Summary

Footage Information

ABCNEWS VideoSource
SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
01/15/1999
ABC
NYBI16327C
CLEAN SENATE FEED COVERAGE OF THE SENATE TRIAL / IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. REPRESENTATIVE BOB BARR (R-GA). 16:41:03 BARR: MRS. CURRIE WOULD HAVE NO INDEPENDENT REASON TO EVEN CONSIDER SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION ON HER OWN. SHE HAD NEVER, OTHER THAN ONE TIME IN HER LIFE, EVER DRIVEN TO MISS LEWINSKY'S HOME. SHE DID SO ON THIS SUNDAY NOT BECAUSE SHE DEVELOPED A SUDDEN HANKERING TO DO SO, OR BECAUSE SHE ROUTINELY VISITED INTERNS AT THEIR HOME -- SHE DIDN'T -- OR BECAUSE SHE HAD A VISION. SHE DID IT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO DO IT. 16:41:43 NOW, THE PRESIDENT FURTHER POINTS OUT THAT MRS. CURRIE HAS TESTIFIED THAT MISS LEWINSKY CALLED HER TO ARRANGE TO PICK UP THE GIFTS, RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IN FACT, THOUGH, MRS. CURRIE HAS TESTIFIED INCONSISTENTLY AS TO WHETHER MISS LEWINSKY CALLED HER OR SHE CALLED MISS LEWINSKY. SHE ACTUALLY DEFERRED TO MISS LEWINSKY'S SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS.HOWEVER, EVEN IF ONE WERE TO ACCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS MISS LEWINSKY WHO INITIATED THE CALL, THE PRESIDENT'S AVOWAL THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF OR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE HIDING OR TRANSFER OF THE GIFTS IS STILL NOT PLAUSIBLE. IT IS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT THE PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD DROP WHAT SHE WAS DOING, TRAVEL TO THE HOME OF A FORMER INTERN, PICK UP A BOX, AND HIDE IT IN HER HOME SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FORMER INTERN DEMANDED THAT SHE DO SO. BARR: ALL OF THIS HAD TO HAVE BEEN DONE REASONABLY, PLAUSIBLY, CREDIBLY WAS DONE, BECAUSE OF COMMUNICATION, DIRECTIVE AND UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PERSONAL SECRETARY. THERE'S ONE MORE POINT ON THIS. MISS LEWINSKY TESTIFIED SHE MET WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR 45 MINUTES ON DECEMBER 28TH, AT WHICH TIME THEY DISCUSSED THE FACT SHE HAD BEEN SUBPOENAED ALONG WITH THE NEED TO CONCEAL THE GIFTS. THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH HERS ON THIS POINT. 16:43:30 FIRST, THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, ESTABLISHES THAT HIS PROFESSED INABILITY TO REMEMBER WHETHER SHE AND THE GIFTS HAD BEEN SUBPOENAED IS UNBELIEVABLE AND FALSE. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND WHEN EVALUATING THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FALSE STATEMENT WAS MADE INTENTIONALLY, THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE TO CONSIDER IS THE EXISTENCE OF A MOTIVE TO LIE. IT IS THE CALCULATED FALSEHOOD, COMBINED WITH A CLEAR MOTIVE TO LIE, THAT LEADS DAY IN AND DAY OUT IN FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FALSE STATEMENT -- FALSE STATEMENTS WERE INTENTIONAL. 16:44:15 ALSO, WE URGE YOU TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE LAW WILL NOT ALLOW A PERSON TO TESTIFY, "I DON'T RECALL" OR "I'M NOT SURE," WHEN SUCH ANSWERS ARE UNREASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK SWINDLE ATTEMPTED THIS COURSE OF ACTION WHEN HE APPEARED BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA IN 1988. 16:44:45 BARR: HIS EVASIVE AND FALSE ANSWERS TO THE GRAND JURY PROVIDED THE BASIS FOR HIS SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION. FEIGNED FORGETFULNESS OR FEIGNED ASSERTIONS THAT GRAND JURY QUESTIONS ARE AMBIGUOUS AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE ANSWERED CAN NOT, AND, IN FACT, IN FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS DO NOT SHIELD DEFENDANTS FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR PERJURY OR IMPEDING THE CONDUCT OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY; NOR SHOULD SUCH EFFORTS BE ALLOWED TO SHIELD PRESIDENT CLINTON FROM CONVICTION ON THESE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AS TO THESE FACTS. 