|
Clinton impeachment trial transcripts — January 14, 1999
The following transcript was provided to Court TV by Federal Document Clearing House:
SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON (CONTINUED)
JANUARY 14, 1999
*** Elapsed Time 00:00, Eastern Time 14:54 ***
SPEAKERS: WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY J. HYDE (R-IL),
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ED BRYANT (R-TN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES E. ROGAN (R-CA)
...a recent idea.
BRYANT: But even if for some reason you don't believe Ms.
Lewinsky offered to share that affidavit with him, don't you think it
still would have been in the president's best interest to give Ms.
Lewinsky his thoughts before she violated the law with a completely
false affidavit.
Now, indeed, is the time to stop the legal gymnastics and the
legal hair-splitting and to deal with these charges and these facts
appropriately.
As a House manager, I believe that I can speak for all of us out
of a sense of fairness and again that request that we and the
president be permitted to call witnesses.
I would submit that that the state of the evidence is such that,
unless and until the president has the opportunity to confront and
cross examine witnesses like Ms. Lewinsky and himself to testify, if
he desires, there can be no -- there can be any -- there can not be
any doubt of his guilt on the facts.
A reasonable and impartial review of this record, as it presently
exists, demands nothing less than a guilty verdict. And while it's
been the consistent defense of the White House to be inconsistent, it
still comes as something of a surprise that the president has not made
a stronger case for calling witnesses.
Before now, he has aggressively sought the opportunity to
challenge the truth and the veracity of witnesses in these impeachment
proceedings. During the hearings in the House, which many believe are
analogous to grand jury proceeding, the president's defenders and his
attorneys consistently complained of the failure to call witnesses and
the lack of fairness and due process.
Almost every day there were partisan attacks from the White House
and its emissaries who were dispatched throughout the media talk shows
with the same complaints of no witnesses.
BRYANT: And always, our measured response was a calm assurance
that there would be witnesses called during the trial phase in the
Senate. Is there any doubt that our forefathers intended a two-step
impeachment proceeding? The House would function as the grand jury
and determine whether to charge to impeach. Then you, as the trier of
fact, would function as the jury to try the case and weigh the
testimony and the credibility of the fact witnesses.
In recent days, some have publicly asserted that the House was
hypocritical or is hypocritical because we didn't call some of the
fact witnesses it now (ph) asked to call in the Senate -- we asked to
call in the Senate.
For the record, it must be noted that the House Judiciary
Committee out of an abundance of fairness, did allow the president's
defense team 30 hours in which to present any witnesses they could
have chosen and they could have examined.
But any allegation of hypocrisy certainly appears to miss the
point that the writers of our Constitution never contemplated two
separate trials for an impeachment proceeding. But now, we would
respectfully request, is the time -- or suggest, is the time for
witnesses.
All Americans, including the president, are entitled to enjoy a
private family life free from public or governmental scrutiny. But
the privacy concerns raised in this case are subject to limits. And
three of these I will briefly discuss.
First, the first limit was imposed when the president was sued in
federal court for alleged sexual harassment. The evidence in such
litigation is often personal. At times, that evidence is highly
embarrassing for both the plaintiff and the defendant.
As Judge Wright noted at the president's January, 1998
deposition, I have never had a sexual harassment case where there has
not been some embarrassment. Nevertheless, Congress and the Supreme
Court have concluded that embarrassment-related concerns must give way
to the greater interest in allowing aggrieved parties to pursue their
claims. Courts have long recognized the difficulties of proving
sexual harassment in the work place. Inasmuch as improper and
unlawful behavior often takes place in private.
To excuse a party who lied or concealed evidence on the ground
that the evidence covered only personal or private behavior would
frustrate the goals that Congress and the courts have sought to
achieve in enacting and interpreting the nation's sexual harassment
laws.
BRYANT: That is particularly true when the conduct that is being
concealed -- sexual relationship in the workplace between a high
official and a young, subordinate employee -- itself conflicts with
these goals.
Second. The second limit was imposed when Judge Wright required
disclosure of the precise information that is in part the subject of
this hearing today. A federal judge specifically ordered the
president on more than one occasion to provide requested information
about relationships with other women, including Miss Lewinsky.
The fact that Judge Wright later determined the evidence would
not be admissible at the trial, or still later granted judgment in the
president's favor, does not change the president's legal duty at the
time he testified.
