/n00:00:00:00 /nTitle: "Comedians Turned Sitcom Stars"; Guests: George Carlin, John Caponera, Mark Curry /n (0:00)/ /n

MARK CURRY INTRODUCES MENAGERIE

Liberation of Denain and advance to Valenciennes: LS of soldiers advancing; a pall of smoke marks the position of Cambrai in the distant background. MS of Canadians entering a village on bicycles, civilians and children running alongside them. MWS of Canadians marching into Denain, one of them carrying a bouquet of flowers. HAS of crowd and soldiers lining the streets of Valenciennes as the Prince of Wales and his party arrive in automobiles. MS of the Prince with Generals Currie, Morrison and Watson posing for the cameras. Various shots of the Royal party in Denain - being greeted by priests, receiving flowers, entering a building and shaking hands with town dignitaries as they prepare to leave. MWS of Canadian troops marching through Denain.

White House spokesperson Mike McCurry briefs reporters. Topics include Cuba and Whitewater. Includes comments by other administration officials regarding television ratings along with remarks regarding Whitewater.

Snowplows drive through the streets and sidewalks of Toronto, clearing them. City services including libraries and community centers close early. PLEASE NOTE News anchor and reporter image and audio, along with any commercial production excerpts, are for reference purposes only and are not clearable and cannot be used within your project.

