A CRITICAL-CARE NURSE CHARGED IN ONE PATIENT'S DEATH AND UNDER INVESTIGATION IN 17 SIMILAR GEORGIA CASES SURRENDERED TO AUTHORITIES THURSDAY. 34 YEAR-OLD JOE AKIN OF MARIETTA, GEORGIA WAS CHARGED WEDNESDAY WITH MURDER IN THE MARCH 27 DEATH OF ROBERT J. PRICE AT COOPER GREEN HOSPITAL IN BIRMINGHAM.AKIN ARRIVED AT THE JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL WITH HIS ATTORNEY, PETE SHORT. NEITHER WOULD COMMENT.BOND WAS SET AT $350,000. AKIN WOULD BE CONFINED TO JEFFERSON AND WALKER COUNTIES IF HE POSTS BOND. HIS FAMILY LIVES IN WALKER COUNTY.POLICE IN GEORGIA ARE INVESTIGATING THE DEATHS OF 17 PATIENTS AT A SUBURBAN ATLANTA HOSPITAL WHERE AKIN WORKED. AUTHORITIES SAID THEY HAVE FOUND SIMILARITIES IN THE CASES, BUT AKIN HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED IN GEORGIA.PROSECUTORS AND POLICE DECLINED TO RELEASE THE CAUSE OF PRICE'S DEATH. BUT ALVA CAINE, A BIRMINGHAM LAWYER REPRESENTING PRICE'S FAMILY, SAID THE MAN WAS POISONED WITH THE DRUG LIDOCAINE.AKIN CAME UNDER SUSPICION IN THE DEATHS AT HOSPITALS WHERE HE WORKED BECAUSE OF THE HIGH NUMBER OF SO-CALLED ``CODE-BLUE'' EMERGENCIES HE HANDLED. OFFICIALS IN BOTH STATES HAVE SAID AKIN TRIED TO REVIVE THE PATIENTS WHO DIED.

