witness in a case that is adverse to him is that: You do not have to 
tell the truth. You can use the cover stories that we used before. And 
that might have been in a nonlegal context, but now we are in a 
different arena and he says: Continue the same lies, even though you 
are in a court of law. Continue the same pattern.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, in my book that is illegal, and I 
hate to say it, but that is obstruction of justice by the President of 
the United States. And, if you believe Ms. Lewinsky, then you have to 
accept that fact. Otherwise, we are saying that it is all right for 
someone to take a witness who is against them and say: Don't tell the 
truth, don't worry about that, use the cover stories. You can file

[[Page 1935]]

an affidavit. You can avoid telling the truth.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is significant. It is important. Do not 
diminish this, the impact of what happened on December 17, with the 
obstruction of justice on that occasion.
  And, now, let's move on. That is December 17. We can move on to 
December 19, and this is when the subpoena is actually delivered to Ms. 
Lewinsky. She calls Vernon Jordan. She is in tears. She is upset. 
Vernon Jordan says, ``Come over to my office,'' and they have the 
discussion. And you are going to hear Mr. Jordan's version of what 
happens on December 19. You are going to hear Ms. Lewinsky's testimony 
as to what happens in that office on December 19 as well.
  Let's hear from Mr. Jordan.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

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

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

  At this point, Ms. Lewinsky denies the relationship. She thinks this 
is

[[Page 1936]]

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

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

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

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

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


                                 recess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Q. Now, would you describe your conversation with the 
     President?
       A. We were upstairs, uh, in the White House. Mrs. Jordan--
     we came in by way of the Southwest Gate into the Diplomatic 
     Entrance--we left the car there. I took the elevator up to 
     the residence, and Mrs. Jordan went and visited at the party. 
     And the President was already upstairs--I had ascertained 
     that from the usher--and I went up, and I raised with him the 
     whole question of Monica Lewinsky and asked him directly if 
     he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and the 
     President said, ``No, never.''

  (Text of videotape presentation:)

       A. Well, we had established that.

[[Page 1937]]

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

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

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

  His answer:

       No, sir, I did not do that.

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

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

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

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

  So you have Mr. Jordan discussing the affidavit with both Ms. 
Lewinsky and her attorney, Mr. Carter. And if you look at the testimony 
of Mr. Carter, he talks about the fact that he did bill some time for 
his conversations

[[Page 1938]]

with Mr. Jordan. Certainly they are matters of substance in relation to 
the affidavit that was being discussed between the three: Ms. Lewinsky, 
Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Carter.
  Now, let's hear what Ms. Lewinsky has to say on the changes that were 
made in the affidavit:
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

  Now, because of time, I am not going to be able to go completely 
through all of their testimony but let me tell you time sequentially 
what is happening here. This is the second page of the time chart that 
you have.
  January 5 and 6, the affidavit is prepared and discussed with Mr. 
Jordan and with the President.
  On the 7th, the affidavit is signed. You recall Mr. Jordan lets the 
President know that the affidavit was signed. And he says he was 
interested, he was obviously interested in this.
  On January 8 the job came through, the day after the affidavit was 
signed. And of course it had to come through, the personal call of Mr. 
Jordan to Mr. Perelman to ``make it happen--if it can happen.'' Once 
that job is secured, the President is informed: Mission accomplished.
  January 15, there are some inquiries from the news media about the 
gifts that had been delivered to the White House. This makes Betty 
Currie nervous enough that she has to go see Mr. Jordan about it.
  You go to the 17th; the President gives his deposition in which that 
false affidavit is presented on behalf of Ms. Lewinsky and the 
President's attorney.
  And then the next day, after that deposition is given, you go to 
January 18, where he is very concerned because he mentions Betty 
Currie's name so many times.
  We were not able--we did not ask for the deposition of Betty Currie. 
We wish that we had had that opportunity. We would like to call her 
here. But that is one of the most critical and important elements of 
the structure in which the truth is so critically clear, because it 
happened not just on one day, because it happened on a couple of days.
  We see on the 17th, the President is deposed. This is the third chart 
that you have. The 18th, the President coaches Betty Currie, going 
through the series of questions. On the 19th, there is this dramatic 
search for Ms. Lewinsky. On the 20th, the Washington Post story becomes 
known, because the President's counselors get calls and the OIC 
investigation becomes known.
  On the 21st, at 12:30 a.m., the Post story appears on the Internet. 
At 12:41, the President calls Bruce Lindsey. At 1:16 a.m, the Post 
story appears. The President calls Betty Currie for 20 minutes, 
discusses the Post story. And then, according to Betty Currie, on the 
20th or the 21st, it was the second incident of coaching that took 
place, where the President calls her in and goes through that series of 
questions: I did nothing wrong; she came on to me; we were never alone. 
And so that was the second time that it happened. And that, ladies and 
gentlemen of the Senate, is another example of witness tampering: A 
known witness clearly going to be testifying, a subordinate employee 
who is called in and coached.
  Now, the President says, ``I was trying to gain facts.'' You 
determine that. You are the ones who have to defend that question as to 
whether, under common sense, the President was gaining information on 
two separate occasions or whether he was actually trying to tamper with 
the testimony of a witness.
  The 21st, she is subpoenaed by the OIC. The 23rd, she is added to the 
Jones witness list.
  Now I want to play the last video clip that I am going to move to on 
Ms. Lewinsky, some things that she said that are different with regard 
to the President:
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

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

       A. Sure, gosh, I think to me that if the President had not 
     said to Betty in letters us--cover--let us just say if we 
     refer to that which I am talking about in paragraph 4 of page 
     4, I would have known to use that. So, to me, encouraging or 
     asking me to lie would have, you know if the President had 
     said now listen you better not say anything about this 
     relationship, you better not tell them the truth, you better 
     not--for me the best way to explain how I feel what happened 
     was, you know, no one asked or encouraged me to lie, but no 
     one discouraged me either.

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


                                 recess

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I think it would be appropriate if we 
take a break at this time for lunch and return at 1:15, and I so ask 
unanimous consent.
  There being no objection, at 12:22 p.m., the Senate recessed until 
1:24 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by 
the Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  I believe we are ready to resume the presentation by the House 
managers, and Mr. Manager Rogan is prepared to speak.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan.
  Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, before 
the break, you had the opportunity to hear the very able presentation 
from Mr. Manager Hutchinson relating to the article of impeachment 
alleging obstruction of justice against the President of the United 
States. I would like to use my portion to discuss very briefly article 
I of the impeachment resolution that alleges on August 17, 1998, the 
President committed perjury before a

[[Page 1939]]

Federal grand jury conducting a criminal investigation. He did this in 
a number of ways, embarking on a calculated effort to cover up illegal 
obstruction of justice.
  First, the President lied about statements he made to his top aides 
regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is significant 
because the President admitted, under oath, that he knew these aides 
were potential witnesses before a criminal grand jury.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Q. Reading at line 7, ``So I went up to the Oval Office and 
     I began a discussion, and I said that I HAD received--that I 
     had spoken to the First Lady that day in the afternoon about 
     the story that had broke in the morning, and I related to the 
     President my conversation with the First Lady and the 
     conversation went as follows. The First Lady said that she 
     was distressed that the President was being attacked, in her 
     view, for political motives for his ministry of a troubled 
     person. She said that the President ministers to troubled 
     people all the time,'' and then it goes on to--
       Does that help refresh your recollection with respect to 
     what you told the President the First Lady had said earlier?
       A. Yes.
       Q. And do you now remember that the First Lady had 
     indicated to you that she felt the President was being 
     attacked for political motives?
       A. Well, I remember she said that to me.
       Q. And just getting us back on track, a few moments ago, I 
     think you--you shared with us that the First Lady said that 
     the President helped troubled people and he had done it many 
     times in the past.
       A. Yes.
       Q. Do you remember testifying before the grand jury on that 
     subject, saying that the First Lady said that he has done 
     this dozens, if not hundreds, of times with people--
       A. Yes.
       Q. --with troubled people?
       A. I recall that.
       Q. After you related the conversation that you had with the 
     First Lady to the President, what do you remember saying to 
     the

[[Page 1940]]

     President next about the subject of Monica Lewinsky?
       A. Well, I recall telling him that I understood he felt 
     that way, and that he did help people, but that he should 
     stop trying to help troubled people personally, that troubled 
     people are troubled and that they can get you in a lot of 
     messes and that you had to cut yourself off from it and you 
     just had to do it. That's what I recall saying to him.
       Q. Do you also remember in that conversation saying to him, 
     ``You really need to not do that at this point, that you 
     can't get near anybody who is even remotely crazy. You're 
     President''?
       A. Yes. I think that was a little later in the 
     conversation, but I do recall saying that.
       Q. When you told the President that he should avoid contact 
     with troubled people, what did the President say to you in 
     response?
       A. I'm trying to remember the sequence of it. He--he said 
     that was very difficult for him. He said he--he felt a need 
     to help troubled people, and it was hard for him to--to cut 
     himself off from doing that.
       Q. Do you remember him saying specifically, ``It's very 
     difficult for me to do that given how I am. I want to help 
     people''?
       A. I recall--I recall that.
       Q. And when the President referred to helping people, did 
     you understand him in that conversation to be referring to 
     Monica Lewinsky?
       A. I think it included Monica Lewinsky, but also many 
     others.
       Q. Right, but it was your understanding that he was all--he 
     was specifically referring to Monica Lewinsky in that list of 
     people that he tried to help?
       A. I believe that--that was implied.
       Q. Do you remember being asked that question before the 
     grand jury and giving the answer, ``I understood that''?
       A. If you could point it out to me, I'd be happy to see it.

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Mr. Blumenthal, did you ever ask the President if he was 
     ever alone with Monica Lewinsky?
       A. I did.
       Q. What was his response?
       A. I asked him a number of questions that appeared in the 
     press that day. I asked him, uh, if he were alone, and he 
     said that, uh, he was within eyesight or earshot of someone 
     when he was with her.
       Q. What other questions do you remember asking him?
       A. Uh, there was a story in the paper that, uh, there were 
     recorded messages, uh, left by him on her voice-mail and I 
     asked him if that were true.
       Q. What did he say?
       A. He said, uh, that it was, that, uh, he had called her.
       Q. You had asked him about a press account that said there 
     were potentially a number of telephone messages left by the 
     President for Monica Lewinsky. And he relayed to you that he 
     called her. Did he tell you how many times he called her?
       A. He--he did. He said he called once. He said he called 
     when, uh, Betty Currie's brother had died, to tell her that.
       Q. And other than that one time that he shared that 
     information with you, he shared no other information 
     respecting additional calls?

