Footage Information

ABCNEWS VideoSource
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON RESUMES IN THE SENATE WITH PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS. BRYANT ON FLOOR Mr. Manager SENSENBRENNER. ...civil cases were concerned. He properly lost that argument in the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. Even though the Supreme Court decided that the President wasn't above the law and that Ms. Jones' case could proceed, William Jefferson Clinton decided--and decided alone--to act as if the Supreme Court had never acted and that Judge Wright's orders didn't apply to him. What he did was criminal time and time again. These criminal acts were in direct conflict with the President's obligation to take care the laws be faithfully executed. Based upon the repeated violations of federal criminal law, its effect upon the courts to find the truth, and the President's duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, if you find that the President did indeed obstruct the administration of justice through his acts, I respectfully submit your duty will be to find William Jefferson Clinton guilty with respect to Article II and to remove him from office. It is truly sad when the leader of the greatest nation in the world gets caught up in a series of events where one inappropriate and criminal act leads to another, and another and another. Even sadder is that the President himself could have stopped this process simply by telling the truth and accepting the consequences of his prior mistakes. At least six times since December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton could have told the truth and suffered the consequences. Instead he chose lies, perjury, and deception. He could have told the truth when he first learned that Ms. Lewinsky would be a witness in the Ms. Jones' case. He could have told the truth at his civil deposition. He could have told the truth to Betty Currie. He could have told the truth when the news media first broke the story of his affair. He could have told the truth to his aides and cabinet. He could have told the truth to the American people. Instead, he shook his finger at each and every American and said, ``I want you to listen to me,'' and proceeded to tell a straight-faced lie to the American people. Finally, he had one more opportunity to tell the truth. He could have told the truth to the grand jury. Had he told the truth last January, there would have been no independent counsel investigation of this matter, no grand jury appearance, no impeachment inquiry and no House approval of articles of impeachment. And, we would not be here today fulfilling a painful but essential constitutional duty. Instead, he chose lies and deception, despite warnings from friends, aides, and members of the House and Senate that failure to tell the truth would have grave consequences. When the case against him was being heard by the House Judiciary Committee, he sent his lawyers, who did not present any new evidence to rebut the facts and evidence sent to the House by the Independent Counsel. Rather, they disputed the Committee's interpretation of the evidence by relying on tortured, convoluted, and unreasonable interpretations of the President's words and actions. During his presentation to the House Judiciary Committee, the President's very able lawyer, Charles Ruff, was asked directly, ``Did the President lie?'' during his sworn grand jury testimony. Mr. Ruff could have answered that question directly. He did not, and his failure to do so speaks a thousand words. Is there not something sacred when a witness in a judicial proceeding raises his or her right hand and swears before God and the public to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Do we want to tell the country that its leader gets a pass when he is required to give testimony under oath? Should we not be concerned about the effect of allowing perjurious, false, and misleading statements by the President to go unpunished on the truthfulness of anyone's testimony in future judicial or legislative proceedings? What do we tell the approximately 115 people now in federal prison for the crime of perjury? The answers to all these questions ought to be obvious. As elected officials, our opinions are frequently shaped by constituents telling us their own stories. Let me tell you one related to me about the poisonous results of allowing false statements under oath to go unpunished. Last October while the Starr report was being hotly debated, one circuit court judge for Dodge County, Wisconsin approached me on the street in Mayville, Wisconsin. He said that some citizens had business in his court and suggested that one of them take the witness stand and be put under oath to tell the truth. The citizen then asked if he could tell the truth, ``just like the President.'' How many people who have to come to court to testify under oath about matters they would like to keep to themselves think about what that citizen asked Judge John Storck? And, how will the courts be able to administer the, ``equal justice under law'' we all hold so dear if we do not enforce the sanctity of that oath even against the President of the United States? When each of us is elected or chosen to serve in public office, we make a compact with the people of the United States of America to conduct ourselves in an honorable manner, hopefully setting a higher standard for ourselves than we expect of others. That should mean we are careful to obey all the laws we make, execute and interpret. There is more than truth in the words, ``A public office is a public trust.'' When someone breaks that trust, he or she must be held accountable and suffer the consequences for the breach. If there is no accountability, that means that a President can set himself above the law for four years, a Senator for six, a Representative for two, and a judge for life. that, Mr. Chief Justice, poses a far greater threat to the liberties guaranteed to the American people by the Constitution that anything imaginable. For the past 11 months, the toughest questions I've had to answer have come from parents who want to know what to tell their children about what President Clinton did. Every parent tries to teach their children to know the difference between right and wrong, to always tell the truth, and when they make mistakes, to take responsibility for them and to face the consequences of their actions. President Clinton's actions at every step since he knew