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON RESUMES IN THE SENATE WITH PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS. BOB BARR: Finally, there is one other sort of process argument that one hears sort of floating around in the ether out there that I think also is important forall of us to keep in mind; that is, facts and the law do bear repeating - not endless, not pointless, but appropriate repetition. Even today, even yesterday in the first round of presentations to this body, there was in fact repetition of certain facts, certain aspects of the law. That is not presented to you simply to emphasize a point, simply to make it appear stronger because we say it five times instead of two. There is a very important reason for appropriate repetition. For example, in a case such as this where you have two sets of laws alleged to have been violated--perjury laws and obstruction of justice laws--each one of those has several different elements. And, in addition to that, it is legitimate as 16:01:53 presenters of facts and the law for managers or prosecutors or plaintiffs' attorneys to take a particular fact of particular note and use it to illustrate several different points. BARR: For example, one particular fact may provide evidence of motive. It may also provide one of the substantive elements of perjury or obstruction of justice, or it may go to the state of mind of a declarant or a witness. It may provide important evidence with regard to a course of conduct, prior knowledge, and the list goes on. That is why, senators, frequently, in the course of these particular presentations -- and again, no different from the course of presentation in federal and I suspect state courts throughout the land in trials -- there necessarily is and should be in order to responsibly present all of the evidence in all of elements certain repetition. Our job as managers is to make sure we do not abuse that necessity and that we do not in fact offer repetitive notions, repetitive references, without having a very clear and specific purpose such as I mentioned for that process. Finally, before turning to that merger of the law and the facts, which I believe will illustrate conclusively that this president has committed and ought to be convicted on perjury and obstruction of justice, I would respectfully ask that you remember that under the law of impeachment based on our Constitution, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the president committed each and every element of one or more violations of provisions of the federal criminal code has never been required to sustain a conviction in any prior impeachment trial in the Senate. BARR: However -- and I can say confidently that I speak for all House managers in relating to you our belief that the record and the law applicable to these two articles of impeachment clearly establishes that President William Jefferson Clinton did, in fact, violate several provisions of title 18 of the United States code -- that is the criminal code -- including perjury, obstruction and tampering with witnesses. Now, at this point, a lawyer would say "a fortiori." I won't, but I will say at this point that it therefore goes 16:05:02 without saying that there, indeed, exists under every historical standard -- every historical benchmark which this chamber has used -- there is more than sufficient grounds on which you might base a conviction as to both articles. Beginning, then, in looking at how the facts and the law, both of which you have heard through the words and exhibits of my colleagues and the evidence that you already have, let us look first at the submission of the false affidavit in the Jones case. 16:05:41 BARR: We believe the evidence presented clearly e that on December 17 of 1997 the president encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him -- that witness being Monica Lewinsky -- to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding which he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. As other managers have outlined, Monica Lewinsky filed a sworn affidavit in the Jones case that denied the relationship between her and the president. That affidavit was false. Ms. Lewinsky testified under oath before the grand jury that the scheme to file this false affidavit was devised or hatched during a telephone conversation with the president on December 17, 1997, a call the president initiated to Ms. Lewinsky at 2 or 2:30 am, ostensibly to give her the bad news that Betty Currie's brother had been killed in a car accident. But apparently, since it consumed the vast majority of the time of that conversation, more importantly for the president to tell Ms. Lewinsky her name was on the witness list filed in the Jones case and to thereafter discuss during that conversation the president's suggestion to her she could file an affidavit in the Jones case in order for the purpose of avoiding having to testify in that case. BARR: Not to cover up, but in order to avoid having to testify in an ongoing legal proceeding in United States district court. She testified both she and the president understood from their conversation they would continue their pattern of covering up. She testified she knew that if she filed a truthful affidavit, the Jones lawyers would certainly have deposed her in that case. 16:07:59 The testimony of Mr. Vernon Jordan confirms the president knew Ms. Lewinsky planned to file a false affidavit. He stated that based on his conversations with the president, the president knew in advance that Ms. Lewinsky planned to execute an affidavit denying their relationship, and that he later informed the president Ms. Lewinsky had signed, in fact, that false affidavit. For his part, the president denies asking Ms. Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit. Instead, as he asserted in his response to the House Judiciary Committee's requests for admission, he seeks to have you now believe he sought simply to have Ms. Lewinsky execute an affidavit that would, quote "get her out of having to testify" close quote, while being factually correct. This statement reflects a legal impossibility. The president has admitted Ms. Lewinsky was the woman with whom he indeed had an improper intimate relationship while president. And he has admitted he was very concerned over the great personal embarrassment and humiliation he feared would have occurred if that relationship had been revealed in the Jones case. BARR: Yet he would have you believe he cannot remember a call he made to that woman about that case which occurred at 16:09:28 2:00 in the morning. His statement is not credible, and the reason it's not credible is because it's not true. As Mr. Jordan's grand jury testimony corroborates, the president knew what Miss Lewinsky planned to allege in her affidavit, yet the president took no action to stop her from filing it. As you have heard in earlier presentations, the president's lawyer, Mr. Robert Bennett, stated in court, directly to Judge Wright when he presented the false affidavit, quote: "There is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form," close quote, 16:10:30 even though, obviously and by any reasonable interpretation or inference of the definition given the president, his conduct with Miss Lewinsky was covered. And he disavowed knowledge of his lawyer's misrepresentations by claiming he was not paying attention. That canard has been most ably disposed of in prior presentations, both through the words of the managers and the videotape presentations. BARR: Later in the deposition, when Mr. Bennett read to the president the portion of the affidavit which -- in which Miss Lewinsky denies their relationship and asked him, is this a true and accurate statement as far as you know it? The president answered, that is absolutely true. The statement is neither 16:11:23 credible nor true. It is perjury. The inescapable conclusion from this evidence is that the president has lied and continues to lie about the affidavit. His continued false statements and denials about the affidavit bolster the conclusion of our managers that in fact he was part of a scheme to file the false affidavit. The evidence supports Miss Lewinsky's account that such a scheme did in fact exist between them. The evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom do not support the president's denial. Inferences, I respectfully add, that in your deliberations, as in the deliberations of any jury, are to be and should be based on common sense and deliberated in terms of the light of your experiences in judging human behavior. Moreover, in engaging in this course of conduct -- referring here to the worlds of the obstruction statute found at section 1503 of the Criminal Code -- the president's actions constituted an endeavor to influence or impede the due administration of justice in that he was attempting to prevent the plaintiff in the Jones case from having a free and fair opportunity to learn what she may learn concerning the material facts surrounding her claim. BARR: These acts by the president also constituted an endeavor to corruptly persuade another person with the intent to influence the testimony they might give in an official proceeding. Such are the elements of tampering with witnesses found at section 1512 of the federal criminal code. Miss Lewinsky knew full well her only hope of not having to testify was to file an affidavit that did not truthfully reflect her relationship with the president. The president also knew that if she had filed a true affidavit, without any doubt, it would have caused the Jones lawyers to seek her further testimony; something both coconspirators desperately sought to avoid. In encouraging her to file an affidavit that would prevent her from having to testify, president Clinton was, of necessity, asking her to testify falsely in an official proceeding. He was attempting to prevent, and, in fact, did prevent the plaintiff in that case from discovering facts which may have had a bearing on her claim against the president. 