16:45:24 THE PRESIDENT, A MAN OF CONSIDERABLE INTELLIGENCE AND GIFTED WITH AN EXCEPTIONAL MEMORY -- AS SOMEBODY DESCRIBED, A PRODIGIOUS MEMORY -- CAN AND SHOULD BE INFERRED TO HAVE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE WAS DOING, AS WELL AS THE LOGICAL AND REASONABLE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS AS WELL THE QUESTIONS PUT TO HIM BY THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL IN THE GRAND JURY QUESTIONING. 16:45:52 AND HE HAD A CLEAR MOTIVE TO FALSELY STATE TO THE GRAND JURY THAT HE COULD NOT RECALL THAT HE KNEW ON DECEMBER 28TH THAT MS. LEWINSKY HAD BEEN SUBPOENAED, AND THAT THIS SUBPOENA CALLED FOR HER TO PRODUCE THE GIFTS. FOR TO HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED SUCH WOULD HAVE HELPED ESTABLISH A MOTIVE ON HIS PART FOR ORCHESTRATING THE CONCEALMENT OF THE GIFTS. 16:46:15 AND AS WE HAVE ALSO SEEN AND UNDERSTAND, THERE IS NO DOUBT THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT OF FEIGNED FORGETFULNESS WAS MATERIAL, NOT ONLY TO THE MATTERS BEFORE THE JONES CASE, BUT TO MATTERS SUBSEQUENTLY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL MAY VERY WELL ARGUE THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT GAVE MS. LEWINSKY ADDITIONAL GIFTS ON THAT SAME DAY, THAT IS DECEMBER 28TH, AS PROOF OF THE PRESIDENT'S ASSERTIONS THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG GOING ON HERE. 16:46:50 BARR: THEIR ARGUMENT, IF THEY MAKE IT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE FACE OF SUCH MUCH EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. THE EVIDENCE AND FACTS POINTS TO A MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. THE ADDITIONAL GIFTS GIVEN THAT DAY DEMONSTRATE THE PRESIDENT'S CONTINUED CONFIDENCE THAT MISS LEWINSKY WOULD KEEP TO THEIR EARLIER AGREEMENT TO CONCEAL THEIR RELATIONSHIP.IT IS ALSO PLAUSIBLE THAT THE ADDITIONAL GIFTS WERE INTENDED AS A FURTHER GESTURE OF AFFECTION BY THE PRESIDENT TO MISS LEWINSKY TO HELP ENSURE SHE WOULD NOT TESTIFY AGAINST HIM. SUCH A FACT PATTERN ALSO FINDS ITS WAY, TO THOSE OF US WHO HAVE PROSECUTORIAL BACKGROUND, INTO FEDERAL COURTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE JOB SEARCH AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION. LET ME TIE THE FACTS RELATING TO THE JOB SEARCH AND THE LAW APPLICABLE THERETO TOGETHER. WE BELIEVE AS MANAGERS THAT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 7TH OF 1997 AND CONTINUING THROUGH AND INCLUDING JANUARY 14TH OF LAST YEAR, THE PRESIDENT INTENSIFIED AND SUCCEEDED IN AN EFFORT TO SECURE JOB ASSISTANCE FOR A WITNESS IN A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE BROUGHT AGAINST HIM IN ORDER TO CORRUPTLY PREVENT THE TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY OF THAT WITNESS IN THAT PROCEEDING AT A TIME WHEN THE TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY OF THAT WITNESS WOULD HAVE BEEN HARMFUL TO HIM.MONICA LEWINSKY IS, IF NOTHING ELSE, A PERSISTENT WITNESS. BARR: AFTER SHE WAS TRANSFERRED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, AND AFTER BEING REBUFFED REPEATEDLY BY OTHERS TO SECURE ASSISTANCE FROM THE PRESIDENT IN GAINING A JOB THAT MET HER EXPECTATIONS AND WISHES, SHE DECIDED TO CHANGE TACKS. SHE WROTE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT, ASKED FOR AND RECEIVED A MEETING, IN WHICH SHE ASKED HIM TO FIND HER A JOB IN NEW YORK. 16:49:09 THE DAY BEFORE THE PRESIDENT FILED HIS ANSWERS TO THE INTERROGATORIES