CLEAN FEED OF THE SENATE TRIAL / IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENTS 15:52:29 WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GREG CRAIG THEY ARE, DESTROY A FUNDAMENTAL UNDERPINNING OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND NO ONE ELSE TO SELECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON IS NOT GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. HE IS NOT GUILTY OF PERJURY. HE MUST NOT BE REMOVED.THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 15:52:49 CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE MAJORITY LEADER.MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 15:52:52 I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WE RECESS THE PROCEEDINGS NOW. WE WILL BEGIN PROMPTLY AT FIVE MINUTES AFTER FOUR.REHNQUIST: WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT'S SO ORDERED. 15:53:09 (SENATE RECESS) 15:53:15 LOTT: MS. COUNSEL CHERYL MILLS (PH). REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MS. COUNSEL MILLS. 16:07:51 MILLS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MANAGERS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CHERYL MILLS AND I AM DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. I AM HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT TO ADDRESS YOU.TODAY, INCIDENTALLY, MARKED MY SIXTH YEAR ANNIVERSARY IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I'M VERY PROUD TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY AND THIS PRESIDENT. IT IS A PARTICULAR HONOR FOR ME TO STAND ON THE SENATE FLOOR TODAY. I'M AN ARMY BRAT. MY FATHER SERVED IN THE ARMY FOR 27 YEARS. I GREW UP IN A MILITARY WORLD WHERE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT JUST -- WHERE OPPORTUNITY WAS A REALITY, AND NOT JUST A SLOGAN. THE VERY FACT THAT THE DAUGHTER OF AN ARMY OFFICER FROM RICHMOND, VIRGINIA -- THE VERY FACT THAT I CAN REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS POWERFUL PROOF THAT THE AMERICAN DREAM LIVES.I'M GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO ADDRESS TWO OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON IN ARTICLE II: FIRST, THE ALLEGATION RELATED TO THE BOX OF GIFTS THAT MS. LEWINSKY ASKED MS. CURRIE TO HOLD FOR HER; SECOND, THE ALLEGATION RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONVERSATION WITH MS. CURRIE AFTER HIS DEPOSITION IN THE JONES CASE. MILLS: TOMORROW, MY COLLEAGUE MR. KENDALL WILL ADDRESS THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. OVER THE COURSE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS' PRESENTATION LAST WEEK, I CONFESS I WAS STRUCK BY HOW OFTEN THEY REFERRED TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW. HOUSE MANAGER SENSENBRENNER, FOR EXAMPLE, QUOTED PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT, STATING, "NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW AND NO MAN IS BELOW IT." AS A LAWYER, AS AN AMERICAN, AND AS AN AFRICAN- AMERICAN, IT IS A PRINCIPLE IN WHICH I BELIEVE TO THE VERY CORE OF MY BEING. IT IS WHAT MANY HAVE STRUGGLED AND DIED FOR, THE RIGHT TO BE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OR GENDER OR ETHNICITY, DISABILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR STATION IN LIFE. THE RULE OF LAW APPLIES TO THE WEAK AND THE STRONG, THE RICH AND THE POOR, THE POWERFUL AND THE POWERLESS.IF YOU LOVE THE RULE OF LAW, YOU MUST LOVE IT IN ALL OF ITS APPLICATIONS. MILLS: YOU CANNOT ONLY LOVE IT WHEN IT PROVIDES THE VERDICT YOU SEEK, YOU MUST LOVE IT WHEN THE VERDICT GOES AGAINST YOU AS WELL. WE CANNOT UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW ONLY WHEN IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR BELIEFS, WE MUST UPHOLD IT EVEN WHEN IT PROTECTS BEHAVIOR THAT WE DON'T LIKE OR IS UNATTRACTIVE OR IS NOT ADMIRABLE OR THAT MIGHT EVEN BE HURTFUL.AND WE CANNOT SAY WE LOVE THE RULE OF LAW BUT DISMISS ARGUMENTS THAT APPEAL TO THE RULE OF LAW AS LEGALISMS OR LEGAL HAIRSPLITTING.I SAY ALL THIS BECAUSE NOT ONLY THE FACT, BUT THE LAW OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PROTECTS THE PRESIDENT. IT DOES NOT CONDEMN HIM. AND THE MANAGERS CANNOT DENY THE PRESIDENT THE PROTECTION THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE LAW AND STILL INSIST THAT THEY ARE ACTING TO UPHOLD THE LAW.HIS CONDUCT, WHILE CLEARLY NOT ATTRACTIVE OR ADMIRABLE, IS NOT CRIMINAL. MILLS: THAT IS THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS CASE.SO AS MY COLLEAGUES AND I DISCUSS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WE ASK ONLY THAT THE RULE OF LAW BE APPLIED EQUALLY, MUTUALLY, FAIRLY, NOT EMOTIONALLY OR PERSONALLY, OR POLITICALLY.IF IT IS APPLIED EQUALLY, THE RULE OF LAW EXONERATES BILL CLINTON. THAT SAID, I WANT TO BEGIN WHERE MANAGER HUTCHINSON LEFT OFF THIS WEEKEND, DURING A TELEVISION PROGRAM. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT CONVICTION OF THE PRESIDENT ON ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.ON THE RECORD NOW BEFORE THE SENATE, AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE, MANAGER HUTCHINSON SAID, "I DON'T THINK YOU COULD OBTAIN A CONVICTION, OR THAT I COULD FAIRLY ASK FOR A CONVICTION."WE AGREE. WE AGREE. THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR MANAGER HUTCHINSON'S JUDGMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT -- THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AND THE LAW ON THE BOOKS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. MILLS: NOW I KNOW THAT MANAGER MCCOLLUM BEGGED YOU IN HIS PRESENTATION NOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S CASE WAS PUT FORWARD. HE WENT SO FAR AS TO IMPLORE YOU NOT TO GET HUNG UP ON SOME OF THE DETAILS WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ATTORNEYS TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS STUFF. THE BIG PICTURE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND, NOT THE COMPARTMENTALIZATION.MANAGER MCCOLLUM WAS TELLING YOU, IN EFFECT, NOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE THAT EXONERATES THE PRESIDENT. DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS THAT TAKE THIS CASE OUT OF THE REALM OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PROHIBITED BY THE LAW.BUT THE RULE OF LAW DEPENDS UPON THE DETAILS, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS. AND IT DEPENDS UPON THE FAIRNESS OF THE PERSONS CALLED TO JUDGE THE FACTS.I WANT TO WALK THROUGH THE BIG PICTURE, AND I WANT TO WALK THROUGH THE FACTS. I FIRST WANT TO DISCUSS THE REAL STORY, AND THEN I WANT TO FOCUS ON ALL THOSE INCONVENIENT DETAILS, OR WHAT MANAGER BUYER CALLED THOSE STUBBORN FACTS, THAT DON'T FIT THE BIG PICTURE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT YOU TO SEE. MILLS: MANAGER BARR SUGGESTED THAT THE FIT BETWEEN THE FACTS AND THE LAW AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IN THIS CASE IS AS PRECISE AS THE FINELY TUNED MECHANISM OF A SWISS WATCH. BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE FACTS TOGETHER, THEY DON'T QUITE MAKE OUT A SWISS WATCH. IN FACT, THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN MAKE GOOD SAUSAGE.SO WHAT IS THE BIG PICTURE? THE BIG PICTURE IS THIS: THE PRESIDENT HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH A YOUNG WOMAN. HIS CONDUCT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, BUT IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, THE PRESIDENT AND THE YOUNG WOMAN PLEDGED NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH OTHERS. THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.THE PRESIDENT ENDED THEIR RELATIONSHIP BEFORE ANYONE KNEW ABOUT IT. HE ENDED IT NOT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WOULD PLACE HIM IN LEGAL JEOPARDY. HE ENDED IT BECAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS WRONG. THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.THE PRESIDENT HOPED THAT NO ONE WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT HIS INDISCRETION; ABOUT HIS LAPSE IN JUDGMENT. THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE EITHER. MILLS: ONE DAY HOWEVER LONG AFTER HE HAD ENDED THE RELATIONSHIP HE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT IN AN UNRELATED LAWSUIT. A LAWSUIT WHO'S INTENT AT LEAST AS PROCLAIMED BY THOSE WHO WERE PURSUING IT WAS TO POLITICALLY DAMAGE HIM. THAT WAS THEIR PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED GOAL. SO HE KNEW, THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT A SECRET WOULD SOON BE EXPOSED AND HE WAS RIGHT. IT WAS REVEALED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION; WRITTEN LARGE ALL OVER THE WORLD AGAINST HIS BEST EFFORTS TO HAVE ENDED THE RELATIONSHIP AND TO PUT RIGHT WHAT HE HAD DONE WRONG. THAT IS THE REAL BIG PICTURE; THAT IS THE TRUTH; AND THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ALLEGATION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ABOUT THE BOX OF GIFTS THAT MS. CURRIE RECEIVED FROM MS. LEWINSKY. I WANT TO BEGIN BY TELLING YOU ANOTHER TRUE STORY, THE REAL STORY OF THE NOW FAMOUS GIFTS. IT TAKES PLACE ON DECEMBER 28, 1997. ON THAT DAY THE PRESIDENT GAVE MS. LEWINSKY HOLIDAY GIFTS. DURING HER VISIT WITH THE PRESIDENT MS. LEWINSKY HAS SAID THAT SHE RAISED THE SUBPOENA THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE JONES LAWYERS ON THE 19TH AND ASKED HIM: WHAT SHE SHOULD DO ABOUT THE GIFTS?THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE TOLD HER, WHENEVER IT WAS THAT THEY DISCUSSED