16:14:39 BARR: His motive was improper. In the language of the law, that is corrupt. And his actions did influence the testimony of Miss Lewinsky as a witness in the pending official proceeding in US District Court. Under both sections of the federal criminal code -- that is, 1503, obstruction, and 1512, obstruction in the form of witness tampering -- the president's conduct constituted a federal crime and satisfies the elements of those statutes. With regard to the issue of perjury before the grand jury concerning the affidavit, we as managers would show that when asked before the grand jury whether he had instructed Miss Lewinsky to file a truthful affidavit, President Clinton testified: "Did I hope she'd be able to get out of testifying on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit? No, I did not." The evidence, however, clearly establishes that the president's statement constitutes perjury in violation of section 1623 of the US federal criminal code for the simple reason the only realistic way Miss Lewinsky could get out of having to testify based on her affidavit would be to execute a false affidavit. There was no other way it could have happened. The president knew this. Miss Lewinsky knew this. And the president's testimony on this point is perjury within the clear meaning of the federal perjury statute. It was willful. It was knowing. It was material. And it was false. Let us reflect and see also, members of the jury, how the use of cover stories and the development thereof ties in the facts and the law to constitute a basis on which you might properly find a conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice. BARR: We as managers believe that the evidence presented to you also establishes that on December 17th the president encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him, to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify, personally in that proceeding. This was, in essence, the conspiracy -- 18 USC 371 -- to commit both obstruction and perjury. Throughout their relationship the president and Ms. Lewinsky, understandably, wished to keep it secret, and they took steps to do that -- steps that, ultimately, turned out to be, and constitute, 16:17:54 criminal acts. For some time, in fact, until Ms. Lewinsky testified under oath and under a grant of immunity, their efforts were remarkably successful, all things considered. All circumstances considered. Associates and employees testified in support of the president's stories, and even several Secret Service officers testified to the grand jury that they understood Ms. Lewinsky to be in the Oval Office to pick up papers. Yet, as Ms. Lewinsky testified, her White House job never required her to deliver papers or obtain the president's signature on any documents. It was all a sham, it was all a cover story, it was all a conspiracy to obstruct. Ms. Lewinsky testified later, after she left her White House job and went to the work at the Pentagon, that phase-two of the cover up went into effect. BARR: The two co-conspirators began to use Miss Currie as a source of clearance into the White House. This was so even though the purpose of Miss Lewinsky's visits were almost always to simply see the president. As my colleagues have told you, on December 17th, during that 2:00 am, or perhaps it was 2:30, telephone conversation placed by the president to Miss Lewinsky, he told her her name appeared on the witness list in the Jones case. She testified that at some point in the conversation, the president told her, "you know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters." Miss Lewinsky testified that she understood this to be, quote, "really a reminder of things that they had discussed before," close quote. She said it was instantly familiar to her. He knew -- or I knew, she says, that is, Miss Lewinsky knew, exactly what he meant. And so, I respectfully submit, do all of us here know exactly what the president meant. When the president, then, was questioned before the federal grand jury if he ever had said something like to Miss Lewinsky, he admitted that "well, I might have said that, because I certainly didn't want this to come out if I could help it. And I was concerned about that." A cover story, which this was, between two teenagers trying to steal a date without their parents' knowledge is one thing. Such would not constitute a crime. It would be something we might even wink at as long as it didn't happen too often. However, we are not here dealing with two lovestruck teenagers trying to circumvent their parents' watchful eyes. BARR: We are dealing here with the president of the United States of America and a subservient employee concocting and implementing a scheme that, while perhaps not illegal in its inception -- simply trying to keep a relationship private -- did in fact deteriorate into illegality once it left the realm of private life and entered that of public obstruction. However, and this is critical in terms of establishing the illegality or convictability (ph) of the president's actions, the situation at the time of that early morning phone call from the president to Ms. Lewinsky was very different from that facing the president during any earlier discussions of a cover story. 16:21:44 Now, in early December, 1997 Ms. Lewinsky had been officially named as a witness in a pending judicial proceeding. She was now under an obligation to give complete and truthful testimony and he, the president, was under a legal obligation at that time not to tamper with her or her possible testimony. This is precisely where private lies become public obstruction. This is, in fact, the bright line between child-like pranks and deadly serious obstruction of our legal system. The president and Ms. Lewinsky at that point entered the big leagues. And the president, a highly skilled lawyer, knew it, which is why he went to such lengths to continue the cover up for so many months. The president knew that if Ms. Lewinsky were to testify that she only brought papers to the president or to see the president's secretary, her testimony would have been neither complete nor truthful. BARR: Yet, the president encouraged her to give that untruthful testimony, and in so doing, he broke the law of obstruction of justice, and in lying about it, he compounded the problem by breaking the law of perjury. As Mr. Cannon made clear, with regard to section 1503, the General Federal Obstruction Statute of the criminal code, a person commits the crime of obstruction of justice when he attempts to influence the due administration of justice, which includes all aspects of any civil or criminal case including pre-trial discovery. Mr. Clinton's encouragement to Miss Lewinsky to tell something other than the truth certainly would have influenced the discovery process in the Jones case. Courts have consistently held that civil discovery is every bit a part of the due administration of justice protected by the obstruction statutes as any other aspect of any other civil or criminal case. And, as Mr. Cannon also made clear, with regard to section 1512 of the federal criminal code, a person commits witness tampering when he attempts to influence another person to give 16:24:21 false testimony in an official proceeding. Mr. Clinton did encourage Miss Lewinsky to give false testimony about her reasons for being in the White House with the president. By encouraging her to lie, the president committed the crimes of obstruction of justice under section 1503, and the crime of witness tampering under section 1512 of the federal criminal code. BARR: You have also, members of the Senate, heard about the president's statements to Mrs. Currie. On January 18th, and then again on the 20th or 21st, the president spoke with her in what was clearly, demonstrably, unavoidably another potential witness to be influenced in the civil rights case. 16:25:17 The president did this in this case by relating to Mrs. Currie false and misleading accounts of events about that case as to which he was going to testify, had testified, and again, with the intent that his recitation of the so-called facts would, in fact, corruptly influence her testimony. 16:25:42 As the managers have previously described to you, the evidence in this case shows that on that Saturday, January 17th, only two and a half hours after the president had been deposed in the Jones case, he called his secretary at home and asked her to come to the White House the next day, a Sunday. She testified -- Mrs. Currie, that is -- testified this was very unusual; it was rare for the president to call and ask her to come in on a weekend. But, of course, she did, the next day, Sunday, January 18th, 1998 at about 5:00 p.m. She testified to the grand jury that, during her meeting with the president, he said to her, "There are several things you may want to know." He then proceeded to ask her a number of questions in succession. You were presented evidence of these five statements by other managers. I will only emphasize that it was at that time and in that way -- in that manner, that the president led Mrs. Currie through a series of statements and determinate questions to establish a set of facts describing his relationship with Miss Lewinsky at the White House that supported his false testimony. BARR: As you have heard Ms. Currie stated under oath, she indicated her agreement with each of the president's statements, even though she knew that the president and Miss Lewinsky had, in fact, been alone in the Oval Office and in the president's study. Prosecutors frequently see this pattern. It's not unknown to prosecutors, federal or state. You frequently see this pattern of agreeing to things that the person knows are not true, where you have a dominant person suggesting testimony to another person who is in a subordinate relationship. This, I submit, is yet another bright line between a private lie and public obstruction. During the president's grand jury testimony, he was asked about his statements to Mrs. Currie. He testified he was trying to determine whether his recollection was accurate. As he put it, "I was trying to get the facts down. I was trying to understand what the facts were." This fits the same pattern of a classic obstruction prosecution, in which a defendant suggests a story to someone in the hopes that they will later testify consistent with that earlier suggestion. Indeed, when defendants in federal court defend against obstruction prosecutions in those type cases, they frequently rely on the very same defense the president raises here; that he was merely and oh, so innocently encouraging the other person to tell the truth. You may want to see as an example of an unsuccessful effort 16:29:00 at such a defense in the case of United States v. O'Keefe -- a fifth circuit case from 1983. BARR: In that case, Mr. O'Keefe (ph) did not ask someone to lie. He did not even say "I suggest you lie." Rather, as