IN THE JONES CASE, AS MANAGER GEKAS DISCUSSED, THE PRESIDENT ASKED MRS. CURRIE TO SET UP A MEETING FOR MISS LEWINSKY WITH MR. VERNON JORDAN. TWO DAYS AFTER HE FILED HIS ANSWERS, IN WHICH HE REFUSED TO ANSWER WHETHER HE HAD EVER HAD ANY EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE CONTEXT OR HIS PUBLIC JOBS, THAT MEETING IN FACT OCCURRED. BUT MR. JORDAN MADE NO PARTICULAR EFFORT TO ASSIST MISS LEWINSKY AT THAT TIME. IN FACT, AS HE LATER TESTIFIED, HE HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF THE MEETING. THERE WAS OF COURSE AT THAT EARLY STAGE NO URGENCY. 16:49:54 THE SITUATION, HOWEVER, CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN EARLY DECEMBER 1997. ON DECEMBER 6, THE PRESIDENT BECAME AWARE THAT MISS LEWINSKY HAD BEEN NAMED AS A WITNESS IN THE JONES CASE. EARLIER THAT DAYS, SHE HAD THROWN A TANTRUM AT THE WHITE HOUSE NORTHWEST GATE WHEN SHE WAS UNABLE TO MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT WHEN SHE WANTED. 16:50:17 DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S INITIAL ANGER OVER MISS LEWINSKY'S BEHAVIOR AND OVER THE ACTS OF SOME OF THE SECRET SERVICE OFFICERS, A MERE FIVE DAYS LATER MISS LEWINSKY IN FACT SECURED HER SECOND MEETING WITH MR. VERNON JORDAN. BUT THIS TIME, UNLIKE PREVIOUSLY, THIS POWERFUL WASHINGTON LAWYER JUMPED FOR THE FORMER INTERN. HE IMMEDIATELY PLACED CALLS TO THREE MAJOR CORPORATIONS ON HER BEHALF. 16:50:47 ON DECEMBER 11, JUDGE WRIGHT ORDERED THE PRESIDENT TO ANSWER PAULA JONES' INTERROGATORIES. 16:50:54 BARR: ON DECEMBER 17TH THE PRESIDENT SUGGESTED TO MISS LEWINSKY SHE FILE THE AFFIDAVIT AND CONTINUE TO USE THEIR COVER STORIES IN THE EVENT SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT. THE NEXT DAY SHE HAD TWO INTERVIEWS IN NEW YORK CITY ARRANGED BY MR. JORDAN. 16:51:16 ON DECEMBER 22ND MISS LEWINSKY MET WITH AN ATTORNEY AT A MEETING ARRANGED BY MR. JORDAN. THE FOLLOWING DAY SHE HAD ANOTHER JOB INTERVIEW ARRANGED BY MR. JORDAN. 16:51:30 ON JANUARY 7TH MISS LEWINSKY SIGNED THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT AND PROUDLY SHOWED THE EXECUTED COPY TO MR. JORDAN. THE NEXT DAY, MS. LEWINSKY HAD AN INTERVIEW ARRANGED BY MR. JORDAN WITH MCANDREWS & FORBES IN NEW YORK CITY, AN INTERVIEW THAT, APPARENTLY, WENT POORLY. TO REMEDY THIS SHE CALLED MR. JORDAN, AND SO INFORMED HIM. MR. JORDAN THEN CALLED THE CEO OF MCANDREWS & FORBES, MR. RON PERELMAN, TO, IN MR. JORDAN'S WORDS -- TO, IN MR. PERELMAN'S WORDS, "MAKE THINGS HAPPEN IF THEY COULD HAPPEN." AFTER MR. JORDAN'S CALL TO MR. PERELMAN, MS. LEWINSKY WAS CALLED AND TOLD SHE WOULD BE INTERVIEWED AGAIN THE VERY NEXT MORNING. THAT FOLLOWING DAY SHE WAS REINTERVIEWED AND IMMEDIATELY OFFERED A JOB. SHE THEN CALLED MR. JORDAN TO TELL HIM, AND HE PASSED THE INFORMATION ON TO MRS. CURRIE: "TELL THE PRESIDENT 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED'."NOW WHAT ARE YOU, AS JURORS, ENTITLED TO CONCLUDE FROM ALL OF THIS AS A MATTER OF LAW AND OF FACT? BARR: UNTIL IT BECAME CLEAR THAT MISS LEWINSKY WOULD BE A WITNESS IN THE JONES CASE, LITTLE WAS DONE TO HELP HER TO HELP HER WITH HER JOB SEARCH. BUT ONCE SHE WAS LISTED AS A WITNESS, THINGS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AND RAPIDLY. JUST DAYS AFTER SHE IS LISTED ON THE JONES' WITNESS LIST, SHE GETS A SECOND MEETING WITH ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL MEN IN WASHINGTON. BUT UNLIKE THEIR FIRST MEETING, MR. JORDAN NOW MAKES THREE CALLS ON HER BEHALF TO GET HER A JOB INTERVIEW. A WEEK LATER THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED THE AFFIDAVIT. THE NEXT DAY MISS LEWINSKY HAS TWO JOB INTERVIEWS IN NEW YORK. A FEW DAYS LATER, MR. JORDAN ARRANGES FOR AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HER. THE NEXT DAY SHE HAS ANOTHER JOB INTERVIEW. TWO WEEKS LATER SHE SIGNS THE AFFIDAVIT. THE NEXT DAY SHE HAS ANOTHER INTERVIEW. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. OBSTRUCTION ACCOMPLISHED. ANOTHER POTENTIALLY EMBARRASSING WITNESS IN THE BAG. WERE MONICA LEWINSKY TO GET A JOB AND MOVE TO NEW YORK, THIS WOULD HELP THE PRESIDENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN TWO VERY IMPORTANT WAYS. FIRST, IT WOULD PRESUMABLY CREATE A HAPPY AND PROBABLY COMPLIANT WITNESS -- ONE WILLING IF NOT EAGER TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S FALSE TESTIMONY. 16:54:12 SECOND, IT WOULD MAKE MISS LEWINSKY MUCH MORE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO REACH AS A WITNESS IN THE JONES CASE. IN FACT, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SUGGESTED TO MISS LEWINSKY DURING THEIR DECEMBER 28TH MEETING, ACCORDING TO HER SWORN TESTIMONY. TO PUT IT PLAINLY BUT RESPECTFULLY, IF THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION BY WITNESS TAMPERING, ONE WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED TO FIND A FACT PATTERN THAT WAS. THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. SHE GETS THE JOB. AND WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT GET? THE KEY AFFIDAVIT TO THROW THE JONES' LAWYERS OFF THE TRAIL. AND POSSIBLY A WITNESS OUTSIDE THE PRACTICAL REACH OF THE ATTORNEYS, MUCH LIKE THE ABSENT WITNESSES WE'VE SEEN IN LARGE NUMBERS IN THE CAMPAIGN FINANCING INVESTIGATIONS. THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS WERE DESIGNED TO AND DID OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND TAMPER WITH A WITNESS. AND HIS ACTIONS, WE SUBMIT, WERE CRIMINAL UNDER BOTH SECTIONS 1503 AND 1512 OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE. THE PRESIDENT'S FALSE STATEMENTS TO HIS SENIOR AIDES. HERE, TOO, THE FACTS AND THE LAW COME TOGETHER AND WOULD FORM THE BASIS, WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT, FOR A CONVICTION ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN TO PROVE A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN MISLEADING CONDUCT WITH ANOTHER PERSON TO INFLUENCE THAT TESTIMONY. BARR: MISLEADING CONDUCT IS NOT A TERM OF ART FOR WHICH THERE IS NO DEFINITION. IT IS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE AS SECTION 1515. WHEN YOU AS JURORS PROPERLY APPLY THESE DEFINITIONS TO THE TERMS OF SECTION 1512, THE TAMPERING STATUTE, THE FEDERAL -- THE -- AND THEN TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, WHEREIN THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY AND DELIBERATELY GAVE FALSE EXPLANATION TO AIDES HE KNEW OR SHOULD REASONABLY HAVE KNOWN WOULD BE WITNESSES IN FEDERAL JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, THE CONCLUSION HE VIOLATED THIS STATUTE IS, WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT, UNAVOIDABLE.WOULD POINT TO ONE CASE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE O'KEEFE (PH) CASE, AS PARTICULARLY PERHAPS APPLICABLE TO DELIBERATIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT. 16:57:16 FINALLY, STATEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYER CONCERNING THE AFFIDAVIT DURING THE JONES DEPOSITION. THE OBSTRUCTION STATUTE MAY ALSO BE VIOLATED, AS YOU KNOW, BY A PERSON WHO GIVES FALSE TESTIMONY. 