IT THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE OVER WHATEVER SHE HAD. HE WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE GIFTS BECAUSE HE GIVES SO MANY GIFTS TO SO MANY PEOPLE. UNBEKNOWNST THE PRESIDENT, HOWEVER, MS. LEWINSKY HAD BEEN WORRYING ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH GIFTS EVER SINCE SHE GOT THE SUBPOENA. SHE WAS CONCERNED THAT JONES LAWYERS MIGHT EVEN SEARCH HER APARTMENT, SO SHE WANTED TO GET THE GIFTS OUT OF HER HOME. AFTER MS. LEWINSKY'S VISIT WITH THE PRESIDENT MS. CURRIE WALKED HER FROM THE BUILDING. THEN OR LATER, EITHER IN PERSON OR ON THE PHONE, MS. LEWINSKY TOLD MS. CURRIE THAT SHE HAD A BOX OF GIFTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN HER THAT SHE WANTED MS. CURRIE TO HOLD, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS. IN THE COURSE OF THE CONVERSATION THEY DISCUSSED OTHER THINGS AS WELL, AND MS. CURRIE AGREED TO HOLD THE BOX OF GIFTS.AFTER THEIR DISCUSSION MS. LEWINSKY PACKED UP SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE GIFTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN HER OVER TIME. SHE KEPT OUT PRESENTS OF PARTICULAR SENTIMENTAL VALUE, AS WELL AS VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE GIFTS HE HAD GIVEN HER THAT VERY DAY ON THE 28TH. MILLS: MS. CURRIE WENT HOME -- WENT BY MS. LEWINSKY'S HOME AFTER LEAVING WORK, PICKED UP THE BOX, WHICH HAD A NOTE ON IT THAT SAID "DO NOT THROW AWAY," AND SHE TOOK IT HOME.MS. CURRIE DID NOT RAISE MS. LEWINSKY'S REQUEST WITH THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE SHE SAW HERSELF AS DOING A FAVOR FOR HER FRIEND. MS. CURRIE HAD NO IDEA THE GIFTS WERE UNDER SUBPOENA. AND SO MS. LEWINSKY'S REQUEST HARDLY STRUCK HER AS CRIMINAL.THIS STORY THAT I JUST TOLD YOU IS OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE STORY PRESENTED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS. HOW CAN I TELL SUCH A STORY THAT IS SO AT ODDS WITH THAT WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS? THE ANSWER LIES IN THE SELECTIVE READING OF THE RECORD BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS. BUT THEIRS IS NOT THE ONLY VERSION OF THE FACTS THAT CAN BE TOLD. SO WHAT DETAILS DID THEY DOWNPLAY OR DISCARD OR DISREGARD IN THEIR PRESENTATION TO CREATE ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? TO BE FAIR, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ACKNOWLEDGED UP FRONT THAT THEIR CASE IS LARGELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL. THEY ARE RIGHT. MILLS: LET'S WALK THROUGH THE HOUSE MANAGERS' PRESENTATION OF THE KEY EVENTS, WHICH THEY GAVE TO YOU LAST WEEK. LET'S LOOK AT EXHIBIT 1, WHICH IS IN THE PACKETS THAT HAVE BEEN HANDED OUT TO YOU. 16:20:56 FIRST KEY FACT: ON DECEMBER 19TH, MONICA LEWINSKY WAS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA IN THE PAULA JONES CASE. THE SUBPOENA REQUIRED HER TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN JANUARY, 1998, AND ALSO TO PRODUCE EACH AND EVERY GIFT GIVEN TO HER BY PRESIDENT CLINTON.SECOND EVENT: ON DECEMBER 28TH, MS. LEWINSKY AND THE PRESIDENT MET IN THE OVAL OFFICE TO EXCHANGE CHRISTMAS GIFTS, AT WHICH TIME THEY DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THE LAWYERS IN THE JONES CASE HAD SUBPOENAED ALL OF THE PRESIDENT'S GIFTS.THIRD KEY FACT: DURING THE CONVERSATION ON THE 28TH, MS. LEWINSKY ASKED THE PRESIDENT WHETHER SHE SHOULD PUT AWAY, OUTSIDE OF HER HOME, OR GIVE TO SOMEONE, MAYBE BETTY, THE GIFTS. AT THAT TIME, ACCORDING TO MS. LEWINSKY, THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED, "LET ME THINK ABOUT IT." FOURTH FACT THEY PRESENTED TO YOU: THAT ANSWER LED TO ACTION. LATER THAT DAY, MS. LEWINSKY GOT A CALL AT 3:32 P.M. FROM MS. CURRIE, WHO SAID, "I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE ME, OR THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID YOU HAVE SOMETHING FOR ME."IT WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO INITIATED THE RETRIEVAL OF THE GIFTS AND THE CONCEALMENT OF THE GIFTS. MILLS: THE FIFTH EVENT THEY PRESENTED. WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS, MS. CURRIE PICKED UP THE BOX OF GIFTS FROM MS. LEWINSKY, DROVE TO HER HOME AND PLACED THE BOX UNDER HER BED. 16:22:14 THAT IS WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOLD YOU LAST WEEK. 16:22:18 NOW LET'S GO THROUGH THEIR STORY PIECE BY PIECE. ON DECEMBER 19TH, MONICA LEWINSKY WAS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA IN THE JONES CASE. THE SUBPOENA REQUIRED HER TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN JANUARY 1998 AND ALSO TO PRODUCE EACH AND EVERY GIFT GIVEN TO HER BY THE PRESIDENTTHIS STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY ACCURATE. IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, CONVEY THE ENTIRE STATE OF AFFAIRS. MS. LEWINSKY TOLD THE FBI THAT WHEN SHE GOT THE SUBPOENA, SHE WANTED THE GIFTS OUT OF HER APARTMENT. WHY? BECAUSE SHE SUSPECTED THAT LAWYERS FOR JONES WOULD BREAK INTO HER APARTMENT LOOKING FOR GIFTS.SHE WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE JONES PEOPLE MIGHT TAP HER PHONE. THEREFORE, SHE WANTED TO PUT THE GIFTS OUT OF REACH OF THE JONES LAWYERS, OUT OF HARM'S WAY. MILLS: THE MANAGERS ENTIRELY DISREGARDED MS. LEWINSKY'S OWN INDEPENDENT MOTIVATIONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE THE GIFTS.LET'S CONTINUE. ON DECEMBER 28, 1997, MS. LEWINSKY AND THE PRESIDENT MET IN THE OVAL OFFICE TO EXCHANGE CHRISTMAS GIFTS, AT WHICH TIME THEY DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THE LAWYERS IN THE JONES CASE HAD SUBPOENAED ALL THE GIFTS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO MS. LEWINSKY.DURING THE COURSE -- DURING THE CONVERSATION ON DECEMBER 28TH, MS. LEWINSKY ASKED THE PRESIDENT WHETHER SHE SHOULD PUT AWAY THE GIFTS OUTSIDE OF HER HOUSE SOMEPLACE OR GIVE THEM TO SOMEONE, MAYBE BETTY. AT THAT TIME, ACCORDING TO MS. LEWINSKY, THE PRESIDENT SAID "LET ME THINK ABOUT IT."THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE CONSISTENTLY DESCRIBED THE DECEMBER 28TH MEETING EXACTLY THIS WAY, AS DID THE MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY; AS DID THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL. IT'S BEEN SAID SO OFTEN THAT IT'S BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM. BUT IT IS NOT -- IT IS NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH. IT IS NOT THE FULL RECORD. MS. LEWINSKY ACTUALLY GAVE 10 RENDITIONS OF HER CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT. ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN OUTLINED IN OUR TRIAL BRIEF. MILLS: INVARIABLY THE ONE MOST CITED IS THE ONE LEAST FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT. BUT EVEN IN THAT VERSION, THE ONE THAT IS LEAST FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT, NO ONE CLAIMS HE ORDERED, SUGGESTED, OR EVEN HINTED THAT ANYONE OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. AT MOST, THE PRESIDENT SAYS: LET ME THINK ABOUT IT. THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NINE OTHER VERSIONS. SOME OF THE OTHER VERSIONS, WHICH I HAVE NEVER HEARD OFFERED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, VERSIONS THAT MAYBE YOU, TOO, HAVE NEVER HEARD, ARE THE ONES THAT PUT THE LIE TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGATION. LET'S LOOK AT EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH IS IN YOUR MATERIALS. 16:25:29 YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS VERSION OF THEIR CONVERSATION, AND THIS IS MS. LEWINSKY SPEAKING. 16:25:39 "IT WAS DECEMBER 28 AND I WAS THERE TO GET MY CHRISTMAS GIFTS FROM HIM. AND WE SPENT MAYBE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES OR SO, NOT VERY LONG, TALKING ABOUT THE CASE. AND I SAID TO HIM, 'WELL, DO YOU THINK I SHOULD' -- I DON'T THINK I SAID GET RID OF -- I SAID, 'BUT DO YOU THINK I SHOULD PUT AWAY OR MAYBE GIVE TO BETTY OR GIVE TO SOMEONE THE GIFTS?' AND HE -- I DON'T REMEMBER HIS RESPONSE. IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE, 'I DON'T KNOW,' OR, 'HMM,' OR THERE WAS REALLY NO RESPONSE."MILLS: YOU ALSO MAY NOT HAVE HEARD THIS VERSION, AND THIS IS A JUROR SPEAKING -- A GRAND JUROR SPEAKING TO MS. LEWINSKY.THE JUROR: "NOW, DID YOU BRING UP BETTY'S NAME, OR DID THE PRESIDENT BRING UP BETTY'S NAME," AND THIS IS AT THE MEETING ON THE 28TH.MS. LEWINSKY: "I THINK I BROUGHT IT UP. THE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT UP BETTY'S NAME, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T -- HE REALLY DIDN'T DISCUSS IT."AND YOU PROBABLY HAVE NOT HEARD THIS VERSION. LEWINSKY ADVISED THAT CLINTON WAS SITTING IN A ROCKING CHAIR IN THE STUDY. LEWINSKY ASKED CLINTON, WHAT SHOULD I DO WITH THE GIFTS CLINTON HAD GIVEN HER, AND HE EITHER DID NOT RESPOND, OR RESPONDED, "I DON'T KNOW."LEWINSKY IS NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID, BUT SHE IS CERTAIN THAT WHATEVER CLINTON SAID, SHE HAD NO CLEAR IMAGE IN HER MIND OF WHAT TO DO NEXT. 16:27:14 WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THESE VERSIONS? BECAUSE THEY WEAKEN AN ALREADY FRAGILE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE. 16:27:24 MILLS: IF MS. LEWINSKY SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T RESPOND AT ALL, THEN THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THEORY, EVEN UNDER THEIR VERSION OF EVENTS. SO, THESE VERSIONS GET DISCARDED TO ENSURE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS' BIG