is almost always the case in white collar obstruction prosecutions, his words, along with their setting and their context, suggested a certain story -- in that case, as well as this, a false story. Just as Mr. O'Keefe did not expressly ask someone to lie, Mr. Clinton never asked someone to lie. He didn't have to. He was too smart for that. And he had witnesses who, at that time at 16:29:57 least, were willing, ready and able to do his bidding. The president lied to the grand jury when he made these statements mischaracterizing his earlier statements to Mrs. Currie, just as he tampered with her as a likely witness nine months earlier, in January. The president's assertion that he simply was trying to understand what the facts were lacks even colorable credibility when one considers that he had already testified. It was obviously too late to try and recollect what the facts were. If in fact one accepts that, then he's admitting he didn't testify to what the facts were under oath at the deposition, 'cause he didn't say "I don't know, I have to ask Mrs. Currie." He testified under oath as to what the facts purportedly were. BARR: Then he would have us believe that he had to after the fact of the deposition go back and find out what the facts were from somebody else. That is an argument that cannot be made with a straight face. In any event, Mrs. Currie could not have told him what the true facts were because he alone knew what they were. The defenses and explanations the president's defenders raise to justify why the president would make factual assertions to Mrs. Currie about the circumstances of his relationship with Miss Lewinsky right after his testimony are many. For example, one administration witness who appeared before the House Judiciary Committee actually suggested that such coaching is proper as a method whereby any attorney prepares a client or witness for testimony. Of course, such a suggestion in this case would be ludicrous. President Clinton obviously did not and could not represent Mrs. Currie as her attorney. Yet it is this sort of explanation, straining credulity, that illustrates the lengths to which the president's defenders have gone to try and explain away the obvious, that there was no legitimate reason why the president made the statements to Mrs. Currie after his grand jury testimony other than to suggest to her what her testimony should be. In federal criminal trials, defendants go to jail for such obstruction. In the case before you, we submit this clearly forms a proper basis on which to convict this president of obstruction of justice for witness tampering and subsequent perjury. Please keep in mind also, it is not required that the target of a defendant's actions actually testify falsely. In fact, the 16:32:50 witness tampering statute can be violated even when there is no proceeding pending at the time the defendant acts in suggesting testimony. BARR: As the cases discussed by Manager Cannon demonstrate, for a conviction under either section, 1503, obstruction, or 1512, obstruction by witness tampering, it is necessary only to show it was possible the target of the defendant's actions might be called as a witness. That element has been more than met under the facts of this case. It was not only likely Mrs. Currie would be called, the president's own testimony, deliberate testimony to the grand jury, pretty much guaranteed that she would be called. He wanted her called so that she could then buttress his false testimony. His actions clearly we believe violated both the general obstruction statue and the witness tampering statute in these particulars and in this regard. With regard to the obstruction regarding the subpoena for the president's gifts to Miss Lewinsky, let us look at the merger of the facts and the law. As has been discussed, while the witness tampering statute makes it a crime to attempt to influence the testimony of a person, it also makes it a crime to influence a person to withhold an object from an official proceeding. In other words, to tamper with evidence. The facts of this case, we as House managers believe, clearly show the president corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme with Monica Lewinsky and possibly others to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed lawfully in the Jones case. BARR: On December 12th of 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was served with a subpoena in the Jones case requiring her to produce each and every gift given to her by the president. Then on December 28th, Ms. Lewinsky again met with the president in the Oval Office at which time they exchanged gifts. They also discussed the fact that the lawyers in the Jones case had subpoenaed all the president's gifts to Ms. Lewinsky, and especially a hat pin. The hat pin apparently had sentimental significance to both of 16:35:31 them in that it was the very first gift the president gave to Ms. Lewinsky. During that conversation, Ms. Lewinsky asked the president whether she should put the gifts away outside her house or give them to someone, maybe Betty. At that time, according to Ms. Lewinsky's sworn testimony, the president responded "let me think about that." Well, apparently he did, because later that day -- that very same day -- only a few hours after Ms. Lewinsky and the president had met to discuss what to do with the gifts, Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky, setting in motion the great gift exchange. According to Ms. Lewinsky, Mrs. Currie said: "I understand that you have something to give me" or "the president said you have something to give me." In her earlier proper (ph) or offer of evidence to the independent counsel, prior to her testimony before the grand jury, Ms. Lewinsky said Mrs. Currie had said the president had told her, that is Mrs. Currie, that Ms. Lewinsky wanted her to hold onto something for her. BARR: After their conversation at the Oval Office, Mrs. Currie drove to Ms. Lewinsky's apartment for only the second time in her life. There she picked up a box sealed with tape, which was written, "please, do not throw away." Mrs. Currie then took the box, drove to her home, placed the box under her bed. Now, at her grand jury testimony Mrs. Currie testified that she and Ms. Lewinsky did not discuss the content of the box, nor did she open it when she got it to her home. But she knew, she understood, what was in the box, that it contained the gifts from the president to Ms. Lewinsky. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky testified that Mrs. Currie was not at all confused, surprised or even interested when she handed the box over to her. The legal impact, the illegal import of is that there is no question that if the gifts had actually been produced to the Jones lawyers, they would have established a significant relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky. Knowledge of the gifts, at a minimum, would have caused the Jones lawyers to inquire further as to the nature of the relationship between 16:38:05 the president and Ms. Lewinsky. Her failure to turn over the gifts, as required by the lawful subpoena served on her, was in the words of the witness tampering statute, "the withholding of an object from an official proceeding." We believe the evidence shows, clearly establishes, that the president corruptly persuaded Ms. Lewinsky to withhold these objects from the lawful proceedings in the Jones case. In his grand jury testimony, the president asserted he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony directly contradicts that. Importantly, all other evidence of subsequent acts corroborate her testimony, not the president's. For one thing the gifts were never turned over. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky testified she was never under any impression from anything the president said, that she should turn over the gifts to the attorneys for Ms. Jones -- quite the opposite. BARR: While the president asserts he never spoke about this matter with Betty Currie, he would have us believe that his personal and confidential secretary would, on a Sunday, drive to the home of the woman with whom he was having an inappropriate intimate relationship, take possession of a sealed box, which she believed to contain gifts given by the president, hide the box under the bed in her home, never question the person giving her the box, and never even mention to the president she had received the box of gifts. 16:39:48 The president's position as he would have you believe is not credible. It defies the evidence. It defies any reasonable interpretation or inference from the evidence. It defies common sense and it stands in defiance of federal law. The only reasonable interpretation of the facts is that, 16:40:14 following the discussion between the president and Miss Lewinsky earlier in the day on December 28th, the president decided Miss Lewinsky had actually come up with a pretty good suggestion: the gifts should be put away, outside of her home. 16:40:28 As jurors, you may reasonably presume that, based on the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, along with common sense, that it was the president who directed Mrs. Currie to call Ms. Lewinsky to tell her she understood she had something for her. 16:40:52 BARR: And that happened to be evidence under lawful subpoena 16:41:03 Mrs. Currie would have no independent reason to even consider such a course of action on her own. She had never, other than one time in her life, ever driven to Miss Lewinsky's home. She did so on this Sunday not because she developed a sudden hankering to do so, or because she routinely visited interns at their home -- she didn't -- or because she had a vision. She did it because the president would have asked her to do it. 16:41:43 Now, the president further points out that Mrs. Currie has testified that Miss Lewinsky called her to arrange to pick up the gifts, rather than the other way around. In fact, though, Mrs. Currie has testified inconsistently as to whether Miss Lewinsky called her or she called Miss Lewinsky. She actually deferred to Miss Lewinsky's superior knowledge of the facts. However, even if one were to accept for purposes of argument that it was Miss Lewinsky who initiated the call, the president's avowal that he had no knowledge of or involvement with the hiding or transfer of the gifts is still not plausible. It is totally unreasonable to presume that the private secretary to the president of the United States would drop what she was doing, travel to the home of a former intern, pick up a box, and hide it in her home simply because the former intern demanded that she do so. BARR: All of this had to have been done reasonably, plausibly, credibly was done, because of communication, directive and understanding between the president and his personal secretary. There's one more point on this. Miss Lewinsky testified she met with the president for 45 minutes on December 28th, at which time they discussed the fact she had been subpoenaed along with 16:43:22 the need to conceal the gifts. The president's testimony directly conflicts with hers on this point. 