[[Page 1941]]

       A. No.
       Q. He never indicated to you that there were over 50 
     telephone conversations between himself and Monica Lewinsky?
       A. No.
       Q. Based on your conversation with the President at that 
     time, would it have surprised you to know that there were 
     over 50--there were records of over 50 telephone 
     conversations with Monica Lewinsky and the President?
       A. Would I have been surprised at that time?
       Q. Yes.
       A. Uh, I--to see those records and if he--I don't fully 
     grasp the question here. Could you--would I have been 
     surprised?
       Q. Based on the President's response to your question at 
     that time, would it have surprised you to have been told or 
     to have later learned that there were over 50 recorded--50 
     conversations between the President and Ms. Lewinsky?
       A. I did later learn that, uh, as the whole country did, 
     uh, and I was surprised.
       Q. When the President told you that Monica Lewinsky 
     threatened him, did you ever feel compelled to report that 
     information to the Secret Service?
       A. No.
       Q. The FBI or any other law enforcement organization?
       A. No.
       Q. I'm assuming that a threat to the President from 
     somebody in the White House would normally send off alarm 
     bells among staff.
       A. It wouldn't--
       MR. McDANIEL: Well, I'd like to object to the question, 
     Senator. There's no testimony that Mr. Blumenthal learned of 
     a threat contemporaneously with it being made by someone in 
     the White House. This is a threat that was relayed to him 
     sometime afterwards by someone who was no longer employed in 
     the White House. So I think the question doesn't relate to 
     the testimony of this witness.
       MR. ROGAN: Respectfully, I'm not sure what the legal basis 
     of the objection is. The evidence before us is that the 
     President told the witness that Monica Lewinsky threatened 
     him.
       [Senators Specter and Edwards conferring.]
       SENATOR SPECTER: We've conferred and overrule the objection 
     on the ground that it calls for an answer; that, however the 
     witness chooses to answer it, was not a contemporaneous 
     threat, or he thought it was stale, or whatever he thinks. 
     But the objection is overruled.
       MR. ROGAN: Thank you.
       BY MR. ROGAN:
       Q. Let me--let me restate the question, if I may. Mr. 
     Blumenthal, would a threat--
       SENATOR SPECTER: We withdraw the ruling.
       [Laughter.]
       MR. McDANIEL: I withdraw my objection, then.
       [Laughter.]
       MR. ROGAN: Senator Specter, the ruling is just fine by my 
     light. I'm just going to try to simplify the question for the 
     witness' benefit.
       SENATOR SPECTER: We'll hold in abeyance a decision on 
     whether to reinstate the ruling.
       MR. ROGAN: Thank you. Maybe I should just quit while I'm 
     ahead and have the question read back.
       BY MR. ROGAN:
       Q. Basically, Mr. Blumenthal, what I'm asking is, I mean, 
     normally, would a threat from somebody against the President 
     in the White House typically require some sort of report 
     being made to a law enforcement agency?
       A. Uh, in the abstract, yes.
       Q. This conversation that you had with the President on 
     January the 21st, 1998, how did that conversation conclude?
       A. Uh, I believe we, uh--well, I believe after that, I said 
     to the President that, uh--who was--seemed to me to be upset, 
     that you needed to find some sure footing and to be 
     confident. And, uh, we went on, I believe, to discuss the 
     State of the Union.
       Q. You went on to other business?
       A. Yes, we went on to talk about public policy.
       Q. When this conversation with the President concluded as 
     it related to Monica Lewinsky, what were your feelings toward 
     the President's statement?
       A. Uh, well, they were complex. Uh, I believed him, uh, but 
     I was also, uh--I thought he was very upset. That troubled 
     me. And I also was troubled by his association with troubled 
     people and thought this was not a good story and thought he 
     shouldn't be doing this.
       Q. Do you remember also testifying before the grand jury 
     that you felt that the President's story was a very heartfelt 
     story and that ``he was pouring out his heart, and I believed 
     him''?
       A. Yes, that's what I told the grand jury, I believe; 
     right.
       Q. That was--that was how you interpreted the President's 
     story?
       A Yes, I did. He was, uh--he seemed--he seemed emotional.
       Q. When the President told you he was helping Monica 
     Lewinsky, did he ever describe to you how he might be helping 
     or ministering to her?
       A. No.
       Q. Did he ever describe how many times he may have tried to 
     help or minister to her?
       .A No.
       Q. Did he tell you how many times he visited with Monica 
     Lewinsky?
       A. No.
       Q. Did he tell you how many times Monica Lewinsky visited 
     him in the Oval Office complex?
       A. No.
       Q. Did he tell you how many times he was alone with Monica 
     Lewinsky?
       A. No.
       Q. He never described to you any intimate physical activity 
     he may have had with Monica Lewinsky?
       A. Oh, no.
       Q. Did the President ever tell you that he gave any gifts 
     to Monica Lewinsky?
       A. No.
       Q. Did he tell you that Monica Lewinsky gave him any gifts?
       A. No.
       Q. Based on the President's story as he related on January 
     21st, would it have surprised you to know at that time that 
     there was a repeated gift exchange between Monica Lewinsky 
     and the President?
       A. Well, I learned later about that, and I was surprised.
       Q. The President never told you that he engaged in 
     occasional sexual banter with her on the telephone?
       A. No.
       Q. He never told you about any cover stories that he and 
     Monica Lewinsky may have developed to disguise a 
     relationship?
       A. No.
       Q. He never suggested to you that there might be some 
     physical evidence pointing to a physical relationship between 
     he--between himself and Monica Lewinsky?
       A. No.
       Q. Did the President ever discuss his grand jury--or strike 
     that.
       Did the President ever discuss his deposition testimony 
     with you in the Paula Jones case on that date?
       A. Oh, no.
       Q. Did he ever tell you that he denied under oath in his 
     Paula Jones deposition that he had an affair with Monica 
     Lewinsky?
       A. No.
       Q. Did the President ever tell you that he ministered to 
     anyone else who then made a sexual advance toward him?
       A. No.

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

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

  The President of the United States used a special assistant, one of 
his

[[Page 1942]]

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

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

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

  Members of the Senate, Mr. Ruff's conclusion is wrong because his 
premise is wrong. The President didn't tell the American public and his 
aides the same thing, nor did he make the very same denial. On the 
contrary, the President went out of his way with his aides to make 
explicit denials, coupled with character assassination against Monica 
Lewinsky. Why the distinction? Because the American public was not 
destined to be subpoenaed as a witness before the grand jury and the 
President's aides were.
  Members of the Senate, our time draws short. The record is replete 
with other examples which I have addressed and Mr. Manager Hutchinson 
has addressed dealing with the President's perjuries in other areas, 
for instance, in the Paula Jones deposition where he emphatically 
denied having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky that we now know to 
be true, a relationship that a Federal judge ordered him to discuss 
with Paula Jones' attorneys because it was relevant information in the 
sexual civil harassment lawsuit.
  The President's perjury is with respect to Betty Currie and using 
Betty Currie as somebody to be brought into the Oval Office so that he 
could coach her as a witness and doing everything he could in his own 
testimony to ensure that the Jones attorney would subpoena her as a 
witness, to once again use a White House aide as a conduit of false 
information before the grand jury.
  I don't feel the need to have to go over this ground with you any 
further. In my final couple of minutes, before I reserve time, I do 
want to raise one last point, because I think it is a valid one and it, 
perhaps, in the long run, is the most important point that this body 
should consider in coming to their verdict.
  We have heard an awful lot throughout this entire episode about the 
idea of proportionality of punishment. We have also heard that lying 
about sex somehow minimizes the perjury because everybody does it. Many 
people in everyday life under the stress of ordinary relations may well 
lie about personal matters when confronted with embarrassing 
situations. But, no, everybody doesn't commit perjury under oath in a 
court proceeding, having been ordered by a Federal judge to answer 
questions. And if they did so, they generally don't expect to keep 
their job or their liberty if they get caught.
  The dispensation this President wants for himself is not the same 
dispensation he grants as head of the executive branch to ordinary 
Americans when they lie about sex under oath. Bill Clinton wants it 
both ways. The question before this body is whether you are going to 
give it to him.
  During our committee hearings, we learned the Clinton administration 
had no shyness in prosecuting other people for lying under oath about 
consensual sex in civil cases, even when the underlying civil case was 
dismissed. For instance, Dr. Barbara Battalino was an attorney and a VA 
doctor when she began a relationship with one of her counseling 
patients at a VA hospital. On a single occasion, she performed an 
inappropriate sexual act with him in her office. The patient later sued 
the Veterans Administration for, among other things, sexual harassment.
  During a deposition in this civil lawsuit, Dr. Battalino was asked if 
anything of a sexual nature took place in her office with the patient. 
Fearing embarrassment, disgrace and the loss of her job, Dr. Battalino 
answered, ``No.'' Later, she learned the patient had tape recorded 
conversations which proved she lied about sex under oath.
  Even though the patient's harassment case was eventually dismissed, 
the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted Dr. Battalino. She lost her 
medical license. She lost her right to practice law. She was fired from 
her job. She later agreed to a plea bargain. She was fined $3,500 and 
sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment under electronic monitoring.
  Listen to the words of Dr. Battalino as she testified before the 
House Judiciary Committee, and then explain to her the theory of 
proportionality, if you can.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