16:57:30 IN THE JONES CASE, THE PRESIDENT ALLOWED HIS ATTORNEY TO MAKE FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO A FEDERAL JUDGE. THIS PART OF THE OBSTRUCTION SCHEME WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY CHARACTERIZING AS TRUE THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY MISS LEWINSKY IN ORDER TO PREVENT QUESTIONING BY THE JONES LAWYERS, TESTIMONY WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN DEEMED RELEVANT BY THE JUDGE IN THAT CASE. THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, AS YOU HAVE HEARD, OBJECTED TO THE INNUENDO OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT AND AT THAT POINT DURING THE DEPOSITION POINTED OUT THAT MISS LEWINSKY HAD SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT DENYING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT. HE THEN MADE THE FAMOUS STATEMENT ABOUT THERE BEING NO RELATIONSHIP OF ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM OR KIND. BARR: FOLLOWING THIS STATEMENT, THE JUDGE, JUDGE WRIGHT, WARNED MR. BENNETT ABOUT MAKING AN ASSERTION OF FACT IN FRONT OF THE WITNESS, THAT IS THE PRESIDENT, TO WHICH HE REPLIED, "I'M NOT COACHING THE WITNESS. IN PREPARATION OF THE WITNESS FOR THIS DEPOSITION, THE WITNESS IS FULLY AWARE OF THE AFFIDAVIT, SO I HAVE NOT TOLD HIM A SINGLE THING HE DON'T KNOW." THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS DID NOT KNOW WHAT AN UNDERSTATEMENT THAT WAS. LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, OF 1998, LONG AFTER THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER THE FULL EVIDENCE OF MS. LEWINSKY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT BECAME PUBLIC, MR. BENNETT WROTE TO JUDGE WRIGHT TO INFORM HER THAT SHE SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE STATEMENTS HE MADE DURING THE PRESIDENT'S DEPOSITION BECAUSE PARTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT WERE MISLEADING AND NOT TRUE -- MISLEADING AND NOT TRUE -- SOUNDS LIKE PERJURY; SOUNDS LIKE OBSTRUCTION. WHICH BRINGS US FULL CIRCLE. FULL CIRCLE FROM A FALSE AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING EARLIER CONCOCTED COVER STORIES, THROUGH A WEB OF OBSTRUCTION, TO A LETTER FROM A DISTINGUISHED LAWYER FORCED TO DO WHAT NO LAWYER WANTS TO DO, BUT EVERY HONORABLE LAWYER MUST DO WHEN CONFRONTED WITH CLEAR EVIDENCE THEIR CLIENT MISLED THE COURT, AND THAT IS TO CORRECT THE RECORD OF FALSITY EVEN TO THE DETRIMENT OF THEIR CLIENT. WHAT WE HAD BEFORE US, SENATORS AND MR. CHIEF JUSTICE IS REALLY NOT COMPLEX, CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, YES, BUT NOT ESSENTIALLY COMPLEX. BARR: VIRTUALLY EVERY FEDERAL OR STATE PROSECUTOR, AND THERE ARE MANY DISTINGUISHED SUCH PERSONS ON THIS JURY, HAVE PROSECUTED SUCH CASES OF OBSTRUCTION BEFORE IN THEIR CAREERS, PERHAPS REPEATEDLY -- CASES INVOLVING PATTERNS OF OBSTRUCTION COMPOUNDED BY SUBSEQUENT COVER UP PERJURY.THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS MAY VERY WELL TRY TO WEAVE A SPELL OF COMPLEXITY OVER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THEY MAY NITPICK OVER THE TIME OF A CALL OR PARSE A SPECIFIC WORD OR PHRASE OF TESTIMONY, MUCH AS THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE. 17:00:37 WE URGE YOU, THE DISTINGUISHED JURORS IN THIS CASE, NOT TO BE FOOLED. 17:00:46 REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA. 17:00:50 REPRESENTATIVE TOM HARKIN (D-IOWA)HARKIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I OBJECT TO THE USE AND THE CONTINUED USE OF THE WORD "JURORS" WHEN REFERRING TO THE SENATE SITTING AS TRIERS -- A TRIAL ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I BASED MY OBJECTION ON THE FOLLOWING. 17:01:11 FIRST, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION THREE OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS -- NOT THE COURTS, BUT THE SENATE. ARTICLE THREE OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES, EXCEPT IN THE CASES OF IMPEACHMENT, SHALL BE BY JURY -- A TREMENDOUS EXCULPATORY CLAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENTS. 17:01:59 AND NEXT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I BASED MY OBJECTION ON THE WRITINGS IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, ESPECIALLY FEDERALIST PAPER NUMBER 