16:43:30 First, the evidence, however, establishes that his professed inability to remember whether she and the gifts had been subpoenaed is unbelievable and false. Please keep in mind when evaluating the circumstantial evidence to determine whether a false statement was made intentionally, the most important evidence to consider is the existence of a motive to lie. It is 16:43:57 the calculated falsehood, combined with a clear motive to lie, that leads day in and day out in federal court proceedings to the conclusion that the false statement -- false statements were intentional. 16:44:15 Also, we urge you to bear in mind that the law will not allow a person to testify, "I don't recall" or "I'm not sure," when such answers are unreasonable under the circumstances. 16:44:34 Former United States Representative Patrick Swindle attempted this course of action when he appeared before a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia in 1988. 16:44:45 BARR: His evasive and false answers to the grand jury provided the basis for his subsequent conviction. Feigned forgetfulness or feigned assertions that grand jury questions are ambiguous and therefore can not be answered can not, and, in fact, in federal proceedings do not shield defendants from criminal liability for perjury or impeding the conduct of a federal grand jury; nor should such efforts be allowed to shield President Clinton from conviction on these two articles of impeachment, as to these facts. 16:45:24 The president, a man of considerable intelligence and gifted with an exceptional memory -- as somebody described, a prodigious memory -- can and should be inferred to have clearly understood what he was doing, as well as the logical and reasonable consequences of his actions as well the questions put to him by the independent counsel in the grand jury questioning. 16:45:52 And he had a clear motive to falsely state to the grand jury that he could not recall that he knew on December 28th that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, and that this subpoena called for her to produce the gifts. For to have acknowledged such would have helped establish a motive on his part for orchestrating the concealment of the gifts. 16:46:15 And as we have also seen and understand, there is no doubt the president's statement of feigned forgetfulness was material, not only to the matters before the Jones case, but to matters subsequently before the grand jury. Now, the president's counsel may very well argue the fact that the president gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on that same day, that is December 28th, as proof of the president's assertions that he didn't know there was anything wrong going on here. 16:46:50 BARR: Their argument, if they make it, cannot be sustained in the face of such much evidence to the contrary. The evidence and facts points to a much more plausible explanation. The additional gifts given that day demonstrate the president's continued confidence that Miss Lewinsky would keep to their earlier agreement to conceal their relationship. It is also plausible that the additional gifts were intended as a further gesture of affection by the president to Miss Lewinsky to help ensure she would not testify against him. Such a fact pattern also finds its way, to those of us who have prosecutorial background, into federal courts on a regular basis. We have heard about the job search and its relationship to perjury and obstruction. Let me tie the facts relating to the job search and the law applicable thereto together. We believe as managers that evidence shows that beginning on or about December 7th of 1997 and continuing through and including January 14th of last year, the president intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance for a witness in a federal civil rights case brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. Monica Lewinsky is, if nothing else, a persistent witness. BARR: After she was transferred out of the White House, and after being rebuffed repeatedly by others to secure assistance from the president in gaining a job that met her expectations and wishes, she decided to change tacks. She wrote directly to the president, asked for and received a meeting, in which she asked him to find her a job in New York. 16:49:09 The day before the president filed his answers to the interrogatories in the Jones case, as Manager Gekas discussed, the president asked Mrs. Currie to set up a meeting for Miss Lewinsky with Mr. Vernon Jordan. Two days after he filed his answers, in which he refused to answer whether he had ever had any extramarital relationships in the context or his public jobs, that meeting in fact occurred. But Mr. Jordan made no particular effort to assist Miss Lewinsky at that time. In fact, as he later testified, he had no recollection of the meeting. There was of course at that early stage no urgency. 16:49:54 The situation, however, changed dramatically in early December 1997. On December 6, the president became aware that Miss Lewinsky had been named as a witness in the Jones case. Earlier that days, she had thrown a tantrum at the White House northwest gate when she was unable to meet with the president when she wanted. 16:50:17 Despite the president's initial anger over Miss Lewinsky's behavior and over the acts of some of the Secret Service officers, a mere five days later Miss Lewinsky in fact secured her second meeting with Mr. Vernon Jordan. But this time, unlike previously, this powerful Washington lawyer jumped for the former intern. He immediately placed calls to three major corporations on her behalf. 16:50:47 On December 11, Judge Wright ordered the president to answer Paula Jones' interrogatories. 16:50:54 BARR: On December 17th the president suggested to Miss Lewinsky she file the affidavit and continue to use their cover stories in the event she was asked about her relationship with the president. The next day she had two interviews in New York City arranged by Mr. Jordan. 16:51:16 On December 22nd Miss Lewinsky met with an attorney at a meeting arranged by Mr. Jordan. The following day she had another job interview arranged by Mr. Jordan. 16:51:30 On January 7th Miss Lewinsky signed the false affidavit and proudly showed the executed copy to Mr. Jordan. The next day, Ms. Lewinsky had an interview arranged by Mr. Jordan with McAndrews & Forbes in New York City, an interview that, apparently, went poorly. To remedy this she called Mr. Jordan, and so informed him. Mr. Jordan then called the CEO of McAndrews & Forbes, Mr. Ron Perelman, to, in Mr. Jordan's words -- to, in Mr. Perelman's words, "Make things happen if they could happen." After Mr. Jordan's call to Mr. Perelman, Ms. Lewinsky was called and told she would be interviewed again the very next morning. That following day she was reinterviewed and immediately offered a job. She then called Mr. Jordan to tell him, and he passed the information on to Mrs. Currie: "Tell the president 'mission accomplished'." Now what are you, as jurors, entitled to conclude from all of this as a matter of law and of fact? BARR: Until it became clear that Miss Lewinsky would be a witness in the Jones case, little was done to help her to help her with her job search. But once she was listed as a witness, things changed dramatically and rapidly. Just days after she is listed on the Jones' witness list, she gets a second meeting with one of the most influential men in Washington. But unlike their first meeting, Mr. Jordan now makes three calls on her behalf to get her a job interview. A week later the president proposed the affidavit. The next day Miss Lewinsky has two job interviews in New York. A few days later, Mr. Jordan arranges for an attorney to represent her. The next day she has another job interview. Two weeks later she signs the affidavit. The next day she has another interview. Mission accomplished. Obstruction accomplished. Another potentially embarrassing witness in the bag. Were Monica Lewinsky to get a job and move to New York, this would help the president substantially in two very important ways. First, it 16:54:01 would presumably create a happy and probably compliant witness -- one willing if not eager to support the president's false testimony. 16:54:12 Second, it would make Miss Lewinsky much more difficult if not impossible to reach as a witness in the Jones case. In fact, this is precisely what the president himself suggested to Miss Lewinsky during their December 28th meeting, according to her sworn testimony. To put it plainly but respectfully, if that is not obstruction by witness tampering, one would be hard-pressed to find a fact pattern that was. This aspect of the case against the president is extremely important. She gets the job. and what did the president get? The key affidavit to throw the Jones' lawyers off the trail. And possibly a witness outside the practical reach of the attorneys, much like the absent witnesses we've seen in large numbers in the campaign financing investigations. The president's efforts were designed to and did obstruct justice and tamper with a witness. And his actions, we submit, were criminal under both sections 1503 and 1512 of the federal criminal code. The president's false statements to his senior aides. Here, too, the facts and the law come together and would form the basis, we respectfully submit, for a conviction on articles of impeachment. All that needs to be shown to prove a violation of the statute is that the defendant engaged in misleading conduct with another person to influence that testimony. BARR: Misleading conduct is not a term of art for which there is no definition. It is specifically defined in the federal criminal code as section 1515. When you as jurors properly apply these definitions to the terms of section 1512, the tampering statute, the federal -- the -- and then turn your attention to the facts in this case, wherein the president repeatedly and deliberately gave false explanation to aides he knew or should reasonably have known would be witnesses in federal judicial proceedings, the conclusion he violated this statute is, we respectfully submit, unavoidable. Would point to one case previously mentioned, the O'Keefe (ph) case, as particularly perhaps applicable to deliberations on this particular point. 