PICTURE DOESN'T GET CLUTTERED BY ALL THOSE DETAILS. IT'S THOSE FACTS, THOSE STUBBORN FACTS THAT JUST DON'T FIT. BUT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DETAIL THE MANAGERS DISCARD, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT, IS THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY. THE PRESIDENT TESTIFIED THAT HE TOLD MS. LEWINSKY THAT SHE HAD TO GIVE THE JONES' LAWYERS WHATEVER GIFTS SHE HAD. WHY -- AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS PREDICTED WE WOULD ASK, BECAUSE IT IS A QUESTION THAT BEGS TO BE ASKED -- WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT GIVE MS. LEWINSKY GIFTS IF HE WANTED HER TO GIVE THEM RIGHT BACK? THE ONLY REAL EXPLANATION IS HE TRULY WAS, AS HE TESTIFIED, UNCONCERNED ABOUT THE GIFTS. THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THIS GIFT GIVING WAS A SHOW OF CONFIDENCE, THAT HE KNEW MS. LEWINSKY WOULD CONCEAL THEM. MILLS: BUT THEN WHY, UNDER THEIR THEORY, ASK MISS CURRIE TO GO PICK THEM UP? WHY NOT KNOW THAT MISS LEWINSKY IS JUST GOING TO CONCEAL THEM? BETTER STILL, WHY NOT JUST SHOW HER THE GIFTS AND TELL HER TO COME BY AFTER THE SUBPOENA DATE HAS PASSED? IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ENTIRELY UNDERMINE THE HOUSE MANAGERS' THEORY OF ON INSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. BUT LET'S CONTINUE WITH THEIR VERSION OF EVENTS. THAT ANSWER, THE LET-ME- THINK-ABOUT-IT ANSWER, THAT ANSWER LED TO ACTION. LATER THAT DAY, MS. LEWINSKY GOT A CALL AT 3:32 P.M. FROM MS. CURRIE WHO SAID, I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE ME OR THE PRESIDENT SAID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE ME. IT WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO INITIATED THE RETRIEVAL OF THE GIFTS AND THE CONCEALMENT OF THE EVIDENCE. HERE IS WHERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DRAMATICALLY SHORTCHANGED THE TRUTH. BECAUSE THE WHOLE TRUTH DEMANDS THAT MISS CURRIE'S TESTIMONY BE PRESENTED FAIRLY. IN TELLING THEIR STORY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE TESTIMONY BETWEEN MS. LEWINSKY AND MS. CURRIE. MILLS: BUT THEY STRIVE MIGHTILY -- THEY STRIVE MIGHTILY TO GET YOU TO DISREGARD MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY BY TELLING YOU THAT HER MEMORY ON THE ISSUE OF HOW SHE CAME TO PICK UP THE GIFTS WAS FUZZY -- FUZZY. IN PARTICULAR, MANAGER HUTCHINSON TOLD YOU "I WILL CONCEDE THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE TESTIMONY ON THIS POINT WITH MS. CURRIE." MS. CURRIE IN HER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY HAD A FUZZY MEMORY -- A LITTLE DIFFERENT RECOLLECTION. SHE TESTIFIED THAT THE BEST SHE COULD REMEMBER, MS. LEWINSKY CALLED HER, BUT WHEN SHE WAS ASKED FURTHER, SHE SAID THAT MAYBE MS. LEWINSKY'S MEMORY IS BETTER THAN HERS ON THAT ISSUE. THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE ABOUT MS. CURRIE. THAT'S NOT PLAYING FAIR BY MS. CURRIE. IT'S NOT PLAYING FAIR BY THE FACTS. WHY? BECAUSE MS. CURRIE WAS ASKED ABOUT WHO INITIATED THE GIFT PICKUP FIVE TIMES. HER ANSWER EACH TIME WAS UNEQUIVOCAL FIVE TIMES. FROM THE FIRST FBI INTERVIEW JUST DAYS AFTER THE STORY BROKE IN THE MEDIA, TO HER LAST GRAND JURY APPEARANCE, MS. CURRIE REPEATEDLY AND UNWAVERINGLY TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS MS. LEWINSKY WHO CONTACTED HER ABOUT THE GIFTS. MILLS: HER MEMORY ON THIS ISSUE IS CLEAR. WHAT DOES SHE SAY? LET'S LOOK AT EXHIBIT 3. 16:31:57 THE FIRST TIME SHE'S ASKED. LEWINSKY CALLED CURRIE AND ADVISED SHE HAD TO RETURN ALL GIFTS CLINTON HAD GIVEN TO LEWINSKY AS THERE WAS TALK GOING AROUND ABOUT THE GIFTS. SECOND TIME. MONICA SAID SHE WAS GETTING CONCERNED AND SHE WANTED TO GIVE ME THE STUFF THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN HER, OR GIVE ME A BOX OF STUFF. IT WAS A BOX OF STUFF. THIRD TIME. AND THIS WAS A PROSECUTOR ASKING MISS CURRIE THE QUESTIONS: "PROSECUTOR: JUST TELL US FOR A MOMENT HOW THIS ISSUE FIRST AROSE AND WHAT YOU DID ABOUT IT AND WHAT MS. LEWINSKY TOLD YOU. "MISS CURRIE: THE BEST I REMEMBER IT FIRST AROSE WITH CONVERSATION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OVER THE PHONE OR IN PERSON. I'M NOT -- I DON'T KNOW. SHE ASKED ME IF I WOULD PICK UP A BOX. SHE SAID ISIKOFF HAD BEEN INQUIRING ABOUT THE GIFTS." FOURTH TIME. "THE BEST I REMEMBER SHE SAID SHE WANTED ME TO HOLD THESE GIFTS, HOLD THIS -- SHE MAY HAVE SAID GIFTS. I'M SURE SHE SAID GIFTS, BOX OF GIFTS, I DON'T REMEMBER, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS, AND I SAID, FINE." FIFTH TIME. "THE BEST I REMEMBER IS MONICA CALLS ME AND ASKS ME IF SHE CAN GIVE ME SOME GIFTS, IF I'D PICK UP SOME GIFTS FOR HER." 16:33:07 MILLS: INDEED, THE LAST TIME, THE FIFTH TIME, WHEN A GRAND JUROR COMPLETELY MISSTATED MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY REGARDING HOW THE GIFT EXCHANGE WAS INITIATED, BY SUGGESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD DIRECTED HER TO PICK UP THE GIFTS, MS. CURRIE WAS QUICK TO CORRECT THE JUROR. 16:33:26 THIS IS GRAND JUROR SPEAKING: "MS. CURRIE, I WANT TO COME BACK FOR SECOND TO THE BOX OF GIFTS AND HOW THEY CAME TO BE IN YOUR POSSESSION. AS I RECALL YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY THE OTHER DAYS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO TELEPHONE MS. LEWINSKY. "IS THAT CORRECT?" "PARDON? THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME TO TELEPHONE MISS LEWINSKY?" THE JUROR: "IS THAT CORRECT." MS. CURRIE: "ABOUT?" THE JUROR: "ABOUT THE BOX OF GIFTS. I'M TRYING TO RECALL AND UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THE BOX OF GIFTS CAME TO BE IN YOUR POSSESSION." MS. CURRIE: "I DON'T RECALL THE PRESIDENT ASKING ME TO CALL ABOUT A BOX OF GIFTS." THE JUROR: "HOW DID YOU COME TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE BOX OF GIFTS?" MS. CURRIE: "THE BEST I REMEMBER, MISS LEWINSKY CALLS ME AND ASKS ME IF SHE CAN GIVE ME SOME GIFTS -- IF I'D PICK UP SOME GIFTS FOR HER." THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE WAS CLEAR FIVE TIMES, EVERY TIME SHE WAS ASKED. MILLS: WHAT, THEN, ARE THE MANAGERS TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY SAY THAT MS. CURRIE CONCEDED THAT MS. LEWINSKY MIGHT HAVE A BETTER MEMORY THAN HERSELF ON THIS ISSUE? THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THAT WAS WHETHER SHE, MS. CURRIE, HAD TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT SHE HAD PICKED UP THE BOX OF GIFTS FROM MS. LEWINSKY. LET'S PUT IT IN CONTEXT. AFTER BEING ASKED THE SAME QUESTION FOR THE FOURTH TIME, AND REITERATING FOR THE FOURTH TIME THAT MS. LEWINSKY CONTACTED HER ABOUT THE GIFTS, THE PROSECUTOR ASKED MS. CURRIE, "WELL, WHAT IF MS. LEWINSKY SAID THAT MS. CURRIE SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT RECEIVING THE GIFTS FROM MS. LEWINSKY?" MS. CURRIE RESPONDS, "THEN SHE MAY REMEMBER BETTER THAN I. I DON'T REMEMBER." NOT ONCE DID MS. CURRIE EQUIVOCATE ON THE CENTRAL FACT MS. LEWINSKY ASKED HER TO RETRIEVE THE GIFTS. THE PRESIDENT TESTIFIED CONSISTENT WITH MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY THAT HE NEVER ASKED MS. CURRIE TO RETRIEVE THE GIFTS FROM MS. LEWINSKY. MILLS: SO WHY IS MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY DISTORTED AND DISCOUNTED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS? THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO MAKE ONE OF THE MOST AWESOME DECISIONS THE CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATES. THEY OWE YOU, THEY OWE THE PRESIDENT, THE OWE THE CONSTITUTION, THEY OWE BETTY CURRIE, AN ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS. BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT SUPPOSEDLY CORROBORATING CELL PHONE CALL FROM BETTY CURRIE TO MONICA LEWINSKY ON DECEMBER 28? THE MANAGERS HIGHLIGHTED THIS CALL, WHICH THEY CLAIM IS THE CALL IN WHICH MS. CURRIE TOLD MS. LEWINSKY THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD SHE HAD SOMETHING FOR HER, THE GIFTS. THIS, THEY SAY, IS THE LYNCH PIN THAT CLOSES THE DEAL ON THEIR VERSION OF THE FACTS. WHAT THE MANAGERS DOWNPLAY, AS MR. RUFF DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, IS THE FACT THAT THIS CALL TO ARRANGE THE PICKUP OF THE GIFTS COMES AFTER THE TIME MS. LEWINSKY REPEATEDLY TESTIFIED THAT THE GIFTS WERE PICKED UP BY MS. CURRIE. IN CITING THE CELL PHONE RECORD AS CORROBORATION, THEY ALSO DISREGARD MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE PICKED UP THE GIFTS LEAVING FROM WORK ON HER WAY HOME. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FROM WASHINGTON TO ARLINGTON. THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH A CALL FROM ARLINGTON. MILLS: MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, THE MANAGERS PURPOSELY AVOIDED TELLING YOU ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE CALL. AS MR. RUFF POINTED OUT YESTERDAY, THE CALL IS FOR ONE MINUTE, OR LESS. ACCORDING TO MS. LEWINSKY'S OWN TESTIMONY WHEN SHE SPOKE TO MS. CURRIE TO ARRANGE THE GIFT PICK-UP, THEY TALKED ABOUT OTHER MATTERS AS WELL AS THE BOX. THEY HAD A CONVERSATION. THAT'S A LOT OF TALK. "I HAVE A BOX, WHEN CAN YOU COME PICK IT UP, WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO MEET YOU," OTHER CHITCHAT -- THAT'S A LOT OF TALK FOR A CALL THAT LASTS ONE MINUTE OR LESS. IT'S ALL BUT INCONCEIVABLE THAT ALL THIS TOOK PLACE IN THE CALL. SINCE MS. LEWINSKY -- SINCE MS. CURRIE PLACED A CALL TO MS. LEWINSKY, 16:37:55 END OF TAPE.