       Dr. Battalino, your case intrigues me.
       I want to make sure I understand the factual circumstances. 
     You lied about a one-time act of consensual sex with someone 
     on Federal property; is that correct?
       Ms. Battalino. Yes, absolutely, correct.
       Mr. Rogan. This act of perjury was in a civil lawsuit, not 
     in a criminal case?
       Ms. Battalino. That's also correct.
       Mr. Rogan. And, in fact, the civil case eventually was 
     dismissed?
       Ms. Battalino. Correct.
       Mr. Rogan. Yet despite the dismissal, you were prosecuted 
     by the Clinton Justice Department for this act of perjury; is 
     that correct?
       Ms. Battalino. That is correct.
       Mr. Rogan. I want to know, Dr. Battalino: During your 
     ordeal, during your prosecution, did anybody from the White 
     House, from the Clinton Justice Department, any Members of 
     Congress, or academics from respected universities every show 
     up at your trial and suggest that you should be treated with 
     leniency because ``everybody lies about sex''?
       Ms. Battalino. No, sir.
       Mr. Rogan. Did anybody ever come forward from the White 
     House or from the Clinton Justice Department and urge 
     leniency for you because your perjury was only in a civil 
     case?
       Ms. Battalino. No.
       Mr. Rogan. Did they argue for leniency because the civil 
     case in which you committed perjury was ultimately dismissed?
       Ms. Battalino. No.
       Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from the White House ever say that 
     leniency should be granted to you because you otherwise did 
     your job very well?
       Ms. Battalino. No.
       Mr. Rogan. Did anybody ever come forward from Congress to 
     suggest that you were the victim of an overzealous or sex-
     obsessed prosecutor?
       Ms. Battalino. No.
       Mr. Rogan. Now, according to the New York Times, they 
     report that you lied when your lawyer asked you at a 
     deposition whether ``anything of a sexual nature'' occurred; 
     is that correct?
       Ms. Battalino. Yes, that is correct.
       Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from Congress or from the White 
     House come forward to defend you, saying that that phrase was 
     ambiguous or it all depended on what the word ``anything'' 
     meant?
       Ms. Battalino. No, sir. May I just--I am not sure it was my 
     lawyer that asked the question, but that is the exact 
     question that I was asked.
       Mr. Rogan. The question that was asked that caused your 
     prosecution for perjury.
       Ms. Battalino. That's correct.
       Mr. Rogan. No one ever argued that that phrase itself was 
     ambiguous, did they?
       Ms. Battalino. No.
       Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
       Mr. Rogan. Regrettably, my time is limited and I will not 
     yield for that reason.
       Now, Doctor, you lost two licenses. You lost a law license.
       Ms. Battalino. Well, I have a law degree. I was not a 
     member of any bar.
       Mr. Rogan. Your conviction precludes you from practicing 
     law?
       Ms. Battalino. That is correct, sir.
       Mr. Rogan. You also had a medical degree and license.
       Ms. Battalino. That is correct.
       Mr. Rogan. You lost your medical license?
       Ms. Battalino. Yes. I am no longer permitted to practice 
     medicine either.

[[Page 1943]]

       Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from either the White House or from 
     Congress come forward during your prosecution, or during your 
     sentencing, and suggest that rather than you suffer the 
     severe punishment of no longer being able to practice your 
     profession, perhaps you should simply just receive some sort 
     of rebuke or censure?
       Ms. Battalino. No one came to my aid or defense, no.
       Mr. Rogan. Nobody from the Clinton Justice Department 
     suggested that during your sentencing hearing?
       Ms. Battalino. No.
       Mr. Rogan. Has anybody come forward from the White House to 
     suggest to you that in light of circumstances, as we now see 
     them unfolding, you should be pardoned for your offense?
       Ms. Battalino. Nobody has come no. . . .

  That is how the Clinton administration defines proportionality in 
punishment.
  Mr. Chief Justice, we reserve the remainder of our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. The Chair recognizes the majority 
leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe now we are prepared to hear 
from White House counsel for up to 3 hours. How much time is remaining 
for the House managers?
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thirty-one minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Does the Chief Justice suggest we take a brief break here?
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. No, let's keep going.
  Mr. LOTT. All right, sir.
  (Laughter.)
  Mr. LOTT. I guess that settles that.
  (Laughter.)
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Counsel Seligman.
  Ms. Counsel SELIGMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the 
Senate, the House managers have suggested to you that the deposition of 
Ms. Lewinsky helped their case. The opposite is true. Ms. Lewinsky 
undermined critical aspects of the House managers' obstruction case.
  As those of you who watched the entire video are well aware, the 
managers have cleverly snipped here and there in an effort to present 
their story even if, as a result, the story they are telling you is not 
Ms. Lewinsky's story. They have distorted, they have omitted, and they 
have created a profoundly erroneous impression.
  So let's look at the facts.
  In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky reaffirmed her previous 
testimony and provided extremely useful supplements to that testimony. 
We asked her no questions. Why? Because there was no need. Her 
testimony exonerated the President. In four areas in particular, what 
she said demonstrates that the allegations in the articles cannot 
stand.
  First, she refuted the allegations in article II, subpart (1), with 
respect to alleged efforts to obstruct and influence Ms. Lewinsky's 
affidavit.
  Second, she contradicted the allegations in article II, subpart (2), 
with respect to alleged efforts to influence Ms. Lewinsky's testimony 
as distinct from her affidavit.
  Third, she undermined the allegations in article II, subpart (3), 
with respect to alleged efforts to conceal gifts.
  And fourth, she rebutted the allegations in article II, subpart (4), 
with respect to Ms. Lewinsky's job search.
  I will discuss each briefly.
  Let's begin with the December 17 phone call between the President and 
Ms. Lewinsky, which is at the heart of article II's first two subparts. 
The managers have consistently exaggerated the facts, the impact, and 
the import of this conversation. They have relentlessly argued that you 
should draw inferences and conclusions that are not supported by the 
evidence. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony this week should put an end to these 
inflated claims about that call.
  Article II charges, in subpart (1), that the President: ``On or about 
December 17, 1997,'' ``corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal 
civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in 
that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.''
  ``On or about December 17.'' In other words, the allegation is firmly 
grounded in the December 17 phone call. That is where the House of 
Representatives charged the deed was done. That is the single event on 
which the managers base the first obstruction of justice charge.
  Indeed, Mr. Manager McCollum made this point emphatically before the 
Senate. He claimed:

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

  He went on:

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

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

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

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

       BY MR. BRYANT:
       Q. Did--did we get your response? We were talking about the 
     discussion you were having with the President over the 
     telephone, early morning of the December 17th phone call, and 
     he had, uh, mentioned that it broke his heart that you were 
     on that list.
       A. Correct.
       Q. And I think you were about to comment on that further, 
     and then you need a break.
       A. No.
       Q. No.
       A. I just wanted to be able to focus--I know this is an 
     important date, so I felt I need a few moments to be able to 
     focus on it.
       Q. And you're comfortable now with that, with your--you are 
     ready to talk about that?
       A. Comfortable, I don't know, but I'm ready to talk about.
       Q. Well, I mean comfortable that you can focus on it.
       A. Yes, sir.
       Q. Good. Now, with this discussion of the fact that your 
     name appeared as a witness, had you--had you been asleep that 
     night when the phone rang?
       A. Yes.
       Q. So were you wide awake by this point? It's the President 
     calling you, so I guess you're--you wake up.

[[Page 1944]]

       A. I wouldn't say wide awake.
       Q. He expressed to you that your name--you know, again, you 
     talked about some other things--but he told you your name was 
     on the list.
       A. Correct.
       Q. What was your reaction to that?
       A. I was scared.
       Q. What other discussion did you have in regard to the fact 
     that your name was on the list? You were scared; he was 
     disappointed, or it broke his heart. What other discussion 
     did you have?
       A. Uh, I believe he said that, uh--and these are not 
     necessarily direct quotes, but to the best of my memory, that 
     he said something about that, uh, just because my name was on 
     the list didn't necessarily mean I'd be subpoenaed; and at 
     some point, I asked him what I should do if I received a 
     subpoena. He said I should, uh, I should let Ms. Currie know. 
     Uh--
       Q. Did he say anything about an affidavit?
       A. Yes.
       Q. What did he say?
       A. He said that, uh, that I could possibly file an 
     affidavit if I--if I were subpoenaed, that I could possibly 
     file an affidavit maybe to avoid being deposed.
       Q. How did he tell you you would avoid being deposed by 
     filing an affidavit?
       A. I don't think he did.
       Q. You just accepted that statement?
       A. [Nodding head.]
       Q. Yes?
       A. Yes, yes. Sorry.
       Q. Are you, uh--strike that. Did he make any representation 
     to you about what you could say in that affidavit or--
       A. No.
       Q. What did you understand you would be saying in that 
     affidavit to avoid testifying?
       A. Uh, I believe I've testified to this in the grand jury. 
     To the best of my recollection, it was, uh--to my mind came--
     it was a range of things. I mean, it could either be, uh, 
     something innocuous or could go as far as having to deny the 
     relationship. Not being a lawyer nor having gone to law 
     school, I thought it could be anything.
       Q. Did he at that point suggest one version or the other 
     version?
       A. No. I didn't even mention that, so there, there wasn't a 
     further discussion--there was no discussion of what would be 
     in an affidavit.
       Q. When you say, uh, it would be--it could have been 
     something where the relationship was denied, what was your 
     thinking at that point?
       A. I--I--I think I don't understand what you're asking me. 
     I'm sorry.
       Q. Well, based on prior relations with the President, the 
     concocted stories and those things like that, did this come 
     to mind? Was there some discussion about that, or did it come 
     to your mind about these stories--the cover stories?
       A. Not in connection with the--not in connection with the 
     affidavit.
       Q. How would--was there any discussion of how you would 
     accomplish preparing or filing an affidavit at that point?
       A. No.
       Q. Why--why didn't you want to testify? Why would not you--
     why would you have wanted to avoid testifying?
       A. First of all, I thought it was nobody's business. Second 
     of all, I didn't want to have anything to do with Paula Jones 
     or her case. And--I guess those two reasons.
       Q. You--you have already mentioned that you were not a 
     lawyer and you had not been to law school, those kinds of 
     things. Did, uh, did you understand when you--the potential 
     legal problems that you could have caused yourself by 
     allowing a false affidavit to be filed with the court, in a 
     court proceeding?
       A. During what time--I mean--I--can you be--I'm sorry--
       Q. At this point, I may ask it again at later points, but 
     the night of the telephone--
       A. Are you--are you still referring to December 17th?
       Q. The night of the phone call, he's suggesting you could 
     file an affidavit. Did you appreciate the implications of 
     filing a false affidavit with the court?
       A. I don't think I necessarily thought at that point it 
     would have to be false, so, no, probably not. I don't--I 
     don't remember having any thoughts like that, so I imagine I 
     would remember something like that, and I don't, but--
       Q. Did you know what an affidavit was?
       A. Sort of.
       Q. Of course, you're talking at that time by telephone to 
     the President, and he's--and he is a lawyer, and he taught 
     law school--I don't know--did you know that? Did you know he 
     was a lawyer?
       A. I--I think I knew it, but it wasn't something that was 
     present in my, in my thoughts, as in he's a lawyer, he's 
     telling me, you know, something.
       Q. Did the, did the President ever tell you, caution you, 
     that you had to tell the truth in an affidavit?
       A. Not that I recall.
       Q. It would have been against his interest in that lawsuit 
     for you to have told the truth, would it not?
       A. I'm not really comfortable--I mean, I can tell you what 
     would have been in my best interest, but I--
       Q. But you didn't file the affidavit for your best 
     interest, did you?
       A. Uh, actually, I did.
       Q. To avoid testifying.
       A. Yes.
       Q. But had you testified truthfully, you would have had 
     no--certainly, no legal implications--it may have been 
     embarrassing, but you would have not had any legal problems, 
     would you?
       A. That's true.
       Q. Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of--I 
     would draw your attention to the cover stories. I have 
     alluded to that earlier, but, uh, did you talk about cover 
     story that night?
       A. Yes, sir.
       Q. And what was said?
       A. Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said something--
     you can always say you were coming to see Betty or bringing 
     me papers.
       Q. I think you've testified that you're sure he said that 
     that night. You are sure he said that that night?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Now, was that in connection with the affidavit?
       A. I don't believe so, no.
       Q. Why would he have told you you could always say that?
       A. I don't know.