16:57:16 Finally, statements by the president and his lawyer concerning the affidavit during the Jones deposition. The obstruction statute may also be violated, as you know, by a person who gives false testimony. 16:57:30 In the Jones case, the president allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a federal judge. This part of the obstruction scheme was accomplished by characterizing as true the false affidavit filed by Miss Lewinsky in order to prevent questioning by the Jones lawyers, testimony which had already been deemed relevant by the judge in that case. The president's lawyer, as you have heard, objected to the innuendo of certain questions asked of the president and at that point during the deposition pointed out that Miss Lewinsky had signed an affidavit denying the relationship with the president. He then made the famous statement about there being no relationship of any way, shape, or form or kind. BARR: Following this statement, the judge, judge Wright, warned Mr. Bennett about making an assertion of fact in front of the witness, that is the president, to which he replied, "I'm not coaching the witness. In preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of the affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he don't know." The president's lawyers did not know what an understatement that was. Later, on September 30th, of 1998, long after the deposition and after the full evidence of Ms. Lewinsky's relationship with the president became public, Mr. Bennett wrote to judge Wright to inform her that she should not rely on the statements he made during the president's deposition because parts of the affidavit were misleading and not true -- misleading and not true -- sounds like perjury; sounds like obstruction. Which brings us full circle. Full circle from a false affidavit confirming earlier concocted cover stories, through a web of obstruction, to a letter from a distinguished lawyer forced to do what no lawyer wants to do, but every honorable lawyer must do when confronted with clear evidence their client misled the court, and that is to correct the record of falsity even to the detriment of their client. What we had before us, Senators and Mr. Chief Justice is really not complex, critically important, yes, but not essentially complex. BARR: Virtually every federal or state prosecutor, and there are many distinguished such persons on this jury, have prosecuted such cases of obstruction before in their careers, perhaps repeatedly -- cases involving patterns of obstruction compounded by subsequent cover up perjury. The president's lawyers may very well try to weave a spell of complexity over the facts of this case. They may nitpick over the time of a call or parse a specific word or phrase of testimony, much as the president has done. 17:00:37 We urge you, the distinguished jurors in this case, not to be fooled. Use ... 17:00:46 REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa. 17:00:50 TOM HARKIN: Mr. Chief Justice, I object to the use and the continued use of the word "jurors" when referring to the Senate sitting as triers -- a trial on the impeachment of the president of the United States. Mr. Chief Justice, I based my objection on the following. 17:01:11 First, Article One, Section Three of the Constitution says the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments -- not the courts, but the Senate. Article Three of the Constitution says the trial of all crimes, except in the cases of impeachment, shall be by jury -- a tremendous exculpatory clause when it comes to impeachments. 17:01:59 And next, Mr. Chief Justice, I based my objection on the writings in the Federalist Papers, especially Federalist Paper number 65 by Alexander Hamilton, in which he is outlining the reasons why the framers of the Constitution gave to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. 17:02:17 HARKIN: I won't read it all, but I will read this pertinent sentence where Mr. Hamilton says, and I quote, "There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law and the party who is to receive or to suffer it." 17:02:38 Next, Mr. Chief Justice, I base my objection on the 26 rules of the Senate adopted by the Senate governing impeachments. Nowhere in any of those 26 rules is the word "juror" or "jury" ever used. 17:03:01 And next, Mr. Chief Justice, I base my objection on the tremendous differences between regular jurors and senators sitting as triers of an impeachment. Regular jurors, of course, are chosen, to the maximum extent possible, with no knowledge of the case. Not so when we try impeachments. Regular jurors are not supposed to know each other. Not so here. 17:03:33 Regular jurors cannot overrule the judge. Not so here. Regular jurors do not decide what evidence should be heard or the standards of evidence, nor do they decide on witnesses or what witnesses shall be called. Not so here. Regular jurors do not decide when a trial is to be ended. Not so here. 17:03:59 Now, Mr. Chief Justice, it may seem a small point, but I think a very important point, I think the framers of the Constitution meant us -- the Senate to be something other than a jury, and not jurors. What we do here today is not just to decide the fate of one man. 17:04:31 HARKIN: Since the Senate sits on impeachment so rarely, and even more rarely on the impeachment of a president of the United States, what we do here sets precedents. Future generations will look back on this trial not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions. 17:05:00 To leave the impression for future generations that we somehow are jurors and acting as a jury ... 17:05:08 GREGG: Mr. Chief Justice, could I call for regular order at this point? 17:05:14 REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the senator from New Hampshire. 17:05:17 GREGG: I would ask, as a parliamentary point, whether it is appropriate to argue what I understand is a statement as to the proper reference relative to members of the Senate. This is not a motion, as I understand it, if this is a motion, it's not debatable, as I understand. 17:05:33 HARKIN: Mr. Chief Justice? 17:05:38 REHNQUIST: I think you may state your objection certainly, but not argue on it (ph). The chair views that you may state the objection and some reason for it, but not argue it ad infinitum. 17:05:50 HARKIN: Yes. I was just stating the reason for my objection, because of the precedents that we set, and that I do not believe it would be a value precedent to leave for future generations that we would be looked upon merely as jurors, but something other than being a juror. And that's why I raise that objection, Mr. Chief Justice. 17:06:06 REHNQUIST: The chair is of the view that the senator from Iowa's objection is well taken, that the court -- the Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case, and therefore counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors. 17:06:22 BARR: I thank the court for its ruling. 17:06:31 We urge you, the distinguished senators sitting as triers of fact and law in this case, not to be fooled. We urge you to use your common sense, your reason, your varied and successful career experiences, just as any trier of fact and law anywhere in America might do, just as does that other trier of fact and law do, so too have each of you sworn to decide these momentous matters impartially. 17:07:06 BARR: Your oath to look to the law and to our Constitution demand this of you. As this great body has gone on so many occasions in the course of our nation's history, I and all managers are confident you will neither shrink from nor cast aside that duty. Rather I urge, and fully anticipate, you will look to the volume of facts, and to the clear and fully 17:07:31 applicable statutes, and conclude that William Jefferson Clinton, in fact, and under the law, violated his oath and violated the laws of this land, and convict him on both articles of impeachment. 17:07:46 Even though such a high burden -- that is, proof of criminal violations -- is not strictly required of you under the law of impeachment, in fact such evidence is here; that higher burden is met; perjury is here; obstruction is here in the facts and the law, which formed the basis for the articles of impeachment in the House, and which we believe, properly, would form the basis for conviction in the Senate. 17:08:26 Perjury and obstruction. We respectfully ask you to strike down these insidious cancers that eat at the heart of our system of government and laws. Strike them down with the Constitution, so they might not fester as a gaping wound poisoning future generations of children, poisoning our court system, and perhaps even future generations of political leaders. 17:08:52 Just as members of both Houses of Congress have, unfortunately, over the years been convicted and removed from office for perjury and obstruction And just as federal judges have been removed from life tenure for perjury and obstruction, so must a president, so sadly should this president and just as federal judges have been removed from life tenure for perjury 17:09:13 and obstruction, so must a president, so sadly should this president. 17:09:18 BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and thank you members of the United States Senate sitting here as triers of fact and law in the trial of President William Jefferson Clinton. 17:09:30 REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader. 17:09:34 TRENT LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, as a reminder to all participants in these proceedings, we will begin at 10 a.m. on Saturday, January the 16th, and we're expected to conclude sometime between 3 and 3:30 p.m. I had earlier indicated it might go as late as five. I understand it will be between three and three-thirty. 17:09:53 And therefore Mr. Chief Justice, pursuant to the previous consent agreement, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order. 17:09:59 REHNQUIST: Without objection, it is so ordered. SENATE IS ADJOURNED

