TRENT LOTT REAX
00:00:00:00 - [Republicans react to Congress passing of an 800billion tax bill at presser;includes Majority leader Senator Trent Lott, (R-GA) Senator Paul Coverdell, and (R-TX) Senator Kay Bailey Hutc ...
UNITED STATES SENATE 1300 - 1400
THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AGAINST PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON CONTINUES IN THE SENATE. THE SENATE MEETS IN TRIAL MODE TO HEAR THE MOTIONS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS. REPRESENTATIVE ED BRYANT ARGUES ON SENATE FLOOR. 13:00:00 HOUR 12:59:33 CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST OPENS. SENATE CHAPLAIN LLODY OGILVIE OPENS W/ PRAYER. PROCLAMATION IS AL REHNQUIST: The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment. The chaplain will offer a prayer. OGILVIE: Gracious God, these days here in the Senate are filled with crucial issues, differences on solutions, and eventually a vital vote in this impeachment trial. We begin this day's session with a question that you asked King Solomon, ask what shall I give you? We empathize with Solomon's response. He asked for an understanding heart. We are moved by the more precise translation of the Hebrew words for understanding heart, meaning a hearing heart. Solomon wanted to hear a word from you, Lord, for the perplexities that he faced. He longed for the gift of wisdom so that he could have answers and directions for his people. We are moved by your response. "See, I have given you a wise and listening heart." I pray for nothing less as your answer for the women and men of this Senate. Help them to listen to your guidance, and grant them wisdom for their decisions. All through our history as a nation, you have made good men and women great when they humbled themselves, confessed their need for your wisdom and listened intently to you. OGILVIE: Speak, Lord, we need to hear your voice. We are listening. Amen. (UNKNOWN): Amen. REHNQUIST: The senators will be seated. The sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States. REHNQUIST: If there's no objection, the journal of proceedings of the trial are approved to date. The majority leader is recognized. 13:06:42 SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT (R-MISS) OUTLINES THE DAILY PROCEEDINGS W/ AID FROM MINORITY LEADER TOM DASCHLE LOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. If I could take just a moment to outline how the proceedings will go this afternoon, I think that would answer any questions that senators may have. We will, of course, continue the consideration of articles of impeachment. I'm not aware of any objections made during the depositions which would require motions to resolve. Therefore, I believe the House managers are prepared to go forward with a motion that would have three parts. The first would allow for the introduction of the depositions into evidence. The second would call Monica Lewinsky as a witness. And the third part would allow for a presentation period by the parties for not to extend six hours. This motion would be debated by the House managers and the White House counsel for not to exceed two hours. In addition, it's my understanding that Senator Daschle intends to offer a motion that would provide for going directly to the articles of impeachment for a vote. DASCHLE: Would the majority leader ... LOTT: I'd be glad to yield to Senator Daschle. DASCHLE: The motion will allow for closing arguments, final deliberations and then the motions on the two articles. LOTT: Having said that, Mr. Chief Justice, in order the managers to prepare a debate for the motions, I ask unanimous consent that the House managers and the White House counsel be allowed to make reference to oral depositions during their debate on pending motions. REHNQUIST: Is there any objection? In the absence of objection, it's so ordered. LOTT: Consequently, four votes then would occur in the 4 pm timeframe today with respect to these four motions. We will take at least one break, maybe two between now and then and that will determine exactly when that series of votes would occur. And once we begin the process of offering and debating the motions, you know, we'll make a determination as exactly when those breaks would occur. In addition, if the motion for addition presentation time is agreed to by the Senate, it would be my intention to adjourn the trial after today's deliberations over until Saturday for the parties to make their preparations, then to present their presentation of evidence on Saturday. LOTT: The trial would then resume on Monday at 12 noon for the closing arguments of the parties. Again, I would remind all my colleagues to please remain standing at their desks when the chief justice enters the chamber and leaves the chamber. I thank my colleagues for their attention and I believe we're ready to proceed, Mr. Chief Justice. 13:09:18 SEARGEANT-AT-ARMS & REHNQUIST RECGONIZES HOUSE MANAGER CONGRESSMAN BILL MCCOLLUM (R-FLA). REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager McCollum. MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chief Justice, I have a motion to be delivered to the Senate. REHNQUIST: The clerk will read the motion. CLERK: "Motion of the United States House of Representatives for the admission of evidence, the appearance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Now comes the United States House of Representatives by and through its duly authorized managers and respectfully submits to the United States Senate its motion for the admission of evidence, the appearance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence in connection with the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States. The House moves that the transcriptions and videotapes of the oral depositions taken pursuant to Senate Resolution 30, from the point that each witness is sworn to testify under oath to the end of any direct response to the last question posed by a party, be admitted into evidence. The House further moves that the Senate authorize and issue a subpoena for the appearance of Monica S. Lewinsky before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed eight hours. And in connection with the examination of that witness, the House requests that either party be able to examine the witness as if that witness were declared adverse. That counsel for the president and counsel for the House managers be able to participate in the examination of that witness and that the House be entitled to reserve a portion of its examination time to reexamine the witness following any examination by the president. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: The House further moves that the parties be permitted to present before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed a total of six hours, equally divided. All of portions of the parts of the video tapes of the oral depositions of Monica S. Lewinsky, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., and Sidney Blumenthal admitted into evidence. And that the House be entitled to reserve a portion of its' presentation time. 13:11:22 MOTION BY LOTT & QUORUM CALL. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader. LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I understand that the pending motion is divisible. And as is my right, I ask that the motion be divided in the following manner. That paragraph -- the first paragraph be considered to be division one. The second paragraph be considered division two. The final paragraph to be considered division three. REHNQUIST: The motion -- it will be divided in the manner indicated by the majority leader. LOTT: I yield the floor. DASCHLE: Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest the absence of a quorum. REHNQUIST: The clerk will call the roll. 13:12:02 graphic w/ eagle symbol reading quorum call. (QUORUM CALL) 13:12:45 LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice? REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader. LOTT: I ask the consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. REHNQUIST: Is there any objection? LOTT: And ... REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it (OFF-MIKE) LOTT : ... Mr. Chief Justice, I identified this as the first paragraph to be considered division one. Actually, it should be the second paragraph would be division one, third paragraph division two, and the fourth paragraph would be division three. I want that clarification. Also, so that both sides will understand, the motion -- there's one motion, but we've divided it into three parts. So there will only be two hours equally divided, one on each side; not two hours equally divided on each one of the three divisions. We had one clarification, I believe we have cleared up, and I believe now we're ready to hear from the managers, Mr. Chief Justice. 13:13:28 REHNQUIST RECOGNIZES MCCOLLUM DISCUSSION OF VIDEO DEPOSITIONS AND OTHER EVIDENCE INCLUDING DESIRE FOR WITNESS MONICA LEWINSKY TO APPEAR LIVE. REHNQUIST ... well. The chair recognizes Mr. Manager McCollum. MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chief Justice. As the first one up here today, I have to fiddle with the microphone I guess. It's sort of like testing and I apologize. Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Senate, what we have presented to you today is a three part motion, as Mr. Lott has described it and as you heard read to you. MCCOLLUM: We would like very much, as we always have, to have all of the witnesses presented here live as we would normally have in a trial, as the House has always believed that it should have. We came before you a few days recognizing the reality of that and went forward with your procedures to request, not five, not six, not 12, but three witnesses be deposed so that we might be able to, in the discovery process you've allowed us, to gain the depositions of those three witnesses. Today, we're before you with motions first, to enter those depositions and the video recordings of those depositions, into evidence formally for your consideration because they've now been accomplished. Secondly, to request that you provide us with the opportunity to examine Monica Lewitness (ph) -- Lewinsky live here as a witness on the floor of the Senate and for you to allow us to present the other two depositions to you in some format. MCCOLLUM: And if you do not allow us the permission to have Ms. Lewinsky live here to examine as a witness, to allow us to present any or all portions of the depositions of all three of them. Now, I think that it's imminently fair that we be allowed to present at least one witness live to you, the central witness in the cast of this entire proceeding, and that's Monica Lewinsky. I'm not here to argue all of that, my principal discussion with you is going to be on the part dealing with just admitting these into evidence. And then my colleagues Mr. Bryant and Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Rogan are going to present some complementary discussion about the entire motion as we go through this. But in the context of all of this, I think we have to recognize a couple of things. One is that live witnesses are preferable whether you have depositions or not. These were discovery depositions. We would have liked to have asked for all of them to be live, but we are recognizing reality by coming down to one today. MCCOLLUM: And the reasons are fairly straightforward. Some of you have had the privilege, and I'm sure you've availed yourself of the opportunity to look at the videotapes of these depositions. And you see that they are indeed what most depositions are. They are discovery. They have long pauses in them. They're not at all like it would be in a trial itself. You don't have the opportunity to fully see or explore with a witness the demeanor, the temperament, the spontaneity, all of those things that you normally get with an exchange. You have the camera simply focused on the witness. You don't get to have the interaction you get in a courtroom. And remember again, that we're dealing here first with your determining whether or not the president committed the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, and then the question of whether or not he should be removed from office. So I believe and we believe as House managers that you should at least let us have Monica Lewinsky here live for both of those reasons. I also want to make comments specifically about just admitting these into evidence. There are two obvious reasons why, beyond the question of whether the witness, a witness should appear live, or whether we should use portions of them in whatever fashion to present to you, that they certainly should be part of the record. MCCOLLUM: It seems self-evident. It is part of what you gave us as the procedure to do. And it would seem to me that it should be a mere formality for me to ask, but I cannot assume anything -- we certainly do not -- that we let these depositions into evidence. And there are two reasons why. One is the historical basis for this. There has to be a record, not only for you, but for the public and for history, of the entire proceeding. There is evidence in these depositions that needs to be a part of the official record. And that evidence is not just the cold transcript, but is also the videotape, with all of -- the limited, albeit not satisfactory, portion of it that you can see and observe, especially if you were to conclude we weren't going to have any live witness here or were not going to allow us to present these depositions. You certainly should allow the depositions to be part of the record and the videotape part of it. MCCOLLUM: It's evidence. It's to be examined. It seems self evident. But the second point is, as you're going to hear more from my colleagues in just a moment, there is new evidence in these depositions. 