Summary

Footage Information

ABCNEWS VideoSource
SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL / DAY 10
01/25/1999
ABC
NYBG16327Z
CLEAN FEED OF THE SENATE TRIAL / IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. 16:01:05 WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL NICOLE SELIGMAN DEFENDS MOTION TO DISMISS CASE AGAINST PRESDIENT BILL CLINTON. IF THERE IS NO DISPUTE, WHY DO WITNESSES HAVE TO BE QUESTIONED AT ALL. HOUSE MAJORITY COUNSEL SCHIPPERS, HIMSELF, MADE THIS POINT WHEN SPEAKING OF THE VERY SAME TRANSCRIPTS AND FBI INTERVIEWS THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEFORE YOU STATED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, QUOTE, "AS IT STANDS, ALL OF THE FACTUAL WITNESSES ARE UNCONTRADICTED AND AMPLY CORROBORATED."SECOND, BECAUSE THE ACTUAL DISAGREEMENT: FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WAS IN THE PRESIDENT'S MIND IN HIS DEPOSITION, OR ABOUT CONCLUSIONS THAT MUST BE DRAWN FROM THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, NOT DISPUTES IN THE EVIDENCE ITSELF. MORE EVIDENCE WILL NOT INFORM A JUDGMENT ON THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND.SELIGMAN: AND THIRD, BECAUSE THOSE WITNESSES WITH TESTIMONY PERTINENT TO THE CHARGES HAVE ALREADY REPEATED THEIR TESTIMONY AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, IN SOME INSTANCES FIVE OR TEN TIMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER TO FBI AGENTS, TO PROSECUTORS, TO GRAND JURORS.EXPERIENCED CAREER PROSECUTORS TRYING TO MAKE THEIR BEST CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT QUESTIONED SCORES OF WITNESSES. THEY COMPILED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF EVIDENCE. THEY QUESTIONED MS. LEWINSKY ON AT LEAST 22 SEPARATE OCCASIONS. THEY QUESTIONED MR. JORDAN ON AT LEAST FIVE OCCASIONS. THEY QUESTIONED MS. CURRIE ON AT LEAST EIGHT OCCASIONS. ON ONE DAY ALONE, JULY 22ND, 1998, PROSECUTORS ASKED MS. CURRIE MORE THAN 850 QUESTIONS, AND THAT WAS ONLY ONE OF HER FIVE APPEARANCES BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OR FBI AGENTS. AND THEY DID IN FACT, CONTRARY TO THE SUGGESTION OF THE MANAGERS, QUESTION WITNESSES, INCLUDING MS. LEWINSKY, AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY TO THE GRAND JURY. AND THESE WITNESSES, WHOM I'VE MENTIONED WHO WERE QUESTIONED REPEATEDLY, ARE NOT ALONE. THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY ADD TO THEIR TESTIMONY OR AMEND IT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY THAT COULD ALTER THE JUDGMENT YOU COULD MAKE TODAY. SELIGMAN: YET IT IS THE HOPE THAT THESE WITNESSES WILL BE FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR TESTIMONY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE WHERE THERE NOW IS NONE THAT DRIVES THE CURRENT DESIRE TO QUESTION THEM.LET ME MAKE A FEW FINAL POINTS ABOUT THIS WITNESS ISSUE. BRINGING IN WITNESSES TO REHASH TESTIMONY THAT'S ALREADY CONCRETELY IN THE RECORD WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME AND SERVE NO PURPOSE AT ALL. THAT'S OUR ARGUMENT, BUT THOSE ARE NOT MY WORDS. THEY ARE THE WORDS OF MR. MANAGER GEKAS SPOKEN JUST LAST FALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME FACTUAL RECORD YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. AND MR. MANAGER GEKAS WAS CORRECT. WE HAD 60,000 PAGES OF TESTIMONY FROM THE GRAND JURY, FROM DEPOSITIONS, FROM STATEMENTS UNDER OATH. THAT IS TESTIMONY THAT WE CAN BELIEVE AND ACCEPT. WHY REINTERVIEW BETTY CURRIE TO TAKE ANOTHER STATEMENT