Ms. Lewinsky would be a witness in Mrs. Jones' case have been completely opposite to the values parents hope to teach their children. But being a poor example isn't grounds for impeachment. Undermining the rule of law is. Frustrating the courts' ability to administer justice turns private misconduct into an attack upon the ability of one of the three branches of our government to impartially administer justice. This is a direct attack upon the rule of law in our country and a very public wrong [[Page S227]] that goes to the constitutional workings of our government and its ability to protect the civil rights of even the weakest American. What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Failure to bring President Clinton to account for his serial lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. Those parents who have asked the questions should be able to tell their children that even if you are the President of the United States, if you lie when sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you will face the consequences of that action even when you won't accept the responsibility for it. How those parents will answer those questions is up to the United States Senate. While how today's parents answer those questions is important, equally important is what parents tell their children in the generations to come about the history of our country and what has set our government in the United States of America apart from the rest of the world. Above the President's dais in this Senate chamber appears our national motto. ``E pluribus unum''--``out of many, one.'' When that motto was adopted more than two hundred years ago, the First Congress referred to how thirteen separate colonies turned themselves into one, united nation. As the decades have gone by, that motto has taken an additional meaning. People of all nationalities, faiths, creeds, and values have come to our shores, shed their allegiances to their old countries and achieved their dreams to become Americans. They came here to flee religious persecution, to escape corrupt, tyrannical and oppressive governments, and to leave behind the economic stagnation and endless wars of their homelands. They came here to be able to practice their faiths as they saw fit-- free of government dictates and to be able to provide better lives for themselves and their families by the sweat of their own brows and the use of their own intellect. But they also came here because they knew America has a system of government where the Constitution and laws protect individual liberties and human rights. Everyone--yes, everyone--can argue that this country has been a beacon for individual citizen's ability to be what he or she can be. They fled countries where the rulers ruled at the expense of the people, to America, where the leaders are expected to govern for the benefit of the people. And, throughout the years, America's leaders have tried to earn the trust of the American people, not by their words, but by their actions. America is a place where government exists by the consent of the governed. And, that means our Nation's leaders must earn and re-earn the trust of the people with every thing they do. Whenever an elected official stumbles, that trust is eroded and public cynicism goes up. The more cynicism that exists about government, its institutions, and those chosen to serve in them, the more difficult the job is for those who are serving. That's why it is important, yes vital, that when a cancer exists in the body politic, our job--our duty--is to excise it. If we fail in our duty, I fear the difficult and dedicated work done by thousands of honorable men and women elected to serve not just here in Washington, but in our State capitals, city halls, courthouses and school board rooms will be swept away in a sea of public cynicism. We must not allow the beacon of America to grow dim, or the American dream to disappear with each waking morning. In 1974, the Congress did its painful public duty when the President of the United States broke the public trust. During the last decade, both Houses impeached and removed three Federal judges who broke their trust with the people. During the last 10 years, the House of Representatives disciplined two Speakers for breaking the rules and their trust with the public. And, less than 6 years ago, this honorable Senate did the same to a senior Senator whose accomplishments were widely praised. In each case, Congress did the right thing to help restore the vital trust upon which our Government depends. It wasn't easy, nor was it always popular, but Congress did the right thing. Now, this honorable Senate must do the right thing. It must listen to the evidence; it must determine whether William Jefferson Clinton repeatedly broke our criminal laws and thus broke his trust with the people--a trust contained in the Presidential oath put into the Constitution by the Framers--an oath that no other Federal official must take--an oath to insure that the laws be faithfully executed. How the Senate decides the issues to be presented in this trial will determine the legacy we pass to future generations of Americans. The Senate can follow the legacy of those who have made America what it is. The Senate can follow the legacy of those who put their ``lives, fortunes and Sacred Honor'' on the line when they signed the Declaration of Independence. The Senate can follow the legacy of the Framers of the Constitution whose preamble states that one of its purposes is, ``to establish justice.'' The Senate can follow the legacy of James Madison and the Members of the First Congress who wrote and passed a Bill of Rights to protect and preserve the liberties of the American people. The Senate can follow the legacy of those who achieved equal rights for all Americans during the 1960s in Congress, in the courts, and on the streets and in the buses and at the lunch counters. The Senate can follow the legacy of those who brought President Nixon to justice during Watergate in the belief that no President can place himself above the law. The Senate can follow the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt who lived and governed by the principle that no man is above the law. Within the walls of the Capitol and throughout this great country there rages an impassioned and divisive debate over the future of this presidency. This Senate now finds itself in the midst of the tempest. An already immense and agonizing duty is made even more so because the whims