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Q. As I understand your testimony, too, the cover stories 
     were reiterated to you by the President that night on the 
     telephone--
       A. Correct.
       Q. --and after he told you you would be a witness--or your 
     name was on the witness list, I should say?
       A. Correct.
       Q. And did you understand that since your name was on the 
     witness list that there would be a possibility that you could 
     be subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case?
       A. I think I understood that I could be subpoenaed, and 
     there was a possibility of testifying. I don't know if I 
     necessarily thought it was a subpoena to testify, but--
       Q. Were you in fact subpoenaed to testify?
       A. Yes.
       Q. And that was what--
       A. December 19th, 1997.
       Q. December 19th.
       Now, you have testified in the grand jury. I think your 
     closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie, but 
     yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997 when 
     the President told you that you were on the witness list, he 
     also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use 
     misleading cover stories. Isn't that correct?
       A. Uh--well, I--I guess in my mind, I separate necessarily 
     signing affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So, 
     does--
       Q. Well, those two--
       A. Those three events occurred, but they don't--they 
     weren't linked for me.
       Q. But they were in the same conversation, were they not?
       A. Yes, they were.
       Q. Did you understand in the context of the conversation 
     that you would deny the--the President and your relationship 
     to the Jones lawyers?
       A. Do you mean from what was said to me or--
       Q. In the context of that--in the context of that 
     conversation, December the 17th--
       A. I--I don't--I didn't--
       Q. Okay. Let me ask it. Did you understand in the context 
     of the telephone conversation with the President that early

[[Page 1945]]

     morning of December the 17th--did you understand that you 
     would deny your relationship with the President to the Jones 
     lawyers through use of these cover stories?
       A. From what I learned in that--oh, through those cover 
     stories, I don't know, but from what I learned in that 
     conversation, I thought to myself I knew I would deny the 
     relationship.
       Q. And you would deny the relationship to the Jones 
     lawyers?
       A. Yes, correct.
       Q. Good.
       A. If--if that's what it came to.
       Q. And in fact you did deny the relationship to the Jones 
     lawyers in the affidavit that you signed under penalty of 
     perjury; is that right?
       A. I denied a sexual relationship.
       Q. The President did not in that conversation on December 
     the 17th of 1997 or any other conversation, for that matter, 
     instruct you to tell the truth; is that correct?
       A. That's correct.
       Q. And prior to being on the witness list, you--you both 
     spoke--
       A. Well, I guess any conversation in relation to the Paula 
     Jones case. I can't say that any conversation from the--the 
     entire relationship that he didn't ever say, you know, ``Are 
     you mad? Tell me the truth.'' So--
       Q. And prior to being on the witness list, you both spoke 
     about denying this relationship if asked?
       A. Yes. That was discussed.
       Q. He would say something to the effect that--or you would 
     say that--you--you would deny anything if it ever came up, 
     and he would nod or say that's good, something to that 
     effect; is that right?
       A. Yes, I believe I testified to that.
       Q. In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has 
     indicated that he thought he had--might have had a way that 
     he could have you--get you to file a--basically a true 
     affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you 
     wouldn't be called as a witness.
       Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?
       A. He didn't discuss the content of my affidavit with me at 
     all, ever.

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Q. And in that same telephone conversation, he encouraged 
     you to file an affidavit in the Jones case?
       A. He suggested I could file an affidavit.

  She also made clear that the President was not certain she even would 
be subpoenaed and have to confront the issue.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Q. Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of--I 
     would draw your attention to the cover stories. I have 
     alluded to that earlier, but, uh, did you talk about cover 
     story that night?
       A. Yes, sir.
       Q. And what was said?
       A. Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said something--
     you can always say you were coming to see Betty or bringing 
     me papers.
       Q. I think you've testified that you're sure he said that 
     that night. You are sure he said that that night?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Now, was that in connection with the affidavit?
       A. I don't believe so, no.
       Now, you have testified in the grand jury. I think your 
     closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie, but 
     yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997 when 
     the President told you that you were on the witness list, he 
     also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use 
     misleading cover stories. Isn't that correct?
       A. Uh--well, I--I guess in my mind, I separate necessarily 
     signing affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So, 
     does--
       Q. Well, those two--
       A. Those three events occurred, but they don't--they 
     weren't linked for me.
  Again, the managers did not play these excerpts for you either. They 
don't want you to know Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, which is that the 
cover stories and the affidavit were not connected in that telephone 
call. And that is the call that is at the heart of that first 
obstruction charge.
  The managers have suggested to you that Ms. Lewinsky for the first 
time this week offered responses, responses concerning the literal 
truth, for example, of the cover story designed to help the President. 
That was a suggestion a few days ago. Concerned then that the

[[Page 1946]]

testimony might now undermine their case, they suddenly did an about-
face and attacked her on Thursday.
  Through these proceedings, the managers have consistently told you 
how credible a witness Ms. Lewinsky is and they have invoked her 
immunity agreement as the reason that she must be honest, and today 
they again credit her testimony, but carefully, only in snippets, only 
when it suits their purposes. The responses Ms. Lewinsky provided about 
the cover story that were mentioned on Thursday by Mr. Manager Bryant 
are not new; they are the same responses Ms. Lewinsky gave to the 
independent counsel. For example, when asked about the so-called cover 
story, Ms. Lewinsky testified as follows this week.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

  The managers suggest that this testimony may be new, different, 
tinted, and tainted, I think they said on Thursday, but they don't tell 
you that Ms. Lewinsky said the very same things to the independent 
counsel. She did so repeatedly, and she did so--and this is key--before 
the President testified. She didn't know what he would say. He didn't 
know what she had said.
  For example, Ms. Lewinsky referred to the two cover stories in her 
February 1998 proffer, more than a year ago. Remember, one such cover 
story concerned the reasons for visiting the President before she left 
the White House. That was to bring papers to him. And the other 
concerned her reasons for visiting the President after she left the 
White House, and that was to visit Betty Currie. Ms. Lewinsky was asked 
and said that neither of these statements was untrue and also that 
there was truth to both of these statements in her proffer a year ago.
  She repeated this testimony in July to the independent counsel, 
telling an FBI agent that ``these statements were not untrue but were 
misleading'' and that ``some facts were omitted from this statement.'' 
That is what she said this week.
  The cover story testimony is consistent and is consistently 
exculpatory. Of course, it was easy for Mr. Manager Bryant to stand 
before you on Thursday reminiscing about the open and forthcoming Ms. 
Lewinsky he had met during the informal interview. It was easy for Mr. 
Manager Bryant to complain that the Ms. Lewinsky of the deposition was, 
I believe he said, not open to discussion or fully responsive to their 
inquiry. Let the questions and answers let you be the judge of that. It 
was easy for him to say that, because the House managers had refused 
Senator Daschle's request that they be allowed to make a transcript of 
the interview. That absence of a transcript allowed them this 
unverifiable fallback if their examination was disappointing: Oh, she 
changed on us. The truth is that she didn't tell the story that the 
managers wanted to hear. Remember those stubborn facts.
  So we know that the managers are disappointed and want to blame their 
disappointment on Ms. Lewinsky. But when you get to the substance of 
today's presentation by the House managers, it shows that they have not 
in fact identified any significant area where Ms. Lewinsky's testimony 
on Monday differs from her earlier testimony in the grand jury. Her 
view of the cover story has been consistent from day 1.
  Mr. Manager McCollum has also insisted that in the December 17 call 
it was clear both to the President and Ms. Lewinsky that the affidavit 
had to be false. As he put it--and I quote-- ``Can there be any doubt 
that the President was suggesting that they file an affidavit that 
contained lies and falsehoods that might keep her from ever having to 
testify in the Jones case, and give the President the kind of 
protection he needed when he testified?'' Yes, there surely is doubt.
  Ms. Lewinsky herself explains this week that she did not discuss the 
content of the affidavit with the President--we played those portions 
already and I will not again--but also that in her mind an affidavit 
presented a whole range of possibilities that were not necessarily 
false.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

  This is still a quote:

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

  Those were Mr. Manager Hutchinson's words. But the record 
unequivocally demonstrates that Ms. Lewinsky and the President did not 
ever discuss the content of that affidavit in this January 5 call or 
otherwise. And I challenge you to find any paragraph in Ms. Lewinsky's 
affidavit, either her draft or the final, reflecting this conversation. 
There isn't one. The call wasn't about the affidavit. He didn't tell 
her what to say in the affidavit. It is just not there.
  In fact, Mr. Manager Hutchinson repeatedly represented to you that 
Ms. Lewinsky reviewed the content of her affidavit with the President. 
He had to say that because he is asking you to remove the President 
from office for getting her to file a false affidavit. That is a tough 
sell if they never talked about the content of the affidavit. That is 
why he told you, and I quote, ``On January 6th''--5th or 6th--``she 
discussed that with the President, signing that affidavit, and the 
content of the affidavit.''
  That is why Mr. Manager Hutchinson also told you, ``She went over the 
contents of that, even though she might not have had it in hand, with 
the President.''
  That is just not true. It is not true. To borrow a phrase, again: It 
is wanting to win too much. What is clear from Ms. Lewinsky's testimony 
is that she never went over the contents of the affidavit with the 
President, on January 5 or at any other time. Let's watch a brief 
excerpt about this matter.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