Like every litigant, the president is entitled to object to
discovery questions and to seek guidance from the court if he thought
those questions were improper. But having failed to convince the
court that his objections were well founded, the president was duty
bound to testify truthfully and to testify fully.
Perjury and attempts to obstruct the gathering of evidence can
never be an acceptable response to a court order, regardless of the
eventual course or outcome of that litigation.
The Supreme Court has spoken forcefully about perjury and other
forms of obstruction of justice. Quote: "In this constitutional
process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no place
whatsoever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to
the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints
against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative."
The insidious effects of perjury occur whether the case is civil
or criminal. Only a few years ago the Supreme Court considered a
false statement made in a civil administrative proceeding, quote:
"False testimony in a formal proceeding is intolerable. We must
neither reward nor condone such a flagrant affront to the truth-
seeking function of adversary proceedings. Perjury should be severely
sanctioned in appropriate cases."
BRYANT: Stated more simply, perjury is an obstruction of
justice.
Third and final, the third limit is unique to the president. The
presidency is more than an executive responsibility. It is the
inspiring symbol of all that is highest in America in purpose and
ideals. As the head of the executive branch, the president has the
constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully enforced
and executed.
The president gave his testimony in the Jones case under oath and
in the presence of a federal judge, a member of a co-equal branch of
government. He then testified before a federal grand jury -- a body
of citizens who had themselves taken an oath to seek the truth.
In view of the enormous trust and responsibility attendant to
this high office, the president has a manifest duty to ensure that his
conduct at all times complies with the law of the land.
In sum, perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen,
whether in a criminal case, a grand jury investigation, a
congressional hearing, a civil trial, a civil discovery proceeding,
are profoundly serious matters. When such acts are committed by the
president of the United States, those acts are grounds for conviction
and removal from office.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.
LOTT: I ask unanimous consent that there now be a recess of the
proceedings for 15 minutes.
REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection...
BRYANT: Mr. Chief Justice, I have just about one minute and I'll
be concluded.
LOTT: I withhold my request.
REHNQUIST: Very well.
BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Leader.
As I reach the conclusion of my presentation, the time line is
now in December of 1997. Following her November 5th meeting with Mr.
Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky had no communication with him or the president
for a month. Then in early December, 1997, the parties in the Jones
case exchanged witness lists and Ms. Lewinsky was scheduled as a
potential witness by the Jones attorneys. One or about that same day,
Ms. Lewinsky attempted to make an uninvited visit to the White House,
and later that day was allowed in by the president. But it was during
this time in December of 1997 that some of the seams began to unravel
for the president.
I will conclude my remarks at this point, and thank the chief
justice and the members of the Senate for their careful attention. My
colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, will follow me now, or at the
end of any recess as may be necessary.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.
LOTT: I apologize to the manager for the interruption right at
the end of his remarks, but I renew my request -- unanimous consent to
take a 15 minute break in the proceedings at this point.
REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it's so ordered.
*** Elapsed Time 00000, Eastern Time 15:07 ***
(RECESS)
*** Eastern Time 15:30 ***
LOTT: Would senators please take their seats and be prepared to
rise for the Chief Justice to return to the chamber?
REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order. The majority leader is
recognized.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, we are prepared now to go forward with
the next manager's presentation.
REHNQUIST: Very well. The chair recognizes Manager Hutchinson.
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Chief Justice, senators, I'm Asa Hutchinson, a
member of Congress from the Third Congressional District of Arkansas.
I'm grateful for this opportunity, although it is -- comes with deep
regret to be before you.
I do want to tell you in advance that we have presented to you on
your tables a selection of charts that I'll be referring to here so
that everyone will have the advantage of being able to see at least in
some fashion the charts that I'll be referring to, and we'll have the
charts here as well.
This is certainly a humbling experience for a small town lawyer.
I learned to love and to respect the law trying cases in the
courtrooms of rural Arkansas. And the scene is different in this
setting, in this historic chamber with the Chief Justice presiding and
senators sitting as jurors. But what is at stake remains the same.
In every case heard in every courtroom across this great country,
it is the truth, it is justice, it is the law that are at stake. In
this journey on earth, there is nothing of greater consequence for us
to devote our energies than to search for the truth, to pursue equal
justice and to uphold the law.
It is for those reasons that I serve as a manager. And as you, I
hope that I can help in some way bring this matter to a conclusion for
our country.
HUTCHINSON: This afternoon I will be discussing the evidence and
the testimony from witnesses that we do hope to call. And during my
presentation, I'll be focusing on the evidence that demonstrates
obstruction of justice under Article II.