of public opinion polls, the popularity and unpopularity of individuals, even questions over the strength of our economy, risk subsuming the true nature of this grave and unwelcome task. We have all anguished over the sequence of events that have led us to this, the conclusive stage in the process. We have all identified in our own minds where it could have, and should have stopped. But we have ended up here, before the Senate of the United States, where you, the Senators, will have to render judgment based upon the facts. A scientist in search of the basic nature of a substance begins by boiling away what is not of the essence. Similarly, the Senate will sift through the layers of debris that shroud the truth. The residue of this painful and divisive process is bitter, even poisonous at times. But beneath it lies the answer. The evidence will show that at its core, the question over the President's guilt and the need for his conviction will be clear. Because at its core, the issues involved are basic questions of right versus wrong--deceptive, criminal behavior versus honesty, integrity and respect for the law. The President engaged in a conspiracy of crimes to prevent justice from being served. These are impeachable offenses for which the President should be convicted. Over the course of the days and weeks to come, we, the House managers, will endeavor to make this case. May these proceedings be fair and thorough. May they embody our highest capacity for truth and mutual respect. With these principles as our guides, we can begin with the full knowledge our democracy will prevail and that our Nation will emerge a stronger, better place. Our legacy now must be not to lose the trust the people should have in our Nation's leaders. Our legacy now must be not to cheapen the legacies left by our forebearers. Our legacy must be to do the right thing based upon the evidence. For the sake of our country, the Senate must not fail. Thank you. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant. [[Page S228]] Mr. Manager BRYANT. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, and my distinguished colleagues from the bar, I am Ed Bryant, the Representative from the Seventh District of Tennessee. During this portion of the case, I, along with Representative Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Representative James Rogan of California, and Representative Bill McCollum of Florida, will present the factual elements of this case. Our presentation is a very broad roadmap with which first I will provide the history and background of the parties, followed by Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Rogan, who will review the articles of impeachment. Mr. McCollum will close with a summation of these facts and evidence. It is our intent to proceed in a chronological fashion, although by necessity, there will be some overlap of the facts and circumstances arising from what I have called ``the four-way intersection collision'' of President William Jefferson Clinton, Ms. Paula Corbin Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and the U.S. Constitution. As a further preface to my remarks, permit me to say that none of us present here today in these hallowed Chambers relishes doing this job before us. But we did not choose to be involved in that reckless misconduct, nor did we make those reasoned and calculated decisions to cover up that misconduct which underlies this proceeding. However, this collision at the intersection, if you will, of the President, Ms. Jones, and Ms. Lewinsky, is not in and of itself enough to bring us together today. No. Had truth been a witness at this collision, and prevailed, we would not be here. But when it was not present, even under an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a judicial matter, the impact of our Constitution must be felt. Hence, we are together today--to do our respective duties. By voting these articles of impeachment, the House is not attempting to raise the standard of conduct to perfection for our political leadership. Such a person does not walk the world today. Everyone falls short of this mark everyday. But political life is not so much about how an individual fails, but rather how the person reacts to that failure. For example, a person campaigning for a political office admits wrongdoing in his past and says he will not do that again. Most people accept that commitment. He is elected. Thereafter, he repeats this wrongdoing and is confronted again. What does he do? He takes steps to cover up this wrongdoing by using his workers and his friends. He lies under oath in a lawsuit which is very important to the person he is alleged to have harmed. He then takes a political poll as to whether he should tell the truth under oath. The poll indicates the voters would not forgive him for lying under oath. So he then denies the truth in a Federal grand jury. If this person is the President of the United States, the House of Representatives would consider articles of impeachment. It did and voted to impeach this President. But do not let it be argued in these chambers that ``We are not electing Saints, we are electing Presidents.'' Rather, let it be said that we are electing people who are imperfect and who have made mistakes in life, but who are willing to so respect this country and the Office of the President that he or she will now lay aside their own personal shortcomings and have the inner strength to discipline themselves sufficiently that they do not break the law which they themselves are sworn to uphold. Every trial must have a beginning and this trial begins on a cold day in January 1993. [Video presentation.] Mr. Manager Bryant. I had expected a video portion, but all of you heard the audio portion. As you can hear from the audio portion-- perhaps some of you can see--William Jefferson Clinton, placed his left hand on the Bible in front of his wife, the Chief Justice and every American watching that day and affirmatively acknowledged his oath of office. On that every day and again in January of 1997, the President joined a privileged few. He became only the 42nd person in our Nation to make the commitment to ``faithfully execute'' the office of the President and to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.'' He has the complete executive power of the Nation vested in him by virtue of this Constitution. As we progress throughout the day, I would ask that you be reminded of the importance of this oath. Before you is a copy