       Q. Did--did the subject of the affidavit come up with the 
     President?
       A. Yes, towards the end of the conversation.
       Q. And how did--tell us how that occurred.
       A. I believe I asked him if he wanted to see a copy of it, 
     and he said no.
       Q. Well, I mean, how did you introduce that into the 
     subject--into the conversation?
       A. I don't really remember.
       Q. Did he ask you, well, how's the affidavit coming or--
       A. No, I don't think so.
       Q. But you told him that you had one being prepared, or 
     something?
       A. I think I said--I think I said, you know, I'm going to 
     sign an affidavit, or something like that.
       Q. Did he ask you what are you going to say?
       A. No.
       Q. And this is the time when he said something about 15 
     other affidavits?
       A. Correct.
       Q. And tell us as best as you can recall what--how that--
     how that part of the conversation went.
       A. I think that was the--sort of the other half of his 
     sentence as, No, you know, I don't want to see it. I don't 
     need to--or, I've seen 15 others.

[[Page 1947]]

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

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

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

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

                           *   *   *   *   *

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

  Ms. Lewinsky concedes that she had a reason to act on her own.
  Now, we have been discussing subpart (1) of article II, the affidavit 
allegation. But this testimony also undermined subpart (2) of article 
II, which alleges that the President obstructed justice in that very 
same phone call by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie in any testimony 
that she might give. Ms. Lewinsky previously denied that she and the 
President ever discussed the content of any deposition testimony in 
that conversation. That happened before this week. Indeed, she had told 
the FBI that she and the President never discussed what to say about 
her visits to the White House in the context of the Paula Jones case. 
And the managers themselves said, in a press release on January 19 of 
this year, that the President and Ms. Lewinsky ``did not discuss the 
deposition that evening because Monica had not yet been subpoenaed.''
  So it is not entirely surprising that the managers did not ask Ms. 
Lewinsky to confirm that she and the President talked about the 
testimony in this call, even though that is where the obstruction 
allegedly occurred. They didn't ask her about that this week because 
they knew the answer. They knew the answer was ``No.'' They knew there 
was no discussion about the content of her testimony during that call. 
And the testimony you have seen today confirms that answer 
resoundingly. There is no evidence to support the charge in subpart (2) 
either. The managers did not even try to elicit it.
  The President did not obstruct justice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony 
explodes these two claims arising out of the December 17 telephone 
call.
  Now let's turn to the allegation in article (2) concerning gifts. 
Subpart (3) charges that:

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

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

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

  Still under quotes--

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

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

       Q. Did--did you have other telephone calls with her that 
     day?

[[Page 1948]]

       A. Yes.
       Q. Okay. What was the purpose of those conversations?
       A. I believe I spoke with her a little later to find out 
     when she was coming, and I think that I might have spoken 
     with her again when she was either leaving her house or 
     outside or right there, to let me know to come out.
       Q. Do--at that time, did you have the caller 
     identification--
       A. Yes, I did.
       Q. --on your telephone?
       A. Yes.
       Q. And did you at least on one occasion see her cell phone 
     number on your caller-ID that day?

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

       Q. Did, uh, did you bring with you to the meeting with Mr. 
     Jordan, and for the purpose of carrying it, I guess, to Mr. 
     Carter, items in response to this request for production?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Did you discuss those items with Mr. Jordan?
       A. I think I showed them to him, but I'm not 100 percent 
     sure. If I've testified that I did, then I'd stand by that.
       Q. Okay. How did you select those items?
       A. Uh, actually, kind of in an obnoxious way, I guess. I--I 
     felt that it was important to take the stand with Mr. Carter 
     and then, I guess, to the Jones people that this was 
     ridiculous, that they were--they were looking at the wrong 
     person to be involved in this. And, in fact, that was true. I 
     know and knew nothing of sexual harassment. So I think I 
     brought the, uh, Christmas cards, that I'm sure everyone in 
     this room has probably gotten from the President and First 
     Lady, and considered that correspondence, and some innocuous 
     pictures and--they were innocuous.
       Q. Were they the kind of items that typically, an intern 
     would receive or, like you said, any one of us might receive?
       A. I think so.
       Q. In other words, it wouldn't give away any kind of 
     special relationship?
       A. Exactly.
       Q. And was that your intent?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Did you discuss how you selected those items with 
     anybody?
       A. I don't believe so.
       Q. Did Mr. Jordan make any comment about those items?
       A. No.
       Q. Were any of these items eventually turned over to Mr. 
     Carter?
       A. Yes.

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

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

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

       Q. Okay. Now, were you ever under the impression from 
     anything that the President said that you should turn over 
     all the gifts to the Jones lawyers?
       A. No, but where this is a little tricky--and I think I 
     might have even mentioned

[[Page 1949]]

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

  This is extraordinary testimony. Why? Because Ms. Lewinsky apparently 
corroborated the President. She recognized those words when she heard 
them. She didn't refute the President. And the OIC never told us that 
that was what she said. Never told the House. Never told this body. We 
had no idea about Ms. Lewinsky's recollection until we heard her 
testimony. We can only wonder--in troubled disbelief--how much more we 
still don't know. The President did not obstruct justice. Ms. 
Lewinsky's testimony seriously undermines the gift claim that is before 
you.
  We have reviewed the first three subparts of article II. Now, let's 
look quickly at the fourth.
  Ms. Lewinsky's testimony also confirms what has been clear throughout 
these proceedings: That her New York job search efforts began in 
October 1997, well before Ms. Lewinsky was ever named a potential 
witness in the Jones case; and that Mr. Jordan first became involved in 
the job search effort in November, early November, also before she 
became a witness; that Ms. Lewinsky had received a job offer in New 
York from the United Nations in November also, and also well before 
there was any indication she would be a witness; and that Mr. Jordan 
and Ms. Lewinsky had several contacts related to her job search in 
November, despite the fact that both of them were traveling 
extensively, including out of the country in that period.
  In fact, Ms. Lewinsky makes it clear in this testimony that she and 
Mr. Jordan began arranging the meeting that took place on December 11 
before Thanksgiving, before anyone knew Ms. Lewinsky's name would be on 
a witness list--all of this, of course, before anyone knew Ms. 
Lewinsky's name would be on a witness list. If the fact that the 
assistance to Ms. Lewinsky preceded her appearance on the witness list 
needed confirmation, it has been confirmed again.
  But there is more. What has also been confirmed is Ms. Lewinsky's 
grand jury testimony that, ``No one ever asked me to lie. And I was 
never promised a job for my silence.'' We have repeatedly reminded this 
body of these plain and simple words with their plain, simple and 
exculpatory meaning.
  The House managers repeatedly have tried to suggest that these words 
must mean something else. But at no time in their hours of questioning 
Ms. Lewinsky did they question her about this pivotal assertion 
regarding the job search allegation. They did not ask her to explain 
it, to amend it, to qualify it. They did not challenge it. They did not 
confront it. They didn't dare. They knew the answer. They knew there 
was no quid pro quo. And their failure to elicit a response speaks 
volumes.
  The President did not obstruct justice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony 
undermines this job search claim, as well. Plain and simple, the 
evidence is to the contrary.
  Now, Mr. Manager Bryant remarked on Thursday that after deposing Ms. 
Lewinsky he felt like the actor Charles Laughton in the film ``Witness 
for the Prosecution.'' As counsel for the President, I would 
respectfully submit that another famous role of Charles Laughton might 
be the more fitting reference. It is that of the dogged, tireless, 
obsessed Inspector Javert once played by Mr. Laughton in the 1935 movie 
version of ``Les Miserables.''
  The most recent testimony of Ms. Lewinsky has seriously damaged the 
managers' case and has confirmed that it is time for this tireless 
pursuit of the President to come to an end.
  I turn now to my partner, Mr. Kendall, who will discuss Mr. Jordan's 
recent testimony.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.


                                 Recess

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

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

[[Page 1950]]

       A. Yes. I think you have seen reels of playing golf and 
     having fun at Martha's Vineyard.
       Q. And so you vacation together, you play golf together on 
     a semi-regular basis?
       A. Whenever we can.

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

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

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

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

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

       Q. . . . Now, when was the first time that you recall that 
     you met with Monica Lewinsky?
       A. If you've read my grand jury testimony--
       Q. I have.
       A. --and I'm sure that you have--there is testimony in the 
     grand jury that she came to see me on or about the 5th of 
     November. I have no recollection of that. It was not on my 
     calendar, and I just have no recollection of her visit. There 
     is a letter here that you have in evidence, and I have to 
     assume that in fact that happened. But as I said in my grand 
     jury testimony, I'm not aware of it, I don't remember it--but 
     I do not deny that it happened.

[[Page 1951]]

       Q. And Ms. Lewinsky has made reference to a meeting that 
     occurred in your office on November 5, and that's the meeting 
     that you have no recollection of?
       A. That is correct. We have no record of it in my office, 
     and I just have no recollection of it.
       Q. And in your first grand jury appearance, you were firm, 
     shall I say, that the first time you met with Ms. Lewinsky, 
     that it was on December 11th?
       A. Yes. It was firm based on what my calendar told me, and 
     subsequently to that, there has been a refreshing of my 
     recollection, and I do not deny that it happened. By the same 
     token, I will tell you, as I said in my grand jury testimony, 
     that I did not remember that I had met with her.
       Q. And in fact today, the fact that you do not dispute that 
     that meeting occurred is not based upon your recollection but 
     is simply based upon you've seen the records, and it appears 
     that that meeting occurred?
       A. That is correct.