65 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON, IN WHICH HE IS OUTLINING THE REASONS WHY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION GAVE TO THE SENATE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENTS. 17:02:17 HARKIN: I WON'T READ IT ALL, BUT I WILL READ THIS PERTINENT SENTENCE WHERE MR. HAMILTON SAYS, AND I QUOTE, "THERE WILL BE NO JURY TO STAND BETWEEN THE JUDGES WHO ARE TO PRONOUNCE THE SENTENCE OF THE LAW AND THE PARTY WHO IS TO RECEIVE OR TO SUFFER IT." 17:02:38 NEXT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I BASE MY OBJECTION ON THE 26 RULES OF THE SENATE ADOPTED BY THE SENATE GOVERNING IMPEACHMENTS. NOWHERE IN ANY OF THOSE 26 RULES IS THE WORD "JUROR" OR "JURY" EVER USED. 17:03:01 AND NEXT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I BASE MY OBJECTION ON THE TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REGULAR JURORS AND SENATORS SITTING AS TRIERS OF AN IMPEACHMENT. REGULAR JURORS, OF COURSE, ARE CHOSEN, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE. NOT SO WHEN WE TRY IMPEACHMENTS. REGULAR JURORS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW EACH OTHER. NOT SO HERE. 17:03:33 REGULAR JURORS CANNOT OVERRULE THE JUDGE. NOT SO HERE. REGULAR JURORS DO NOT DECIDE WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE HEARD OR THE STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE, NOR DO THEY DECIDE ON WITNESSES OR WHAT WITNESSES SHALL BE CALLED. NOT SO HERE.REGULAR JURORS DO NOT DECIDE WHEN A TRIAL IS TO BE ENDED. NOT SO HERE. 17:03:59 NOW, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, IT MAY SEEM A SMALL POINT, BUT I THINK A VERY IMPORTANT POINT, I THINK THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION MEANT US -- THE SENATE TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN A JURY, AND NOT JURORS. WHAT WE DO HERE TODAY IS NOT JUST TO DECIDE THE FATE OF ONE MAN. 17:04:31 HARKIN: SINCE THE SENATE SITS ON IMPEACHMENT SO RARELY, AND EVEN MORE RARELY ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHAT WE DO HERE SETS PRECEDENTS. FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL LOOK BACK ON THIS TRIAL NOT JUST TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED, BUT TO TRY TO DECIDE WHAT PRINCIPLES GOVERNED OUR ACTIONS. 17:05:00 TO LEAVE THE IMPRESSION FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS THAT WE SOMEHOW ARE JURORS AND ACTING AS A JURY... 17:05:08 REPRESENTATIVE JUDD GREGG (R-NH): MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, COULD I CALL FOR REGULAR ORDER AT THIS POINT? 17:05:14 REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE. 17:05:17 GREGG: I WOULD ASK, AS A PARLIAMENTARY POINT, WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ARGUE WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS A STATEMENT AS TO THE PROPER REFERENCE RELATIVE TO MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. THIS IS NOT A MOTION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IF THIS IS A MOTION, IT'S NOT DEBATABLE, AS I UNDERSTAND. 17:05:33 HARKIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 17:05:38 REHNQUIST: I THINK YOU MAY STATE YOUR OBJECTION CERTAINLY, BUT NOT ARGUE ON IT (PH). THE CHAIR VIEWS THAT YOU MAY STATE THE OBJECTION AND SOME REASON FOR IT, BUT NOT ARGUE IT AD INFINITUM. 17:05:50 HARKIN: YES. I WAS JUST STATING THE REASON FOR MY OBJECTION, BECAUSE OF THE PRECEDENTS THAT WE SET, AND THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A VALUE PRECEDENT TO LEAVE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKED UPON MERELY AS JURORS, BUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN BEING A JUROR. AND THAT'S WHY I RAISE THAT OBJECTION, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 17:06:06 REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SENATOR FROM IOWA'S OBJECTION IS WELL TAKEN, THAT THE COURT -- THE SENATE IS NOT SIMPLY A JURY, IT IS A COURT IN THIS CASE, AND THEREFORE COUNSEL SHOULD REFRAIN FROM REFERRING TO SENATORS AS JURORS. 