Now, you might wonder, well, why are we going to Article II
before we've covered Article I on perjury? And the answer is that in
a chronological flow Article II, the obstruction facts precede much of
the perjury allegations. And so, following my presentation, manager
Rogan will present Article I on perjury.
The presentation I make will be based upon the record, the
evidence, the facts, that have been accumulated. And I want you to
know that I am going to be presenting those facts and from time to
time I will argue those facts.
I believe that they're well supported in the record, but I urge
each of you, if you ever find anything that you question, to search
the record and verify the facts, because I do not intend to
misrepresent anything to this body.
And in fact we'll be submitting to each of your offices my
presentation with annotations to the record, to the grand jury
transcripts, which will tie in the facts that I present to you. And,
again, I believe and trust that you will find that they are well
supported.
So, let's start with obstruction of justice. Later on there will
be a full discussion of the law on obstruction of justice, but for our
purposes it is simply any corrupt act or attempt to influence or
impede the proper functioning of our system of justice. It is a
criminal offense, a felony, and it has historically been an
impeachable offense.
Let me first say, it is not a crime nor an impeachable offense to
engage in inappropriate personal conduct.
*** Elapsed Time 00000, Eastern Time 15:35 ***
HUTCHISON: Nor is it a crime to obstruct or conceal personal,
embarrassing facts or relationships. It might be offensive, but there
are not constitutional consequences.
But as we go through the facts of the case, the evidence will
show in this case that there was a scheme that was developed to
obstruct the administration of justice, and that is illegal.
And the obstruction of justice is of great consequence and
significance to the integrity of our nation when committed by anyone,
but particularly by the chief executive of our land, the president of
the United States.
Then (ph) Mr. Bryant took us factually up to a certain point
pertaining to the job search and this is chart number one that you
have before you. And this puts it in perspective a little bit.
And just for a brief review, you go back in the calender, back
into October. That's when Ms. Lewinsky sends the president her wish
list for a list of jobs.
And then shortly after that, Ms. Currie faxes Lewinsky -- the
resume -- to Ambassador Richardson. And Ambassador Richardson gets
involved in the job search.
October 30, the president promised to arrange a meeting between
Lewinsky and Jordan. This was set up, if you go to November -- in
November. It was actually November 5.
But preceding that, there was a job offer at the UN extended to
Ms. Lewinsky. And Ms. Lewinsky decided that she was not interested in
a job at the United Nations. She wanted to go into the private
sector, and so that was the purpose on November 5 of the meeting
between Jordan and Lewinsky.
HUTCHINSON: And that's when Mr. Jordan says "we're in business."
But the facts will show that there was nothing really done in
November, and that's when I will get in a little bit more to my
presentation, and then we'll go into December, when some things
happened there that picked up speed on this issue.
The obstruction, for our purposes, started on December 5, 1997,
and that is when the witness list from the Paula Jones case was faxed
to the president's lawyers. At that point, the wheels of obstruction
started rolling and they did not stop until the president successfully
blocked the truth from coming out in a civil rights case.
These acts of obstruction included attempts to improperly
influence a witness in a civil rights case -- that's Monica Lewinsky;
the procurement and filing of a false affidavit in the case; unlawful
attempts to influence the testimony of a key witness, Betty Currie;
the willful concealment of evidence under subpoena in that case, which
are the gifts of December 28; and illegally influencing the testimony
of witnesses, that is the aides that testified before the grand jury,
before the grand jury of the United States.
Each of these areas of obstruction will be covered in my
presentation today.
As I said, it began on Friday, December 5, when the witness list
came from the Paula Jones case. Shortly thereafter, the president
learned that the list included Monica Lewinsky. This had to be
startling news to the president because if the truth about his
relationship with a subordinate employee were known, the civil rights
case against him would be strengthened and it might have totally
changed the outcome.
But to compound the problem, less than a week later Judge Wright,
federal district judge in Arkansas, on December 11 issued an order,
and that order directed that the president had to answer questions
concerning other relationships that he might have had during a
particular time frame with any state or federal employee. And when I
say "relationships," I'm speaking of sexual relationships.
HUTCHINSON: And so Judge Wright entered the order that is not in
your stack, but I have it here. It is filed on December 11th in the
district court in Arkansas and directs the president that he has to
answer those questions within a timeframe, as Mr. Bryant said, which
is typical in a civil rights case of this nature.
Now the White House knew that Monica was on the witness list.