13:18:04 MCCOLLUM BRIEFLY DISCUSSES NEW EVIDENCE IN DEPOS There's new factual record information that needs to be here for you to decide the guilt or innocence question on the perjury and obstruction of justice charges. One illustration I will give you, and I'm sure my colleagues will give you plenty more, one of them deals with the gift question. We've talked about it a lot out here. Do you recall, with regard to the question of the gifts, the issue is did the president obstruct justice? Did he decide, in the Jones case -- in the Jones court, as a part of his course of conduct of trying to keep from the court the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, to keep the gifts hidden? There is new information in the deposition relative to what happened on the day those gifts were supposedly exchanged between Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie about the telephone call. MCCOLLUM: Again, I'm not going into the details of that. I'll leave that for my colleagues to do, who took the depositions and can tell you about them. The point is, you could enumerate, and they will, new evidence. There is significant relevant new evidence from the Vernon Jordan deposition and from the Sidney Blumenthal deposition. So just on the record alone, just to put the depositions into record, there can be nothing complete about this trial if we don't at least do that -- at least do that. And so with that in mind, having said that and urged you to do that, I will yield to Mr. Bryant at this point in time, to Manager Bryant. 13:19:32 CONGRESSMAN ED BRYANT (R-TENN) REMARKS WHY LEWINSKY SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE SENATE LIVE. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant. BRYANT: Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished colleagues and senators, I would encourage each of you to consider calling Monica Lewinsky as the one live witnesses -- witness -- in this proceeding. BRYANT: Ms. Lewinsky continues to be in her own way an impressive witness. As I spoke to you earlier, she does have a story to tell. After all, no one knows more about the majority of the allegations against the president -- other than, of course, the president himself. At her deposition, she appeared to be a different Monica Lewinsky than the Monica Lewinsky with whom I had met a week earlier. Unlike before, she was not open to discussion or fully responsive to fair inquiry. She didn't volunteer her story. She didn't tell her story. Rather, she was in a -- very guarded in each response and almost protective. Her words were carefully chosen and relatively few. At times, the concepts that she discussed had the familiar ring of another key witness to these proceedings, such as: it wasn't a lie or wasn't false, it was misleading or incomplete; truth is what one believes it is and may be different for different people; truth depends on the circumstances. As we progressed through her deposition Monday, I felt more and more like one of the characters in the classic movie "Witness for the Prosecution." BRYANT: I was Charles Laughton. Ms. Lewinsky was Marlene Dietrich. And the president was Tyrone Power. And if you're familiar with this movie, you'll understand. And if you aren't, you should see the movie. (LAUGHTER) However, there was and there still remains truth in her testimony. Sometimes though, just like the president and now Ms. Lewinsky, it is the literal truth only -- the most restricted and stretched definition one can reach. And we all know that the law frowns upon the manipulations such as this to avoid telling the complete truth. Two, her testimony is clearly tinted and some might even say tainted by a mixture of her continued admiration for the president; her desire to protect him; and her own personal views of right and wrong. BRYANT: And she was well represented in the deposition by some of Washington's finest defense attorneys who had thoroughly prepared her for all questions, as they should have, as well as being present throughout the deposition to assist her. In fact, the senator in charge of this particular deposition had to worn these counsel not to coach and not to whisper to her while she was attempting to answer the questions. If you've seen this deposition, you've witnessed an effective effort by a loyal supporter of the president to provide the very minimum of truth in order to be consistent with her own grand jury testimony, which is legally necessary for her to fulfill the terms of her immunity agreement. On the perjury article of impeachment, she reaffirmed the specific facts which happened between her and the president on more than one occasion, including November 15, 1995, their first encounter when the president's conduct fit squarely within the four corners of the term sexual relationship as defined in the Jones lawsuit. And this is opposition to the president's own sworn testimony of denial. But this is one of the clearest examples of the president's guilt of this charge of perjury. Now, it's not about this twisted definition that the president assigned to the term "sexual relations." BRYANT: Rather it's his word against her word as to whether this specific conduct occurred. Even under his own reading of this definition, he agrees that that specific conduct, if it occurred, would make him guilty of sexual relations within that definition. But he simply says, I did not do that. She says, you did do that. A he said/she said case. But this is why it's important for you to be able to see Ms. Lewinsky in person. In the deposition you will observer her as having to affirm her prior testimony. She had to affirm her prior testimony, because that was what was in the grand jury. And because of this, she could not back away at all on her testimony, and she couldn't bend it here or there and she couldn't shade it in the president's favor. So what you have is a person whom you may well conclude is still wanting to help the president, having to admit to testimony that would do damage to the president -- a very difficult situation for her. But yet this same difficulty lends this portion of her testimony great credibility. BRYANT: With respect to the other article of impeachment on obstruction of justice, her credibility is again bolstered by her reluctance to do legal harm to this president. In the end, though, she does admit that he called her early one morning in December of 1997, actually at 2:00 in the morning, and told her that she was on the witness list, and he told her that she might be able to file an affidavit to avoid testifying. And he told her that she could always use the story that he was -- she was bringing papers to him or coming up to see Ms. Currie. Now, we know that she did not carry papers to him on these visits other than personal, private notes from her to him. And Ms. Lewinsky indicated in the deposition that she didn't carry him official papers, although she did pass along this cover story of carrying papers to her attorney Mr. Carter. She testified also that she discussed the draft affidavit with Mr. Jordan; the changes were made. BRYANT: She offered the president the opportunity to review it. He declined. And according to Ms. Lewinsky, he never suggested any way that she could file a truthful affidavit sufficient to skirt -- avoid having to testify -- this in spite of his answer to this Senate, where he told you that he might have had a way for her to file a truthful affidavit and still avoid testifying in the Jones case. Yes, you can parse the words and you can use legal gymnastics, but you cannot get around the filing of the false affidavit in an effort to avoid appearing in the Jones case and possibly providing damaging testimony against the president. Ms. Lewinsky confirmed positively that Ms. Currie initiated the telephone call to her on December the 28th, 1997, stating words, and this is about the gift -- the gifts: "I understand you have something for me." BRYANT: Then Ms. Currie drove over to Ms. Lewinsky's home and picked up the box of gifts. Now remember, this occurred on the heels of Ms. Lewinsky's conversation with the president that very morning about what she might do with the gifts. Now the only -- the only explanation that the president -- is that the president is directly involved himself in the obstruction of justice by telling Ms. Currie, who otherwise knew nothing about this earlier conversation, to retrieve these items from Ms. Currie -- from Ms. Lewinsky. Now Ms. Lewinsky said there was no doubt that Ms. Currie initiated the call to retrieve the gifts. And also recall that the president's testimony from his side was that this conversation occurred earlier in the day with Ms. Lewinsky but that he had told her that she would have to turn over whatsoever -- whatever gifts that she had. Now, with that advice from the president, it would be totally illogical for Ms. Lewinsky to have then called Ms. Currie that same day and ask her to come pick up and hold these gifts. By calling Ms. Currie, Ms. Lewinsky would have been going against the direct instruction of the president to surrender any and all gifts. BRYANT: The fact, the logic and common sense tell us all that the president's version is not true, and that he obstructed justice here. Ms. Lewinsky also testified at the deposition about the job at Revlon and obtaining a job offer within two days of signing the affidavit. She also denied that she was a stalker, as the president had described her in a conversation with Mr. Blumenthal in January of 1998. She also denied that she threatened the president or attempted to threaten the president into having an affair. She denied that he rebuffed her on the occasion of their first encounter on November 15, 1995. Again, all false statements that the president made to Mr. Blumenthal about her with knowledge that Mr. Blumenthal would be testifying in a grand jury, thereby obstructing justice. BRYANT: Now the former lawyers and judges among us are familiar with what is called the best evidence rule. Stated simply, the court always prefers the best available evidence to be used. In-person testimony is better than a video deposition, which itself is better than the written transcript of a deposition. When all three forms of testimony are available, as they are in this situation, the court will most often require the witness to testify in person, over the video deposition or over the written transcript of the deposition. In closing, I know we all want to work within the Senate rules and we all want to ensure that these proceedings are concluded in a constitutional fashion by the end of next week. 13:29:46 HOUSE MANAGER CONGRESSMAN ED BRYANT (R-TENN) MAKES CASE FOR BRINGING IN LIVE WITNESSES & DISCUSSES VIDEOTAPE DEPOS and further, that we use the two depositions, the video depositions of Mr. Jordan and Mr. Blumenthal, in lieu of their personal attendance. In the event the Senate does not call Ms. Lewinsky, we also ask that we be permitted to use all or portions of her deposition just as we would the other two depositions. And finally, several senators have sent out a letter to the president inviting him to come here and to provide his testimony if he so chooses. In the event he should accept, Ms. Lewinsky likewise should be afforded the same opportunity. They continue to be the two most important and essential witnesses for you and the American people to hear in order to finally -- to finally -- resolve this matter. BRYANT: Permit us all to return to our districts, and you to your states, and tell our constituents that we considered the full and the complete case, including live witnesses, and in your case, made your votes accordingly. At this time I would yield to my colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson. 13:30:52 MANAGER CONGRESSMAN ASA HUTCHINSON SPEAKS & DISCUSSES EXHIBITS AS WELL AS VERNON JORDAN. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutc HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, in an effort to be helpful I've asked the pages to distribute to you some exhibits that I'll be referring to as I consider the testimony that we are presenting to you. There's two aspects to an impeachment trial. There's the truth- seeking responsibility, which is the trial, in my judgment, and then there is the conclusion: The judgment, the verdict, the conviction or the acquittal. And if you look at those two phases of a trial, the latter is totally your responsibility. We leave that completely in your judgment. HUTCHINSON: And if you look at those two pages of the trial, the latter is totally your responsibility. We leave that completely in your judgment. But the first responsibility of the fact finding -- of the truth seeking endeavor -- I feel some responsibility in that regard, and that's -- hopefully our presentation is helpful in seeking the truth. And I know, as Mr. Bryant mentioned, that we all want to bring this matter to a conclusion. We want to see the end of the story. We want to have a final chapter in this national drama. And I understand that and agree with that, but let's not, because we're in a hurry to get to the judgment phase, let's not let that detract, let's not let that shortchange nor diminish the importance of the presentation and consideration of the facts. And that's what, I think, is very important as we consider this motion that's before us. Now, it's my responsibility to talk about Mr. Vernon Jordan and the need for your consideration of his testimony that we have simply -- we have recently deposed. HUTCHINSON: I deposed Mr. Vernon Jordan, Jr. and I would recommend that that be received into evidence as part of the Senate record. I took this deposition under the able guidance of Senator Thompson and Senator Dodd. The questioning took place over almost three hours, with numerous and extraneous objections on behalf of the president's lawyers, most of which were resolved. I believe that the testimony of Mr. Jordan goes to the key element in the obstruction of justice article. And even though it's just one element that we're dealing with, it is a very important element because it goes to the connection between the job search, the benefit provided to a witness, and the solicited false testimony from that witness. HUTCHINSON: I believe the testimony of Mr. Jordan is dramatic in that it shows the control and direction of the president of the United States in the effort to obstruct justice. I believe the testimony of Mr. Jordan provides new evidence supporting the charges of obstruction and verifying