Close up of spicy fish ball in slow motion at night market

<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Thursday</p>\n<p>Washington, DC</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Karine Jean-Pierre</p>\n<p>White House Press Secretary</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p>THE WHITE HOUSE IS RESPONDING TO INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY FAR-RIGHT CONSPIRACY THEORIST LAURA LOOMER.</p>\n<p>IN A POST ON X, LOOMER SAID - IF VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS WINS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - QUOTE - "THE WHITE HOUSE WILL SMELL LIKE CURRY AND WHITE HOUSE SPEECHES WILL BE FACILITATED VIA A CALL CENTER."</p>\n<p>HARRIS IS HALF INDIAN.</p>\n<p>WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT BY A REPORTER AT THURSDAY'S PRESS BRIEFING, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY KARINE JEAN-PIERRE CALLED THE COMMENTS "RACIST POISON."</p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p>Karine Jean-Pierre, White House Press Secretary: "It is ah ... repugnant, these types of comments. It is unAmerican to say these types of things, exactly the kind of hateful and divisive rhetoric that we should denounce and that we should not, should not be part of the fabric of this country. It doesn't matter what your political views are, you should stand and condemn these types of ... ah ... just repugnant, repugnant words."</p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p>JEAN-PIERRE ADDED ... AMERICAN LEADERS SHOULD NOT ASSOCIATE WITH SOMEONE SPREADING SUCH RACISM.</p>\n<p>EVEN SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN AS LOOMER TRAVELED TO TUESDAY'S PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON TRUMP'S PLANE.</p>\n<p>SHE ALSO ACCOMPANIED THE FORMER PRESIDENT AT THE COMMEMORATION OF THE 23RD ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 ON WEDNESDAY.</p>\n<p>LOOMER HAS POSTED VIDEOS IN THE PAST SAYING A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS.</p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p>POLITICS WH BIDEN HARRIS DEMOCRATS PRESS BRIEFING</p>\n<p></p>

Close up of spicy fish ball in slow motion at night market

<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>File </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p>ELECTION DAY IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER AND VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS HAS RECEIVED ANOTHER CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT. </p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p>N-B-A SUPERSTAR LEBRON JAMES THREW HIS SUPPORT BEHIND HARRIS' PRESIDENTIAL BID ON THURSDAY. </p>\n<p>THE LOS ANGELES LAKERS PLAYER SHARED A VIDEO ON SOCIAL MEDIA SAYING THAT "THE CHOICE IS CLEAR," VOTE KAMALA HARRIS. </p>\n<p>JAMES HAS BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN POLITICS AFTER THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. </p>\n<p>IN 20-20 -- HE FOUNDED "MORE THAN VOTE," AN ORGANIZATION FOCUSED ON COMBATTING VOTER SUPPRESSION. </p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p>LEBRON JAMES IS THE LATEST HIGH-PROFILE CELEBRITY TO ENDORSE KAMALA HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT. </p>\n<p>SHE RECENTLY RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM GLOBAL SUPERSTARS BEYONCE AND TAYLOR SWIFT. </p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p>LEBRON JAMES KAMALA HARRIS 2024 PRESIDENTIAL RACE </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>This is an automated message sent on behalf of katherine.dautrich@cnn.com. Please reply directly to the sender and not to this message.</p>\n<p>https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/31/politics/lebron-james-endorses-kamala-harris/index.html</p>\n<p>Lebron James endorses Kamala Harris in presidential race against Trump</p>\n<p>By Kaanita Iyer, CNN</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Basketball superstar LeBron James threw his support behind Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid Thursday evening, emphasizing that “the choice is clear” just days ahead of Election Day.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Sharing a video with clips of offensive remarks from former President Donald Trump, the Los Angeles Lakers player said in a post on X: “What are we even talking about here?? When I think about my kids and my family and how they will grow up, the choice is clear to me. VOTE KAMALA HARRIS!!!”</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The video featured soundbites of Trump’s disparaging rhetoric over the years, including the former president warning that the country would end up “like Detroit” if Harris is elected and saying that undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” The video concluded with written words: “Hate takes us back.”</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>James’ post marks the latest high-profile endorsement of Harris, who has received support from Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Bad Bunny and Arnold Schwarzenegger, among other celebrities.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>James has previously backed Democratic candidates, including endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2016, and was an outspoken critic of Trump during his time in office.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>James famously calling the then-president a “bum” for uninviting fellow basketball player Stephen Curry of the Golden State Warriors from visiting the White House. In 2020, he also brushed off Trump’s criticism of athletes who took a knee during the national anthem ahead of games following the killing of George Floyd. He instead told at the time voters to “see what leadership that we have at the top of our country” and urged them to head to the polls.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>James was also actively involved in the last presidential election, founding More Than A Vote — a voting rights organization focused on combatting voter suppression — along with other athletes. The organization then recruited several thousand poll workers in primarily Black electoral districts and helped Floridians struggling to pay off outstanding fees and fines associated with their felony convictions so they could register to vote.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Following President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020, which James celebrated, his organization focused on the wave of GOP-led bills aimed at restricting voter access and launched a campaign to mobilize Black voters in off-year and municipal elections.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Ahead of Election Day, the Harris and Trump campaigns are utilizing the star power of celebrities. Retired NFL quarterback Brett Favre campaigned with Trump in Wisconsin on Wednesday while the vice president’s Friday rally in Milwaukee will feature rappers Cardi B, GloRilla and Flo Milli.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TEASE--</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--MUSIC INFO---</b></p>\n<p></p>

White House Spokesman Mike McCurry briefs reporters. Topics include the ValuJet crash and aviation safety, the defense spending bill and tobacco advertising.