The president knew that it was likely that she would be subpoenaed as
a witness and that her truthful testimony would hurt his case. What
did the president do? What he had to do was he made sure that Monica
Lewinsky was on his team and under control.
And then on December 17th, the president finally called Miss
Lewinsky to let her know she was on the list. This was a call between
2:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. in the morning.
Now what happened in the time between the president learning
Monica Lewinsky was on the list and when he notified her of that fact
on December 17th is very important. The president during that
timeframe talked to his friend, his confidant and his problem solver,
Vernon Jordan.
Mr. Jordan had come to the president's rescue on previous
occasions. He was instrumental in securing consulting contracts for
Mr. Web Hubbell, while Mr. Hubbell was under investigation by the
independent counsel.
And let me parenthetically go to that point right before Mr.
Hubbell announced his resignation from the Justice Department.
HUTCHINSON: During that time frame, there was a meeting at the
White House at which the president, the first lady and others were
present. After that meeting, Vernon Jordan agreed to help obtain
financial assistance for Mr. Hubbell.
Mr. Jordan did introduce Mr. Hubbell to the right people. The
introduction was successful and Mr. Hubbell obtained a $100,000
contract. The right people that Mr. Jordan contacted happened to be
the same right people for both Mr. Hubbell and ultimately for Monica
Lewinsky, which is the parent company of Revlon. And so the president
was aware that Mr. Jordan had the contacts and the track record to be
of assistance to the president in delicate matters.
Now let's go back a little. Monica Lewinsky had been looking for
a good paying and high profile job in New York since the previous
July, as I pointed out. She had been offered a job at the UN, but she
wanted to work in the private sector. She wasn't having much success,
and then in early November it was Betty Currie who arranged a meeting
with Vernon Jordan, which ultimately was on November 5. At this
meeting, Ms. Lewinsky met with Mr. Jordan for about 20 minutes.
Now, let's refer to Mr. Vernon Jordan's grand jury testimony on
that meeting that occurred on November 5. And you have that, it
should be your chart number two or exhibit two. As Mr. Jordan
testified before the federal grand jury on March 3, 1998, in reference
to the November 5 meeting, he testifies "I have no recollection of an
early November meeting with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. I have absolutely no
recollection of it and have no record of it."
He goes on to testify at page 76 of the grand jury testimony.
HUTCHINSON: Question: "Is it fair to say that back in November
getting Monica Lewinsky a job on any fast pace was not any priority of
yours?"
His answer: "I think that's fair to say."
Now, let's stop there for a moment. What happened as a result of
this meeting? No action followed whatsoever. No job interviews were
arranged and there were no further contacts with Mr. Jordan. Mr.
Jordan made no effort to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky for over a month.
Indeed, it was so unimportant to him that he had no recollection of
that early November meeting and in fact he testified that finding her
a job was not a priority.
And then you will see that during this timeframe the president's
attitude was exactly the same. And so look at the same exhibit two,
the last item on that chart, where it refers to Monica Lewinsky's
grand jury testimony. And there she is referring to a December 6
meeting with the president.
"I think I said that I was supposed to get in touch with Mr.
Jordan the previous week and that things did not work out and that
nothing had really happened yet on the job front."
And the question was, did the president say what he was going to
do. The answer: "I think he said he would. You know, this was sort
of typical of him to sort of say, Oh, I'll talk to him, I'll get on
it."
And so you can see from that that it was not a high priority for
the president either, it was, Sure, I'll get to that, I will do that.
And it was clear from Monica Lewinsky that nothing was happening.
But then the president's attitude suddenly changed. What started
out as a favor for Betty Currie dramatically changed after Ms.
Lewinsky became a witness and the judge's order was issued again on
December 11. And at that time the president talked personally,
personally to Mr. Jordan and requested his help in getting Ms.
Lewinsky a job.
And that would be, again, back on exhibit two on that chart.
HUTCHISON: The third item of testimony there, back to Mr.
Jordan, his grand jury testimony May 5th of 1998. The question is,
but what is also clear is that as of this date, December 11, you are
clear that at that point you had made a decision that you would try to
make some calls to get -- help to get her a job?
His answer, "There is no question about it."
And so, what triggered -- let's look at the chain of events. The
judge -- the witness list came in, the judge's order came in, that
triggered the president into action and the president triggered Vernon
Jordan into action. That chain reaction here is what moved the job
search along.