the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky. The testimony, in addition, is the most clear discussion of the facts reflecting Mr. Jordan's actions in behalf of the president, and the president's direction and control of the activities of Mr. Jordan, and therefore they support the allegations under the articles of impeachment. Now let me make the case for you. If you have the president of the United States personally directing the effort to obtain a job for Ms. Lewinsky, which is a benefit to a witness, and simultaneously, Ms. Lewinsky is under subpoena as witness in the case; and thirdly, in addition, the president is suggesting means to that witness to avoid truthful testimony, as evidenced by the December 17 conversation and the suggestion of the affidavit, then the collusion that you have a corrupt attempt to impede the administration of justice and the seeking of truth and the facts in a civil rights case. HUTCHINSON: Now, let me go to the testimony of Mr. Jordan. And has that been distributed now? Good. And let me give a caveat here, particularly to my colleagues, the counselors for the president, that this summary of the portions of the testimony of Mr. Jordan are based upon my handwritten notes, and so please don't blow it up in a chart if there is some discrepancy. I believe this is in good faith, accurate, but I do not have a copy of the transcript. HUTCHINSON: I was required to go to a Senate chamber and actually take notes in order to prepare this. But there's a number of areas that I think are relevant and are new information and are very important for your consideration, but let me just touch upon five areas. The first one is the job search and Mr. Jordan being an agent of the president. And in the deposition, Mr. Jordan testified that there is no question but that through Betty Currie, I was acting on behalf of the president to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. He goes on to say, I interpreted the request -- referring from Betty Currie -- as a request from the president. And then he testified that there was no question that he asked me to help -- referring to the president. And that he asked others to help, and I think that is clear from everybody's grand jury testimony. And so, the question as to whether the information and the request came from Betty Currie, or whether it came directly from the president, there is no question but that Mr. Jordan was acting at the request of the president of the United States and no one else. HUTCHINSON: In fact, he goes on to say that the fact is, "I was running the job search, not Ms. Lewinsky. And therefore, the companies that she brought or listed were not of interest to me. I knew where I would need to call." And this is very important. There's been reference, well, he was simply getting a job referral; making a referral for routine employment interview by this person, Ms. Lewinsky. But in fact, it's clear that Mr. Jordan knew who he wanted to contact. He was running the job search as he testified to. And then he testified, question: You're acting on behalf of the president when you are trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a job and you were in control of the job search? The answer is yes. And now -- so that's one area and it's important to establish that he was an agent for the president. Secondly, there was the witness list that came out December 5. HUTCHINSON: The president knew about it, at the latest, on December 6. And yet, he had two meetings with Mr. Jordan on the December 7 and on December 11, and in neither one of those meetings was it disclosed to Mr. Jordan that Monica Lewinsky was a witness. And I'm referring to the second page of the exhibits I've handed from you. Then which, Mr. Jordan testified to that effect. Question: And on either of these conversations I have referenced that you had with the president after the witness list came out, your conversation on December 7 and your conversation sometime after the 11th, did the president tell you that Ms. Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Jones case? Answer: He did not. Question: Would you have expected the president to tell you if he had reason to believe that Ms. Lewinsky would be called as a witness in the Paula Jones case? Answer: That would have been helpful. Question: So, it would have been helpful and it was something you would have expected? Answer: Yes. And even though it would have been helpful, he would have expected the president to tell him that information. HUTCHINSON: It was not disclosed to him. And the -- the materiality, the relevance of that, is that you have the president controlling a job search, knowing that this is a witness in which we're trying to provide a benefit for, and yet the person that he's directing to get the job for Ms. Lewinsky, he fails to tell Mr. Jordan a key fact, that she is in fact a witness, an adverse witness, in that case. And so I think that's an important area of his testimony. The third area: keeping the president informed. Very clear testimony about the development of the job search, the Lewinsky affidavit that was being prepared and the fact that it was signed. On the third page that I've provided to you, Mr. Jordan's testimony: "I was keeping him, the president, informed about what was going on, and so I told him." He goes on further to say: "He" -- referring to the president -- "was obviously interested in it." And then the question I believe was: What did you tell the president when the affidavit was signed? HUTCHINSON: And his answer, "Mr. President, she signed the affidavit. She signed the affidavit." And so was there any connection between the job benefit that was provided and the affidavit that was signed in reference to her testimony? Clearly, it was something -- the president not only directed the job search, but he was clearly interested, obviously concerned, receiving regular reports about the affidavit. And then the fourth area is the information at the Park Hyatt that was developed. Now, to lay the stage for this -- and I'll do this very briefly -- if you look at page four, you see the previous testimony of Mr. Jordan before the grand jury in March. And that time, the question was asked to him, "Did you ever have breakfast or any meal for that matter with Monica Lewinsky at the Park Hyatt?" His answer was no. It was not equivocal, it was indubitably no. And he was further asked, you know, he testified "I have never had breakfast with Monica Lewinsky." HUTCHINSON: And then on page five, he goes on in the May 28th grand jury testimony: "Did you at any time have any kind of a meal at the Park Hyatt with Monica Lewinsky?" His answer is "no." And so that sets the stage because in Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, as evidenced by page six of your exhibits, she testified in August, after the last time Mr. Jordan testified, very clearly about this meeting on December 31st at the Park Hyatt with Mr. Jordan where they had breakfast. And the discussion was about Linda Tripp. And then the discussion went to the notes from the president, and she said "no, it was notes from me to the president." And Mr. Jordan told her, according to her testimony, "go home and make sure they're not there." That is Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. It was important to ask Mr. Jordan about this, and I assumed that we would of course get simply a denial, sticking with the previous grand jury testimony that unequivocally no, that meeting never happened; we never had breakfast at the Hyatt. HUTCHINSON: On page seven, you will notice that Ms. Lewinsky, in her testimony, specifically identified even what they had for breakfast. And so, the investigation required us to go out and get the receipt at the Park Hyatt, which is page eight. And the receipt showed that there was a charge on December 31 by Mr. Jordan that included every item for breakfast that corroborated the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky as to her memory; that is, the omelet they had for breakfast. And so, it's tightening here. The evidence is becoming more clear, unequivocal but that this meeting occurred. And so, we had to ask this to Mr. Jordan, and this is page nine. And of course I presented the Park Hyatt receipt. I presented the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and his testimony, which is page nine: "It is clear, based on the evidence here, that I was at the Park Hyatt on December 31st, so I do not deny, despite my testimony before the grand jury, that on December 31st, that I was there with Ms. Lewinsky. But I did testify before the grand jury that I did not remember having a breakfast with her on that date, and that was the truth." HUTCHINSON: But what amazed me was as you go through the questions with him, all of a sudden, he remembered the breakfast, but all of a sudden he remembered the conversation in which he, before said it never happened at all. And his testimony was, when asked about the notes, "I am certain that Ms. Lewinsky talked to me about the notes." And so I think there's a number of relevant points here. First of all, you reflect back on the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky in this same deposition, in which she was asked the question: Getting Mr. Jordan's approval was basically the same as getting the president's approval. HUTCHINSON: Her answer: "Yes." And so that's how Ms. Lewinsky viewed this, and this is what was told to her at this meeting on Park Hyatt. And it goes to the credibility, it goes to what happened, it goes to the obstruction of justice, it is extraordinarily relevant, it is new information, it is what was developed because this Senate granted us the opportunity to take this further deposition of Mr. Jordan and the other witnesses. And there's other, you know, the fifth point is that it goes to -- the testimony goes to the interconnection between the job help and the testimony that was being solicited from Ms. Lewinsky. And so why is the presentation necessary? Some of you might even think: Well, thank you very much for that explanation you've given to us, now we have all the facts, let's go on and vote. Well, I do think that there is some -- first of all, that this is not all. There's much more there. I just have a moment to develop a portion of Mr. Jordan's testimony that I believe is helpful. HUTCHINSON: But secondly, it tells a story that's never been told before. Now, I went and saw the videotape, and I was underwhelmed by my questioning, because it's just not the same. I thought we had a dynamic exchange. But then when I saw it on videotape, and I'm nowhere to be found, you get to look at Mr. Jordan, a distinguished gentleman. But it's still helpful, notwithstanding the difficulty of a video presentation. And I would respectfully request this body to develop the facts fully, to hear the testimony of Mr. Jordan, to allow him to explain this. It tells a story start to finish on this one aspect of obstruction of justice that is critical to your determination. And so, I would ask your concurrence in the approval of the motion that's been offered to you. 13:45:00 CONGRESSMAN JAMES ROGAN (R-CALIF) ADDRESSES AUDIENCE & DISCUSSES Depositions NAMELY CLINTON FRIEND SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL . And at this time I'd yield to Manager Rogan. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan. ROGAN: Mr. Chief Justice. Members of the Senate, yesterday along with Mr. Manager Graham, I had the privilege of conducting the deposition of Sidney Blumenthal, assistant to the president. ROGAN: That deposition was presided over by the senior senator from Pennsylvania and the junior senator from North Carolina and on behalf of the House managers, and I'm also sure, White House counsel. We thank them for the able job that they did. This deposition must be played for members of the United States Senate. And if one senator has failed to personally sit through this deposition and every deposition, that senator is not equipped to render a verdict on the impeachment trial of the president of the United States. Now, I will address very briefly just a couple of the reasons why I believe that Mr. Blumenthal's deposition warrants being played before this body. But to do it, it needs to be put in perspective. Remember what the president of the United States testified to on the day he was sworn in as a witness before the grand jury. ROGAN: He said that in dealing with his aides he knew that there was a potential that they could become witnesses before the grand jury and that is why he told them the truth. That is the president's own word, the truth. Mr. Blumenthal's deposition paints a totally different picture and gives a terribly different interpretation of what the president was doing in passing along false stories to his aides. Now, we've been treated to a number of euphemisms by the distinguished White House counsel during this presentation as to what the president was doing during his grand jury. They have described his testimony as maddening. They've described his testimony as misleading and unfortunate. ROGAN: But the one thing they've never described it as is a lie. Mr. Blumenthal gave a totally different take on that, because he testified under oath that upon reflection, he believes the president was not maddening to him. The president lied to him. And he testified so for a very good reason. Remember Sidney Blumenthal testified three times before the grand jury in 1998. He testified in February and twice in June. But that testimony was in a vacuum because each time he testified before the grand jury, we were still in a national state of at least presumptorily believing that the president had told the truth. The president had made an emphatic denial as to the Monica Lewinsky story. There was no physical evidence presented to the FBI lab at the time Mr. Blumenthal testified. And Monica Lewinsky was not cooperating with the grand jury. So we know that certain questions were not asked of him during his grand jury testimony because of the status of the facts as we thought they were. ROGAN: But Mr. Blumenthal shed some incredible new light on the testimony that we received yesterday from him. He said, first of