of it and certainly available as anyone would like to look at it on breaks. William Jefferson Clinton is a man of great distinction. He is well- educated with degrees from Georgetown University and Yale Law School. He has taught law school courses to aspiring young lawyers. He served as Governor and Attorney General for the State of Arkansas, enforcing the laws of that state. The President now directs our great Nation. He sets our agenda and creates national policy in a very public way--he is in fact a role model for many. President Clinton also serves as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. It is primarily in this capacity that the President appoints Federal judges. Within the executive branch, he selected Attorney General Janet Reno and appointed each of the 93 United States Attorneys who are charged with enforcing all Federal, civil and criminal law in Federal courthouses from Anchorage, Alaska to Miami, Florida and from San Diego, California to Bangor, Maine. Before you we have another chart which shows the schematics of the Department of Justice and how it is under the direct control of the President through his Cabinet, Attorney General and then down to such functions as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration, U.S. Marshals Office, Bureau of Prisons and so many other very important legal functions this Federal Government performs. As protectors of our Constitution, the U.S. Attorneys and their assistants prosecute more than 50,000 cases per year. Through these appointments and his administration's policies, the President establishes the climate in this country for law and order. Each and every one of these 50,000 cases handled by his United States Attorneys is dependent upon the parties and witnesses telling the truth under oath. Equally as important in these proceedings is that justice not be obstructed by tampering with witnesses nor hiding evidence. Quoting from the November 9, 1998 Constitution Subcommittee testimony of attorney Charles J. Cooper, a Washington, DC attorney, he states: The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately upon society itself, whether or not committed in connection with the exercise of official government powers. Before the framing of our Constitution and since, our law has consistently recognized that perjury primarily and directly injures the body politic, for it subverts the judicial process and this strikes at the heart of the rule of law itself. Professor Gary McDowell, the Director at the Institute for United States Studies at the University of London, also testified in the same hearing in reference to the influential writer William Paley, and this is also in chart form for those who would like review it later. Paley saw the issue of oaths and perjury as one of morality as well as law. Because a witness swears that he will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, a person under oath cannot cleverly lie and not commit perjury. If the witness conceals any truth, Paley writes, that relates to the matter in adjudication, that is as much a violation of the oath, as to testify a positive falsehood. Shame or embarrassment cannot justify his concealment of truth, linguistic contortions with the words used cannot legitimately conceal a lie, or if under oath, perjury. Professor McDowell concludes with a quote from Paley which accurately provides, I believe the essence of a lie or perjurious statement. ``It is willful deceit that makes the lie; and we willfully deceive, where our expressions are not true in the sense in which we believe the hearer apprehends them.'' Neither has this United States Senate been silent on the issue of perjury. You have rightfully recognized through previous impeachment proceedings the unacceptable nature of a high government official lying under oath, even in matters initially arising from what some would argue here are merely personal. In 1989, many of you present [[Page S229]] today, using the very same standard which is section 4 of the Constitution, which is set forth there, for impeaching a federal judge or the President, many of you actually voted in support of a conviction and the removal of a U.S. District judge under oath. Indeed, truth-telling is the single most important judicial precept underpinning this great system of justice we have, a system which permits the courthouse doors to be open to all people, from the most powerful man in America to a young woman from Arkansas. On May 6, 1994, Paula Corbin Jones attempted to open that courthouse door when she filed a Federal sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. The case arose from a 1991 incident when she was a State employee and he was the Governor. Further details of the underlying allegations are not important to us today, but Ms. Jones' pursuit for the truth is worth a careful study. The parties first litigated the question of whether Ms. Jones' lawsuit would have to be deferred until after the President left office. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the President's contention and allowed the case to proceed without further delay. Ms. Jones sought and, appropriately, won ``her day in court.'' Incumbent with this victory, however, was the reasonable expectation that President Clinton would tell the truth. After all, this was the most important case in the whole world to Paula Corbin Jones. Notwithstanding this, that fact didn't happen, that the President told the truth. Even after the President was ordered to stand trial, pursuing the truth for Ms. Jones remained an elusive task. The evidence will indicate that President Clinton committed perjury and orchestrated a variety of efforts to obstruct justice, all of which--all of which-- had the effect of preventing the discovery of truth in the Paula Jones case. During the discovery phase, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Arkansas ordered the President to answer certain historical questions about his sexual relations with either State or Federal employees. In part, Judge Wright said: The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees. Judge Wright validated Ms. Jones' right to use this accepted line of questioning in sexual harassment litigation. More often than not, these cases involve situations where ``he said/she said,'' and they produce issues of credibility and are often done in private. Because of this, they are really difficult for a victim to prove. Such standard questions are essential in establishing whether the