WHEN WE ALREADY HAD HER STATEMENT? SELIGMAN: WHY INTERVIEW MONICA LEWINSKY WHEN WE HAD HER STATEMENT UNDER OATH AND WITH A GRANT OF IMMUNITY THAT IF SHE LIED SHE WOULD FORFEIT?AGAIN, THAT'S OUR ARGUMENT, BUT AGAIN THOSE ARE NOT MY WORDS. THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF CHAIRMAN HYDE, AND HE TOO WAS CORRECT. THOSE WORDS APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE TODAY. THE WITNESSES ARE ON THE RECORD. THEIR TESTIMONY IS KNOWN. THERE IS NO NEED TO PUT THEM THROUGH THE ORDEAL OF TESTIMONY AGAIN.THE HOUSE MANAGERS NO DOUBT WILL ANSWER THAT THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW. BUT THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. THE HOUSE HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO GATHER AND ASSESS EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, AND COME TO A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER IT BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE -- NOT TO CASUALLY AND PASSIVELY SERVE AS A CONVEYOR BELT BETWEEN KEN STARR AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE; NOT TO ASK THIS BODY TO DO THE WORK THE HOUSE FAILED TO DO.THE ACTUAL POWER TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT RESIDES HERE, OF COURSE, BUT THE POWER TO TAKE THAT FIRST STEP RESTS WITH THE HOUSE. AND THE HOUSE EXERCISED IT. THE ARTICLES EXPLICITLY FIND THAT CERTAIN CONDUCT OCCURRED AND THAT THAT CONDUCT WARRANTS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD AND ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR, TRUST OR PROFIT UNDER THE UNITED STATES.SELIGMAN: IF THERE WAS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE TESTIMONY ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR JUDGMENT IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION, SUCH DOUBTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BEFORE ANY MEMBER ROSE TO SAY "AYE" TO AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT CALLING, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 130 YEARS, FOR THE SENATE TO DECIDE ON THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT PERJURY. THE PRESIDENT MUST NOT BE REMOVED. THE FACTS DO NOT PERMIT IT. NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE, I HOPE I HAVE OUTLINED CLEARLY FOR YOU SOME OF THE MANY VALID GROUNDS ON WHICH YOU MIGHT BASE A DECISION TO VOTE FOR THE MOTION OFFERED BY SENATOR BYRD. ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, THE MATTERS SIMPLY DON'T MEET THE TEST OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AS SPECIFIED BY THE FRAMERS OR INTERPRETED BY HUNDREDS OF HISTORIANS. SELIGMAN: AS A MATTER OF LAW, THESE ARTICLES ARE DEFECTIVE. IN A COURT THEY WOULD BE DISMISSED IN A HEARTBEAT FOR VAGUENESS, AND FOR BEING PROSECUTORIAL GRAB BAGS. THE EVIDENCE ITSELF, AFTER BEING GATHERED THIS WHAT MAY BE ONE OF THE LARGEST CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY, FAILS TO OFFER A COMPELLING CASE AND IS BASED LARGELY ON WEAK INFERENCES FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. EACH OF THESE IS REASON ENOUGH TO END THIS TRIAL NOW WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. AS SENATOR BUMPERS SAID MORE PERSONALLY AND ELOQUENTLY THAT I COULD HOPE TO, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PUNISHED. HE IS BEING PUNISHED STILL -- AS A MAN, AS A HUSBAND, AS A FATHER, AS A PUBLIC FIGURE. BEYOND HIS FAMILY, YOU HAVE BEEN REMAINED THAT THE CRIMINAL LAW WILL STILL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER BILL CLINTON THE DAY HE LEAVES OFFICE. AND WHILE I AM CONFIDENT THE CASE WOULD HAVE NO MERIT IN A COURT OF LAW, THAT IS THE VENUE IN WHICH JUSTICE MAY BE SOUGHT AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL. SO THE SOLE QUESTION YOU ARE FACED WITH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE. SELIGMAN: DO YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 210 YEARS OF OUR FREEDOM SET ASIDE THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF A FREE PEOPLE AND EXERCISE YOUR POWER TO REMOVE THE ONE NATIONAL LEADER SELECTED BY ALL OF US?IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS BODY SHOULD REMOVE THE PRESIDENT, OR IF YOU BELIEVE THAT NO AMOUNT OF REQUESTIONING WITNESSES OR TORTURING FACTS WILL CHANGE ENOUGH MINDS TO GARNER THE TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT, OR IF YOU SIMPLY HAVE HEARD ENOUGH TO MAKE UP YOUR MIND, THEN THE TIME TO END THIS IS NOW.THE PRESIDENT HAS EXPRESSED MANY TIMES HOW VERY SORRY HE IS FOR WHAT HE DID AND FOR WHAT HE SAID. HE KNOWS FULL WELL THAT HIS FAILINGS HAVE LANDED US IN THIS PLACE. AND HE IS DOING ALL HE CAN TO SET RIGHT WHAT HE HAS DONE WRONG.BUT AN ENTIRE NATION, INDEED THE WORLD, IS NOW LOOKING TO THIS BODY, TO THIS CHAMBER, TO THIS FLOOR, FOR SOUND JUDGMENT, AND WE ARE ASKING YOU NOT TO ANSWER A SERIOUS PERSONAL WRONG WITH A GRIEVOUS CONSTITUTIONAL WRONG.WHEN WE ASK YOU TO VOTE FOR SENATOR BYRD'S MOTION TO DISMISS, WE DO NOT MEAN THAT NOTHING EVER HAPPENED, THAT THIS IS NO BIG DEAL. SELIGMAN: AND THAT'S WHERE WE LAWYERS HAVE DONE A DISSERVICE TO THE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG DEAL, A VERY BIG DEAL.PUNISHMENT WILL BE FOUND ELSEWHERE. JUDGMENT WILL BE FOUND ELSEWHERE. LEGACIES WILL BE WRITTEN ELSEWHERE. NONE OF THAT WILL BE DISMISSED. NONE OF THAT CAN EVER BE DISMISSED.WE ASK YOU TO END THIS CASE NOW SO THAT A SENSE OF PROPORTIONALITY CAN BE PUT BACK INTO A PROCESS THAT SEEMS LONG AGO TO HAVE LOST ALL SENSE OF PROPORTIONALITY. WE ALSO ASK YOU TO END THE CASE NOW SO THOSE FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHERS WHO DID NO WRONG CAN BE SPARED FURTHER PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT.AND WE ALSO ASK YOU TO END THIS CASE NOW SO THAT THE POISONOUS ARROWS OF PARTISANSHIP CAN BE BURIED AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE CAN BE DONE, ALLOWING OF YOU TO SPEND YOUR FULL DAYS ON THE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OF THE COUNTRY. SELIGMAN: YOU HAVE HEARD THE CHARGES IN FULL. HEARD THE DEFENSE. NOW IS THE TIME TO DEFINE HOW THE NATIONAL INTEREST CAN BEST BE SERVED: BY EXTENDING THIS MATTER INDEFINITELY, OR ENDING IT NOW. WE SUBMIT THAT IT IS TRULY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THIS NATION TO END THIS ORDEAL IN THIS CHAMBER, AT THIS TIME AND IN THIS WAY. THANK YOU. 16:11:47 SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT (R-MISS) INQUIRES ABOUT TIME FOR WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL & RECESS. LOTT: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE MAJORITY LEADER. LOTT: COULD I INQUIRE, IS THERE FURTHER PRESENTATION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL? OR WILL THE BALANCE OF THE TIME USED FOR THE CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS?REHNQUIST: THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAVE SIX MINUTES REMAINING AND THE MANAGERS RESERVED 36 MINUTES. UNIDENTIFIED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: THERE BE NO FURTHER PRESENTATION, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. LOTT: IN VIEW OF THAT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WOULD HAVE NO FURTHER PRESENTATION MAKE, SO THAT WHAT'S LEFT WOULD BE THE CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS. AND I'D LIKE FOR US WHEN THAT IS CONCLUDED TO GO RIGHT INTO THE VOTES.IN VIEW OF THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE A 15- MINUTE BREAK AT THIS POINT, AND I ASK FOR THAT. REHNQUIST: IN THE ABSENCE OF OBJECTION, IT'S SO ORDERED. 