all, after I was subpoenaed, but before I testified before the grand jury, once in February and twice in June, with the president knowing he was about to be a witness before the grand jury, a criminal grand jury investigation, the president never came to him and said, Mr. Blumenthal, before you go and provide information in a criminal grand jury investigation, I need to recant the false stories I told you about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. ROGAN: And he testified about those false stories. He corroborated his own testimony from earlier proceedings. You will recall from the record that the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke in the national press, Mr. Blumenthal was called to the Oval Office by the president. The door was closed. They were alone. And this is what the president told Sidney Blumenthal about the revelations that were breaking that day on the national press wires. He said that Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me. ROGAN: The president said he rebuffed her. He said I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again. The president said Monica Lewinsky threatened him. She said she would tell people they had an affair. That she was known as the stalker among her colleagues and that she hated it. And that if she had an affair or said she had an affair, then she wouldn't be the stalker any more and the testimony goes on. You're all familiar with it at this point. The president of the United States allowed his aide to appear three times before a federal grand jury conducting a criminal investigation The president of the United States allowed his aide to three times before a federal grand jury conducting a criminal investigation and never once did the president of the United States inform that aide before providing that information to the investigatory body, never once asked the aide -- or told the aide that that was false information. Mr. Blumenthal's testimony demonstrates that the president of the United States used a White House aide as a conduit for false information before the grand jury in a criminal investigation. I just want to make one other brief point before I close this presentation, because I think it needs to be said. I am in no position to lecture any of the distinguished members of this body on founders intended in drafting the Constitution. ROGAN: I believe all of us in this room have an abiding respect for that. But there are a couple of points that need to be made. I believe there is a reason the founders drafted a document that allows us the opportunity in every trial proceeding in America to confront and cross-examine live witnesses. It is because that gives the trier of fact the opportunity to gauge the credibility and the demeanor of the witnesses. We've discussed that at length during these proceedings. But one thing we haven't discussed and one thing that I think is important, not from the House managers' perspective, but from the perspective of history and the history that will be written on the ultimate verdict in this case. And that is the idea of open trials. There is a reason why the founders looked askance on the concept of secret trials and closed trials. There is a reason why in every courtroom across the land, trials are open. They are open -- it is an open process. The light of truth is allowed to be shown on the courtroom and from the courtroom because we don't trust the credibility of a verdict if it's done in secret. What will be the verdict on this proceeding if the judgment of this body is based upon testimony and witnesses on videotapes locked in a room somewhere, available only to the triers of fact, without the public being privy to what was made available? Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I would urge you not for the sake of the managers and not for the sake of the presentation of the case, but for the sake of this body and for the verdict of history that will be written, to please allow this to be a public trial in the real sense. If the witnesses will not be brought here live before the Senate, please allow the doors of the Senate to be open so that the testimony upon which each of you must base your verdict will be made available not only to all 100 senators, but will be made available to those who will make the ultimate judgment as to the appropriateness of the verdict -- the American people. 13:53:15 REHNQUIST RECOGNIZES CONGRESSMAN LINDSEY GRAHAM DISCUSSES BLUMENTHAL DEPOSITION & CASE FOR BRINGING IN LEWINSKY LIVE BEFORE CONGRESS. ROGAN: Mr. Chief Justice, at this time I yield to Mr. Manager Graham. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham. GRAHAM: Mr. Chief Justice, how much time do we have remaining? REHNQUIST: You've consumed 37 minutes. You -- your colleagues have, yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, not a whole lot to add, but I would like to recognize this thought, that we've learned a great deal in these depositions, and thank you for letting us have them. We didn't get everything we wanted, I think that's a fair statement, but who does in life? But we do appreciate you giving us the opportunity to explore the testimony of these witnesses, because I think it will be helpful in setting the historical record straight. Mr. Blumenthal, to his credit, said the president of the United States lied to him, the president of the United States did lie to him. The president of the United States in his grand jury testimony denied ever lying to an aide. That will be historically significant, it should be legally significant. Mr. Blumenthal, to his credit, said that the president of the United States tried to paint himself as a victim of Ms. Lewinsky. That will be legally and historically relevant and it will mean a lot in our arguments and it will be something you should consider. This has been a good exercise. Thank you very much for letting us depose these witnesses. I was not at the other two depositions, but I was at Mr. Blumenthal's deposition, and I can assure you we know more now about what the truth is than before we started this process. GRAHAM: And I hope at the end of the day it is our desire to get to the truth that guides us all. We're asking for one live witness, Ms. Lewinsky. And let me tell you, I know how difficult it is to want this to go on, given where everybody is at in the country. Trust me. I want this to end as much as you do. However, there's a signal we're going to send if we don't watch it. We're going to make the independent counsel report the impeachment trial, and I'm not so sure that's what the statute was written for. The key difference between the House and the Senate is that the White House never disputed the facts over in the House. They never disputed the facts. They call 15 witnesses to talk about process and about the interpretations that you would want to put on those facts. In their presentation to the Senate, everything is in dispute. It is totally a different ball game here. That's why we need witnesses, ladies and gentlemen, to clarify who said what, who's being honest, who's not, and what really did happen in this sordid tale. GRAHAM: Ms. Lewinsky comes before us because the allegations arise that the president of the United States, with an intern, had an inappropriate, workplace sexual relationship that was discovered in a lawsuit where he was a defendant. This was not us or anyone else trying to look into the president's private life for political reasons or any other reason. It was a defendant in a lawsuit asking to look at the behavior of the defendant in the workplace, something that goes on every day in courtrooms throughout the country. And is it uncomfortable? GRAHAM: Yes, it is uncomfortable. If you've ever tried a sexual harassment case, an assault case, or a rape case, it is very much uncomfortable to have to listen to these things. But the reason that people are asked to do what you're asked to do by the House managers is that the folks that are involved represent themselves much better than lawyers talking about what happened. And if you find it uncomfortable listening to Ms. Lewinsky, think how juries feel; think how the victims feel; think how somebody like Ms. Jones must feel not to be able to tell the story of the person they're suing. That is a signal that's going to be sent here that would be a devastatingly bad signal. GRAHAM: If we can't stomach to listen to inappropriate sexual conduct, why do we put that burden on anyone else? Give us this witness. We will do it in a professional manner. We will focus on the obstruction. We will try to do it in a way not to demean the Senate. We will try to do it in a way not to demean Ms. Lewinsky. We will try to do it in a way to get to the truth. Please give us a chance to present our case in a persuasive fashion. Because unlike the House, everything is in dispute here. Thank you very much. I yield back and reserve the balance of my time. 13:58:11 REHNQUIST RECOGNIZES WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GREG CRAIG CRAIG OPENING REMARKS. REHNQUIST: The House managers reserve the balance of their time. The chair recognizes counsel for the president, Mr. Craig. CRAIG: Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I've divided my presentation into three parts that fortunately correspond to the three parts of the motion that is before you today. I'd like first to argue against admitting videotape evidence into the record of this trial.
BACKWARDS MILE RACE
The popularity of backwards running can be traced back to the American pioneers of this new and different mode of movement. From the beginning of the century great names such as William Muldoon and Ed Schultz, used backward running in their training regime. In the 1980's backwards running began its real development and gained in popularity. Backwards running could indeed, during the next decade, conquer the world. New medical publications, coming from the States, continue to make therapists, sportsmen and trainers alike aware of this method of running. The benefits are: better oxygenation, it burns one third more calories than forward running; it develops balance, velocity and stamina and works more quadriceps than forward running. It’s also better for your knees and promotes a greater flexibility of the body, reducing the risks of injury. This 2001 race 28 year old Arthur Magni from Boston finishes first in an impressive 7 Minutes and 2 seconds, beating the favorite 32 year old Stefano Morseli, from Italy Not to be outdone, the women’s winner was 6 times champion 30 year old Nadine Steinberger, from New York, finishing in 9:08.
Small hut and big worries
France 5
Direct Aviwest, Guest: Nicolas Dilly, hunter of the Bay of Somme (+off)
Nord
BACKWARD MILE RACE
Backwards Mile "If your feet spend more time on the ground than in the air" you're jogging and "if your feet spend more time in the air than on the ground" you're running, or so it is said. Whether it is cross country or road running, the modern day obsession with this form of exercise has never been stronger. And in the United States fitness is a distinct part of the American Dream and culture. This is where you can pay $250 for a pair of trainers and find athletes and pop star's rubbing shoulders as they jog through central park. Yet it is here in New York that you'll witness hundreds of runners congregated for a very different race. So why are their numbers on their back. UPSOT: DEBBIE DICKSON ORGANISER " This is so they don't get confused, this is the New York Health and Racket Club, the annual April Fools run" And yes they run backwards! Backwards, forwards, what's the difference? Surely it just depends on which way you are facing. UPSOT: MARY WITTENBERG "I think the main thing for most people is to figure out how often to turn around, because if you turn around too often you get dizzy and people fall and break wrists a little too often so you have to be careful." Hundreds of people start backwards running because of its numerous and appreciable benefits UPSOT: ARTHUR MAGNI, COMPETITOR " It's the best form of exercise because you're developing a whole set of muscles you don't normally use, because when you run forward you are developing you hamstrings but this develops your quad, to get the muscles balance. You are running on your toes, so it is much better for your knees and I found that I improved my forward running in addition to feeling strong backwards. So it's a great exercise, it looks goofy but more people should do it, just get beyond the goofiness and do it because it's a great exercise. RACE FOOTAGE. The horn sounds and runners begin their mile long race, full steam ahead. Or more accurately, full steam behind. The popularity of backwards running can be traced back to the American pioneers of this new and different mode of movement. From the beginning of the century great names such as William Muldoon and Ed Schultz, used backward running in their training regime. In the 1980's backwards running began its real development and gained in popularity. Backwards running could indeed, during the next decade, conquer the world. New medical publications, coming from the States, continue to make therapists, sportsmen and trainers alike aware of this method of running. The benefits are: better oxygenation, it burns one third more calories than forward running; it develops balance, velocity and stamina and works more quadriceps than forward running. It's also better for your knees and promotes a greater flexibility of the body, reducing the risks of injury. 28 year old Arthur Magni from Boston finishes first in an impressive 7 Minutes and 2 seconds, beating the favourite 32 year old Stefano Morseli, from Reggiolo, Italy who came in third with a time of 7:31. Not to be outdone, the womens winner was 6 times champion 30 year old Nadine Steinberger, from New York, finishing in 9:08. Meanwhile the rest of the runners were just there to have a little April Fools fun. All the normal race idiosyncrasies are evident, even one chap with a mirror outstretched so he won't have to look around. Perhaps we were never supposed to run backwards after all, otherwise we'd have eyes in the back of our heads, wouldn't we!