defendant has committed the same kind of acts before or since--in other words, a pattern or practice of harassing conduct. The existence of such corroborative evidence, or the lack thereof, is likely to be critical in these types of cases. Both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines and the Federal Rules of Evidence permit this type of evidence. In short, a defendant's sexual history, at least with respect to other employees, is ordinarily discoverable in a sexual harassment lawsuit. To not expect a defendant in this type of litigation to speak the truth creates, in its worst case, a very real danger to the entire area of sexual harassment law which would be irreparably damaged and, in its best case, sends out a very wrong message. As such, the will and intent of Congress with regard to providing protection against sexual harassment in the workplace would be effectively undermined. The ``pattern and practice'' witnesses whom Paula Corbin Jones was entitled to discover should have included the name of Monica Lewinsky. But before I discuss the Ms. Lewinsky matter, I want to offer three matters of cause to each of you as jurors in this very important matter. No. 1, I do not intend to discuss the specific details of the President's encounters with Ms. Lewinsky. However, I do not want to give the Senate the impression that those encounters are irrelevant or lack serious legal implications. In fact, every day in the courtrooms all across America, victims of sexual harassment, of rape, assault, and abuse must testify, in many public cases, in order to vindicate their personal rights and society's right to be free of these intolerable acts. The President's lies about his conduct in the Oval Office with Ms. Lewinsky also make these unseemly details highly relevant. If you are to accept the President's version about the relationship, you must in effect say to Ms. Lewinsky that she is the one who is disregarding the truth. But beyond this, his denials also directly contradict Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, not only directly contradict Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, but also contradict eight of her friends and the statements by two professional counselors with whom she contemporaneously shared details of her relationship. By law, their testimony may serve as proper and admissible evidence to corroborate her side of this important story. No. 2, the evidence and testimony in this proceeding must be viewed as a whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. Please do not be misled into considering each event in isolation and then treating it separately. Remember, events and words that may seem innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a sinister or even criminal connotation when observed in the context of the whole plot. For example, we all agree that Ms. Lewinsky testified, ``No one ever told me to lie . . .'' When considered alone, this statement would seem exculpatory. In the context of other evidence, however, we see that this one statement gives a misleading inference. Of course no one said, ``Now, Monica, you go down there and lie.'' They didn't have to. Based upon their previous spoken and even unspoken words, Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of her. Surely, if the President were to come on to the Senate floor and give testimony during this proceeding, he would not tell you that he honestly expected her to tell the truth about their personal relationship. After all, the purpose of her filing the false affidavit was to avoid testifying in the Jones case and discussing the nature of their relationship. If she had told the truth in that affidavit, instead of lying, she would have been invited to testify immediately, if not sooner. No. 3, throughout our presentation of the facts, especially as it relates to the various illegal acts, I ask you to pay particular attention to what I call the big picture. Look at the results of those various acts as well as who benefited. Please make a mental note now, if you can, and ask yourself always, as you look at each one of these illegal acts that are presented to you: A, What was the result of that illegal act? and, B, Who benefited from that illegal act? I believe you will find that the evidence will show that while the President's ``fingerprints'' may not be directly on the evidence proving these illegal acts, the result of the acts usually inures to the benefit of the President, and the President alone. Subordinates and friends alike are drawn into this web of deceit. The President is insulated. Crimes are committed. Justice is denied. The rule of law is suspended. And this President is the beneficiary. Some examples: No. 1, subpoenaed evidence disappears from Ms. Lewinsky's apartment and reappears under Ms. Currie's bed. What was the result of that? Who had the benefit of that? No. 2, Ms. Lewinsky files a false affidavit in the Jones case. What is the result of filing that false affidavit and who benefited from that? No. 3, the President's attorney files the Lewinsky affidavit, not knowing it was false, representing to the Court that ``there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape, or form,'' while the President sits in the deposition and does not object to that--very silently sits in the deposition. What was the result of that? And who benefited from that filing of the affidavit? No. 4, and finally, Ms. Lewinsky, after months of job searching in New York City, is offered a job with a Fortune 500 company in New York City within 48 hours of her signing this false affidavit. Who shared the results of that with Ms. Lewinsky? And who obtained the benefit of that? Another example occurred in a meeting between the President and Ms. [[Page S230]] Lewinsky in July--on July 4, 1997, to be specific--when, as a part of their conversation, she mentioned she heard someone from Newsweek was working on a story about Kathleen Willey. The President has Ms. Lewinsky back for a visit on July 14, some 10 days later, following his return from an overseas trip. She was questioned about the Willey story, and specifically if Linda Tripp had been her source. Important to this point--important to this point--the President then asked Ms. Lewinsky to try to persuade Ms. Tripp to call White House Legal Counsel Bruce Lindsey. The President told her to notify Ms. Currie the following day, ``without getting into the details with her, even mentioning names with her,'' whether Ms. Lewinsky had ``mission