16:12:34 (RECESS BEGINS). (RECESS) 16:39:03 (RECESS ENDS). SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT (R-MISS) TELLS CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST THAT HOUSE MANAGERS WILL MAKE CONCLUDING REMARKS & CONGRESSMAN ASA HUTCHINSON (R-ARK) SPEAKS. REHNQUIST: THE SENATE WILL BE IN ORDER. THE CHAIR RECOGIZES THE MAJORITY LEADER. LOTT: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I BELIEVE WE ARE READY NOW FOR THE CLOSING PART OF THE ARGUMENT BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS. REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE HOUSE MANGERS. MR HUTCHINSON.HUTCHINSON: THANK YOU, MR CHIEF JUSTICE. SENATORS, MY FELLOW MANAGER GRAHAM HAS EXTENDED ME FOR A FEW MINUTES BEFORE HE COMES UP HERE JUST TO ALLOW ME TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF FACTUAL ASSERTIONS BY THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DURING THE RECENT PRESENTATION. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A REFERENCE MADE TO THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS OF FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON, AND THERE ARE VARIOUS ARTICLES THAT WERE CONSIDERED. BUT ONE OF THEM THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WAS TALKED ABOUT WAS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE SENATORS IN THIS CHAMBER WOULD AGREE THAT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL, BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND THAT WAS HISTORICALLY TRUE DURING THE TIME OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT NIXON. IT WAS AN ISSUE DURING THAT TIME, AND IT SHOULD BE NO LESS OF, AND CONCERN THIS YEAR, IN 1999.NOW, WHEN I LISTEN TO A DEFENSE ATTORNEY MAKE A PRESENTATION, OFTENTIMES I LISTEN TO WHAT THEY DIDN'T COVER AS MUCH AS WHAT THEY DID COVER. AND YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO GO BACK TO THAT, BECAUSE MANY TIMES THAT POINTS TO A BIG GAP OF SOMETHING THEY JUST CAN'T EXPLAIN.HUTCHINSON: (OFF-MIKE) I LISTEN TO THE PRESENTATION, OF COURSE THEY ADDRESS THE ASSERTION THAT MS. CURRIE, MS. BETTY CURRIE, WAS IN FACT NOT A WITNESS AT THE TIME THE PRESIDENT CALLED HER IN AND WENT THROUGH THE QUESTIONING OF HER AFTER HIS DEPOSITION ON JANUARY 17. BUT YET IT'S BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT SHE WAS A KNOWN WITNESS AT THE TIME.NOW, THEY HOPED, THEY PRAYED, THEY WISHED, THEY COUNTED FOR THE FACT THAT THAT SUBPOENA WOULD NEVER BE UNCOVERED. BUT THE SUBPOENA WAS UNCOVERED, THE FACT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT SHE WAS PUT ON THE WITNESS LIST AND THAT SHE WAS A KNOWN WITNESS AT THE TIME. BUT THE FACT IS, IT DOES NOT MATTER. SHE WAS A PROSPECTIVE WITNESS, AND THAT WAS WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WHEN HE CAME BACK AND TALKED TO HER. BUT WHAT HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED, HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED, IS WHY IN THE WORLD DID THE PRESIDENT BELIEVE HE NEEDED TO TALK TO