|
House managers begin their opening statements, calling for Clinton's removal
Updated January 14, 1999
1:43 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Court TV) — House prosecutors began their historic presentation of evidence against the president Thursday only hours after issuing a rebuttal to the the White House's exhaustive, 130-page defense brief.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Clinton turned a private affair into a "public wrong" and added that the Senate must act by removing Clinton from office.
Court TV's selection of highlights from the Senate Impeachment Trial.
Sensenbrenner, a House manager in the prosecution of federal judge Walter Nixon, argued that the Senate convicted judges for making false and misleading statements in the 1980s and therefore must convict the president for the same crime. "There can not be different levels of truth for judges and presidents," he said.
"Deceiving the courts is an offense against the public," said Sensenbrenner. He added that if lying about sex is dismissed as a private concern then the nation's sexual harassment and domestic violence laws would be unenforceable.
He also continued the Republicans' appeal for senators to allow witnesses to testify, arguing that they will be necessary if the facts of the case are disputed.
Read Sensenbrenner's opening remarks
Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., made opening remarks emphasizing the importance of the oath of office and outlining the division of labor among the managers.
Hyde warned that the oath was in danger of becoming "mere convention ... full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
Read Hyde's opening remarks.
As the day moves on, Rep. Ed Bryant, R-Tenn., will discuss background events leading up to the president's misdeeds. Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., will argue the factual basis of article two which alleges obstruction of justice. Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., will argue the factual basis of article one alleging perjury before a grand jury. Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., will close for the day with a summary of the facts.
House prosecutors issued a rebuttal Thursday to the the White House's exhaustive, 130-page defense brief. The managers will begin their presentation of evidence against the president Thursday afternoon.
The managers used the president's arguments to bolster their own case for calling witnesses at the Senate trial. House prosecutors argued that they need trial witnesses to prove the president should be removed from office. They argued Clinton's defense defies "evidence as well as common sense."
"To the extent that President Clinton's Trial Memorandum raises issues of credibility, those issues are best resolved by live testimony subject to cross examination," House prosecutors said. Senators won't decide whether to allow witnesses until after both sides make their opening arguments at the trial.
The rebuttal to the White House memorandum was submitted to the Senate just hours before the trial was to resume in the Senate with House prosecutors making their opening arguments.
Read the House rebuttal
Clinton, the only elected president to be impeached in U.S. history, is accused of perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Sixty-seven of the 100 senators must vote to convict in order to oust him from office. While federal judges have been impeached and convicted, no president has even been removed from office. The only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson, who assumed office as a result of the assasination of Abraham Lincoln, escaped removal by one vote.
Rejecting Clinton's argument that he did not lie in his testimony before a federal grand jury investigating his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, the House managers reiterated their contention that "a complete and impartial review of the evidence reveals that the president did in fact commit perjury before the grand jury."
"President Clinton discounts substantial evidence as well as common sense when he maintains he testified truthfully," the House prosecutors wrote.
The chief potential witness, former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, rejected a House request to interview her.
"The committee contacted Monica Lewinsky's attorneys to determine whether she would be available for an interview," House Judiciary Committee spokesman Paul McNulty said. "They declined to make her available. The committee is duty bound ... to be thoroughly prepared to present its case to the Senate."
McNulty said the House committee was authorized under its existing subpoena power to compel her testimony, but has not chosen to do so. He also noted that if the Senate eventually OKs her appearance as a witness, she could be compelled to testify under Senate subpoena.
Under current Senate rules, Clinton is the only witness who could not be subpoenaed to appear. But Senate rules can change — all it takes is a simple majority.
Sensenbrenner said his opening statement on behalf of the prosecution team would focus on "laying out the case and showing very clearly that the president committed an impeachable offense."
Elected in 1978, Sensenbrenner, 55, represents Milwaukee's suburbs. An attorney, he is also chairman of the House Science Committee, where he has dealt with the international space station project and is one of Congress' wealthiest members.
The House case will continue Friday and possibly Saturday, to be followed by a vigorous White House defense next week contending that President Clinton is not guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice, and that the charges, even if proven, do not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as set forth in the Constitution's standard for impeachment.
The White House lawyers and the House prosecutors each can make arguments for 24 hours on the clock, spread over three days, if all the allotted time is used.
In a preview of the White House rebuttal, a trial brief submitted Wednesday asked, "If the Senate removes this president for a wrongful relationship he hoped to keep private, for what will the House ask the Senate to remove the next president, and the next?"
Read the White House trial memo
But Hyde, the lead House prosecutor, insisted that the matter had to be pressed forward, regardless of the outcome.
Whatever the senators "decide is perfectly acceptable to me. I won't lose sleep over either ... verdict. But I will lose sleep if we lay down on the job and didn't do our level best," Hyde said on ABC's "Nightline" program on Wednesday.
In the interview, Hyde also said threats have been made against his life.