UNITED STATES SENATE 1300 - 1400
THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AGAINST PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON CONTINUES IN THE SENATE. THE SENATE MEETS IN TRIAL MODE TO HEAR THE MOTIONS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 13:00:00 12:59:33 CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST OPENS. SENATE CHA LLODY OGILVIE OPENS W/ PRAYER. PROCLAMATION IS AL REHNQUIST: The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment. The chaplain will offer a prayer. OGILVIE: Gracious God, these days here in the Senate are filled with crucial issues, differences on solutions, and eventually a vital vote in this impeachment trial. We begin this day's session with a question that you asked King Solomon, ask what shall I give you? We empathize with Solomon's response. He asked for an understanding heart. We are moved by the more precise translation of the Hebrew words for understanding heart, meaning a hearing heart. Solomon wanted to hear a word from you, Lord, for the perplexities that he faced. He longed for the gift of wisdom so that he could have answers and directions for his people. We are moved by your response. "See, I have given you a wise and listening heart." I pray for nothing less as your answer for the women and men of this Senate. Help them to listen to your guidance, and grant them wisdom for their decisions. All through our history as a nation, you have made good men and women great when they humbled themselves, confessed their need for your wisdom and listened intently to you. OGILVIE: Speak, Lord, we need to hear your voice. We are listening. Amen. (UNKNOWN): Amen. REHNQUIST: The senators will be seated. The sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States. REHNQUIST: If there's no objection, the journal of proceedings of the trial are approved to date. The majority leader is recognized. 13:06:42 SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT (R-MISS) OUTLINES THE DAILY PROCEEDINGS W/ AID FROM MINORITY LEADER TOM DASCHLE LOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. If I could take just a moment to outline how the proceedings will go this afternoon, I think that would answer any questions that senators may have. We will, of course, continue the consideration of articles of impeachment. I'm not aware of any objections made during the depositions which would require motions to resolve. Therefore, I believe the House managers are prepared to go forward with a motion that would have three parts. The first would allow for the introduction of the depositions into evidence. The second would call Monica Lewinsky as a witness. And the third part would allow for a presentation period by the parties for not to extend six hours. This motion would be debated by the House managers and the White House counsel for not to exceed two hours. In addition, it's my understanding that Senator Daschle intends to offer a motion that would provide for going directly to the articles of impeachment for a vote. DASCHLE: Would the majority leader ... LOTT: I'd be glad to yield to Senator Daschle. DASCHLE: The motion will allow for closing arguments, final deliberations and then the motions on the two articles. LOTT: Having said that, Mr. Chief Justice, in order the managers to prepare a debate for the motions, I ask unanimous consent that the House managers and the White House counsel be allowed to make reference to oral depositions during their debate on pending motions. REHNQUIST: Is there any objection? In the absence of objection, it's so ordered. LOTT: Consequently, four votes then would occur in the 4 pm timeframe today with respect to these four motions. We will take at least one break, maybe two between now and then and that will determine exactly when that series of votes would occur. And once we begin the process of offering and debating the motions, you know, we'll make a determination as exactly when those breaks would occur. In addition, if the motion for addition presentation time is agreed to by the Senate, it would be my intention to adjourn the trial after today's deliberations over until Saturday for the parties to make their preparations, then to present their presentation of evidence on Saturday. LOTT: The trial would then resume on Monday at 12 noon for the closing arguments of the parties. Again, I would remind all my colleagues to please remain standing at their desks when the chief justice enters the chamber and leaves the chamber. I thank my colleagues for their attention and I believe we're ready to proceed, Mr. Chief Justice. 13:09:18 SEARGEANT-AT-ARMS & REHNQUIST RECGONIZES HOUSE MANAGER CONGRESSMAN BILL MCCOLLUM (R-FLA). REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager McCollum. MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chief Justice, I have a motion to be delivered to the Senate. REHNQUIST: The clerk will read the motion. CLERK: "Motion of the United States House of Representatives for the admission of evidence, the appearance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Now comes the United States House of Representatives by and through its duly authorized managers and respectfully submits to the United States Senate its motion for the admission of evidence, the appearance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence in connection with the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States. The House moves that the transcriptions and videotapes of the oral depositions taken pursuant to Senate Resolution 30, from the point that each witness is sworn to testify under oath to the end of any direct response to the last question posed by a party, be admitted into evidence. The House further moves that the Senate authorize and issue a subpoena for the appearance of Monica S. Lewinsky before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed eight hours. And in connection with the examination of that witness, the House requests that either party be able to examine the witness as if that witness were declared adverse. That counsel for the president and counsel for the House managers be able to participate in the examination of that witness and that the House be entitled to reserve a portion of its examination time to reexamine the witness following any examination by the president. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: The House further moves that the parties be permitted to present before the Senate for a period of time not to exceed a total of six hours, equally divided. All of portions of the parts of the video tapes of the oral depositions of Monica S. Lewinsky, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., and Sidney Blumenthal admitted into evidence. And that the House be entitled to reserve a portion of its' presentation time. 13:11:22 MOTION BY LOTT & QUORUM CALL. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader. LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I understand that the pending motion is divisible. And as is my right, I ask that the motion be divided in the following manner. That paragraph -- the first paragraph be considered to be division one. The second paragraph be considered division two. The final paragraph to be considered division three. REHNQUIST: The motion -- it will be divided in the manner indicated by the majority leader. LOTT: I yield the floor. DASCHLE: Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest the absence of a quorum. REHNQUIST: The clerk will call the roll. 13:12:02 graphic w/ eagle symbol reading quorum call. (QUORUM CALL) 13:12:45 LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice? REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader. LOTT: I ask the consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. REHNQUIST: Is there any objection? LOTT: And ... REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it (OFF-MIKE) LOTT : ... Mr. Chief Justice, I identified this as the first paragraph to be considered division one. Actually, it should be the second paragraph would be division one, third paragraph division two, and the fourth paragraph would be division three. I want that clarification. Also, so that both sides will understand, the motion -- there's one motion, but we've divided it into three parts. So there will only be two hours equally divided, one on each side; not two hours equally divided on each one of the three divisions. We had one clarification, I believe we have cleared up, and I believe now we're ready to hear from the managers, Mr. Chief Justice. 13:13:28 REHNQUIST RECOGNIZES MCCOLLUM DISCUSSION OF VIDEO DEPOSITIONS AND OTHER EVIDENCE INCLUDING DESIRE FOR WITNESS MONICA LEWINSKY TO APPEAR LIVE. REHNQUIST ... well. The chair recognizes Mr. Manager McCollum. MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chief Justice. As the first one up here today, I have to fiddle with the microphone I guess. It's sort of like testing and I apologize. Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Senate, what we have presented to you today is a three part motion, as Mr. Lott has described it and as you heard read to you. MCCOLLUM: We would like very much, as we always have, to have all of the witnesses presented here live as we would normally have in a trial, as the House has always believed that it should have. We came before you a few days recognizing the reality of that and went forward with your procedures to request, not five, not six, not 12, but three witnesses be deposed so that we might be able to, in the discovery process you've allowed us, to gain the depositions of those three witnesses. Today, we're before you with motions first, to enter those depositions and the video recordings of those depositions, into evidence formally for your consideration because they've now been accomplished. Secondly, to request that you provide us with the opportunity to examine Monica Lewitness (ph) -- Lewinsky live here as a witness on the floor of the Senate and for you to allow us to present the other two depositions to you in some format. MCCOLLUM: And if you do not allow us the permission to have Ms. Lewinsky live here to examine as a witness, to allow us to present any or all portions of the depositions of all three of them. Now, I think that it's imminently fair that we be allowed to present at least one witness live to you, the central witness in the cast of this entire proceeding, and that's Monica Lewinsky. I'm not here to argue all of that, my principal discussion with you is going to be on the part dealing with just admitting these into evidence. And then my colleagues Mr. Bryant and Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Rogan are going to present some complementary discussion about the entire motion as we go through this. But in the context of all of this, I think we have to recognize a couple of things. One is that live witnesses are preferable whether you have depositions or not. These were discovery depositions. We would have liked to have asked for all of them to be live, but we are recognizing reality by coming down to one today. MCCOLLUM: And the reasons are fairly straightforward. Some of you have had the privilege, and I'm sure you've availed yourself of the opportunity to look at the videotapes of these depositions. And you see that they are indeed what most depositions are. They are discovery. They have long pauses in them. They're not at all like it would be in a trial itself. You don't have the opportunity to fully see or explore with a witness the demeanor, the temperament, the spontaneity, all of those things that you normally get with an exchange. You have the camera simply focused on the witness. You don't get to have the interaction you get in a courtroom. And remember again, that we're dealing here first with your determining whether or not the president committed the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, and then the question of whether or not he should be removed from office. So I believe and we believe as House managers that you should at least let us have Monica Lewinsky here live for both of those reasons. I also want to make comments specifically about just admitting these into evidence. There are two obvious reasons why, beyond the question of whether the witness, a witness should appear live, or whether we should use portions of them in whatever fashion to present to you, that they certainly should be part of the record. MCCOLLUM: It seems self-evident. It is part of what you gave us as the procedure to do. And it would seem to me that it should be a mere formality for me to ask, but I cannot assume anything -- we certainly do not -- that we let these depositions into evidence. And there are two reasons why. One is the historical basis for this. There has to be a record, not only for you, but for the public and for history, of the entire proceeding. There is evidence in these depositions that needs to be a part of the official record. And that evidence is not just the cold transcript, but is also the videotape, with all of -- the limited, albeit not satisfactory, portion of it that you can see and observe, especially if you were to conclude we weren't going to have any live witness here or were not going to allow us to present these depositions. You certainly should allow the depositions to be part of the record and the videotape part of it. MCCOLLUM: It's evidence. It's to be examined. It seems self evident. But the second point is, as you're going to hear more from my colleagues in just a moment, there is new evidence in these depositions. 13:18:04 MCCOLLUM BRIEFLY DISCUSSES NEW EVIDENCE IN DEPOS There's new factual record information that needs to be here for you to decide the guilt or innocence question on the perjury and obstruction of justice charges. One illustration I will give you, and I'm sure my colleagues will give you plenty more, one of them deals with the gift question. We've talked about it a lot out here. Do you recall, with regard to the question of the gifts, the issue is did the president obstruct justice? Did he decide, in the Jones case -- in the Jones court, as a part of his course of conduct of trying to keep from the court the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, to keep the gifts hidden? There is new information in the deposition relative to what happened on the day those gifts were supposedly exchanged between Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie about the telephone call. MCCOLLUM: Again, I'm not going into the details of that. I'll leave that for my colleagues to do, who took the depositions and can tell you about them. The point is, you could enumerate, and they will, new evidence. There is significant relevant new evidence from the Vernon Jordan deposition and from the Sidney Blumenthal deposition. So just on the record alone, just to put the depositions into record, there can be nothing complete about this trial if we don't at least do that -- at least do that. And so with that in mind, having said that and urged you to do that, I will yield to Mr. Bryant at this point in time, to Manager Bryant. 13:19:32 CONGRESSMAN ED BRYANT (R-TENN) REMARKS WHY LEWINSKY SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE SENATE LIVE. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant. BRYANT: Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished colleagues and senators, I would encourage each of you to consider calling Monica Lewinsky as the one live witnesses -- witness -- in this proceeding. BRYANT: Ms. Lewinsky continues to be in her own way an impressive witness. As I spoke to you earlier, she does have a story to tell. After all, no one knows more about the majority of the allegations against the president -- other than, of course, the president himself. At her deposition, she appeared to be a different Monica Lewinsky than the Monica Lewinsky with whom I had met a week earlier. Unlike before, she was not open to discussion or fully responsive to fair inquiry. She didn't volunteer her story. She didn't tell her story. Rather, she was in a -- very guarded in each response and almost protective. Her words were carefully chosen and relatively few. At times, the concepts that she discussed had the familiar ring of another key witness to these proceedings, such as: it wasn't a lie or wasn't false, it was misleading or incomplete; truth is what one believes it is and may be different for different people; truth depends on the circumstances. As we progressed through her deposition Monday, I felt more and more like one of the characters in the classic movie "Witness for the Prosecution." BRYANT: I was Charles Laughton. Ms. Lewinsky was Marlene Dietrich. And the president was Tyrone Power. And if you're familiar with this movie, you'll understand. And if you aren't, you should see the movie. (LAUGHTER) However, there was and there still remains truth in her testimony. Sometimes though, just like the president and now Ms. Lewinsky, it is the literal truth only -- the most restricted and stretched definition one can reach. And we all know that the law frowns upon the manipulations such as this to avoid telling the complete truth. Two, her testimony is clearly tinted and some might even say tainted by a mixture of her continued admiration for the president; her desire to protect him; and her own personal views of right and wrong. BRYANT: And she was well represented in the deposition by some of Washington's finest defense attorneys who had thoroughly prepared her for all questions, as they should have, as well as being present throughout the deposition to assist her. In fact, the senator in charge of this particular deposition had to worn these counsel not to coach and not to whisper to her while she was attempting to answer the questions. If you've seen this deposition, you've witnessed an effective effort by a loyal supporter of the president to provide the very minimum of truth in order to be consistent with her own grand jury testimony, which is legally necessary for her to fulfill the terms of her immunity agreement. On the perjury article of impeachment, she reaffirmed the specific facts which happened between her and the president on more than one occasion, including November 15, 1995, their first encounter when the president's conduct fit squarely within the four corners of the term sexual relationship as defined in the Jones lawsuit. And this is opposition to the president's own sworn testimony of denial. But this is one of the clearest examples of the president's guilt of this charge of perjury. Now, it's not about this twisted definition that the president assigned to the term "sexual relations." BRYANT: Rather it's his word against her word as to whether this specific conduct occurred. Even under his own reading of this definition, he agrees that that specific conduct, if it occurred, would make him guilty of sexual relations within that definition. But he simply says, I did not do that. She says, you did do that. A he said/she said case. But this is why it's important for you to be able to see Ms. Lewinsky in person. In the deposition you will observer her as having to affirm her prior testimony. She had to affirm her prior testimony, because that was what was in the grand jury. And because of this, she could not back away at all on her testimony, and she couldn't bend it here or there and she couldn't shade it in the president's favor. So what you have is a person whom you may well conclude is still wanting to help the president, having to admit to testimony that would do damage to the president -- a very difficult situation for her. But yet this same difficulty lends this portion of her testimony great credibility. BRYANT: With respect to the other article of impeachment on obstruction of justice, her credibility is again bolstered by her reluctance to do legal harm to this president. In the end, though, she does admit that he called her early one morning in December of 1997, actually at 2:00 in the morning, and told her that she was on the witness list, and he told her that she might be able to file an affidavit to avoid testifying. And he told her that she could always use the story that he was -- she was bringing papers to him or coming up to see Ms. Currie. Now, we know that she did not carry papers to him on these visits other than personal, private notes from her to him. And Ms. Lewinsky indicated in the deposition that she didn't carry him official papers, although she did pass along this cover story of carrying papers to her attorney Mr. Carter. She testified also that she discussed the draft affidavit with Mr. Jordan; the changes were made. BRYANT: She offered the president the opportunity to review it. He declined. And according to Ms. Lewinsky, he never suggested any way that she could file a truthful affidavit sufficient to skirt -- avoid having to testify -- this in spite of his answer to this Senate, where he told you that he might have had a way for her to file a truthful affidavit and still avoid testifying in the Jones case. Yes, you can parse the words and you can use legal gymnastics, but you cannot get around the filing of the false affidavit in an effort to avoid appearing in the Jones case and possibly providing damaging testimony against the president. Ms. Lewinsky confirmed positively that Ms. Currie initiated the telephone call to her on December the 28th, 1997, stating words, and this is about the gift -- the gifts: "I understand you have something for me." BRYANT: Then Ms. Currie drove over to Ms. Lewinsky's home and picked up the box of gifts. Now remember, this occurred on the heels of Ms. Lewinsky's conversation with the president that very morning about what she might do with the gifts. Now the only -- the only explanation that the president -- is that the president is directly involved himself in the obstruction of justice by telling Ms. Currie, who otherwise knew nothing about this earlier conversation, to retrieve these items from Ms. Currie -- from Ms. Lewinsky. Now Ms. Lewinsky said there was no doubt that Ms. Currie initiated the call to retrieve the gifts. And also recall that the president's testimony from his side was that this conversation occurred earlier in the day with Ms. Lewinsky but that he had told her that she would have to turn over whatsoever -- whatever gifts that she had. Now, with that advice from the president, it would be totally illogical for Ms. Lewinsky to have then called Ms. Currie that same day and ask her to come pick up and hold these gifts. By calling Ms. Currie, Ms. Lewinsky would have been going against the direct instruction of the president to surrender any and all gifts. BRYANT: The fact, the logic and common sense tell us all that the president's version is not true, and that he obstructed justice here. Ms. Lewinsky also testified at the deposition about the job at Revlon and obtaining a job offer within two days of signing the affidavit. She also denied that she was a stalker, as the president had described her in a conversation with Mr. Blumenthal in January of 1998. She also denied that she threatened the president or attempted to threaten the president into having an affair. She denied that he rebuffed her on the occasion of their first encounter on November 15, 1995. Again, all false statements that the president made to Mr. Blumenthal about her with knowledge that Mr. Blumenthal would be testifying in a grand jury, thereby obstructing justice. BRYANT: Now the former lawyers and judges among us are familiar with what is called the best evidence rule. Stated simply, the court always prefers the best available evidence to be used. In-person testimony is better than a video deposition, which itself is better than the written transcript of a deposition. When all three forms of testimony are available, as they are in this situation, the court will most often require the witness to testify in person, over the video deposition or over the written transcript of the deposition. In closing, I know we all want to work within the Senate rules and we all want to ensure that these proceedings are concluded in a constitutional fashion by the end of next week. 13:29:46 HOUSE MANAGER CONGRESSMAN ED BRYANT (R-TENN) MAKES CASE FOR BRINGING IN LIVE WITNESSES & DISCUSSES VIDEOTAPE DEPOS and further, that we use the two depositions, the video depositions of Mr. Jordan and Mr. Blumenthal, in lieu of their personal attendance. In the event the Senate does not call Ms. Lewinsky, we also ask that we be permitted to use all or portions of her deposition just as we would the other two depositions. And finally, several senators have sent out a letter to the president inviting him to come here and to provide his testimony if he so chooses. In the event he should accept, Ms. Lewinsky likewise should be afforded the same opportunity. They continue to be the two most important and essential witnesses for you and the American people to hear in order to finally -- to finally -- resolve this matter. BRYANT: Permit us all to return to our districts, and you to your states, and tell our constituents that we considered the full and the complete case, including live witnesses, and in your case, made your votes accordingly. At this time I would yield to my colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson. 13:30:52 MANAGER CONGRESSMAN ASA HUTCHINSON SPEAKS & DISCUSSES EXHIBITS AS WELL AS VERNON JORDAN. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutc HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, in an effort to be helpful I've asked the pages to distribute to you some exhibits that I'll be referring to as I consider the testimony that we are presenting to you. There's two aspects to an impeachment trial. There's the truth- seeking responsibility, which is the trial, in my judgment, and then there is the conclusion: The judgment, the verdict, the conviction or the acquittal. And if you look at those two phases of a trial, the latter is totally your responsibility. We leave that completely in your judgment. HUTCHINSON: And if you look at those two pages of the trial, the latter is totally your responsibility. We leave that completely in your judgment. But the first responsibility of the fact finding -- of the truth seeking endeavor -- I feel some responsibility in that regard, and that's -- hopefully our presentation is helpful in seeking the truth. And I know, as Mr. Bryant mentioned, that we all want to bring this matter to a conclusion. We want to see the end of the story. We want to have a final chapter in this national drama. And I understand that and agree with that, but let's not, because we're in a hurry to get to the judgment phase, let's not let that detract, let's not let that shortchange nor diminish the importance of the presentation and consideration of the facts. And that's what, I think, is very important as we consider this motion that's before us. Now, it's my responsibility to talk about Mr. Vernon Jordan and the need for your consideration of his testimony that we have simply -- we have recently deposed. HUTCHINSON: I deposed Mr. Vernon Jordan, Jr. and I would recommend that that be received into evidence as part of the Senate record. I took this deposition under the able guidance of Senator Thompson and Senator Dodd. The questioning took place over almost three hours, with numerous and extraneous objections on behalf of the president's lawyers, most of which were resolved. I believe that the testimony of Mr. Jordan goes to the key element in the obstruction of justice article. And even though it's just one element that we're dealing with, it is a very important element because it goes to the connection between the job search, the benefit provided to a witness, and the solicited false testimony from that witness. HUTCHINSON: I believe the testimony of Mr. Jordan is dramatic in that it shows the control and direction of the president of the United States in the effort to obstruct justice. I believe the testimony of Mr. Jordan provides new evidence supporting the charges of obstruction and verifying the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky. The testimony, in addition, is the most clear discussion of the facts reflecting Mr. Jordan's actions in behalf of the president, and the president's direction and control of the activities of Mr. Jordan, and therefore they support the allegations under the articles of impeachment. Now let me make the case for you. If you have the president of the United States personally directing the effort to obtain a job for Ms. Lewinsky, which is a benefit to a witness, and simultaneously, Ms. Lewinsky is under subpoena as witness in the case; and thirdly, in addition, the president is suggesting means to that witness to avoid truthful testimony, as evidenced by the December 17 conversation and the suggestion of the affidavit, then the collusion that you have a corrupt attempt to impede the administration of justice and the seeking of truth and the facts in a civil rights case. HUTCHINSON: Now, let me go to the testimony of Mr. Jordan. And has that been distributed now? Good. And let me give a caveat here, particularly to my colleagues, the counselors for the president, that this summary of the portions of the testimony of Mr. Jordan are based upon my handwritten notes, and so please don't blow it up in a chart if there is some discrepancy. I believe this is in good faith, accurate, but I do not have a copy of the transcript. HUTCHINSON: I was required to go to a Senate chamber and actually take notes in order to prepare this. But there's a number of areas that I think are relevant and are new information and are very important for your consideration, but let me just touch upon five areas. The first one is the job search and Mr. Jordan being an agent of the president. And in the deposition, Mr. Jordan testified that there is no question but that through Betty Currie, I was acting on behalf of the president to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. He goes on to say, I interpreted the request -- referring from Betty Currie -- as a request from the president. And then he testified that there was no question that he asked me to help -- referring to the president. And that he asked others to help, and I think that is clear from everybody's grand jury testimony. And so, the question as to whether the information and the request came from Betty Currie, or whether it came directly from the president, there is no question but that Mr. Jordan was acting at the request of the president of the United States and no one else. HUTCHINSON: In fact, he goes on to say that the fact is, "I was running the job search, not Ms. Lewinsky. And therefore, the companies that she brought or listed were not of interest to me. I knew where I would need to call." And this is very important. There's been reference, well, he was simply getting a job referral; making a referral for routine employment interview by this person, Ms. Lewinsky. But in fact, it's clear that Mr. Jordan knew who he wanted to contact. He was running the job search as he testified to. And then he testified, question: You're acting on behalf of the president when you are trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a job and you were in control of the job search? The answer is yes. And now -- so that's one area and it's important to establish that he was an agent for the president. Secondly, there was the witness list that came out December 5. HUTCHINSON: The president knew about it, at the latest, on December 6. And yet, he had two meetings with Mr. Jordan on the December 7 and on December 11, and in neither one of those meetings was it disclosed to Mr. Jordan that Monica Lewinsky was a witness. And I'm referring to the second page of the exhibits I've handed from you. Then which, Mr. Jordan testified to that effect. Question: And on either of these conversations I have referenced that you had with the president after the witness list came out, your conversation on December 7 and your conversation sometime after the 11th, did the president tell you that Ms. Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Jones case? Answer: He did not. Question: Would you have expected the president to tell you if he had reason to believe that Ms. Lewinsky would be called as a witness in the Paula Jones case? Answer: That would have been helpful. Question: So, it would have been helpful and it was something you would have expected? Answer: Yes. And even though it would have been helpful, he would have expected the president to tell him that information. HUTCHINSON: It was not disclosed to him. And the -- the materiality, the relevance of that, is that you have the president controlling a job search, knowing that this is a witness in which we're trying to provide a benefit for, and yet the person that he's directing to get the job for Ms. Lewinsky, he fails to tell Mr. Jordan a key fact, that she is in fact a witness, an adverse witness, in that case. And so I think that's an important area of his testimony. The third area: keeping the president informed. Very clear testimony about the development of the job search, the Lewinsky affidavit that was being prepared and the fact that it was signed. On the third page that I've provided to you, Mr. Jordan's testimony: "I was keeping him, the president, informed about what was going on, and so I told him." He goes on further to say: "He" -- referring to the president -- "was obviously interested in it." And then the question I believe was: What did you tell the president when the affidavit was signed? HUTCHINSON: And his answer, "Mr. President, she signed the affidavit. She signed the affidavit." And so was there any connection between the job benefit that was provided and the affidavit that was signed in reference to her testimony? Clearly, it was something -- the president not only directed the job search, but he was clearly interested, obviously concerned, receiving regular reports about the affidavit. And then the fourth area is the information at the Park Hyatt that was developed. Now, to lay the stage for this -- and I'll do this very briefly -- if you look at page four, you see the previous testimony of Mr. Jordan before the grand jury in March. And that time, the question was asked to him, "Did you ever have breakfast or any meal for that matter with Monica Lewinsky at the Park Hyatt?" His answer was no. It was not equivocal, it was indubitably no. And he was further asked, you know, he testified "I have never had breakfast with Monica Lewinsky." HUTCHINSON: And then on page five, he goes on in the May 28th grand jury testimony: "Did you at any time have any kind of a meal at the Park Hyatt with Monica Lewinsky?" His answer is "no." And so that sets the stage because in Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, as evidenced by page six of your exhibits, she testified in August, after the last time Mr. Jordan testified, very clearly about this meeting on December 31st at the Park Hyatt with Mr. Jordan where they had breakfast. And the discussion was about Linda Tripp. And then the discussion went to the notes from the president, and she said "no, it was notes from me to the president." And Mr. Jordan told her, according to her testimony, "go home and make sure they're not there." That is Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. It was important to ask Mr. Jordan about this, and I assumed that we would of course get simply a denial, sticking with the previous grand jury testimony that unequivocally no, that meeting never happened; we never had breakfast at the Hyatt. HUTCHINSON: On page seven, you will notice that Ms. Lewinsky, in her testimony, specifically identified even what they had for breakfast. And so, the investigation required us to go out and get the receipt at the Park Hyatt, which is page eight. And the receipt showed that there was a charge on December 31 by Mr. Jordan that included every item for breakfast that corroborated the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky as to her memory; that is, the omelet they had for breakfast. And so, it's tightening here. The evidence is becoming more clear, unequivocal but that this meeting occurred. And so, we had to ask this to Mr. Jordan, and this is page nine. And of course I presented the Park Hyatt receipt. I presented the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and his testimony, which is page nine: "It is clear, based on the evidence here, that I was at the Park Hyatt on December 31st, so I do not deny, despite my testimony before the grand jury, that on December 31st, that I was there with Ms. Lewinsky. But I did testify before the grand jury that I did not remember having a breakfast with her on that date, and that was the truth." HUTCHINSON: But what amazed me was as you go through the questions with him, all of a sudden, he remembered the breakfast, but all of a sudden he remembered the conversation in which he, before said it never happened at all. And his testimony was, when asked about the notes, "I am certain that Ms. Lewinsky talked to me about the notes." And so I think there's a number of relevant points here. First of all, you reflect back on the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky in this same deposition, in which she was asked the question: Getting Mr. Jordan's approval was basically the same as getting the president's approval. HUTCHINSON: Her answer: "Yes." And so that's how Ms. Lewinsky viewed this, and this is what was told to her at this meeting on Park Hyatt. And it goes to the credibility, it goes to what happened, it goes to the obstruction of justice, it is extraordinarily relevant, it is new information, it is what was developed because this Senate granted us the opportunity to take this further deposition of Mr. Jordan and the other witnesses. And there's other, you know, the fifth point is that it goes to -- the testimony goes to the interconnection between the job help and the testimony that was being solicited from Ms. Lewinsky. And so why is the presentation necessary? Some of you might even think: Well, thank you very much for that explanation you've given to us, now we have all the facts, let's go on and vote. Well, I do think that there is some -- first of all, that this is not all. There's much more there. I just have a moment to develop a portion of Mr. Jordan's testimony that I believe is helpful. HUTCHINSON: But secondly, it tells a story that's never been told before. Now, I went and saw the videotape, and I was underwhelmed by my questioning, because it's just not the same. I thought we had a dynamic exchange. But then when I saw it on videotape, and I'm nowhere to be found, you get to look at Mr. Jordan, a distinguished gentleman. But it's still helpful, notwithstanding the difficulty of a video presentation. And I would respectfully request this body to develop the facts fully, to hear the testimony of Mr. Jordan, to allow him to explain this. It tells a story start to finish on this one aspect of obstruction of justice that is critical to your determination. And so, I would ask your concurrence in the approval of the motion that's been offered to you. 13:45:00 CONGRESSMAN JAMES ROGAN (R-CALIF) ADDRESSES AUDIENCE & DISCUSSES Depositions NAMELY CLINTON FRIEND SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL . And at this time I'd yield to Manager Rogan. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan. ROGAN: Mr. Chief Justice. Members of the Senate, yesterday along with Mr. Manager Graham, I had the privilege of conducting the deposition of Sidney Blumenthal, assistant to the president. ROGAN: That deposition was presided over by the senior senator from Pennsylvania and the junior senator from North Carolina and on behalf of the House managers, and I'm also sure, White House counsel. We thank them for the able job that they did. This deposition must be played for members of the United States Senate. And if one senator has failed to personally sit through this deposition and every deposition, that senator is not equipped to render a verdict on the impeachment trial of the president of the United States. Now, I will address very briefly just a couple of the reasons why I believe that Mr. Blumenthal's deposition warrants being played before this body. But to do it, it needs to be put in perspective. Remember what the president of the United States testified to on the day he was sworn in as a witness before the grand jury. ROGAN: He said that in dealing with his aides he knew that there was a potential that they could become witnesses before the grand jury and that is why he told them the truth. That is the president's own word, the truth. Mr. Blumenthal's deposition paints a totally different picture and gives a terribly different interpretation of what the president was doing in passing along false stories to his aides. Now, we've been treated to a number of euphemisms by the distinguished White House counsel during this presentation as to what the president was doing during his grand jury. They have described his testimony as maddening. They've described his testimony as misleading and unfortunate. ROGAN: But the one thing they've never described it as is a lie. Mr. Blumenthal gave a totally different take on that, because he testified under oath that upon reflection, he believes the president was not maddening to him. The president lied to him. And he testified so for a very good reason. Remember Sidney Blumenthal testified three times before the grand jury in 1998. He testified in February and twice in June. But that testimony was in a vacuum because each time he testified before the grand jury, we were still in a national state of at least presumptorily believing that the president had told the truth. The president had made an emphatic denial as to the Monica Lewinsky story. There was no physical evidence presented to the FBI lab at the time Mr. Blumenthal testified. And Monica Lewinsky was not cooperating with the grand jury. So we know that certain questions were not asked of him during his grand jury testimony because of the status of the facts as we thought they were. ROGAN: But Mr. Blumenthal shed some incredible new light on the testimony that we received yesterday from him. He said, first of all, after I was subpoenaed, but before I testified before the grand jury, once in February and twice in June, with the president knowing he was about to be a witness before the grand jury, a criminal grand jury investigation, the president never came to him and said, Mr. Blumenthal, before you go and provide information in a criminal grand jury investigation, I need to recant the false stories I told you about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. ROGAN: And he testified about those false stories. He corroborated his own testimony from earlier proceedings. You will recall from the record that the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke in the national press, Mr. Blumenthal was called to the Oval Office by the president. The door was closed. They were alone. And this is what the president told Sidney Blumenthal about the revelations that were breaking that day on the national press wires. He said that Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me. ROGAN: The president said he rebuffed her. He said I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again. The president said Monica Lewinsky threatened him. She said she would tell people they had an affair. That she was known as the stalker among her colleagues and that she hated it. And that if she had an affair or said she had an affair, then she wouldn't be the stalker any more and the testimony goes on. You're all familiar with it at this point. The president of the United States allowed his aide to appear three times before a federal grand jury conducting a criminal investigation The president of the United States allowed his aide to three times before a federal grand jury conducting a criminal investigation and never once did the president of the United States inform that aide before providing that information to the investigatory body, never once asked the aide -- or told the aide that that was false information. Mr. Blumenthal's testimony demonstrates that the president of the United States used a White House aide as a conduit for false information before the grand jury in a criminal investigation. I just want to make one other brief point before I close this presentation, because I think it needs to be said. I am in no position to lecture any of the distinguished members of this body on founders intended in drafting the Constitution. ROGAN: I believe all of us in this room have an abiding respect for that. But there are a couple of points that need to be made. I believe there is a reason the founders drafted a document that allows us the opportunity in every trial proceeding in America to confront and cross-examine live witnesses. It is because that gives the trier of fact the opportunity to gauge the credibility and the demeanor of the witnesses. We've discussed that at length during these proceedings. But one thing we haven't discussed and one thing that I think is important, not from the House managers' perspective, but from the perspective of history and the history that will be written on the ultimate verdict in this case. And that is the idea of open trials. There is a reason why the founders looked askance on the concept of secret trials and closed trials. There is a reason why in every courtroom across the land, trials are open. They are open -- it is an open process. The light of truth is allowed to be shown on the courtroom and from the courtroom because we don't trust the credibility of a verdict if it's done in secret. What will be the verdict on this proceeding if the judgment of this body is based upon testimony and witnesses on videotapes locked in a room somewhere, available only to the triers of fact, without the public being privy to what was made available? Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I would urge you not for the sake of the managers and not for the sake of the presentation of the case, but for the sake of this body and for the verdict of history that will be written, to please allow this to be a public trial in the real sense. If the witnesses will not be brought here live before the Senate, please allow the doors of the Senate to be open so that the testimony upon which each of you must base your verdict will be made available not only to all 100 senators, but will be made available to those who will make the ultimate judgment as to the appropriateness of the verdict -- the American people. 13:53:15 REHNQUIST RECOGNIZES CONGRESSMAN LINDSEY GRAHAM DISCUSSES BLUMENTHAL DEPOSITION & CASE FOR BRINGING IN LEWINSKY LIVE BEFORE CONGRESS. ROGAN: Mr. Chief Justice, at this time I yield to Mr. Manager Graham. REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham. GRAHAM: Mr. Chief Justice, how much time do we have remaining? REHNQUIST: You've consumed 37 minutes. You -- your colleagues have, yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, not a whole lot to add, but I would like to recognize this thought, that we've learned a great deal in these depositions, and thank you for letting us have them. We didn't get everything we wanted, I think that's a fair statement, but who does in life? But we do appreciate you giving us the opportunity to explore the testimony of these witnesses, because I think it will be helpful in setting the historical record straight. Mr. Blumenthal, to his credit, said the president of the United States lied to him, the president of the United States did lie to him. The president of the United States in his grand jury testimony denied ever lying to an aide. That will be historically significant, it should be legally significant. Mr. Blumenthal, to his credit, said that the president of the United States tried to paint himself as a victim of Ms. Lewinsky. That will be legally and historically relevant and it will mean a lot in our arguments and it will be something you should consider. This has been a good exercise. Thank you very much for letting us depose these witnesses. I was not at the other two depositions, but I was at Mr. Blumenthal's deposition, and I can assure you we know more now about what the truth is than before we started this process. GRAHAM: And I hope at the end of the day it is our desire to get to the truth that guides us all. We're asking for one live witness, Ms. Lewinsky. And let me tell you, I know how difficult it is to want this to go on, given where everybody is at in the country. Trust me. I want this to end as much as you do. However, there's a signal we're going to send if we don't watch it. We're going to make the independent counsel report the impeachment trial, and I'm not so sure that's what the statute was written for. The key difference between the House and the Senate is that the White House never disputed the facts over in the House. They never disputed the facts. They call 15 witnesses to talk about process and about the interpretations that you would want to put on those facts. In their presentation to the Senate, everything is in dispute. It is totally a different ball game here. That's why we need witnesses, ladies and gentlemen, to clarify who said what, who's being honest, who's not, and what really did happen in this sordid tale. GRAHAM: Ms. Lewinsky comes before us because the allegations arise that the president of the United States, with an intern, had an inappropriate, workplace sexual relationship that was discovered in a lawsuit where he was a defendant. This was not us or anyone else trying to look into the president's private life for political reasons or any other reason. It was a defendant in a lawsuit asking to look at the behavior of the defendant in the workplace, something that goes on every day in courtrooms throughout the country. And is it uncomfortable? GRAHAM: Yes, it is uncomfortable. If you've ever tried a sexual harassment case, an assault case, or a rape case, it is very much uncomfortable to have to listen to these things. But the reason that people are asked to do what you're asked to do by the House managers is that the folks that are involved represent themselves much better than lawyers talking about what happened. And if you find it uncomfortable listening to Ms. Lewinsky, think how juries feel; think how the victims feel; think how somebody like Ms. Jones must feel not to be able to tell the story of the person they're suing. That is a signal that's going to be sent here that would be a devastatingly bad signal. GRAHAM: If we can't stomach to listen to inappropriate sexual conduct, why do we put that burden on anyone else? Give us this witness. We will do it in a professional manner. We will focus on the obstruction. We will try to do it in a way not to demean the Senate. We will try to do it in a way not to demean Ms. Lewinsky. We will try to do it in a way to get to the truth. Please give us a chance to present our case in a persuasive fashion. Because unlike the House, everything is in dispute here. Thank you very much. I yield back and reserve the balance of my time. 13:58:11 REHNQUIST RECOGNIZES WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GREG CRAIG CRAIG OPENING REMARKS. REHNQUIST: The House managers reserve the balance of their time. The chair recognizes counsel for the president, Mr. Craig. CRAIG: Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I've divided my presentation into three parts that fortunately correspond to the three parts of the motion that is before you today. I'd like first to argue against admitting videotape evidence into the record of this trial.