HER A SECOND TIME. IT WAS ONE TIME THAT QUESTIONING, BUT TWO DAYS LATER SHE WAS BROUGHT IN AND TAKEN THROUGH THE SAME PACES. THE ANSWER WAS, WELL, HE EXPLAINED IT. WELL, HE TRIED TO EXPLAIN WHY HE DID IT THE FIRST TIME, HE WAS TRYING TO GET INFORMATION. THERE CAN BE NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SECOND INSTANCE OF WHEN SHE WAS CALLED IN AND QUESTIONED. SHE WAS A WITNESS, SHE WAS A KNOWN WITNESS, AND SHE HAD TO BE TALKED TO, AND IT WAS DONE TWICE.HUTCHINSON: ANOTHER THING THAT I DO NOT RECALL EVER BEING MENTIONED. THEY ARGUE THAT, WELL, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FAVORS ON A JOB SEARCH, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD. HOW MANY TIMES HAS THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS DISCUSSED THE DESCRIPTION AND THE REPORT BY MR. VERNON JORDAN TO THE PRESIDENT "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY EVER DISCUSSED THAT PARTICULAR TERMINOLOGY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY'VE EVER DISCUSSED THE TERMINOLOGY -- THE CALL FROM MR. VERNON JORDAN TO MR. PERELMAN SAYING "MAKE IT HAPPEN IF IT CAN HAPPEN."AND SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME GAPS IN THEIR DEFENSES AND CLEARLY YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE FACTS HAVE SUPPORTED EACH OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION THAT WE HAVE SET FORTH.THEY ARGUE THAT, WELL, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FALSE AFFIDAVIT; WHERE THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT AN AFFIDAVIT WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE SUGGESTED THE AFFIDAVIT. AND AS OF A NECESSITY, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FALSE. IT WAS GOING TO BE ACCOMPLISHING THE INTENDED PURPOSE.THEY'RE ASKING YOU IN THIS MOTION TO DISMISS TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED; TO IGNORE THE TESTIMONY, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; TO IGNORE THE COMMON SENSE; AND SIMPLY TO ACCEPT THE DENIALS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT'S NOT WHAT A MOTION TO DISMISS IS ABOUT.HUTCHINSON: WE ASK THAT WE MOVE FORWARD TO CONSIDER THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THESE FACTS. I YIELD TO MR. GRAHAM. 16:43:25 CONGRESSMAN LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) MAKES CONCLUDING REMARKS AGAINST DISMISSAL OF MOTION PROPOSED BY SENATOR ROBERY BYRD (D-WV). REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. GRAHAM. GRAHAM: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE LEFT?REHNQUIST: THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 32 MINUTES REMAINING. GRAHAM: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. TO MY COLLEAGUES, MY CHAIRMAN WANTS 11 MINUTES, SO, FOR MY OWN SAKE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN WE GET CLOSE. NOW, WE MEET AGAIN TO DISCUSS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT EVENT IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY. TO DISMISS AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL UNDER THESE FACTS AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE UNBELIEVABLE, IN MY OPINION, AND DO A LOT OF DAMAGE TO THE LAW AND TO THE ULTIMATE DECISION THIS BODY HAS TO MAKE WHETHER OR NOT BILL CLINTON SHOULD BE OUR PRESIDENT. AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE LAW, THE FACTS AND THE LAW BREAK OUR WAY FOR THIS MOTION.GRAHAM: WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU IS WHETHER OR NOT A REASONABLE