Now, if we had Mr. Jordan on the witness stand, which I hope to
be able to call Mr. Jordan, you would need to probe where his
loyalties lie, listen to the tone of his voice, look into his eye and
determine the truthfulness of his statements. You must decide whether
he is telling the truth or withholding information.
And so, let's go to exhibit three in your booklet. Again,
recalling Mr. Jordan, he testifies about that meeting. He testifies
on his March 3, 1998 grand jury testimony, "I am certain after the
11th that I had a conversation with the president. And as a part of
that conversation, I said to him that Betty Currie had called me about
Monica Lewinsky. And the conversation was that he knew about her
situation, which was that she was pushed out of the White House, that
she wanted to go to New York and he thanked me for helping her."
Remember what else happened on that day again. That was the same
day that Judge Wright ruled that the questions about other
relationships could be asked by the Jones' attorneys.
Now, let's go back again to Mr. Jordan's testimony. What does he
say about the involvement of the president of the United States in
regards to these jobs? If you look at exhibit four that is in your
booklet, this is again Vernon Jordan's grand jury transcript of June
9, 1998.
Now, the question is on a different issue. The question is about
why did he tell the White House that Frank Carter -- Frank Carter was
the attorney for Monica Lewinsky -- that Vernon Jordan arranged and
introduced to Monica Lewinsky. He was hired and whenever, at that
point that he was terminated.
HUTCHINSON: Then Vernon Jordan notified the president. And so
the question relates to that. "Why are you trying to tell someone at
the White House that this happened?" -- Carter had been fired.
Answer: "Thought they had a right to know."
"Why?"
And here the answer is what is critical for my point. "The
president asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job. I got her a lawyer.
The Drudge Report is out, and she has new counsel. I thought that
that was information that they ought to have."
"The president asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job." Clear,
straightforward testimony, no doubt about it.
And then go on down to page 58 of his grand jury testimony of
June 9th.
The Question: "Why did you think the president needed to know
that Frank Carter had been replaced?"
Answer: "Information. He knew that I had gotten her a job. He
knew that I had gotten her a lawyer. Information. He was interested
in this matter. He is the source of it coming to my attention in the
first place."
"He is the source of it coming to my attention in the first
place." Remember, he had already met with Betty Currie. Nothing was
happening in the November timeframe. Nothing was happening. Vernon
Jordan was -- it was not a priority. And then the president of the
United States called him, and it became a priority. And that is who
he was acting for in trying to get Monica Lewinsky a job.
HUTCHINSON: At this point, we do not know all that the president
was telling Vernon Jordan, but we do know that there were numerous
calls back and forth between Mr. Jordan and the president. There were
numerous calls being made by Mr. Jordan on behalf of Monica Lewinsky,
searching for a job. And that despite the fact that Monica Lewinsky
did not know that she was a witness -- she did not know she was a
witness -- the president knew that she was a witness during his
intensified efforts to get a job.
Now the president's counselors have made a defense that the job
search started before Monica Lewinsky was a witness and there was
nothing wrong with that. My response to that is, it is true there is
nothing wrong with a public official under the right circumstances
helping someone get a job. And what might have started out being
innocent, if you accept that argument, crossed the line whenever it
was tied and interconnected with the president's desire to get a false
affidavit from Monica Lewinsky. And whenever the job is out there and
procuring the false affidavit, you will see that they are totally
interconnected, intertwined, interrelated, and that's where the line
is crossed into obstruction.
HUTCHINSON: For example, when the president was waiting on Ms.
Lewinsky to sign the false affidavit in the Jones case, during the
critical time in January, a problem developed. The job interviews
were unproductive, despite the numerous calls by Mr. Jordan.
On one particular day, Monica called Mr. Jordan and said the
interview with Revlon did not go well. Mr. Jordan, what did he do?
He picked up the phone to the CEO -- the president of the
company, Mr. Perelman, to, as Vernon Jordan testified, "make things
happen if they could happen."
That is the request from Mr. Jordan to the CEO of a country (sic)
after a job interview with Monica Lewinksy did not go well.
What happened? Things happened.
He did, he made things happen. Monica Lewinksy got a job. The
affidavit was signed. And the president was informed by Mr. Jordan
through Betty Currie "that the mission was accomplished." End quote.
The question here is not why did the president do a favor for an
ex-intern? But why did he use the influence of his office to make
sure it happened?
The answer is, that he was willing to obstruct, impede justice by
improperly influencing a witness in order to protect himself in a
civil rights case.