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

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

  That was the theory then. This is now. We demonstrated, in our own 
presentation, of course, that that order was entered late in the day at 
a time when Mr. Jordan was high over the Atlantic in an airplane on his 
way to Amsterdam.
  Mr. Manager Hutchinson's very able examination did not try to 
resuscitate that theory. He didn't even make the attempt. He didn't ask 
Mr. Jordan about the December 11 order.
  So today we have a different time line. We have a new chart and a new 
time line. Let's look at this.
  This is Mr. Manager Hutchinson's chart this morning. What is critical 
here? Well, we learned today that it is the December 5 date that is 
critical. That is when the witness list was faxed to the President's 
counsel, and that is what triggered the succeeding chain of events. Mr. 
Manager Hutchinson remarked, if I heard him correctly, that whenever 
you are talking about obstruction of justice, it ties together, it all 
fits together.
  Let's look at his chart. We see that December 11 is on here, but 
Judge Wright's order has dropped off entirely, unless it is there where 
I don't see it. Judge Wright's order is now not part of the chain of 
causation.
  We look at December 7. We ask ourselves what happened then; this is 2 
days after the witness list came in. It must have been something 
nefarious, because the President and Jordan meet. But Mr. Manager 
Hutchinson did not represent to you that they even talked about the 
Jones litigation or Ms. Lewinsky because they didn't. The managers told 
you that in their trial brief, and it has been Mr. Jordan's consistent 
testimony.
  On December 11, Mr. Jordan did have a meeting with Ms. Lewinsky. That 
was originally set up not on December 8, you will recall, but back in 
November when Ms. Lewinsky had agreed to call Mr. Jordan when he 
returned from his travel.
  So the chronology here produces no even circumstantial evidence of 
some linkage between the Paula Jones case and Mr. Jordan's job search.
  It is also significant, I think, while the witness list came in on 
December 5, the President met with his lawyers on December 6, the 
President doesn't call Ms. Lewinsky until December 17 and Mr. Jordan 
doesn't learn about the fact that Ms. Lewinsky is on the witness list 
until December 19. There does not seem to be a lot of urgency here.
  Let's review the nefarious conspiracy that we have heard about today 
to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. We are told today that Vernon Jordan had no 
corrupt intent, that Ms. Lewinsky had no corrupt intent, and that 
Revlon had no corrupt intent. Rather, it was the President who somehow 
spun out this conspiracy. But I ask you, where, in all of the 
voluminous record, is there any evidence, either direct or 
circumstantial, that the President somehow tied these things together 
through Mr. Jordan? It is a shell game, but the game doesn't have any 
shell in it, and I think this is the loneliest conspiracy in human 
history, if it was a conspiracy. But it wasn't.
  On the subject of quid pro quo, I want to play two excerpts, and part 
of these I ask your indulgence. They were played in part by Mr. Manager 
Hutchinson, but I think they deserve to be seen in their full context. 
In one of them you are going to hear Mr. Jordan say that he was running 
the job search, he was in control of the job search. I think that is 
true about the Vernon Jordan job search. Ms. Lewinsky's job search had 
also been proceeding with Mr. Richardson--Mr. Jordan was not involved 
in any way with that--and through her superior at the Pentagon, Mr. Ken 
Bacon. Let's listen to the full context and listen for any evidence of 
a quid pro quo.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

       BY MR. HUTCHINSON:
       Q. Mr. Jordan, let me go back to that meeting on December 
     11th. I believe we were discussing that. My question would 
     be: How did the meeting on December 11 of 1997 with Ms. 
     Lewinsky come about?
       A. Ms. Lewinsky called my office and asked if she could 
     come to see me.
       Q. And was that preceded by a call from Betty Currie?
       A. At some point in time, Betty Currie had called me, and 
     Ms. Lewinsky followed up on that call, and she came to my 
     office, and we had a visit.
       Q. Ms. Lewinsky called, set up a meeting, and at some point 
     sent you a resume, I believe.
       A. I believe so.
       Q. And did you receive that prior to the meeting on 
     December 11th?
       A. I--I have to assume that I did, but I--I do not know 
     whether she brought it with her or whether--it was at some 
     point that she brought with her or sent to me--somehow it 
     came into my possession--a list of various companies in New 
     York with which she had--which were her preferences, by the 
     way--most of which I did not know well enough to make any 
     calls for.
       Q. All right. And I want to come back to that, but I 
     believe--would you dispute if the record shows that you 
     received the resume of Ms. Lewinsky on December 8th?
       A. I would not.
       Q. And presumably, the meeting on December 11th was set up 
     somewhere around December 8th by the call from Ms. Lewinsky?
       A. I--I would not dispute that, sir.
       Q. All right. Now, you mentioned that she had sent you a--I 
     guess some people refer to it--a wish list, or a list of jobs 
     that she--
       A. Not jobs--companies.
       Q. --companies that she would be interested in seeking 
     employment with.
       A. That's correct.
       Q. And you looked at that, and you determined that you 
     wanted to go with your own list of friends and companies that 
     you had better contacts with.
       A. I'm sure, Congressman, that you too have been in this 
     business, and you do know that you can only call people that 
     you know or feel comfortable in calling.
       Q. Absolutely. No question about it. And let me just 
     comment and ask your response to this, but many times I will 
     be listed as a reference, and they can take that to any 
     company. You might be listed as a reference and the name 
     ``Vernon Jordan'' would be a good reference anywhere, would 
     it not?
       A. I would hope so.
       Q. And so, even though it was a company that you might not 
     have the best contact with, you could have been helpful in 
     that regard?
       A. Well, the fact is I was running the job search, not Ms. 
     Lewinsky, and therefore, the companies that she brought or 
     listed were not of interest to me. I knew where I would need 
     to call.
       Q. And that is exactly the point, that you looked at 
     getting Ms. Lewinsky a job as an assignment rather than just 
     something that you were going to be a reference for.

[[Page 1952]]

       A. I don't know whether I looked upon it as an assignment. 
     Getting jobs for people is not unusual for me, so I don't 
     view it as an assignment. I just view it as something that is 
     part of what I do.
       Q. You're acting in behalf of the President when you are 
     trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a job, and you were in control of 
     the job search?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Now, going back--going to your meeting that we're 
     talking about on December 11th, prior to the meeting did you 
     make any calls to prospective employers in behalf of Ms. 
     Lewinsky?
       A. I don't think so. I think not. I think I wanted to see 
     her before I made any calls.
       Q. And so if they were not before, after you met with her, 
     you made some calls on December 11th?
       A. I--I believe that's correct.
       Q. And you called Mr. Richard Halperin of McAndrews & 
     Forbes?
       A. That's right.
       Q. You called Mr. Peter--
       A. Georgescu.
       Q. --Georgescu. And he is with what company?
       A. He is chairman and chief executive officer of Young & 
     Rubicam, a leading advertising agency on Madison Avenue.
       Q. And did you make one other call?
       A. Yes. I called Ursie Fairbairn, who runs Human Resources 
     at American Express, at the American Express Company, where I 
     am the senior director.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Q. And what did you basically communicate to each of these 
     officials in behalf of Ms. Lewinsky?
       A. I essentially said that you're going to hear from Ms. 
     Lewinsky, and I hope that you will afford her an opportunity 
     to come in and be interviewed and look favorably upon her if 
     she meets your qualifications and your needs for work.
       Q. Okay. And at what level did you try to communicate this 
     information?
  A. By--what do you mean by ``what level''?
       Q. In the company that you were calling, did you call the 
     chairman of human resources, did you call the CEO--who did 
     you call, or what level were you seeking to talk to?
       A. Richard Halperin is sort of the utility man; he does 
     everything at McAndrews & Forbes. He is very close to the 
     chairman, he is very close to Mr. Gittis. And so at McAndrews 
     & Forbes, I called Halperin.
       As I said to you, and as my grand jury testimony shows, I 
     called Young & Rubicam, Peter Georgescu as its chairman and 
     CEO. I have had a long-term relationship with Young & Rubicam 
     going back to three of its CEOs, the first being Edward Ney, 
     who was chairman of Young & Rubicam when I was head of the 
     United Negro College Fund, and it was during that time that 
     we developed the great theme, ``A mind is a terrible thing to 
     waste.'' So I have had a long-term relationship with Young & 
     Rubicam and with Peter Georgescu, so I called the chairman in 
     that instance.
       At American Express, I called Ms. Ursie Fairbairn who is, 
     as I said before, in charge of Human Resources.
       So that is the level--in one instance, the chairman; in one 
     instance a utilitarian person; and in another instance, the 
     head of the Human Resources Department.
       Q. And the utilitarian connection, Mr. Richard Halperin, 
     was sort of an assistant to Mr. Ron Perelman?
       A. That's correct. He's a lawyer.
       Q. Now, going to your meeting on December 11th with Ms. 
     Lewinsky, about how long of a meeting was that?
       A. I don't--I don't remember. You have a record of it, 
     Congressman.
       Q. And actually, I think you've testified it was about 15 
     to 20 minutes, but don't hold me to that, either.
       During the course of the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, what 
     did you learn about her?
       A. Uh, enthusiastic, quite taken with herself and her 
     experience, uh, bubbly, effervescent, bouncy, confident, uh--
     actually, I sort of had the same impression that you House 
     Managers had of her when you met with her. You came out and 
     said she was impressive, and so we come out about the same 
     place.
       Q. And did she relate to you the fact that she liked being 
     an intern because it put her close to the President?
       A. I have never seen a White House intern who did not like 
     being a White House intern, and so her enthusiasm for being a 
     White House intern was about like the enthusiasm of White 
     House interns--they liked it.
       She was not happy about not being there anymore--she did 
     not like being at the Defense Department--and I think she 
     actually had some desire to go back. But when she actually 
     talked to me, she wanted to go to New York for a job in the 
     private sector, and she thought that I could be helpful in 
     that process.
       Q. Did she make reference to someone in the White House 
     being uncomfortable when she was an intern, and she thought 
     that people did not want her there?
       A. She felt unwanted--there is no question about that. As 
     to who did not want her there and why they did not want her 
     there, that was not my business.
       Q. And she related that--
       A. She talked about it.
       Q. --experience or feeling to you?
       A. Yes.
       Q. Now, your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky was on December 
     11th, and I believe that Ms. Lewinsky has testified that she 
     met with the President on December 5--excuse me, on December 
     6--at the White House and complained that her job search was 
     not going anywhere, and the President then talked to Mr. 
     Jordan.
       Do you recall the President talking to you about that after 
     that meeting?
       A. I do not have a specific recollection of the President 
     saying to me anything about having met with Ms. Lewinsky. The 
     President has never told me that he met with Ms. Lewinsky, as 
     best as I can recollect. I--I am aware that she was in a 
     state of anxiety about going to work. She was in a state of 
     anxiety in addition because her lease at Watergate, at the 
     Watergate, was to expire December 31st. And there was a part 
     of Ms. Lewinsky, I think, that thought that because she was 
     coming to me, that she could come today and that she would 
     have a job tomorrow. That is not an unusual misapprehension, 
     and it's not limited to White House interns.
       Q. I mentioned her meeting with the President on the same 
     day, December 6th. I believe the record shows the President 
     met with his lawyers and learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the 
     Jones witness list. Now, did you subsequently meet with the 
     President on the next day, December 7th?
       A. I may have met with the President. I'd have to--I mean, 
     I'd have to look. I'd have to look. I don't know whether I 
     did or not.
       Q. If you would like to confer--I believe the record shows 
     that, but I'd like to establish that through your testimony.
       MS. WALDEN: Yes.
       THE WITNESS: Yes.
       BY MR. HUTCHINSON:
       Q. All right. So you met with the President on December 
     7th. And was it the next day after that, December 8th, that 
     Ms. Lewinsky called to set up the job meeting with you on 
     December 11th?
       A. I believe that is correct.
       Q. And sometime after your meeting on December 11th with 
     Ms. Lewinsky, did you have another conversation with the 
     President?
       A. Uh, you do understand that conversations between me and 
     the President, uh, was not an unusual circumstance.
       Q. And I understand that--
       A. All right.
       Q. --and so let me be more specific. I believe your 
     previous testimony has been that sometime after the 11th, you 
     spoke with the President about Ms. Lewinsky.
       A. I stand on that testimony.
       Q. All right. And so there's two conversations after the 
     witness list came out--one that you had with the President on 
     December 7th, and then a subsequent conversation with him 
     after you met with Ms. Lewinsky on the 11th.
       Now, in your subsequent conversation after the 11th, did 
     you discuss with the President of the United States Monica 
     Lewinsky, and if so, can you tell us what that discussion 
     was?
       A. If there was a discussion subsequent to Monica 
     Lewinsky's visit to me on December the 11th with the 
     President of the United States, it was about the job search.
       Q. All right. And during that, did he indicate that he knew 
     about the fact that she had lost her job in the White House, 
     and she wanted to get a job in New York?
       A. He was aware that--he was obviously aware that she had 
     lost her job in the White House, because she was working at 
     the Pentagon. He was also aware that she wanted to work in 
     New York, in the private sector, and understood that that is 
     why she was having conversations with me. There is no doubt 
     about that.
       Q. And he thanked you for helping her?
       A. There's no question about that, either.
       Q. And on either of these conversations that I've 
     referenced that you had with the President after the witness 
     list came out, your conversation on December 7th, and your 
     conversation sometime after the 11th, did the President tell 
     you that Ms. Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the 
     Jones case?
       A. He did not.
       Q. And did you consider this information to be important in 
     your efforts to be helpful to Ms. Lewinsky?
       A. I never thought about it.