PERSON COULD BELIEVE THAT BILL CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE OUR PRESIDENT, AND THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CREATING SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT WHETHER HE'S A CRIMINAL, NOT JUST A BAD MAN WHO DID BAD THINGS.FOR HE'S A GOOD MAN IN SOME WAYS, AS ALL OF US ARE. AND HE'S DONE SOME THINGS THAT EVERYBODY IN THIS BODY WILL CONDEMN ROUNDLY. AMERICA NEEDS NO MORE LECTURES ABOUT BILL CLINTON'S MISCONDUCT; ABOUT HIS INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP. WE NEED NO MORE LECTURES ABOUT HIS SINS. WE ALL HAVE THOSE.WE NEED TO RESOLVE IS OUR PRESIDENT A CRIMINAL? THAT'S HARSH. BUT DO THE FACTS BEAR OUT THOSE STATEMENTS?WHEN YOU DISMISSED THE JUDGES FOR PERJURY AND FILING STATEMENTS UNDER OATH, SOME OF YOU SAID SOME VERY HARSH THINGS ABOUT THOSE JUDGES -- NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE HARSH PEOPLE, BUT BECAUSE THEIR CONDUCT WARRANTED IT.GRAHAM: ONE THING I AM NOT GOING TO SAY, AND I WILL QUIT THIS JOB BEFORE I DO THIS, IS I'M NOT GOING TO RUN OVER ANYBODY'S CONSCIENCE WHEN THEY'RE EXERCISING IT AS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE FOR THE GOOD OF THIS NATION.MY NAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE WITH ME AND STILL BE REASONABLE ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO IN THIS CASE. I HAVE TOLD YOU THE BEST I CAN THERE'S NO DOUBT THESE ARE HIGH CRIMES IN MY OPINION. AND THIS IS A HARD DECISION FOR OUR COUNTRY, BUT WHEN I FIRST SPOKE TO YOU, I THOUGHT WE'D BE BETTER OFF IF BILL CLINTON LEFT OFFICE.AND I WANT THE CHANCE TO PROVE TO YOU WHY. GIVE ME A CHANCE TO PROVE TO YOU WHY I BELIEVE THAT; WHY MY COLLEAGUES VOTED OUR CONSCIENCE TO GET THIS CASE TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE, NOT SWEPT UNDER A RUG, BUT IN A TRIAL TO DISPOSITION. I HAVE LOST NO SLEEP WORRYING ABOUT THE FACT THAT BILL CLINTON MAY HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE OF HIS CONDUCT. I HAVE LOST TONS OF SLEEP THINKING HE MAY GET AWAY WITH WHAT HE DID.BUT THE QUESTION WAS: COULD YOU DISAGREE WITH LINDSEY GRAHAM AND BE A GOOD AMERICAN IN ESSENCE? ABSOLUTELY. GRAHAM: YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH ME ON ABORTION, AND MR. HYDE AND I AM NOT GOING TO TRAMPLE ON WHO YOU ARE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE LIBERAL WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE MODERATE WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS DIFFERENT VIEWS THAN I DO. BUT I DIDN'T COME UP HERE TO RUN YOU DOWN. I CAME UP HERE TO BUILD MY COUNTRY UP THE WAY I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE BUILT UP.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE, IF YOU WILL LISTEN TO OUR CASE, IF YOU LET US EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVE LOST NO SLEEP ASKING FOR THIS PRESIDENT TO BE REMOVED AND WHY WE VOTED TO GET IT HERE, AND YOU DISAGREE WITH ME AT THE END OF THE DAY, I WILL NEVER, EVER SAY YOU DON'T LOVE YOUR COUNTRY AS MUCH AS I DO.THAT'S WHAT THAT STATEMENT WAS MEANT TO CONVEY, AND IT WILL CONVEY THAT UNTIL I AM DEAD AND GONE.NOW, THE IDEA THAT 130 YEARS AGO A SENATOR TOOK A VOTE AND MADE A STATEMENT THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN REMOVE A PRESIDENT IS IT'S GOT TO BE UNQUESTIONABLE IN ANYBODY'S MIND TELLS ME HE SURE THOUGHT A LOT OF HIMSELF. AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT'S STOPPED IN THE SENATE. A HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS LATER, WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE LIKE THAT ANYMORE.