AP-APTN-1830: UK Charles Monday, 7 January 2013 STORY:UK Charles- Prince Charles talks about becoming grandfather, Harry as a soldier LENGTH: 03:23 FIRST RUN: 1330 RESTRICTIONS: See Script TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/ITV THIS MORNING/UK POOL STORY NUMBER: 874043 DATELINE: London - 20 Dec 2012/ Recent/ File LENGTH: 03:23 SHOTLIST "ITV'S THIS MORNING - ITV STUDIOS" - AP CLIENTS ONLY/MUST COURTESY London, 20 December 2012 1. Various of Prince Charles with hosts of 'This Morning' programme Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby 2. Various of Charles with presenters UPSOUND: (English) Phillip Schofield, TV presenter: "You are, seem to be a grandfather for the first time so many congratulations there." UPSOUND: (English) Prince Charles, heir to the British throne: "I'm getting very old" UPSOUND: (English) Phillip Schofield, TV presenter: "You've said yourself you feel impatient for change so does an impending new generation make you feel that there is still not enough time and so much to do?" 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Prince Charles, heir to the British throne: ++PARTLY OVERLAID BY VARIOUS OF PRESENTERS AND INTERVIEW++ "Well yes. For what it's worth I've gone on for years about the importance of thinking about the long term, in relation to the environmental damage, the climate change and everything else, because we don't really, in a sensible world, want to hand on an increasingly dysfunctional world to our grandchildren, and I don't want to be confronted by my future grandchild saying 'why didn't you do something?' So clearly, now that I will have a grandchild, it makes it even more obvious you know, to try and make sure we hand them, leave them something that isn't a totally poisoned chalice." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE: London - 6 December, 2012 4. Britain's Prince William and his pregnant wife Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, leaving the King Edward VII Hospital where she received treatment for severe morning sickness, the royal couple get into vehicle which pulls away "ITV'S THIS MORNING - ITV STUDIOS" - AP CLIENTS ONLY/MUST COURTESY London, 20 December 2012 5. Pull out from Prince Charles 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Prince Charles, heir to the British throne: ++PARTLY OVERLAID BY VARIOUS OF PRESENTERS AND INTERVIEW. ALSO PARTLY OVERLAID BY BELOW FILE OF PRINCE HARRY WHICH HAS DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS++ "It certainly does, yes. A couple of years ago Harry was out and funnily enough he was part of the time he was attached to the Gurkhas of whom I've been Colonel in Chief for 37 years or something. They're the most wonderful people. So I was pulling his leg, their leg, the Gurkhas, by saying 'hang on a minute I have spent all these years trying to teach him to eat with a knife and fork and you are teaching him to eat with his fingers by pulling goats to pieces, anyway, curried goat.' They're very good at haggling with the Afghans but, no, yes of course you do because if you are a parent or, you know, relation or loved one and the person you love is away like that in these incredibly dangerous and challenging circumstances, I know you worry all the time, certainly every night I worry. But you know, he loves doing what he's doing, he's brilliant at it, I think he's helping to keep the nasties' heads down, you know, protecting our troops on the ground. But I do know, yes, I constantly meet the families of those who've lost their sons or husbands or brothers or sisters. I have some understanding, at least, of what they go through." UK POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE: Camp Bastion - 7 September 2012 7. Various of Prince Harry and another soldier checking helicopter "ITV'S THIS MORNING - ITV STUDIOS" - AP CLIENTS ONLY/MUST COURTESY London, 20 December 2012 8. Mid of Charles with presenters, as they thank him at the end of the interview 9. Close-up of Charles STORYLINE Prince Charles said he was delighted at the prospect of becoming a grandfather but concerned about the environmentally damaged world his grandchild would inherit. "We don't really, in a sensible world, want to hand on an increasingly dysfunctional world to our grandchildren," he told ITV's 'This Morning' presenters Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby in an interview recorded late December 2012. "I don't want to be confronted by my grandchild saying 'why didn't you do something?'" he added, saying he wanted to make sure "we hand them, leave them something that isn't a totally poisoned chalice." St James' Palace announced early December that Prince William and his wife, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge - formerly known as Kate Middleton, are expecting their first child. The couple's first child will be third in line to take the throne - leapfrogging Prince Harry and possibly setting up the first scenario in which a UK female heir could benefit from new gender rules about succession. The Prince also said he worried about his younger son, Prince Harry, on deployment in Afghanistan. "If you are a parent or, you know, relation or loved one and the person you love is away like that in these incredibly dangerous and challenging circumstances, I know you worry all the time, certainly every night I worry," he said. Harry, third in line to the British throne, is based at Camp Bastion. He flew into southern Afghanistan on September 7 to take a dangerous combat role in a four-month tour of duty as an attack helicopter co-pilot gunner. "He loves doing what he's doing, he's brilliant at it, I think he's helping to keep the nasties' heads down, you know, protecting our troops on the ground. But I do know, yes, I constantly meet the families of those who've lost their sons or husbands or brothers or sisters. I have some understanding, at least, of what they go through," Prince Charles told 'This Morning'. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN AP-WF-01-07-13 1837GMT

LOUIS FARRAKHAN HOLDS NEWS CONFERENCE AND ANNOUNCED HIS CONDEMNATION OF A NATION OF ISLAM MINISTER WHO CALLED JEWS “BLOOD SUCKERS” IN ADDITION TO CRITICIZING OTHER MINORITIES AND MEMBERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS.

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

Loyd Grossman korma sauce curry sauce poisoning: victims improving; ENGLAND: London: INT Close Shots of bottle of Loyd Grossman korma sauce PAN Close Shot of label

Loyd Grossman korma sauce curry sauce poisoning: victims improving; Dr John Cowden (Health Protection Scotland) interview SOT

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

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

Loyd Grossman korma sauce curry sauce poisoning: victims improving; ENGLAND: London: INT Close shot of bottles of Loyd Grossman korma sauce PAN Close shot of label Three bottles of Loyd Grossman korma sauce

Video format Thai food,Stir fried chicken

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

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