accomplished'' with Linda. And as you will learn from Mr. Hutchinson, who will follow me with his presentation, this is very similar to the method of operation with another job the President requested be done, which in that case succeeded with a ``mission accomplished.'' I ask you to watch for that in Mr. Hutchinson's presentation. I want to now rewind the clock back to November of 1995. We are here in Washington where Ms. Lewinsky has been working at the White House since July of 1995. As you continue to listen to the evidence, from this point on November 15 forward, remember that Ms. Lewinsky and the President were alone in the Oval Office workplace area at least 21 times. And I have a list of these, in chart form, beginning in November of 1995, and going through 1996 and into the early part of 1997, continuing through the year. During that time, they had at least 11 of the so-called salacious encounters there in the workplace at various times during the day and night: Three in 1995, five in 1996, and three in 1997. They also had in excess of 50 telephone conversations, most of which appear to have been telephone calls to and from Ms. Lewinsky's home. And I have a schedule of all these telephone calls to show you, the 50- plus telephone calls. Also, they exchanged some 64 gifts, with the President receiving 40 of these gives and Ms. Lewinsky receiving 24 of these gifts. And again we have charts that reflect the receipt of both sets of gifts. And again these charts will be here in the front, always available for your inspection. We also note that their affair began on November 15th. Interestingly, there is even a conflict here with the President. According to Ms. Lewinsky, they had never spoken to each other up to that point. Yet, he asked an unknown intern into the Oval Office and kissed her and then invited her back to return later that day, when the two engaged in the first of the 11 acts of misconduct. The contradiction is in the statement that the President relied upon in his grand jury testimony that has been referenced earlier--very carefully worded--and that statement, the President gave in testimony before the grand jury about meeting in this relationship. And he says, ``I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct . . .'' Almost as if it had evolved over a period of time. So there is very clearly a conflict there. As Ms. Lewinsky's internship was ending that year, she did apply and receive a paying job with the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. This position allowed her even more access to the Oval Office area. She remained a White House employee until April 1996 when she was reassigned to the Pentagon. The proof will show that Ms. Evelyn Lieberman, Deputy Chief of Staff at the time, believed that the transfer was necessary because Ms. Lewinsky was so persistent in her efforts to be near the President. Although Ms. Lieberman could not recall hearing any rumors linking her and the President, she acknowledged the President was vulnerable to these kinds of rumors. While Ms. Lewinsky tried to return to work in the White House, her absence was appreciated by those on the President's staff who wanted to protect him. After she began her job at the Pentagon in April, there was no further physical contact with the President through the 1996 election and the remainder of that year. The two communicated by telephone and on occasion saw each other at public events. Their only attempt at a private visit in the Oval Office was thwarted because Ms. Lieberman was nearby. On December 17, she attended a holiday celebration at the White House and had a photograph made shaking hands with the President. However, the evidence establishes that in 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was more successful in arranging visits to the White House. This was because she used the discreet assistance of Ms. Currie, the President's secretary, to avoid the likes of Ms. Lieberman. Ms. Currie indicated she did not want to know the details of this relationship. Ms. Currie testified on one occasion when Ms. Lewinksy told her, ``As long as no one saw us-- and no one did--then nothing happened.'' Ms. Currie responded, ``Don't want to hear it. Don't say any more. I don't want to hear any more.'' Early on during their secret liaisons, the two concocted a cover story to use if discovered. Ms. Lewinksy was to say she was bringing papers to the President. The evidence will show that statement to be false. The only papers that she ever brought were personal messages having nothing to do with her duties or the President's. The cover story plays an important role in the later perjuries and the obstruction of justice. Ms. Lewinksy stated that the President did not expressly instruct her to lie. He did, however, suggest, indeed, the ``misleading'' cover story. When she assured him that she planned to lie about the relationship, he responded approvingly. On the frequent occasions that she promised that she would ``always deny'' the relationship and ``always protect him,'' for example, the President responded, in her recollection, ``That's good,'' or something affirmative. Not ``Don't deny it.'' The evidence will establish further that the two of them had, in her words, ``a mutual understanding'' that they would ``keep this private, so that meant deny it and . . . take whatever appropriate steps needed to be taken.'' When she and the President both were subpoenaed in the Jones case, Ms. Lewinksy anticipated that ``as we had on every other occasion and every other instance of this relationship, we would deny it.'' In his grand jury testimony, President Clinton acknowledged that he and Ms. Lewinsky ``might have talked about what to do in a nonlegal context'' to hide their relationship and that he ``might well have said'' that Ms. Lewinsky should tell people she was bringing letters to him or coming to visit Ms. Currie. He always stated that ``I never asked Ms. Lewinsky to lie.'' But neither did the President ever say that they must now tell the truth under oath; to the contrary, as Ms. Lewinsky stated: ``It wasn't as if the President called me and said, `You know, Monica, you're on the witness list, this is going to be really hard for us, we're going to have to tell the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire world about what we've done,' which I would have fought him on probably,'' she said. ``That was different. By not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew what that meant,'' according