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


[[Page 1953]]

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

  This morning, a very short portion of the President's grand jury 
testimony was played. The sound was not very good. It was a very short 
snippet, but it relates to what happened between Mr. Jordan and the 
President in that December 19, late-night meeting at the White House. 
The snippet that was played for you was:

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

  ``That'' being the subpoena.

       A. No, sir.

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

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

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

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

  And the President's answer was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Q. Do you know why you would have been calling Mr. Carter 
     on three occasions, the day before the affidavit was signed?

[[Page 1954]]

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

  In his presentation, Mr. Manager Hutchinson discussed the breakfast 
with Ms. Lewinsky, which Mr. Jordan now concedes he had, on December 
31. He showed you the restaurant bill. I am not going to dwell long on 
that because it really is not relevant to article II.
  First of all, it is nowhere alleged as a ground of obstruction of 
justice. Mr. Manager Hutchinson referred to the 7 pillars of 
obstruction in article II. Those are 7 different factual grounds. This 
alleged obstruction is nowhere in the grounds.
  There is plainly a conflict in the testimony between Ms. Lewinsky and 
Mr. Jordan; although Mr. Jordan, as you will recall, vehemently denies 
ever giving that instruction, saying in the videotape played this 
morning: ``I'm a lawyer and I'm a loyal friend, but I'm not a fool. 
That's ridiculous. I never did that.''
  The second reason why I think this is irrelevant is, it was not 
presented as a separate ground for impeachment by the independent 
counsel. It was identified--the fact of the conflicted testimony was 
identified, but it was not urged as a separate ground, despite the 
very, very energetic investigation of Mr. Starr. We have heard a lot in 
this case about ``dogs that won't hunt.'' In my mind, this is like a 
Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark. If the 
independent counsel didn't raise it, that is significant. Finally, it 
has nothing whatsoever to do with the President, by anybody's 
contention.
  Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to raise a question now, which arose 
in the final stage of the Vernon Jordan deposition. Mr. Manager 
Hutchinson had taken the deposition. I had asked a couple of questions 
in response. After I had concluded, Mr. Jordan made a statement 
defending his own integrity to which Mr. Manager Hutchinson objected. I 
propose--since the issue has arisen of his integrity and since Mr. 
Jordan is an honorable man and has had a distinguished career--that I 
be allowed to play the approximately 2-minute segment of his own 
statement about his integrity.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the managers object?
  Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chief Justice, it is my understanding 
that that is not a part of the Senate record, and therefore it would 
not be appropriate to be played under the rules of the Senate.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. But is it a part of the deposition of him that was 
taken?
  Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. It is not a part of the deposition that was 
entered into the Senate record under the Senate rules.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Well, the Parliamentarian advises me that Division 
I of the motion on Thursday, which was approved, would prevent the 
playing of that. So the Chair will rule that that is not acceptable.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. I was one of the Senators at that deposition. I think it 
would be extremely interesting to hear it. It was taken at the 
deposition. I ask unanimous consent that it----
  Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Vermont may appeal the decision 
of the Chair, which is that it not be played, ask consent for----
  Mr. LEAHY. I'm asking unanimous consent, under the circumstances and 
because it is so short, that the deposition--and it would clarify that 
part of the deposition Mr. Jordan took, which has been videotaped--be 
allowed to be shown here on the floor.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Objection.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Objection is heard.
  Counsel may proceed.
  Mr. Counsel KENDALL. I would like to recognize my colleague. Well, I 
think that concludes our presentation.
  Mr. Counsel RUFF. We yield back the remainder of our time, Mr. Chief 
Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. The managers have 31 minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.
  Mr. Manager BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. We will conclude 
our

[[Page 1955]]

roughly half hour by responding to as many of the contentions and 
statements raised by counsel for the White House as we can. I first 
want to talk, I suppose, about the statement that we heard back a 
couple of weeks ago, which was repeated today by one of the White House 
counsels, that ``the managers want to win too much.''
  This is not a game. This is not a game to anyone here. There are 
extraordinary consequences to what we are doing and what we have been 
doing and what your decision will be. The stakes are very high. We 
don't need to take a poll to do what we did. I am reminded of the 
testimony of the President and Dick Morris taking the poll to determine 
whether to tell the truth or not, and then after deciding the public 
would not forgive his perjury, he said, ``We will just have to win.'' 
But that's not the attitude the House managers have in bringing this 
case here. The managers fully appreciate the seriousness and the 
consequences of this. We want to do the right thing. We are not here 
just to win. We want to help the Senate in this constitutional process 
do the constitutional thing--not only for the precedent of this Senate 
but for the precedent of future generations in terms of how the courts 
now and later will view obstruction of justice and perjury. We believe 
this is a constitutional effort and not a game.
  The question about snippets, that we just put some snippets on the 
air today--we wanted to call live witnesses. We wanted Ms. Lewinsky to 
be here and let everybody examine her fully and completely. But we are 
working with a timeframe, and we brought up those points in her 
testimony and in Mr. Jordan's testimony and Mr. Blumenthal's testimony 
that we felt proved our case.
  With regard to the issue that Ms. Seligman raised about filing a 
false affidavit, she ran that testimony many times. I thought we ran 
the President's earlier in these hearings several times, but I think 
she beat our record with that testimony. I appreciate that.
  But what that is important for is not what Ms. Lewinsky felt was 
going on that night; but I think it perfectly illustrates what I told 
you the other day about her testimony. While she was truthful and while 
she gave us the testimony she had to give us to keep her immunity 
agreement, where there were some blanks to fill in, or where there was 
something that could be bent, she did so.
  As they pointed out on the question of the linkage between filing an 
affidavit and this cover story, it was so obvious that they were 
connected that the OIC did not ask that question, ``Did you think about 
this when you''--and that. It was obvious. But he did not ask that 
question. She was right; the question was not asked. So when she, Ms. 
Lewinsky, had an opportunity in these hearings when I asked her, she 
said, ``Well, you know, I really didn't link the two together.'' Let's 
not throw away all of our common sense here.
  She gets a phone call in the middle of the night with a message that 
you are on the witness list, and she says three things occurred: You 
are on the witness list, you can file an affidavit, and you can use a 
cover story. Why else would the President raise the issue of a cover 
story at 2:30 in the morning if he didn't intend for her to use that?
  But keep in mind, too, it really doesn't matter how she appreciated 
this. It really matters what the President intended. And he intended to 
let her know that she was on the list, she could be subpoenaed, she 
could file an affidavit, and she could use the cover story.
  And in fact she did use that cover story. She went to her lawyer, Mr. 
Carter, and told him that. And it was incorporated into the draft 
affidavit that she went to take papers to the President to sign, and in 
those cases she may have been alone. But they didn't like the specter 
of her being alone. So they struck that provision out of the final 
affidavit. But they did attempt to use it.
  But keep in mind also that it is the President's intent. And his 
intent was to interfere with justice in the Paula Jones case and to 
have her give a false affidavit. And that is why he so suggested that.
  On the gifts to people, is it really an issue? Is there really an 
issue here? There is some fabulous lawyering over here. But there is no 
issue here. Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no doubt in her mind 
that Ms. Currie initiated the call. That is all there is to this issue. 
The fact that there were other calls in the day, the fact that one of 
the other calls may have been at 3:30, really are moot points. The 
issue is, if Betty Currie initiated that phone call, the only impetus 
for her to initiate that call had to come from the President. She was 
not in that conversation that morning. The President had to tell her, 
and apparently did so, because she made the call.
  At the end of the examination of her testimony, or toward the end--it 
was shown several times--we asked her, ``Did the President ever tell 
you anything about the gifts?'' And she said, ``Not that I remember.'' 
And then later on in the segment, you also saw she was asked the 
question again by me: ``OK. Were you ever under any impression or the 
impression from the President that you should turn over all the gifts 
to the Jones lawyers?'' And she said, ``No.'' Then she goes on to say, 
``This gets a little tricky here, and it could be I heard the 
statements from agents, or somewhere along the line, or perhaps that it 
did sound familiar.''
  I would suggest to you what happened there is that Mr. Carter--it is 
clearly in the testimony and before all of us in the record--her own 
lawyer told her she had to turn over all the records. That is where she 
heard that.
  But logic demands that you reject that view, because why would the 
President, whose intent was to conceal this whole affair, ever think of 
telling her that, ``You have to turn over all those gifts''? If he did 
tell her that she had to turn over all of those gifts, why would she 
immediately go out that afternoon and reject that instruction, and just 
completely say, ``Well, I am going to forget what he told me to do, I 
am going to call his secretary and have her come pick up these gifts 
and store them for me''?
  That is just not logical. Common sense tells us that didn't happen 
that way, and Ms. Lewinsky was absolutely positive that there was no 
doubt that Betty Currie initiated the call, and that is that.
  Job search: Very quickly, this is not a bribery case. This is not 
giving her a job, bribing her with a job to get her false testimony. It 
is not a bribery case. If it was, we wouldn't be arguing about the 
impeachability of obstruction of justice. It would be clear that 
bribery is mentioned in the Constitution. It is about attempting to 
corruptly persuade or influence the behavior of a witness. That is 
exactly what that is about.
  I would also close very quickly by telling you in the beginning that 
I urged you to look at particularly obstruction of justice charges, the 
result-benefit analysis. And I do not ever hear anybody talking about 
that but me. So maybe I am off base here. But I ask you to consider 
each of these seven pillars of obstruction that Mr. Hutchinson raised, 
and look at the end results of those acts, and look at who benefited 
from those results. And what I believe you would have found and can 
still find is that each case resulted in impeding justice in the Paula 
Jones case in some way that favored the President. And the benefit 
naturally inured to the President.
  I guess if you reject that result-benefit test, and if you accept 
each and every argument of these extremely fine defense counsel that 
the President wasn't behind any of this, then I guess you just have to 
reach the conclusion that the President was the luckiest man in the 
world, that people would commit crimes by filing false affidavits, by 
hiding evidence, by going out and possibly trashing the witnesses and 
giving false testimony in grand jury proceedings, and that--if that is 
the way you feel about it, so be it; we will abide by your judgment. 
But I suggest to you that the facts of this case are really not in 
contest. They have been argued very well by defense counsel for the 
White House.
  I am about to exhaust my time. So I yield at this point to Mr. 
Manager Hutchinson to make some remarks.