Two House prosecutors joined staff members in speaking with another potential witness, Kathleen Willey, legal sources said on condition of anonymity. One source identified the lawmakers as Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and Hutchinson.
Willey is a former White House volunteer who contends Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance in a room near the Oval Office in 1993. House managers are divided over attempting to call her, since the House did not use any evidence of her involvement with Clinton in building its impeachment case.
Some House prosecutors believe there could be a connection to the obstruction charge if there was any attempt to intimidate her by the president or his allies. Starr is investigating that subject with a grand jury meeting in Alexandria, Va., a Washington suburb.
The charges relate to Clinton's attempts to cover up his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.
Clinton, in his first public comments in three weeks on the trial, said Wednesday that lawmakers "have their job to do in the Senate, and I have mine. I trust that the right thing will be done."
Speaking at the White House, the president said, "The important thing for me is to spend as little time thinking about that as possible and as much time working on the issues we're here to discuss as possible. I need to work on the business of the people."
Separately, officials said Democrats had suggested canceling next Tuesday's scheduled trial session to avoid an awkward appearance on the day of Clinton's scheduled State of the Union address. Senate Republicans discussed the issue at a closed-door meeting during the day. Most were opposed, according to sources familiar with the discussion, since Clinton had declined to reschedule his speech, but no final decision was made.
Trial strategy
In emerging impeachment trial strategies, House prosecutors will allege that the president schemed to keep Monica Lewinsky from revealing their affair while the White House will contend the managers built their case by intentionally mischaracterizing the evidence.
The two sides used the same grand jury testimony and other evidence to reach their opposite conclusions. That result is possible because witnesses often gave testimony that was contradictory or, at best, fuzzy.
The House will argue that the attempt by Clinton friend Vernon Jordan, with the president's blessing, to find Lewinsky a job in New York went nowhere until after Dec. 5, 1997, when she was named as a potential witness in the Paula Jones case.
The managers will assert that Jordan, spurred by the witness list and a Dec. 11 order by the Jones trial judge that could subject Lewinsky to a deposition, met with her that day and suddenly began calling corporate executives and obtaining interviews.
The White House will counter that the search began long before Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case, and the testimony of all involved revealed no connection between the job assistance and the Jones lawsuit. Clinton's lawyers say the president had nothing to do with the Lewinsky-Jordan meeting, and it had already taken place by the time of the court order.
The House will say that Lewinsky recalled Clinton telling her Dec. 28, 1997, to let him "think about" what should be done with the gifts they exchanged, which were under subpoena in the Jones case. Later that day, Lewinsky recalled, Currie telephoned her to ask whether Lewinsky had "something to give me." The secretary later arrived at Lewinsky's apartment to pick up the items.
"Ms. Currie's cell phone record corroborates Ms. Lewinsky," the House brief said, concluding the only logical scenario was that the president asked his secretary to retrieve the gifts.
The White House position is that Lewinsky made the statement at one point that Clinton wanted to think about the gifts. But the House side ignored numerous other occasions when she testified that Clinton had no reaction to her question of what should be done with the gifts.
According to the White House, the House also ignored Currie's testimony that it was Lewinsky who called her about the gifts, not the other way around. Also, Lewinsky said she turned over the gifts to Currie about 2 p.m. Dec. 28, 1 1/2 hours before records show a Currie-to-Lewinsky cell phone call from Currie's phone.
That House will make the point that on Jan. 8, 1998, the day after Lewinsky signed an affidavit denying an affair, she had an interview with MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. in New York arranged by Jordan.
After Lewinsky told Jordan the interview went poorly, the president's friend called the company's chairman, Ronald Perelman. More interviews were conducted and Lewinsky was offered a job with the company's Revlon subsidiary.
Perelman testified that Jordan "had never called him before about a job recommendation." Jordan contended he had done so, to recommend hiring a former mayor of New York, a "very talented" attorney, a Harvard business school graduate and Lewinsky. Her "qualifications do not compare" with the three others, the House brief said.
The White House will respond that the president never suggested to Lewinsky she should file a false affidavit and never told her what to say. Lewinsky said on several occasions the president never asked her to lie.
Both Lewinsky and the president testified that they believed a truthful, limited affidavit might establish that Lewinsky had nothing relevant to offer to the Jones lawyers.
The House will argue the president tried to coach Currie when he called her into work Sunday, Jan. 18 — the day after his Jones deposition. He asked questions that made it appear he wanted her to agree with him, such as: "You were always there when Monica was there, right?"
The White House response: coach her for what testimony? Currie was not scheduled at the time to be a witness in the Jones case. She did become a witness before prosecutor Kenneth Starr's grand jury, but Clinton could not have known yet that Starr would be investigating the Lewinsky affair. Also, Currie testified she did not perceive any pressure to agree with the president's statements.
Court TV's Aldina Vazao Kennedy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
| 
Full Coverage