HUTCHISON: The next step in the obstruction is the false
affidavit. And this is directly related to the job mission. The
president needed the signature of Ms. Lewinsky on the false affidavit
and that was assured by the efforts to secure her a job.
Again, the president brought Ms. Lewinsky into the loop on
December 17th, over 10 days after the witness list was received by the
president. Now, the president was ready to tell Monica the news. And
that time frame is important.
He gets the witness list. He could have called Monica Lewinsky
immediately, but he waited seven days because he needed to make sure
the job situation was in gear. And in fact, the day after -- if you
look back on Exhibit 1 -- you will see that the day after the December
17 time frame that she was informed that she was on the witness list,
the next day they already had lined up job interviews for her. So she
felt confidence.
But she was notified on December 17th. Between 2 and 2:30 a.m.,
her phone rang. It was the president of the United States. The
president said that he had seen the witness list in the case and her
name was on it. Ms. Lewinsky asked what she should do if subpoenaed.
*** Eastern Time 15:52 ***
HUTCHINSON: And the president responded, quote, "Well, maybe you
can sign an affidavit," end quote.
Well, how would this work? Both parties knew that the affidavit
would need to be false and misleading in order to accomplish the
desired result. Clearly, truthful testimony by Monica Lewinsky would
make her a witness, would not keep her away from testifying. Only a
false affidavit would avoid the deposition.
And so let me look at what I've marked as exhibit 4.1, which is
just a review of the key dates on this job search. Again, November
5th was the first meeting between Jordan and Lewinsky. In November,
nothing happened. According to Jordan, not a high priority.
December 5th, the president receives the witness list. The 11th,
things intensify with Judge Wright's order. The 11th, the president
talks to Mr. Jordan about the job for Monica. He gets into action.
On the 17th, they're ready to tell Monica that she is on the witness
list. And then on the 19th, she is actually served with a subpoena.
And so again remember that after she was finally notified, it was
the next day that she had the job interviews.
Now, still, we're going to spend some time on this December 17.
HUTCHINSON: The conversation -- the day that Monica Lewinsky was
notified that she was on the witness list. And during that
conversation, the president had a very pointed suggestion for Ms.
Lewinsky, and a suggestion that left no doubt about its purpose and
the intended consequences.
He did not say specifically: Go in and lie. And this is
something that you will hear -- and Monica Lewinsky testified in her
grand jury testimony, the president never told me to lie. Well how do
you tell people to lie? You can tell them the facts that they can use
that would in substance be a false statement. Or, you can say go in
and lie and make up your own false testimony.
The president chose to give her the ideas as to what she could
testify to that would be false, but he never said the words: You need
to go in and lie. And so, what he did say to her was, quote, "You
know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty, or that you
were bringing me letters." End quote.
That, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, is a false
representation --is a false statement that he is telling Ms. Lewinsky
to utter.
Now remember at this point, the president knows she's a witness.
And what does he do, as evidenced by the testimony of Monica Lewinsky?
He encourages her to lie. To say, you can always say you were coming
to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters.
HUTCHINSON: It should also be remembered that the president,
when questioned about encouraging Monica Lewinsky to lie, has denied
these allegations and therefore there is certainly a conflict in the
testimony. It is our belief that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is credible
and that she has the motive to tell the truth, because of her immunity
agreement with the independent counsel, where she gets in trouble only
if she lies. Whereas the president has the motive to cover up and to
testify falsely.
In order to understand the significance of this statement made by
the president, it is necessary to recall the cover stories that the
president and Ms. Lewinsky had previously concocted in order to
deceive those people who might inquire. It was to deceive those
people that they worked with.
The difference in the initial cover stories, though, to protect
the president and Monica from an embarrassing personal relationship
from friends and co-workers and the media; now it is in a different
arena, with a pending civil rights case and Ms. Lewinsky being on the
witness list. Despite the legal responsibilities, the president made
the decision to continue the pattern of lying which ultimately became
an obstruction of the administration of justice.
We're still on December 17, when the president called Monica at 2
a.m. on that particular day to tell her she was on the witness list.
HUTCHINSON: He made sure to remind her of the cover stories.
Miss Lewinsky testified that when the president brought up the cover
story she understood that the two of them would continue their
preexisting pattern of deception. And it became clear that the
president had no intention of making his relationship with a
subordinate federal employee an issue in that civil rights case, no
matter what the federal courts told him he needed to answer. And he
would use lies, deceit and deception to carry out that purpose.
