|
Reconstructing obstruction and perjury plot, impeachment managers call for witnesses; White House decries alleged misstatement of facts
Updated January 14, 1999
8:45 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Court TV) — As House prosecutors called for witnesses and accused President Clinton of engineering a meticulous plan to obstruct justice in the Paula Jones case, the White House blasted one House manager's misstatement of facts and insisted there is no basis for the president's impeachment.
During his opening statements Thursday, James Sensenbrenner, R- Wis., said that White House Counsel Charles Ruff did not give a direct answer when asked by the House Judiciary Committee whether Clinton had lied under oath in the Paula Jones case and before Kenneth Starr's grand jury. But the White House hit back at Sensenbrenner for "misstating the facts" and insisted Ruff fully supported the president.
"Mr. Sensenbrenner gave a false impression of his testimony during opening statements this morning," said White House Counsel Greg Craig after Thursday's impeachment hearings. "When asked whether the president told the truth, Mr. Ruff answered [the question] directly, saying 'He sure did.' I urge Mr. Sensenbrenner to correct the record tomorrow."
After the trial adjourned Republican senate leaders hinted that they may invite President Clinton to testify.
"I think he should be invited, or at least I don't have a
problem with him being invited," GOP Whip Don Nickles told reporters.
On the other side, some Democratic senators said they thought the prosecutors lacked a fresh angle on the evidence.
"Frankly, I don't think there was anything new," said Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. Dorgan added that he hoped the senate would decide not to call witnesses.
These sentiments were then echoed by Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who said he "shuddered" at the prospect of calling witnesses, and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who lamented that the impeachment managers had not presented any new compelling evidence or arguments.
Using the president's own videotaped testimony and charts that chronicled an alleged plot of obstruction, House prosecutors Asa Hutchinson and James Rogan said Clinton lied under oath as he actively participated in a plan to evade the judicial system. Both also urged the Senate to call witnesses to corroborate the evidence.
Court TV's selection of highlights from the Senate Impeachment Trial.
Although he presented no new information, Hutchinson, R-Ark., presented a day-by-day chronicle of what he called President Clinton's "seven pillars of obstruction."
According to Hutchinson, the president started his plan to obstruct justice on December 5, 1997, the day he received a copy of the witness list from the Paula Jones case.
From that day on, Hutchinson said, Clinton actively conjured a plan that included:
— encouraging Monica Lewinsky to lie in the Jones deposition
— trying to get a job for Lewinsky to ensure her cooperation
— influencing testimony his secretary Betty Currie, a prospective Jones witness
— ordering the concealment of potential evidence in the Jones case
— allowing his attorney, Robert Bennett, to present a false affidavit in the Jones case
— lying before a federal grand jury, and providing false information to witnesses before a federal grand jury
Hutchinson particularly focused on Clinton's alleged attempts find out — and perhaps influence — Currie's recollection of his relationship with Lewinsky the day after his deposition in the Jones case. If Clinton had told the truth in his sworn testimony, Hutchinson stressed, then he would not have needed to find out what Currie knew about his relationship with Lewinsky.
The Arkansas congressman said Clinton's motive was not to find out the facts and ensure that Currie tell the truth; he wanted to coach his loyal secretary.
"This has nothing to do with facts, nothing to do with media inquiries. It has everything to do with keeping his team on board, keeping the ship from sinking and hiding the facts," Hutchinson said. "At this point, we are not talking about hiding personal facts from inquiring minds but about an effort to impede the legitimate and necessary functioning of our legal system."
Hutchinson stressed his belief in the Constitution and focused on President Clinton's manipulation of his closest friends and aides to prevent the truth about his relationship with Lewinsky from surfacing. The president, he said, even engaged in character assassination of Lewinsky, labeling her as a "stalker" who came on to him. Hutchinson said that Clinton compromised his sworn oath to protect and uphold the Constitution in order to defeat the Jones suit at all costs.
"The seven pillars of this obstruction case were personally constructed by the President of the United States," Hutchinson said. "It was done with the intent that truth and evidence would be suppressed in a civil rights case pending against him. The goal was to win, and he was not going to let the judicial system stand in his way."