to Monica Lewinsky. In a related but later incident that Mr. Hutchinson may refer to, Monica Lewinsky testified that President Clinton telephoned her at home around 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock one morning on December 17, 1997--2:00 or 2:30 a.m. He told her that her name was on the list of possible witnesses to be called in the Paula Jones lawsuit. When asked what to do if she was subpoenaed, the President suggested that she could sign an affidavit. Ms. Lewinsky indicated that she was 100 percent sure that he had suggested that she might want to sign an affidavit. She understood his advice to mean that she might be able to execute an affidavit that would not disclose the true nature of their relationship. When Ms. Lewinsky agreed to that false affidavit, she told the President by telephone that she would be signing it and asked if he wanted to see it before she signed it. According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President responded that he did not, as he had already seen about 15 others. Concurrent with these events I just described, the evidence will further demonstrate that as Ms. Lewinsky attempted to return to work at the White House after the 1996 elections, she [[Page S231]] spoke with the President. According to Betty Currie, the President instructed Betty Currie and Marsha Scott, Deputy Director of Personnel, to assist in her return to the White House. In the spring of 1997, she met with Ms. Scott. She complained in subsequent notes to Ms. Scott and the President about no progress being made with her getting back to the White House. On July 3rd of that year, she dispatched a more formal letter to the President--in fact, using the salutation, ``Dear Sir,''-- and raising a possible threat that she might have to tell her parents about why she no longer had a job at the White House if they don't get her another job. She also indicated a possible interest in a job in New York at the United Nations. The President and Ms. Lewinsky met the next day in what Ms. Lewinsky characterized as a ``very emotional'' visit, including the President scolding her that it was illegal to threaten the President of the United States. Their conversation eventually moved on to other topics, though primarily her complaining about his failure to get her a job at the White House. Continuing with Ms. Lewinsky's effort to return to work near the President, there was a July 16th meeting and September 3rd telephone call with Ms. Scott. On the evening of September 30, the President advised Ms. Lewinsky that he would have Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles help with a job search, and Bowles later passed this on to John Podesta, although each recalled their involvement occurring earlier in the year. A few days later, however, her hopes of a job at the White House quickly ended. On October 6, she had a conversation with Linda Tripp who told her that she would never return to the White House, according to a friend of hers on the staff. Learning this ``secondhand'' was, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the ``straw that broke the camel's back.'' She decided to ask the President for a job in New York with the United Nations and sent him a letter to that effect on October 7. During an October 11 meeting with the President, he suggested that she give him a list of New York companies which interested her. She asked if Vernon Jordan might also help. Five days later, she provided the President with her ``wish list'' and indicated that she was no longer interested in the U.N. position, although she did receive an offer on November 24th and declined it on January 5, 1998. After this meeting with the President, arrangements were made through the President and Ms. Currie for Ms. Lewinsky to meet with Mr. Jordan. On the morning of November 5, 1997, Mr. Jordan spoke by telephone with the President about 5 minutes and later met with Ms. Lewinsky for the first time for about 20 minutes. According to Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan told her he had spoken with the President, that she came highly recommended and that ``We're in business.'' However, the evidence reflects that Mr. Jordan took no steps to help Ms. Lewinsky until early December of that year after she appeared on the witness list in the Jones case. Actually, Mr. Jordan testified in his grand jury testimony that he had no recollection of even having met Ms. Lewinsky on November 5. When he was shown documentary evidence demonstrating that his first meeting with Ms. Lewinsky occurred in early November, he acknowledged that such meeting ``was entirely possible.'' You can see that was not to be a high priority for Mr. Jordan at that time, until December. For many months, Ms. Lewinsky had not been able to find a job to her satisfaction--even without the perceived ``help'' of various people. Then in December of 1997, something happened which caused those interested in finding Ms. Lewinsky a job in New York to intensify their search. Within 48 hours of her signing this false affidavit in the Paula Jones case, Ms. Lewinsky had landed a job with a prestigious Fortune 500 Company. It is anticipated that attorneys for the President will present arguments which will contest much of the relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The President has maintained throughout the last several months that while there was no sexual relationship or sexual affair, in fact, there was some type of inappropriate, intimate contact with her. What has now been dubbed as ``legal gymnastics'' on the part of the President has made its appearance. Other examples followed. Within his definition of the word ``alone,'' he denies being alone with Ms. Lewinsky at any time in the Oval Office. He also questions the definition of the word ``is.'' ``It depends on what the word `is' means in how you answer a particular question.'' Further, we would expect the President to continue to disavow knowledge of why evidence detrimental to his defense in the Jones case was removed from Ms. Lewinsky's apartment and hidden beneath Ms. Currie's bed or knowledge of how Ms. Lewinsky found herself with an employment offer in New York virtually at the same time she finally executed an affidavit in the Jones case. Unfortunately, for your search for the truth in these proceedings, the President continues today to parse his words and use ``legal hairsplitting'' in his defense. I cite for your consideration his Answer filed with this body just days ago. For instance: 1. Responding in part to the impeachment article I, the President persists in a wrongheaded fashion with his legal hairsplitting of the term ``sexual relations,'' which permits him to define that term in such a way that in the particular salacious act we are talking about here, one person has sex and the other person does not. As a graduate of one of the finest law schools in America and as a former law professor and attorney general for the State of Arkansas, the President knows better. I have this statement here extracted out of the President's Answer to this proceeding. 