(LAUGHTER)WHAT THAT CONVEYED TO ME WAS THAT A PERSON MADE A HARD DECISION AND TRIED TO CREATE A STANDARD THAT SLAMMED SOMEBODY ELSE WHO CAME OUT DIFFERENTLY.GRAHAM: I HOPE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. HE GOES DOWN IN HISTORY, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT THAT AS PART OF MY EPITAPH, THAT WHEN I VOTED MY CONSCIENCE, I REACHED A LEVEL THAT IF YOU DIDN'T GO WHERE I WAS THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.WHAT DID BILL CLINTON DO? AND WHY ARE WE ALL HERE? ARE WE HERE BECAUSE OF KEN STARR, BECAUSE OF LINDSEY GRAHAM, BECAUSE OF -- WHY ARE WE HERE?WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON IN MY OPINION. WE'RE HERE BECAUSE ON OUT WATCH IN THE HOUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHEN HE WAS THE DEFENDANT IN A LAWSUIT INSTEAD OF TRUSTING THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO GET IT RIGHT, DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE IN MY OPINION TO UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW, INCLUDING GOING TO A GRAND JURY IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR AND COMMITTING PERJURY AFTER PEOPLE IN THIS BODY AND PROMINENT AMERICANS SAID STOP IT.GRAHAM: AND NOW WE'RE HERE TO SAY: WELL, WE REALLY DIDN'T MEAN IT, THE MOTION TO DISMISS MEANS WE'RE SORT OF JUST KIDDING, MR. PRESIDENT. NOW, IF YOU BELIEVE HE IS NOT GUILTY OF THESE OFFENSES BASED ON THIS STAGE OF THE TRIAL, THEN YOU OUGHT TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR DISMISS, BUT YOU WILL BE CHANGING THE LAW AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO PRESENT OUR CASE REALLY. AND ALL THE FACTS SHOULD BREAK OUR WAY. YOU CAN BELIEVE THIS IF YOU WOULD LIKE. THEY STOOD UP HERE AND ARGUED THAT THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT CLINTON AND HIS SECRETARY BETTY CURRIE WAS TO FIND OUT WHAT SHE KNEW, TO REFRESH HIS MEMORY. IF YOU THINK THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO BETTY CURRIE AND ASKS OR MAKES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT -- "MONICA WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH ME AND I COULDN'T DO THAT" -- THAT HE'S TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SHE KNEW AND IS TRYING TO REFRESH HIS MEMORY, YOU CAN DO THAT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AIN'T REASONABLE.AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WANTED TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER HE WAS ALONE OR NOT WITH HER AND HE HAD TO ASK BETTY, THAT'S NOT REASONABLE. GRAHAM: THAT'S A CRIME. AND LET ME TELL YOU THE SUBTLETIES OF THIS CASE -- THINGS THAT REALLY TELL YOU A LOT ABOUT WHY WE'RE HERE -- WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON -- BEFORE WE GET TO THE SUBTLETIES OF THIS CASE. SENATOR BUMPERS MADE A VERY ELOQUENT SPEECH ABOUT THE UPS AND THE DOWNS OF THIS CASE AND ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HOW CLOSE IT WAS, AND THE HUMAN NATURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, BUT HERE'S WHAT HE SAID: YOU PICK YOUR OWN ADJECTIVE TO DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT. HERE'S SOME THAT I WOULD USE -- INDEFENSIBLE, OUTRAGEOUS, UNFORGIVABLE, SHAMELESS. HOW ABOUT ILLEGAL? AND HE SAYS "I PROMISE YOU, THE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT CONTEST ANY OF THESE OR ANY OTHERS." WHEN YOU PUT THE WORD "ILLEGAL," EVERYTHING'S A BIG MISUNDERSTANDING. TAKE