Rogan, R-Calif., outlined the perjury charge against Clinton, saying that the president engineered a course of perjury after he had sworn to tell the truth in grand jury testimony. He said Clinton gave a false account of his relationship with Lewinsky and that he repeated false answers he had given under oath in the Paula Jones lawsuit to Ken Starr's grand jury.
Rogan stressed that if witnesses are allowed to lie "with impunity," then justice will no longer be the product of the court system.
He told the Senate that Clinton fully understood the definition of sex and realized that he was allowing Bennett to submit a misleading affidavit during the Jones deposition. He scoffed at Clinton's claim that he was not paying attention to Bennett and noted that the tape showed him looking at his attorney as he presented Lewinsky's affidavit.
"If you're confused by his testimony, don't be surprised," Rogan said after he played Clinton's videotaped explanation of his understanding of sex in the Jones case. "His testimony was supposed to be confusing so that he can avoid telling the truth."
Rogan stressed that the president told an "evolving series of lies" to cover up other lies in sworn testimony. He said the evidence of perjury and false statements in the case is overwhelming.
"If the witnesses that make the case against the president — who incidentally are his employees, his top aides, and his close friends — if all these people are lying, then he has been done a grave disservice," Rogan said. "He deserves not just an acquittal: he deserves the profoundest of apologies. But if the evidence is true...then there must be constitutional accountability."
The presentations by Rogan and Hutchinson concluded the first day of opening statements by impeachment prosecutors. They came after Sensenbrenner said in his opening statements that Clinton turned a private affair into a "public wrong" and added that the Senate must act by removing Clinton from office.
"We are here today because President William Jefferson Clinton decided to put himself above the law, not once, not twice but repeatedly," said Sensenbrenner.
Making a case before a silent jury of 100 senators, Sensenbrenner said a conviction of Clinton — requiring two-thirds of the senators — would send a message to all future presidents and public servants that lying under oath will not be tolerated.
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.
"The president engaged in a conspiracy of crimes to prevent justice from being served. These are impeachable offenses for which the president should be convicted," Sensenbrenner said in an hour-long presentation void of dramatic expression or the theatrics of many courtroom arguments.
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. Ed Bryant, R-Tenn., used media aides, including a video clip of the president taking the oath of office, to discuss background events leading up to the president's misdeeds.
Bryant countered White House arguments that if the Senate convicts, then only perfect presidents will be safe from future impeachment.
"[P]olitical life is not so much about how an individual fails, but rather how the person reacts to that failure," he said. "... [W]e are electing people who are imperfect and who have made mistakes in life, but who are willing to so respect this country and the Office of the President that he or she will now lay aside their own personal shortcomings and have the inner strength to discipline themselves sufficiently that they do not break the law which they themselves are sworn to uphold."
Bryant reiterated statements made in the House trial memo about the importance of placing individual acts into a larger plot.
"Events and words that may seem innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a sinister or even criminal connotation when observed in the context of the whole plot," he said.
"For example, when we all agree that Ms. Lewinsky testified, 'No one ever told me to lie.' When considered alone, this statement would seem exculpatory."
But he added, "In the context of other evidence, however, we see that this one statement gives a misleading inference. Of course no one said, 'Now Monica, you go down there and lie.' They didn't have to. Based upon their previous spoken and even unspoken words, Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of her."
Read bryant'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.
"What you do over the next few weeks," Hyde told the Senate, "will forever affect the meaning of those two words "I do." You are now stewards of the oath. It's significance in public service and our cherished system of justice will never be the same after this.
"Depending on what you decide," he said, "it will either be strengthened in its power to achieve Justice or it will go the way of so much of our moral infrastructure and become a mere convention, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Read Hyde's opening remarks.
House rebuttal
House prosecutors issued a rebuttal Thursday to the the White House's exhaustive, 130-page defense brief.
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
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.
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.
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.
Court TV's Aldina Vazao Kennedy, Bryan Robinson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
| 
Full Coverage