2. Responding to both articles of impeachment, the President now would have you believe that he ``was not focusing'' when his attorney, Bob Bennett, was objecting during the deposition and attempting to cut off a very important line of questioning of the President by representing to Judge Wright that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit proved that there is no need to go into this testimony about the President's life. He said that this affidavit proves that ``there is absolutely no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form.'' Remember that this is the same President who now pleads that he lost his focus during this very important part of this deposition. This is the very same President who is renowned for his intelligence and his ability ``to compartmentalize,'' to concentrate and focus on whatever matter is at hand. And now he comes before this Senate, to each one of you, in his Answer, by and through his attorneys, and pleads that he simply wasn't paying attention at this very important point during his own deposition. In Tennessee, we have a saying for situations like that: ``That dog won't hunt.'' 3. In his further response to article I, the President effectively admits guilt to obstruction. As I read this, his pleadings refer to the President himself, and he states that he, the President, ``truthfully explained to the grand jury his efforts to answer the questions in the Jones deposition without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.'' So he said he did answer the questions in the Jones deposition in a way so as not to disclose his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. At the bottom of the same page, he denies that he attempted ``to impede the discovery of evidence in the Jones case.'' Think about this with me for a minute. Basically, the purpose of the Jones deposition of the President was to secure truthful testimony about these kinds of ``pattern and practice'' witnesses, and therein discover the likes of Monica Lewinsky. That is the purpose of being there. The President admitted in his Answer that he purposely answered questions so as not to disclose his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Said another way, he intentionally answered questions to avoid the discovery of one of these female employees with whom he was sexually involved. That is precisely, folks, what impeding the discovery of evidence is. I ask you, if you get an opportunity, to look at this very closely. 4. In his answer to article II, the President ``denies that he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit in the Jones case.'' 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 [[Page S232]] need to do this at that point in her life, but this 20-something-year- old young lady was listening to the most powerful man in the United States, whom she greatly admired, hearing him effectively instruct her to file a false affidavit to avoid having to testify about their relationship. And in order to do that, she had to lie about the physical aspects of their relationship. According to her, the President didn't even want to see that actual affidavit because he had seen 15 more just like it and as such he knew what it would be. 5. In an additional response to article II, the President answers and asserts that ``he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could have filed a limited and truthful affidavit that might have enabled her to avoid having to testify in the Jones case.'' That is an incredible statement. That is an incredible statement given the fact that the President knew firsthand of the extent of their sexual relationship, and he also knew that the Jones discovery efforts were specifically after that type of conduct. Even with the best of the legal hairsplitting, it is still difficult to envision a truthful affidavit from Ms. Lewinsky that could have skirted this issue enough to avoid testifying. And if you really think the President had this belief, don't you think he would have accepted Ms. Lewinsky's offer to review her affidavit and perhaps share this bit of wisdom he had with her before she signed it and lied? After all, in this answer he just filed, he says he had an out for her, a way for her to have the best of both worlds--not to have to lie and still avoid testifying in the Jones case. Why didn't he share that with her when she gave him the opportunity if he in fact had such an idea? I suggest that perhaps that is a recent idea. Even if, for some reason, you don't believe Ms. Lewinsky offered to share that affidavit with him, don't you think it still would have been in the President's best interest to give Ms. Lewinsky his thoughts before she violated the law with a completely false affidavit? Now, indeed, is the time to stop the legal gymnastics and hairsplitting and deal with these charges and facts appropriately. As a House manager, I believe I can speak for all of us out of a sense of fairness, and again request that we and the President be permitted to call witnesses. I submit that the state of the evidence is such that unless and until the President has the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses like Ms. Lewinsky, and himself, to testify if he desires, there could not be any doubt of his guilt on the facts. A reasonable and impartial review of the record as it presently exists demands nothing less than a guilty verdict. While it has been the consistent defense of the White House to be inconsistent, it still comes as something of a surprise that the President has not made a stronger case for the calling of witnesses. Before now, he has aggressively sought the opportunity to challenge the truth and veracity of witnesses in these impeachment proceedings. During the hearings in the House, which many believe are analogous to a grand jury proceeding, the President's defenders and his attorneys consistently complained of...