News Stories - Cuba, Middle East, Sex scandal, Clinton impeachment hearing, Land mines.

/n00:00:00:00 /nTOPICS: Betty Currie testimony; David Kendall charging Ken Starr's office with leaks; budget proposal; GUEST: Rep John Spratt (D-SC). /n (0:00)/ /n

MARK CURRY INTRODUCES ONYX

CLEAN FEED OF THE SENATE TRIAL / IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENTS 15:52:29 WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GREG CRAIG THEY ARE, DESTROY A FUNDAMENTAL UNDERPINNING OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND NO ONE ELSE TO SELECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON IS NOT GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. HE IS NOT GUILTY OF PERJURY. HE MUST NOT BE REMOVED.THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 15:52:49 CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE MAJORITY LEADER.MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 15:52:52 I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WE RECESS THE PROCEEDINGS NOW. WE WILL BEGIN PROMPTLY AT FIVE MINUTES AFTER FOUR.REHNQUIST: WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT'S SO ORDERED. 15:53:09 (SENATE RECESS) 15:53:15 LOTT: MS. COUNSEL CHERYL MILLS (PH). REHNQUIST: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MS. COUNSEL MILLS. 16:07:51 MILLS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MANAGERS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CHERYL MILLS AND I AM DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. I AM HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT TO ADDRESS YOU.TODAY, INCIDENTALLY, MARKED MY SIXTH YEAR ANNIVERSARY IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I'M VERY PROUD TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY AND THIS PRESIDENT. IT IS A PARTICULAR HONOR FOR ME TO STAND ON THE SENATE FLOOR TODAY. I'M AN ARMY BRAT. MY FATHER SERVED IN THE ARMY FOR 27 YEARS. I GREW UP IN A MILITARY WORLD WHERE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT JUST -- WHERE OPPORTUNITY WAS A REALITY, AND NOT JUST A SLOGAN. THE VERY FACT THAT THE DAUGHTER OF AN ARMY OFFICER FROM RICHMOND, VIRGINIA -- THE VERY FACT THAT I CAN REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS POWERFUL PROOF THAT THE AMERICAN DREAM LIVES.I'M GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO ADDRESS TWO OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON IN ARTICLE II: FIRST, THE ALLEGATION RELATED TO THE BOX OF GIFTS THAT MS. LEWINSKY ASKED MS. CURRIE TO HOLD FOR HER; SECOND, THE ALLEGATION RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONVERSATION WITH MS. CURRIE AFTER HIS DEPOSITION IN THE JONES CASE. MILLS: TOMORROW, MY COLLEAGUE MR. KENDALL WILL ADDRESS THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. OVER THE COURSE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS' PRESENTATION LAST WEEK, I CONFESS I WAS STRUCK BY HOW OFTEN THEY REFERRED TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW. HOUSE MANAGER SENSENBRENNER, FOR EXAMPLE, QUOTED PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT, STATING, "NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW AND NO MAN IS BELOW IT." AS A LAWYER, AS AN AMERICAN, AND AS AN AFRICAN- AMERICAN, IT IS A PRINCIPLE IN WHICH I BELIEVE TO THE VERY CORE OF MY BEING. IT IS WHAT MANY HAVE STRUGGLED AND DIED FOR, THE RIGHT TO BE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OR GENDER OR ETHNICITY, DISABILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR STATION IN LIFE. THE RULE OF LAW APPLIES TO THE WEAK AND THE STRONG, THE RICH AND THE POOR, THE POWERFUL AND THE POWERLESS.IF YOU LOVE THE RULE OF LAW, YOU MUST LOVE IT IN ALL OF ITS APPLICATIONS. MILLS: YOU CANNOT ONLY LOVE IT WHEN IT PROVIDES THE VERDICT YOU SEEK, YOU MUST LOVE IT WHEN THE VERDICT GOES AGAINST YOU AS WELL. WE CANNOT UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW ONLY WHEN IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR BELIEFS, WE MUST UPHOLD IT EVEN WHEN IT PROTECTS BEHAVIOR THAT WE DON'T LIKE OR IS UNATTRACTIVE OR IS NOT ADMIRABLE OR THAT MIGHT EVEN BE HURTFUL.AND WE CANNOT SAY WE LOVE THE RULE OF LAW BUT DISMISS ARGUMENTS THAT APPEAL TO THE RULE OF LAW AS LEGALISMS OR LEGAL HAIRSPLITTING.I SAY ALL THIS BECAUSE NOT ONLY THE FACT, BUT THE LAW OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PROTECTS THE PRESIDENT. IT DOES NOT CONDEMN HIM. AND THE MANAGERS CANNOT DENY THE PRESIDENT THE PROTECTION THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE LAW AND STILL INSIST THAT THEY ARE ACTING TO UPHOLD THE LAW.HIS CONDUCT, WHILE CLEARLY NOT ATTRACTIVE OR ADMIRABLE, IS NOT CRIMINAL. MILLS: THAT IS THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS CASE.SO AS MY COLLEAGUES AND I DISCUSS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WE ASK ONLY THAT THE RULE OF LAW BE APPLIED EQUALLY, MUTUALLY, FAIRLY, NOT EMOTIONALLY OR PERSONALLY, OR POLITICALLY.IF IT IS APPLIED EQUALLY, THE RULE OF LAW EXONERATES BILL CLINTON. THAT SAID, I WANT TO BEGIN WHERE MANAGER HUTCHINSON LEFT OFF THIS WEEKEND, DURING A TELEVISION PROGRAM. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT CONVICTION OF THE PRESIDENT ON ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.ON THE RECORD NOW BEFORE THE SENATE, AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE, MANAGER HUTCHINSON SAID, "I DON'T THINK YOU COULD OBTAIN A CONVICTION, OR THAT I COULD FAIRLY ASK FOR A CONVICTION."WE AGREE. WE AGREE. THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR MANAGER HUTCHINSON'S JUDGMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT -- THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AND THE LAW ON THE BOOKS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. MILLS: NOW I KNOW THAT MANAGER MCCOLLUM BEGGED YOU IN HIS PRESENTATION NOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S CASE WAS PUT FORWARD. HE WENT SO FAR AS TO IMPLORE YOU NOT TO GET HUNG UP ON SOME OF THE DETAILS WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ATTORNEYS TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS STUFF. THE BIG PICTURE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND, NOT THE COMPARTMENTALIZATION.MANAGER MCCOLLUM WAS TELLING YOU, IN EFFECT, NOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE THAT EXONERATES THE PRESIDENT. DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS THAT TAKE THIS CASE OUT OF THE REALM OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PROHIBITED BY THE LAW.BUT THE RULE OF LAW DEPENDS UPON THE DETAILS, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS. AND IT DEPENDS UPON THE FAIRNESS OF THE PERSONS CALLED TO JUDGE THE FACTS.I WANT TO WALK THROUGH THE BIG PICTURE, AND I WANT TO WALK THROUGH THE FACTS. I FIRST WANT TO DISCUSS THE REAL STORY, AND THEN I WANT TO FOCUS ON ALL THOSE INCONVENIENT DETAILS, OR WHAT MANAGER BUYER CALLED THOSE STUBBORN FACTS, THAT DON'T FIT THE BIG PICTURE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT YOU TO SEE. MILLS: MANAGER BARR SUGGESTED THAT THE FIT BETWEEN THE FACTS AND THE LAW AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IN THIS CASE IS AS PRECISE AS THE FINELY TUNED MECHANISM OF A SWISS WATCH. BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE FACTS TOGETHER, THEY DON'T QUITE MAKE OUT A SWISS WATCH. IN FACT, THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN MAKE GOOD SAUSAGE.SO WHAT IS THE BIG PICTURE? THE BIG PICTURE IS THIS: THE PRESIDENT HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH A YOUNG WOMAN. HIS CONDUCT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, BUT IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, THE PRESIDENT AND THE YOUNG WOMAN PLEDGED NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH OTHERS. THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.THE PRESIDENT ENDED THEIR RELATIONSHIP BEFORE ANYONE KNEW ABOUT IT. HE ENDED IT NOT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WOULD PLACE HIM IN LEGAL JEOPARDY. HE ENDED IT BECAUSE HE KNEW IT WAS WRONG. THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.THE PRESIDENT HOPED THAT NO ONE WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT HIS INDISCRETION; ABOUT HIS LAPSE IN JUDGMENT. THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE EITHER. MILLS: ONE DAY HOWEVER LONG AFTER HE HAD ENDED THE RELATIONSHIP HE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT IN AN UNRELATED LAWSUIT. A LAWSUIT WHO'S INTENT AT LEAST AS PROCLAIMED BY THOSE WHO WERE PURSUING IT WAS TO POLITICALLY DAMAGE HIM. THAT WAS THEIR PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED GOAL. SO HE KNEW, THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT A SECRET WOULD SOON BE EXPOSED AND HE WAS RIGHT. IT WAS REVEALED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION; WRITTEN LARGE ALL OVER THE WORLD AGAINST HIS BEST EFFORTS TO HAVE ENDED THE RELATIONSHIP AND TO PUT RIGHT WHAT HE HAD DONE WRONG. THAT IS THE REAL BIG PICTURE; THAT IS THE TRUTH; AND THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ALLEGATION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ABOUT THE BOX OF GIFTS THAT MS. CURRIE RECEIVED FROM MS. LEWINSKY. I WANT TO BEGIN BY TELLING YOU ANOTHER TRUE STORY, THE REAL STORY OF THE NOW FAMOUS GIFTS. IT TAKES PLACE ON DECEMBER 28, 1997. ON THAT DAY THE PRESIDENT GAVE MS. LEWINSKY HOLIDAY GIFTS. DURING HER VISIT WITH THE PRESIDENT MS. LEWINSKY HAS SAID THAT SHE RAISED THE SUBPOENA THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE JONES LAWYERS