CA:ESCAPED INMATES PRS/HUTCHENS-INSIDE HELP
*PLEASE SEE RE-132WE FOR STORY INFORMATION 

 --SUPERS--
Wednesday
Orange County, CA

Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
Orange County, CA

 --SOT--
(Sheriff Sandra Hutc ...
Become a builder: [Part 3]
France 5
CHOCOLATE POWERED FORMULA 3 RACING CAR
F3 model racing car which is powered by chocolate oils. Date – 7th May 2009 Location – Warwick University Source – HUTC No library or Archive Story - Following the recent turmoil in Formula 1 arising from the high costs of running competitive motor racing teams, and doubts in sponsors’ minds over the commercial value of their involvement, the viability of motor racing is being critically questioned. But now researchers at the University of Warwick may have an answer. They have unveiled this week the “World First Formula 3 racing car” which is powered by chocolate, steered by carrots and other root vegetables, its bodywork made from potatoes, the drivers seat comes from flax fibre and soybean oil and can still do 125mph around corners. It is the first Formula 3 racing car designed and made from sustainable and renewable materials, putting the world first by effectively managing the planet’s resources. The car has taken the team just over the year to design and build and they hope to fully test it within the next couple of weeks. The car meets all the Formula 3 racing standards except for its Biodiesel engine which is configured to run on fuel derived from waste chocolate and vegetable oil. Formula 3 cars currently cannot use Biodiesel. Shot list Scene set – sign saying “Warwick University” Sign saying “International Automotive Research Centre” Exterior of “International Automotive Research Centre” building Front shot of the car Pan from left to right of front spoiler (SOUNDBITE) (English) Dr James Meredith – Research fellow University of Warwick SAYING - “The car is made of many interesting green materials – we have incorporated carrots into the steering wheel, we have incorporated potatoes into wing mirrors and we have managed to incorporate soya bean oil foam into the seat. We have also got many other natural fibres such as flax and heap in the bodywork as well as recycled carbon fibre and some recycled bottles which make up the resin in the composites”. Putting steering wheel on Tyres moving (SOUNDBITE) (English) Dr James Meredith – Research fellow University of Warwick SAYING – “The engine runs on Biodiesel – now we can produce Biodiesel a number of ways but we managed to take the waste product from chocolate which is coco butter and turn that into diesel”. Shot of fuel pump (SOUNDBITE) (English) Dr James Meredith – Research fellow University of Warwick SAYING – “We are just trying to prove that motor sport can be green. We want to show that in the future Motorsport has to develop a conscience – it has to show the public that it can be green and it not just a frivolous activity – burn fuel and wasting things”. (SOUNDBITE) (English) Dr Steve Maggs – Principal Engineer- University of Warwick SAYING – “The car performs in the same way as a normal Formula 3 car so we should get about 140 miles an hour from it in its current gearbox. If we put on another gearbox we could achieve 160 miles per hour – which is equalant to standard petrol driven formula 3”. Car body being taken off – exposing engine (SOUNDBITE) (English) Dr Steve Maggs – Principal Engineer- University of Warwick SAYING – “I am convinced that motor racing will be green in the future – we have already seen formula one adopting some green technologies in the (KERS) - Kinetic Energy Recovery System that we are seeing on cars this year which have actually have improved performance and making the sport more exciting. I am convinced that some of these technologies will be sustainable materials technology will see them on not just Formula one but other aspects of Motorsport as well”. The car running up and down car park – various shots (Footage courtesy of University of Warwick) Shot of the car saying “World first racing” Three people around the car – man in car puts steering wheel on (SOUNDBITE) (English) Dr Steve Maggs – Principal Engineer- University of Warwick SAYING – “We had a good deal of interest from the motor sport industry association and we are also talking to Formula one teams about the project and obviously we are working with Lola on this project who are a big motor sport company. We have also worked with TL1 supplies in automotive industry and we had interest from international racing series in Australia and America”. Wide shot of car Shot of people talking – pictures from Auto sport show in January 2009 in Birmingham
Aerial View Of Stralhorn - Video by Drone = Aerial View Of Stralhorn - Video Drone Footage
Hosiho
24 - HOUR ASPEN SKI RACE
24 hour Aspen Ski Race Duration 6 minutes 38secs Track 1: NAT SOUND, MUSIC AND EFFECTS Track 2: NAT SOUND Music: "manic" :- 30 secs Publisher:- HUTC Located high in the Rocky mountains at an elevation of 7,815 feet and some 200 miles southwest of Denver, lies Aspen, Colorado. Centered in the Roaring Fork Valley of the White River National forest, the town is renowned as one of the worlds top winter resorts. The area was originally discovered by the Ute Indians and was called "Shinning Mountains". In 1879, prospectors settled in Aspen hoping to strike it rich for silver, twelve years later on and the place was a booming mining town with over 12,000 inhabitants. But in 1893 the Sherman Silver act was repealed which demonetized silver and marked Aspen's decline as a mining town. Just before the second world war, another ore was discovered---this time snow. Fifteen years later Aspen hosted the FIS World Championships which confirmed it's status as an international resort and the rest is history. UPSOT: SCOTTY NICHOLS - RACE DIRECTOR "The first race in Aspen was in 1988, Ed McCafrey came up with this idea, this crazy idea of going top to bottom for 24 hours living in the gondola and raising money for his father's problem which was multiple sclerosis. UPSOT:ANDI BITHER - US WOMENS TEAM "Its fast, and its fast a lot" UPSOT: STEVEN LEE - TEAM AUSTRALIA "There's a lot of ski racers over the years who have been asked if they would like to compete in this, big name ski racers, world cup ski racers and they just say no straight out, they don't believe in themselves that they could do it. And then there's the small percentage of those who think they can and they say yes and I'm in that bracket and if you don't believe you can do it, then you shouldn't be here and I don't think you will be at the end of the day. UPSOT:NOEL LYONS-MCMEMAMY - US WOMENS TEAM "they think when you first start the race you are so tight and your nervous and that's where you lose a lot of energy. But having done it before and talking to other racers you just realise the gondola time is when you rest and try and conserve your energy." UPSOT: MARK DAVENPORT - FORMER 24 HOURS CHAMPION "Its such a unique race because it blends many different attributes that the racers have. You've got to be a fast downhill racer, you've got to have fast skis, but you also have to train for endurance, you can't train like a world cup down-hiller would for power, you've got to train more like a marathoner would, for distance, for endurance." The international field of ten teams from eight countries will put their minds, bodies and spirits on the line as they race top-to-bottom on Aspen Mountain for 24 hours straight. The race begins at noon on a Sunday and ends at noon on the Monday. The first racer across the starting line at the top will begin the time for that team's lap. If the second skier is further than three seconds behind at the bottom, the slower racer's time is counted. Skiers must finish as a team. Each team has a support crew from ski technicians to masseurs! The race course starts just outside the gondola building at the top of Aspen Mountain, formally known as Ajax. 9 teams make an impressive start towards Dipsey Doodle and Pumphouse Hill, but nerves seem to get the better of the Australian team when Allistair Guss falls within his first few strides. Racers have been clocked skiing as fast as 96 m.p.h. through Spar Gulch. The fastest lap on record, 2:10.98, was set in 1998 by brothers Martin and Graham Bell from Team Great Britain. At Kleenex Corner, racers will negotiate the most dangerous turns on the course then down onto Little Nell. A dedicated team of catchers ensure the racers make their way swiftly into the gondola, their only rest during the race. Deemed the "24 Hours of Pain," the event forces racers to struggle not only with the challenges of Aspen mountain, but also with intense fatigue, bitter cold, sleep deprivation, changing weather conditions and a battle to stay acutely alert. There is no changing partners, unlike other endurance events. MUSICAL MONTAGE A night of thrills and spills sees some retirements after spectacular crashes. UPSOT: MARTIN BELL - FORMER 24 HOURS CHAMPION " Now that we are in to the last hour of the race, it really does get quite emotional from hereon in. The teams are going to be thinking about there final run, some of them will be carrying flags down on their last run. Also it so happens that the teams are bunching together quite tightly so some of them maybe riding in the same gondola, they'll be a lot of camaraderie, anyone who's survived something like this together, they actually feel quite a strong bond between each other." This race is indisputably known as The World Championships of Endurance Skiing. The winners are determined by the team who has made the most laps in 24 hours. This year the German team of Michael Brunner and Christian Deisenboeck took the lead, a lead they never surrendered. They covered 76 laps (248,292 vertical feet) during their 2 hours, 54 minutes and 28 seconds on the slopes. Team Canada claimed the Women's title beating the US women's team by just 19 seconds. Out of the ten teams that started only 6 finished. The hotel pool provided the perfect setting for celebrations.
SWEETNESS AND VOLUPTUOUSNESS AT VAL DE VILLE [N°35]
Grand Est
Construction of a fig yurt by association Disobedience Fertile
Midi Atlantique
Direct Aviwest, Guest: Nicolas Bruvier on the ban on hunting waterfowl (+off)
Nord
Control operation of waterfowl hunters/ regulations and avian influenza
Nord
Control avian influenza waterfowl hunting (evening version)
Nord
SJT - FRANCAIS D'AILLEURS Senegalese oysters (to dress: French besides
A2 / France 2
Transportation of callers authorized for waterfowl hunting
Nord
Transportation of callers allowed for water game hunting (itw+off)
Nord
VAP You have the floor: Beekeeper portrait
Loire Bretagne
S06 Fish gites to develop harbour biodiversity
Méditerranée
Review after a month of Design Biennial
Centre Est
Weekend drama: an infernal race to paradise: 3rd episode
A2 / France 2