THIS CASE TO A CONCLUSION SO AMERICA WILL NOT BE CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEIR PRESIDENT COMMITTED CRIMES. THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WATCHING WHAT WE DO HERE. AND THEY WILL BE CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT CLINTON AND MS. CURRIE WAS ILLEGAL OR NOT. LET US KNOW. THAT IS SO IMPORTANT. LET US KNOW WHEN HE WENT TO MONICA LEWINSKY AND TALKED ABOUT A COVER STORY, IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO GO ON HERE EVERY DAY, AND A TRIAL 20 MONTHS FROM NOW DOES US NO GOOD.GRAHAM: BECAUSE THIS HAPPENED WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THIS HAPPENED WHEN HE RAISED THE DEFENSE, YOU CAN'T SUE ME BECAUSE I'M PRESIDENT. AND WHAT DID HE DO AFTER THAT DEFENSE WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM BY THE SUPREME COURT?HE WENT BACK TO SOMEBODY THAT IS VERY LOYAL TO HIM, SOMEBODY THAT ADMIRES HIM, SOMEBODY THAT YOU AND I PAY HER SALARY, HIS SECRETARY. AND HE PUT HER IN A SITUATION THROUGH MISLEADING HER THAT SHE WAS GOING TO PASS ON HIS LIES. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE PAY HER TO DO. HE PUT HER IN A SITUATION WHERE SHE WAS GOING TO INCUR LEGAL COSTS, BECAUSE HE CARED MORE ABOUT HIMSELF THAN HE DID HIS SECRETARY. HE PUT HIS CABINET MEMBERS, HE PUT THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR HIM IN A HORRIBLE SPOT. THE SUBTLETIES OF THIS CASE. LET ME TELL YOU ONE OF THE SUBTLETIES OF THIS CASE. AND THIS WAS READ BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. THE PRESIDENT HAD A FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATION WITH MR. MORRIS DURING THE EVENING OF JANUARY 22ND, 1998, WHEN MR. MORRIS WAS CONSIDERED HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE TO BLAST MONICA LEWINSKY OUT OF THE WATER. GRAHAM: THE PRESIDENT TOLD MR. MORRIS TO BE CAREFUL. ACCORDING TO MR. MORRIS, THE PRESIDENT WARNED HIM NOT TO BE TOO HARD ON MS. LEWINSKY BECAUSE THERE'S SOME SLIGHT CHANCE THAT SHE MAY NOT BE COOPERATING WITH STARR AND WE DON'T WANT TO ALIENATE HER BY ANYTHING WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUT. AND THEY WERE TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT AIN'T BAD, THAT'S A GOOD THING. THE BEST YOU CAN GET FROM THAT STATEMENT IS THE PRESIDENT WHEN APPROACHED WITH THE IDEA OF BLASTING HER SAID: LET'S WAIT. THE SUBTLETIES IN THIS CASE. WHO IS THIS YOUNG LADY? HIS CONSENSUAL LOVER. BUT THIS CASE STARTED NOT ABOUT CONSENSUAL LOVING, THIS CASE STARTED ABOUT SOMETHING FAR FROM CONSENSUAL LOVING. THIS CASE STARTED ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE A SENATOR WHO RAN INTO PROBLEMS WITH YOU ALL. AND IF YOU'LL LET US DEVELOP OUR CASE, YOU MAY HAVE A HARD TIME RECONCILING THOSE TWO DECISIONS. BUT THAT IS UP TO YOU. PLEASE DON'T DISMISS THIS, FOR THE GOOD OF THIS COUNTRY, FOR THE GOOD OF THE LAW. LET US GET TO WHAT HAPPENED HERE.JOHN PODESTA -- THE SUBTLETIES OF THIS CASE.GRAHAM: HE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, HE SAID, I HAD NO RELATIONSHIP WITH HER WHATSOEVER. EVERYBODY THAT WENT INTO THAT GRAND JURY THAT TALKED TO BILL CLINTON WAS LIED TO.AND THEY PASSED THOSE LIES ON TO A FEDERAL GRAND JURY. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? IN AMERICA, THAT'S A CRIME, EVEN IF YOU'RE PRESIDENT. AND YOU NEED TO ADDRESS WHETHER THAT HAPPENED OR NOT. DON'T' DISMISS THIS CASE.BUT YOU KNOW WHAT IS EVEN MORE SUBTLE? IS THAT JOHN PODESTA, SOMEBODY WHO'S VERY CLOSE TO HIM, 16:56:01 END OF TAPE.
Beta
}