ON THE 19TH AND ASKED HIM: WHAT SHE SHOULD DO ABOUT THE GIFTS?THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE TOLD HER, WHENEVER IT WAS THAT THEY DISCUSSED IT THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE OVER WHATEVER SHE HAD. HE WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE GIFTS BECAUSE HE GIVES SO MANY GIFTS TO SO MANY PEOPLE. UNBEKNOWNST THE PRESIDENT, HOWEVER, MS. LEWINSKY HAD BEEN WORRYING ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH GIFTS EVER SINCE SHE GOT THE SUBPOENA. SHE WAS CONCERNED THAT JONES LAWYERS MIGHT EVEN SEARCH HER APARTMENT, SO SHE WANTED TO GET THE GIFTS OUT OF HER HOME. AFTER MS. LEWINSKY'S VISIT WITH THE PRESIDENT MS. CURRIE WALKED HER FROM THE BUILDING. THEN OR LATER, EITHER IN PERSON OR ON THE PHONE, MS. LEWINSKY TOLD MS. CURRIE THAT SHE HAD A BOX OF GIFTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN HER THAT SHE WANTED MS. CURRIE TO HOLD, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS. IN THE COURSE OF THE CONVERSATION THEY DISCUSSED OTHER THINGS AS WELL, AND MS. CURRIE AGREED TO HOLD THE BOX OF GIFTS.AFTER THEIR DISCUSSION MS. LEWINSKY PACKED UP SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE GIFTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN HER OVER TIME. SHE KEPT OUT PRESENTS OF PARTICULAR SENTIMENTAL VALUE, AS WELL AS VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE GIFTS HE HAD GIVEN HER THAT VERY DAY ON THE 28TH. MILLS: MS. CURRIE WENT HOME -- WENT BY MS. LEWINSKY'S HOME AFTER LEAVING WORK, PICKED UP THE BOX, WHICH HAD A NOTE ON IT THAT SAID "DO NOT THROW AWAY," AND SHE TOOK IT HOME.MS. CURRIE DID NOT RAISE MS. LEWINSKY'S REQUEST WITH THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE SHE SAW HERSELF AS DOING A FAVOR FOR HER FRIEND. MS. CURRIE HAD NO IDEA THE GIFTS WERE UNDER SUBPOENA. AND SO MS. LEWINSKY'S REQUEST HARDLY STRUCK HER AS CRIMINAL.THIS STORY THAT I JUST TOLD YOU IS OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE STORY PRESENTED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS. HOW CAN I TELL SUCH A STORY THAT IS SO AT ODDS WITH THAT WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS? THE ANSWER LIES IN THE SELECTIVE READING OF THE RECORD BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS. BUT THEIRS IS NOT THE ONLY VERSION OF THE FACTS THAT CAN BE TOLD. SO WHAT DETAILS DID THEY DOWNPLAY OR DISCARD OR DISREGARD IN THEIR PRESENTATION TO CREATE ALLEGATIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? TO BE FAIR, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ACKNOWLEDGED UP FRONT THAT THEIR CASE IS LARGELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL. THEY ARE RIGHT. MILLS: LET'S WALK THROUGH THE HOUSE MANAGERS' PRESENTATION OF THE KEY EVENTS, WHICH THEY GAVE TO YOU LAST WEEK. LET'S LOOK AT EXHIBIT 1, WHICH IS IN THE PACKETS THAT HAVE BEEN HANDED OUT TO YOU. 16:20:56 FIRST KEY FACT: ON DECEMBER 19TH, MONICA LEWINSKY WAS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA IN THE PAULA JONES CASE. THE SUBPOENA REQUIRED HER TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN JANUARY, 1998, AND ALSO TO PRODUCE EACH AND EVERY GIFT GIVEN TO HER BY PRESIDENT CLINTON.SECOND EVENT: ON DECEMBER 28TH, MS. LEWINSKY AND THE PRESIDENT MET IN THE OVAL OFFICE TO EXCHANGE CHRISTMAS GIFTS, AT WHICH TIME THEY DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THE LAWYERS IN THE JONES CASE HAD SUBPOENAED ALL OF THE PRESIDENT'S GIFTS.THIRD KEY FACT: DURING THE CONVERSATION ON THE 28TH, MS. LEWINSKY ASKED THE PRESIDENT WHETHER SHE SHOULD PUT AWAY, OUTSIDE OF HER HOME, OR GIVE TO SOMEONE, MAYBE BETTY, THE GIFTS. AT THAT TIME, ACCORDING TO MS. LEWINSKY, THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED, "LET ME THINK ABOUT IT." FOURTH FACT THEY PRESENTED TO YOU: THAT ANSWER LED TO ACTION. LATER THAT DAY, MS. LEWINSKY GOT A CALL AT 3:32 P.M. FROM MS. CURRIE, WHO SAID, "I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE ME, OR THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID YOU HAVE SOMETHING FOR ME."IT WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO INITIATED THE RETRIEVAL OF THE GIFTS AND THE CONCEALMENT OF THE GIFTS. MILLS: THE FIFTH EVENT THEY PRESENTED. WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS, MS. CURRIE PICKED UP THE BOX OF GIFTS FROM MS. LEWINSKY, DROVE TO HER HOME AND PLACED THE BOX UNDER HER BED. 16:22:14 THAT IS WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOLD YOU LAST WEEK. 16:22:18 NOW LET'S GO THROUGH THEIR STORY PIECE BY PIECE. ON DECEMBER 19TH, MONICA LEWINSKY WAS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA IN THE JONES CASE. THE SUBPOENA REQUIRED HER TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN JANUARY 1998 AND ALSO TO PRODUCE EACH AND EVERY GIFT GIVEN TO HER BY THE PRESIDENTTHIS STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY ACCURATE. IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, CONVEY THE ENTIRE STATE OF AFFAIRS. MS. LEWINSKY TOLD THE FBI THAT WHEN SHE GOT THE SUBPOENA, SHE WANTED THE GIFTS OUT OF HER APARTMENT. WHY? BECAUSE SHE SUSPECTED THAT LAWYERS FOR JONES WOULD BREAK INTO HER APARTMENT LOOKING FOR GIFTS.SHE WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE JONES PEOPLE MIGHT TAP HER PHONE. THEREFORE, SHE WANTED TO PUT THE GIFTS OUT OF REACH OF THE JONES LAWYERS, OUT OF HARM'S WAY. MILLS: THE MANAGERS ENTIRELY DISREGARDED MS. LEWINSKY'S OWN INDEPENDENT MOTIVATIONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE THE GIFTS.LET'S CONTINUE. ON DECEMBER 28, 1997, MS. LEWINSKY AND THE PRESIDENT MET IN THE OVAL OFFICE TO EXCHANGE CHRISTMAS GIFTS, AT WHICH TIME THEY DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THE LAWYERS IN THE JONES CASE HAD SUBPOENAED ALL THE GIFTS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO MS. LEWINSKY.DURING THE COURSE -- DURING THE CONVERSATION ON DECEMBER 28TH, MS. LEWINSKY ASKED THE PRESIDENT WHETHER SHE SHOULD PUT AWAY THE GIFTS OUTSIDE OF HER HOUSE SOMEPLACE OR GIVE THEM TO SOMEONE, MAYBE BETTY. AT THAT TIME, ACCORDING TO MS. LEWINSKY, THE PRESIDENT SAID "LET ME THINK ABOUT IT."THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE CONSISTENTLY DESCRIBED THE DECEMBER 28TH MEETING EXACTLY THIS WAY, AS DID THE MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY; AS DID THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL. IT'S BEEN SAID SO OFTEN THAT IT'S BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM. BUT IT IS NOT -- IT IS NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH. IT IS NOT THE FULL RECORD. MS. LEWINSKY ACTUALLY GAVE 10 RENDITIONS OF HER CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT. ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN OUTLINED IN OUR TRIAL BRIEF. MILLS: INVARIABLY THE ONE MOST CITED IS THE ONE LEAST FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT. BUT EVEN IN THAT VERSION, THE ONE THAT IS LEAST FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT, NO ONE CLAIMS HE ORDERED, SUGGESTED, OR EVEN HINTED THAT ANYONE OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. AT MOST, THE PRESIDENT SAYS: LET ME THINK ABOUT IT. THAT IS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NINE OTHER VERSIONS. SOME OF THE OTHER VERSIONS, WHICH I HAVE NEVER HEARD OFFERED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, VERSIONS THAT MAYBE YOU, TOO, HAVE NEVER HEARD, ARE THE ONES THAT PUT THE LIE TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGATION. LET'S LOOK AT EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH IS IN YOUR MATERIALS. 16:25:29 YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS VERSION OF THEIR CONVERSATION, AND THIS IS MS. LEWINSKY SPEAKING. 16:25:39 "IT WAS DECEMBER 28 AND I WAS THERE TO GET MY CHRISTMAS GIFTS FROM HIM. AND WE SPENT MAYBE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES OR SO, NOT VERY LONG, TALKING ABOUT THE CASE. AND I SAID TO HIM, 'WELL, DO YOU THINK I SHOULD' -- I DON'T THINK I SAID GET RID OF -- I SAID, 'BUT DO YOU THINK I SHOULD PUT AWAY OR MAYBE GIVE TO BETTY OR GIVE TO SOMEONE THE GIFTS?' AND HE -- I DON'T REMEMBER HIS RESPONSE. IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE, 'I DON'T KNOW,' OR, 'HMM,' OR THERE WAS REALLY NO RESPONSE."MILLS: YOU ALSO MAY NOT HAVE HEARD THIS VERSION, AND THIS IS A JUROR SPEAKING -- A GRAND JUROR SPEAKING TO MS. LEWINSKY.THE JUROR: "NOW, DID YOU BRING UP BETTY'S NAME, OR DID THE PRESIDENT BRING UP BETTY'S NAME," AND THIS IS AT THE MEETING ON THE 28TH.MS. LEWINSKY: "I THINK I BROUGHT IT UP. THE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT UP BETTY'S NAME, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T -- HE REALLY DIDN'T DISCUSS IT."AND YOU PROBABLY HAVE NOT HEARD THIS VERSION. LEWINSKY ADVISED THAT CLINTON WAS SITTING IN A ROCKING CHAIR IN THE STUDY. LEWINSKY ASKED CLINTON, WHAT SHOULD I DO WITH THE GIFTS CLINTON HAD GIVEN HER, AND HE EITHER DID NOT RESPOND, OR RESPONDED, "I DON'T KNOW."LEWINSKY IS NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID, BUT SHE IS CERTAIN THAT WHATEVER CLINTON SAID, SHE HAD NO CLEAR IMAGE IN HER MIND OF WHAT TO DO NEXT. 16:27:14 WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THESE VERSIONS? BECAUSE THEY WEAKEN AN ALREADY FRAGILE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE. 16:27:24 MILLS: IF MS. LEWINSKY SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T RESPOND AT ALL, THEN THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THEORY, EVEN UNDER THEIR VERSION OF EVENTS. SO, THESE