It's interesting to note that the president when he was asked by
the grand jury whether he remembered calling Monica Lewinsky at 2 a.m.
on that December 17th day, he responded, quote, "No, sir I don't. But
it would -- it is quite possible that that happened." End quote.
And when he was asked whether he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to
continue the cover stories of coming to see Betty or bringing the
letters, he answered, quote, "I don't remember exactly what I told her
that night." End quote.
This is not a denial, and therefore I believe you should accept
the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. If you say in your mind, well, I'm
not going to believe her, then you should first give us the
opportunity to present this witness so that you as jurors could fairly
and honestly determine her credibility.
HUTCHISON: As expected, two days later on December 19th, Ms.
Lewinsky received the subpoena to testify in the Jones' case. And
this sets about an immediate flurry of activity.
There is a series of telephone calls between Ms. Lewinsky, Vernon
Jordan, the president and his staff. You will see this pattern of
telephone calls repeated and generated at any point in time when it
appears that the truth may be told in the civil rights case.
Now, let's look at exhibit 5 which is the activity on Friday,
December 19. This is the day that Monica Lewinsky is served with a
subpoena. Now, if you look after Mr. Jordan is notified that Monica
Lewinsky is served with a subpoena, what does he do?
The 3:51, 3:52 notation, Jordan telephones the president and
talks to Debra Schiff (ph), his assistant. So the subpoena's issued,
Monica calls Jordan, Jordan immediately calls the president. He makes
some other telephone calls.
Lewinsky, that day, meets with Mr. Jordan and requests that
Jordan notify the president about her subpoena.
HUTCHINSON: And this is at 4:47 p.m. Presumably in the middle
of that meeting, at 5:01 p.m., the president of the United States
telephones Mr. Jordan, and Jordan notifies the president about Ms.
Lewinsky's subpoena.
And then that's whenever he arranges for Ms. Lewinsky's attorney,
Jordan telephones the attorney Frank Carter for the representation,
and that night Vernon Jordan goes to the White House, later that
evening, to meet privately with the president on these particular
issues.
Now, in that meeting -- and I'm speaking of the meeting that
happened late that night at the White House -- Mr. Jordan told the
president again that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed and related to
the president the substance and details of his meeting with Ms.
Lewinsky. It wasn't a casual conversation, the details were
discussed, including her fascination with the president and other such
issues.
This led Mr. Jordan to ask the president about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky and the response by the president of the United
States was the first of many denials to his friends and aides.
The president stated in his deposition that he does not recall
that meeting. But you should remind yourselves of the testimony and
description provided by Vernon Jordan when he said, quote, "The
president has an extraordinary memory," end quote. In fact we all
know that he is world famous for that memory.
HUTCHINSON: Now the subpoena had been delivered. But the
testimony of Monica was not scheduled until January 23, and the
president's deposition, which is even more critical, was not scheduled
until January 17th. And so the president and his team had some time
to work.
The work was not the business of the nation, but it was the
distraction of self-preservation in the civil rights case. Under the
plan, Mr. Jordan would be the buffer. He would obtain an attorney,
which was Mr. Carter, and that attorney would keep Mr. Jordan informed
on the progress of the representation, including reviewing a copy of
the affidavit, knowing about the motion to quash, and the general
progress of the representation.
All along the way, when Mr. Jordan gets information, what does he
do with that? Mr. Jordan keeps the president informed both about the
affidavit and the prospects of the job in New York, on which Ms.
Lewinsky was totally dependent on the help of her friends in high
places.
Now, let me go back again. There is nothing wrong with helping
someone get a job. But we all know there's one thing forbidden in
public office. We must avoid a quid pro quo. That is, this is for
that. But Vernon Jordan testified that he kept the president informed
on the status of the false affidavit, the job search and the status of
Ms. Lewinsky's representation.
HUTCHINSON: Why? Is this just idle chatter with the president
of the United States? Or are these matters the president is vitally
interested in, and in fact coordinating. Mr. Jordan answers this
question himself at page 25 of his grand jury testimony where he
testified, quote "I knew the president was concerned about the
affidavit and whether or not it was signed. It -- he was obviously."
And that was his March 5th, '98 grand jury testimony. The
president was concerned not just about the affidavit, but specifically
whether it was signed. The president knew that Monica was going to
make a false affidavit. He was so certain of the contents that when
Monica Lewinsky asked if he wanted to see it, he told her no -- that
he had seen 15 of them.