17:06:22 BARR: I THANK THE COURT FOR ITS RULING. 17:06:31 WE URGE YOU, THE DISTINGUISHED SENATORS SITTING AS TRIERS OF FACT AND LAW IN THIS CASE, NOT TO BE FOOLED. WE URGE YOU TO USE YOUR COMMON SENSE, YOUR REASON, YOUR VARIED AND SUCCESSFUL CAREER EXPERIENCES, JUST AS ANY TRIER OF FACT AND LAW ANYWHERE IN AMERICA MIGHT DO, JUST AS DOES THAT OTHER TRIER OF FACT AND LAW DO, SO TOO HAVE EACH OF YOU SWORN TO DECIDE THESE MOMENTOUS MATTERS IMPARTIALLY. 17:07:06 BARR: YOUR OATH TO LOOK TO THE LAW AND TO OUR CONSTITUTION DEMAND THIS OF YOU. AS THIS GREAT BODY HAS GONE ON SO MANY OCCASIONS IN THE COURSE OF OUR NATION'S HISTORY, I AND ALL MANAGERS ARE CONFIDENT YOU WILL NEITHER SHRINK FROM NOR CAST ASIDE THAT DUTY. RATHER I URGE, AND FULLY ANTICIPATE, YOU WILL LOOK TO THE VOLUME OF FACTS, AND TO THE CLEAR AND FULLY 17:07:31 APPLICABLE STATUTES, AND CONCLUDE THAT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, IN FACT, AND UNDER THE LAW, VIOLATED HIS OATH AND VIOLATED THE LAWS OF THIS LAND, AND CONVICT HIM ON BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 17:07:46 EVEN THOUGH SUCH A HIGH BURDEN -- THAT IS, PROOF OF CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS -- IS NOT STRICTLY REQUIRED OF YOU UNDER THE LAW OF IMPEACHMENT, IN FACT SUCH EVIDENCE IS HERE; THAT HIGHER BURDEN IS MET; PERJURY IS HERE; OBSTRUCTION IS HERE IN THE FACTS AND THE LAW, WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE, AND WHICH WE BELIEVE, PROPERLY, WOULD FORM THE BASIS FOR CONVICTION IN THE SENATE. 17:08:26 PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO STRIKE DOWN THESE INSIDIOUS CANCERS THAT EAT AT THE HEART OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND LAWS. STRIKE THEM DOWN WITH THE CONSTITUTION, SO THEY MIGHT NOT FESTER AS A GAPING WOUND POISONING FUTURE GENERATIONS OF CHILDREN, POISONING OUR COURT SYSTEM, AND PERHAPS EVEN FUTURE GENERATIONS OF POLITICAL LEADERS. 17:08:52 JUST AS MEMBERS OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS HAVE, UNFORTUNATELY, OVER THE YEARS BEEN CONVICTED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION AND JUST AS FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM LIFE TENURE FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION, SO MUST A PRESIDENT, SO SADLY SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT AND JUST AS FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM LIFE TENURE FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION, SO MUST A PRESIDENT, SO SADLY SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT. 17:09:18 BARR: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE SITTING HERE AS TRIERS OF FACT AND LAW IN THE TRIAL OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON. 17:09:30 REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE MAJORITY LEADER. 17:09:34 LOTT: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AS A REMINDER TO ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, WE WILL BEGIN AT 10 A.M. ON SATURDAY, JANUARY THE 16TH, AND WE'RE EXPECTED TO CONCLUDE SOMETIME BETWEEN 3 AND 3:30 P.M. I HAD EARLIER INDICATED IT MIGHT GO AS LATE AS FIVE. I UNDERSTAND IT WILL BE BETWEEN THREE AND THREE-THIRTY. 17:09:53 AND THEREFORE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, PURSUANT TO THE PREVIOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE SENATE STAND IN ADJOURNMENT UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER. 17:09:59 REHNQUIST: WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT IS SO ORDERED.COURT ADJOUNRED.
Beta
}