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

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

<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>

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Local food

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.

Indian Chicken Curry