VERSIONS GET DISCARDED TO ENSURE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS' BIG PICTURE DOESN'T GET CLUTTERED BY ALL THOSE DETAILS. IT'S THOSE FACTS, THOSE STUBBORN FACTS THAT JUST DON'T FIT. BUT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DETAIL THE MANAGERS DISCARD, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT, IS THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY. THE PRESIDENT TESTIFIED THAT HE TOLD MS. LEWINSKY THAT SHE HAD TO GIVE THE JONES' LAWYERS WHATEVER GIFTS SHE HAD. WHY -- AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS PREDICTED WE WOULD ASK, BECAUSE IT IS A QUESTION THAT BEGS TO BE ASKED -- WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT GIVE MS. LEWINSKY GIFTS IF HE WANTED HER TO GIVE THEM RIGHT BACK? THE ONLY REAL EXPLANATION IS HE TRULY WAS, AS HE TESTIFIED, UNCONCERNED ABOUT THE GIFTS. THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THIS GIFT GIVING WAS A SHOW OF CONFIDENCE, THAT HE KNEW MS. LEWINSKY WOULD CONCEAL THEM. MILLS: BUT THEN WHY, UNDER THEIR THEORY, ASK MISS CURRIE TO GO PICK THEM UP? WHY NOT KNOW THAT MISS LEWINSKY IS JUST GOING TO CONCEAL THEM? BETTER STILL, WHY NOT JUST SHOW HER THE GIFTS AND TELL HER TO COME BY AFTER THE SUBPOENA DATE HAS PASSED? IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ENTIRELY UNDERMINE THE HOUSE MANAGERS' THEORY OF ON INSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. BUT LET'S CONTINUE WITH THEIR VERSION OF EVENTS. THAT ANSWER, THE LET-ME- THINK-ABOUT-IT ANSWER, THAT ANSWER LED TO ACTION. LATER THAT DAY, MS. LEWINSKY GOT A CALL AT 3:32 P.M. FROM MS. CURRIE WHO SAID, I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE ME OR THE PRESIDENT SAID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE ME. IT WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO INITIATED THE RETRIEVAL OF THE GIFTS AND THE CONCEALMENT OF THE EVIDENCE. HERE IS WHERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DRAMATICALLY SHORTCHANGED THE TRUTH. BECAUSE THE WHOLE TRUTH DEMANDS THAT MISS CURRIE'S TESTIMONY BE PRESENTED FAIRLY. IN TELLING THEIR STORY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE TESTIMONY BETWEEN MS. LEWINSKY AND MS. CURRIE. MILLS: BUT THEY STRIVE MIGHTILY -- THEY STRIVE MIGHTILY TO GET YOU TO DISREGARD MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY BY TELLING YOU THAT HER MEMORY ON THE ISSUE OF HOW SHE CAME TO PICK UP THE GIFTS WAS FUZZY -- FUZZY. IN PARTICULAR, MANAGER HUTCHINSON TOLD YOU "I WILL CONCEDE THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE TESTIMONY ON THIS POINT WITH MS. CURRIE." MS. CURRIE IN HER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY HAD A FUZZY MEMORY -- A LITTLE DIFFERENT RECOLLECTION. SHE TESTIFIED THAT THE BEST SHE COULD REMEMBER, MS. LEWINSKY CALLED HER, BUT WHEN SHE WAS ASKED FURTHER, SHE SAID THAT MAYBE MS. LEWINSKY'S MEMORY IS BETTER THAN HERS ON THAT ISSUE. THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE ABOUT MS. CURRIE. THAT'S NOT PLAYING FAIR BY MS. CURRIE. IT'S NOT PLAYING FAIR BY THE FACTS. WHY? BECAUSE MS. CURRIE WAS ASKED ABOUT WHO INITIATED THE GIFT PICKUP FIVE TIMES. HER ANSWER EACH TIME WAS UNEQUIVOCAL FIVE TIMES. FROM THE FIRST FBI INTERVIEW JUST DAYS AFTER THE STORY BROKE IN THE MEDIA, TO HER LAST GRAND JURY APPEARANCE, MS. CURRIE REPEATEDLY AND UNWAVERINGLY TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS MS. LEWINSKY WHO CONTACTED HER ABOUT THE GIFTS. MILLS: HER MEMORY ON THIS ISSUE IS CLEAR. WHAT DOES SHE SAY? LET'S LOOK AT EXHIBIT 3. 16:31:57 THE FIRST TIME SHE'S ASKED. LEWINSKY CALLED CURRIE AND ADVISED SHE HAD TO RETURN ALL GIFTS CLINTON HAD GIVEN TO LEWINSKY AS THERE WAS TALK GOING AROUND ABOUT THE GIFTS. SECOND TIME. MONICA SAID SHE WAS GETTING CONCERNED AND SHE WANTED TO GIVE ME THE STUFF THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN HER, OR GIVE ME A BOX OF STUFF. IT WAS A BOX OF STUFF. THIRD TIME. AND THIS WAS A PROSECUTOR ASKING MISS CURRIE THE QUESTIONS: "PROSECUTOR: JUST TELL US FOR A MOMENT HOW THIS ISSUE FIRST AROSE AND WHAT YOU DID ABOUT IT AND WHAT MS. LEWINSKY TOLD YOU. "MISS CURRIE: THE BEST I REMEMBER IT FIRST AROSE WITH CONVERSATION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OVER THE PHONE OR IN PERSON. I'M NOT -- I DON'T KNOW. SHE ASKED ME IF I WOULD PICK UP A BOX. SHE SAID ISIKOFF HAD BEEN INQUIRING ABOUT THE GIFTS." FOURTH TIME. "THE BEST I REMEMBER SHE SAID SHE WANTED ME TO HOLD THESE GIFTS, HOLD THIS -- SHE MAY HAVE SAID GIFTS. I'M SURE SHE SAID GIFTS, BOX OF GIFTS, I DON'T REMEMBER, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE ASKING QUESTIONS, AND I SAID, FINE." FIFTH TIME. "THE BEST I REMEMBER IS MONICA CALLS ME AND ASKS ME IF SHE CAN GIVE ME SOME GIFTS, IF I'D PICK UP SOME GIFTS FOR HER." 16:33:07 MILLS: INDEED, THE LAST TIME, THE FIFTH TIME, WHEN A GRAND JUROR COMPLETELY MISSTATED MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY REGARDING HOW THE GIFT EXCHANGE WAS INITIATED, BY SUGGESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD DIRECTED HER TO PICK UP THE GIFTS, MS. CURRIE WAS QUICK TO CORRECT THE JUROR. 16:33:26 THIS IS GRAND JUROR SPEAKING: "MS. CURRIE, I WANT TO COME BACK FOR SECOND TO THE BOX OF GIFTS AND HOW THEY CAME TO BE IN YOUR POSSESSION. AS I RECALL YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY THE OTHER DAYS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO TELEPHONE MS. LEWINSKY. "IS THAT CORRECT?" "PARDON? THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME TO TELEPHONE MISS LEWINSKY?" THE JUROR: "IS THAT CORRECT." MS. CURRIE: "ABOUT?" THE JUROR: "ABOUT THE BOX OF GIFTS. I'M TRYING TO RECALL AND UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THE BOX OF GIFTS CAME TO BE IN YOUR POSSESSION." MS. CURRIE: "I DON'T RECALL THE PRESIDENT ASKING ME TO CALL ABOUT A BOX OF GIFTS." THE JUROR: "HOW DID YOU COME TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE BOX OF GIFTS?" MS. CURRIE: "THE BEST I REMEMBER, MISS LEWINSKY CALLS ME AND ASKS ME IF SHE CAN GIVE ME SOME GIFTS -- IF I'D PICK UP SOME GIFTS FOR HER." THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE WAS CLEAR FIVE TIMES, EVERY TIME SHE WAS ASKED. MILLS: WHAT, THEN, ARE THE MANAGERS TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY SAY THAT MS. CURRIE CONCEDED THAT MS. LEWINSKY MIGHT HAVE A BETTER MEMORY THAN HERSELF ON THIS ISSUE? THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THAT WAS WHETHER SHE, MS. CURRIE, HAD TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT SHE HAD PICKED UP THE BOX OF GIFTS FROM MS. LEWINSKY. LET'S PUT IT IN CONTEXT. AFTER BEING ASKED THE SAME QUESTION FOR THE FOURTH TIME, AND REITERATING FOR THE FOURTH TIME THAT MS. LEWINSKY CONTACTED HER ABOUT THE GIFTS, THE PROSECUTOR ASKED MS. CURRIE, "WELL, WHAT IF MS. LEWINSKY SAID THAT MS. CURRIE SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT RECEIVING THE GIFTS FROM MS. LEWINSKY?" MS. CURRIE RESPONDS, "THEN SHE MAY REMEMBER BETTER THAN I. I DON'T REMEMBER." NOT ONCE DID MS. CURRIE EQUIVOCATE ON THE CENTRAL FACT MS. LEWINSKY ASKED HER TO RETRIEVE THE GIFTS. THE PRESIDENT TESTIFIED CONSISTENT WITH MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY THAT HE NEVER ASKED MS. CURRIE TO RETRIEVE THE GIFTS FROM MS. LEWINSKY. MILLS: SO WHY IS MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY DISTORTED AND DISCOUNTED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS? THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO MAKE ONE OF THE MOST AWESOME DECISIONS THE CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATES. THEY OWE YOU, THEY OWE THE PRESIDENT, THE OWE THE CONSTITUTION, THEY OWE BETTY CURRIE, AN ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS. BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT SUPPOSEDLY CORROBORATING CELL PHONE CALL FROM BETTY CURRIE TO MONICA LEWINSKY ON DECEMBER 28? THE MANAGERS HIGHLIGHTED THIS CALL, WHICH THEY CLAIM IS THE CALL IN WHICH MS. CURRIE TOLD MS. LEWINSKY THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD SHE HAD SOMETHING FOR HER, THE GIFTS. THIS, THEY SAY, IS THE LYNCH PIN THAT CLOSES THE DEAL ON THEIR VERSION OF THE FACTS. WHAT THE MANAGERS DOWNPLAY, AS MR. RUFF DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, IS THE FACT THAT THIS CALL TO ARRANGE THE PICKUP OF THE GIFTS COMES AFTER THE TIME MS. LEWINSKY REPEATEDLY TESTIFIED THAT THE GIFTS WERE PICKED UP BY MS. CURRIE. IN CITING THE CELL PHONE RECORD AS CORROBORATION, THEY ALSO DISREGARD MS. CURRIE'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE PICKED UP THE GIFTS LEAVING FROM WORK ON HER WAY HOME. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FROM WASHINGTON TO ARLINGTON. THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH A CALL FROM ARLINGTON. MILLS: MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, THE MANAGERS PURPOSELY AVOIDED TELLING YOU ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE CALL. AS MR. RUFF POINTED OUT YESTERDAY, THE CALL IS FOR ONE MINUTE, OR LESS. ACCORDING TO MS. LEWINSKY'S OWN TESTIMONY WHEN SHE SPOKE TO MS. CURRIE TO ARRANGE THE GIFT PICK-UP, THEY TALKED ABOUT OTHER MATTERS AS WELL AS THE BOX. THEY HAD A CONVERSATION. THAT'S A LOT OF TALK. "I HAVE A BOX, WHEN CAN YOU COME PICK IT UP, WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO MEET YOU," OTHER CHITCHAT -- THAT'S A LOT OF TALK FOR A CALL THAT LASTS ONE MINUTE OR LESS. IT'S ALL BUT INCONCEIVABLE THAT ALL THIS TOOK PLACE IN THE CALL. SINCE MS. LEWINSKY -- SINCE MS. CURRIE PLACED A CALL TO MS. LEWINSKY