[[Page 1956]]

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.
  Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. This will be 
very brief, and then I will yield to Mr. Graham.
  Let's recall Ms. Monica Lewinsky to the stand for a brief moment. 
Let's go to the Park Hyatt Hotel, December 31, 1997, breakfast between 
Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

  Thank you. This goes to the overall pattern of obstruction. It goes 
to credibility. I believe it is relevant in this case, and I yield to 
Mr. Graham.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham.
  Mr. Manager GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. How much time do I 
have?
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. You have 18 minutes and some seconds.
  Mr. Manager GRAHAM. I may yield back some of the seconds, I hope.
  (Laughter.)
  Point of agreement, rebuttal is to refocus, and the law allows that 
for the person or the party with the burden, and we do have the burden.
  Point of agreement, White House counsel says there is much more that 
we need to know. There is much more we need know.
  White House counsel said strongly, when these proceedings opened up, 
the President is not guilty of obstruction of justice, the President is 
not guilty of perjury. Refocus: No fair-minded person, in my opinion, 
could come to any other rational conclusion than that our President 
obstructed justice, that our President committed perjury in front of a 
grand jury.
  You vote your conscience. I have told you to do so. And if we 
disagree at the end of the day, that is America at its best. I have 
never suggested there was any reasonable doubt that this President 
committed crimes. I will ask you at the conclusion of this case to 
remove him with a clear conscience. You vote your conscience, and I 
know it will be clear.
  Refocus: The gifts--simply put, if you believe the President of the 
United States in his grand jury testimony said: I told her, I said, 
look, the way these things work is when a person gets a subpoena, you 
have to give them whatever you have. That's the way--that's what the 
rule--that's what the law is.
  If you believe that, we need to congratulate our President because he 
did, in fact, state the law correctly. He fulfilled his obligation as 
Chief Executive Officer of the land. He fulfilled his obligation as an 
honorable person by telling someone, who happened to be Ms. Lewinsky, 
You are doing a bad thing here even by suggesting we do something with 
these gifts. You need to turn them over because that is what the law 
says.
  If you believe that, that is the only time he really embraced the law 
in this case, as I can see. Everything about him, in the way he 
behaved, was 180 degrees out from that statement. That is the most 
self-serving statement that flies in the face of every action he took 
for months. The truth is that a reasonable person should conclude that 
when Ms. Lewinsky approached him about what to do with the gifts, he 
said, ``I'll have to think about that.'' And you know what, ladies and 
gentlemen, he thought about it. And do you know what he did after he 
thought about it? ``Betty, go get those gifts.'' And they wound up 
under the bed of the President's secretary. And the people are 
wondering what the heck happened here? What the heck happened here is 
you have a man trying to hide his crimes.
  Affidavit--where I come from, you call somebody at 2:30 in the 
morning, you are up to no good.
  (Laughter.)
  That will be borne out, if you listen to the testimony and use your 
common sense. He was up to no good. He told her, ``My heart is breaking 
because you are on this witness list and maybe here's a way to get out 
of it.'' That is the God's truth. That is what he did and that is wrong 
and that is a crime.
  The rule of law, what does it mean? It means that process and 
procedure wins out over politics and personality. That means that 
subpoenas have to be honored by the great and the small. That means 
when subpoenas come, you can't, as the President, try to defeat them 
because you are nobody special in the eyes of the law--except that you 
are the guardian of the law. If you are special, you are special in a 
more ominous way, not a lesser way.
  When you file an affidavit in a court of law, nobody, because of 
their position in society, has the right to cheat and to get somebody 
to lie for them, even as the President. That means we are not a nation 
of men or kings, we are a nation of laws. And that is what this case 
has always been about to me.
  This affidavit was false for a reason--because the President and Ms. 
Lewinsky wanted it to be false. The job search? ``Mission 
accomplished,'' says it all. ``Mission accomplished.''
  It went from being no big deal to the biggest deal in the world with 
a telephone bill--I don't know what the telephone bill was to get this 
job, but it was huge. ``Mission accomplished.''
  All these are crimes. All these are things that average Americans 
should not be allowed to do. But I am going to tell you something. At 
this point in time what is going on is that he is trying to conceal a 
relationship about the workplace that would be embarrassing and that 
would be illegal and that would help Ms. Jones and would hurt him. And 
it is not just about his private life. But you can say this about the 
President, he was trying to get her a job and he was trying to just get 
her to file a false affidavit so this would go away. And he was trying 
to hide the gifts. And that is bad but that is not nearly as bad as 
what was to come.
  Let me tell you what was to come, ladies and gentlemen. After the 
deposition, when it was clear that Ms. Lewinsky may have been talking, 
or somebody knew something they weren't supposed to know, the alarm 
bells went off and concealing the relationship changed to redefining 
the relationship. That is why he should not be our President. The 
redefining of the relationship began very quickly after that 
deposition. It started with the President's secretary, and it goes like 
this: The President, on two occasions, under the guise of refreshing 
his memory, makes the following statements to his secretary, ``You are 
always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone? You 
could see and hear everything? Monica came on to me and I never touched 
her, right? She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.''
  If you believe that is about refreshing your memory, you are not 
being reasonable. That is about coaching a witness. But here is where 
it gets to be nasty. Here is where it gets to be mean: ``Monica came on 
to me and I never touched her, right? She wanted to have sex with me 
and I couldn't do that.'' He didn't say it once, he said it twice, just 
to make sure Ms. Currie would get the point.
  Now that Ms. Lewinsky may be a problem, let me tell you how the 
discussion goes. It is not from concealing; now it is redefining.

[[Page 1957]]

  Conversation with Mr. Morris, after they did the poll about what to 
do here, and ``We just have to win.'' The President had a followup 
conversation with Mr. Morris during the evening of January 22, 1998, 
the day after the story broke, when Mr. Morris was considering holding 
a press conference to blast Ms. Lewinsky out of the water, the 
President told Mr. Morris to be careful, to be careful. According to 
Mr. Morris, the President warned him not to be too hard on Ms. Lewinsky 
because ``there is some slight chance that she may not be cooperating 
with Mr. Starr and we don't want to alienate her by anything we are 
going to put out.'' In other words, don't blast her now, she may not be 
a problem to us.
  During this period of time, it went from concealing to redefining. 
When he knew he had to win, what did he do? He went to his secretary 
and he made her a sexual predator and him an innocent victim, and he 
did it twice. But did he do it to anybody else? Did he redefine his 
relationship to anybody else?
  I now would like to have a clip from Mr. Blumenthal, please.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

  Next tape:

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

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

       MR. McDANIEL: Page 49?
       MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
       MR. McDANIEL: Thank you.
       BY MR. GRAHAM:

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

  Next statement.
  (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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


                 notice of intent to suspend the rules

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

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


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. LOTT. That concludes the presentations for today. The Senate will 
reconvene as a Court of Impeachment on Monday at 1 p.m. At that time, 
the managers and White House counsel will

[[Page 1958]]

proceed to closing arguments for not to exceed 3 hours each and further 
business will resume after that.


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

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

                          ____________________