THE LATEST INFORMATION ON THE FATAL WRECK ON I-65 NEAR COLUMBIA, TENNESSEE THAT KILLED TWO YOUNG GIRLS AS THEIR PARENTS WATCHED.

MARK CURRY, HOST, INTRODUCES MC LYTE

FTG OF PRESSER, NEWSER, PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE INDIANAPOLIS HOME EXPLOSION INVESTIGATION (MISSING TOP OF FEED) A deadly home explosion on Indianapolis' south side is now being investigated as a homicide, a source tells RTV6. The Nov. 10 blast that killed two people and leveled several homes in the Richmond Hill subdivision is now a criminal homicide investigation, and could be considered a capital crime, the source said. Interim Indianapolis Police Chief Rick Hite told RTV6 that investigators are still interviewing people and that no one was in custody as of 5 p.m. Monday. A community meeting was called for 6 p.m. to update residents about the investigation. Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry and Indianapolis Department of Homeland Security Chief Gary Coons are expected will address the media at 6:30 p.m., which will be streamed live on TheIndyChannel.com. Monserrate Shirley and her boyfriend, Mark Leonard, who lived in the home that exploded at 8349 FieldFare Way, along with Shirley's 12-year-old daughter, were visiting a Lawrenceburg casino at the time of the blast. Their neighbors, John and Jennifer Longworth, were killed. Their funeral was held Monday.

TAPE: EF02/0441 IN_TIME: 23:23:59 DURATION: 2:52 SOURCES: APTN/POOL RESTRICTIONS: DATELINE: Bagram/Kabul - 24 May 2002 SHOTLIST: POOL Bagram 1. Wide of briefing 2. Cutaway reporters 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Lieutenant Colonel Ben Curry, Royal Marines spokesman: "A few further details following the attack on the Brigade Reconnaissance Force observation post in the Khost area yesterday. We can confirm now that there were three cars, the first was a Toyota estate car that had five occupants at a distance of approximately 250 metres from the Brigade Reconnaissance Force position members of the car opened fire with approximately ten rounds. The Brigade Reconnaissance Force (BRF) patrol returned fire and claimed they saw two of the occupants were hit. Two further vehicles approached, one was an SUV and the other was an estate vehicle. The BRF did not engage these vehicles further and they observed that at least two of the people were dragged towards one of the two other vehicles. The BRF patrol remained in situ until they were ordered to withdraw and were then extracted by a United Kingdom helicopter back here to Bagram where they still remain in debrief." 4. Cutaway press and military personnel 5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Lieutenant Colonel Ben Curry, Royal Marines spokesman: "There was not a huge firefight, these are some of the most experienced members of the Brigade and they would have returned fire appropriately. As a mark of that they did not engage the other two vehicles, they posed no threat to them so they didn't engage" 6. Wide of briefing APTN Kabul 7. Wide of British International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters 8. Set up for Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Wildman, British International Security and Assistance Force spokesperson 9. SOUNDBITE (English) Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Wildman, British International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) spokesperson: "I'm pleased to say that today the UN mandate has been extended for another six months. As from the twentieth of June, which is good news. However the mandate won't be extended beyond Kabul. ISAF's remit will still remain within the confines of Kabul. The reason for this is we are training up the security forces within Afghanistan, to assume their own responsibility for the whole of Afghanistan and we feel the best way of doing this is to leave them with the responsibility for security outside Kabul." 10. Union (British) flag 11. ISAF vehicle leaving for patrol 12. Various of the Royal Anglicans brigade driving through west Kabul 13. Various of Royal Anglicans brigade patrolling streets in west Kabul STORYLINE: Twelve members of an elite British reconnaissance team in Afghanistan returned fire after they were shot at by gunmen in the eastern Afghan region of Khost on Thursday morning, according to the British military. Lieutenant Colonel Ben Curry, the Royal Marines spokesman, described the incident during a briefing at Bagram airbase on Friday. He said members of the Brigade Reconnaissance Force of the Royal Marines, came under fire from the occupants of a Toyota car while manning an observation post. The soldiers returned fire, reportedly killing or wounding two men, who were then removed by a further two vehicles. The British soldiers were airlifted to Bagram airbase. It was not known the identity of the gunmen involved in the firefight, the first attack of its kind on the Marines involved in Taskforce Jacana. Meanwhile the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously on Thursday to keep international troops in Kabul for another six months, but rejected pleas from Afghanistan's leaders to expand the force throughout the country. The US sponsored resolution extends the authorisation for the nearly 4,500-member International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) after its initial six-month mandate ends on June 20.

PEOPLE LEARY OF TODAY'S ECONOMY ARE PURCHASING GOLD AND RARE COINS IN COLORADO.

HOST MARK CURRY INTRODUCES MINT CONDITION

MARK CURRY INTRODUCES STEVE MITCHELL