Besides, the president had suggested the affidavit himself and he
trusted Mr. Jordan to be certain to keep things under control. In
fact, that was one of the main purposes of Mr. Jordan's continued
communication with Monica Lewinsky's attorney Frank Carter. Even
though Mr. Jordan testifies at one point he never had any substantive
discussions on the representations of Mr. Carter, he contradicts
himself in his March 3 grand jury testimony where he states, quote
"Mr. Carter at some point told me, this is after January, that she had
signed the affidavit; that he had filed a motion to quash her
subpoena; and that, I mean, there was no reason for accountability,
but he reassured me that he had things under control" end quote.
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Jordan was aware of the substance of the
drafting of the affidavit, the representation, the motion to quash,
even had a part in the redrafting. This was clearly important to Mr.
Jordan and it was clearly important to the president.
Now, let's go to the time when the false affidavit was actually
signed, January 5, '98, and these will be exhibits 7, 8 and 9 that is
front of you. Let's go to January 5. This is sort of a summary of
what happens on that day.
Ms. Lewinsky meets with her attorney, Mr. Carter for an hour.
Mr. Carter drafts the affidavit for Ms. Lewinsky on the deposition.
And then, let's go to the second paragraph. Ms. Lewinsky telephones
Betty Currie stating that she needs to speak to the president.
This is about an important matter. Specifically, that she was
anxious about something she needed to sign an affidavit. Frank Carter
drafts the affidavit.
HUTCHINSON: She's concerned about it. She calls the president.
The president returns Monica Lewinsky's call. Big question:
Should the president return Monica Lewinsky's call? He does. That
day, quickly, Lewinsky mentions the affidavit she'd be signing, offers
to show it to the president, and that's where he says, no, that he's
seen 15 others.
Let's go to the next day. The next exhibit, January 6. On this
particular day, Monica Lewinsky picks up the affidavit, the draft
affidavit, at 2:08 to 2:10 p.m. and delivers that affidavit to whom?
Mr. Jordan. That's after she got it. Delivers it to Jordan.
And then, at 3:26 p.m., Mr. Jordan telephones Mr. Carter. At
3:38, Mr. Jordan telephones Nancy Hernreich at the White House.
Again, Mr. Jordan telephones Lewinsky, telephones Lewinsky about the
draft affidavit. And at 3:49, you'll see in red, that both agree to
delete a portion of the affidavit that created some implication that
maybe she had been alone with the president.
HUTCHINSON: And so Mr. Jordan was very involved in drafting the
affidavit and the contents of that.
And then at 4:19 -- presumably, this is in response to some of
the calls by Mr. Jordan earlier in the day -- the president telephones
Mr. Jordan, and they have a discussion, and then Mr. Jordan telephones
Mr. Carter, and the conversations go back and forth. At the end of
the day, Mr. Jordan telephones the White House.
And so the affidavit is still in the drafting process.
Go to the next day, exhibit 9. Here Monica signs the affidavit.
At 10 a.m., Miss Lewinsky finds [sic] the false affidavit in Mr.
Carter's office. Then what does she do? She delivers the signed
affidavit to Mr. Jordan. And then what does he do? The usual. At
11:58, Mr. Jordan telephones the White House. At 5:46, Mr. Jordan
telephones the White House. At 6:50, Mr. Jordan telephones the White
House and tells the president that Miss Lewinsky signed the affidavit.
Is this important information for the president to know? He was
vitally interested in it.
And then go to the next day, exhibit 10, January 8th. After the
affidavit is signed, what is important the next day? That the other
part of the arrangement, that she has the job interview with McAndrews
in New York.
HUTCHINSON: And she had that job interview. The only problem
was it went poorly. The interview went very poorly, and so at 4:43
p.m. on this particular day, Ms. Lewinsky telephones Jordan and
advises that the New York interview went very poorly.
And so what does Mr. Jordan do? Mr. Jordan telephones Ron
Perelman, the CEO, the subsidiary of Revlon, to make things happen if
they could happen. And what does he do next? Jordan telephones
Lewinsky saying "I'm doing the best I can to help you out," and they
set up another interview for the next day. Jordan telephones the
White House counsel's office. And then in the evening Revlon in New
York telephones Lewinsky to set up a follow-up interview.
They said the first interview didn't go well, but because Mr.
Jordan intercedes, and he intercedes -- why? -- because the false
affidavit has been signed. We want to make sure all of this is
carried out. And then at 9:01, Lewinsky telephones Jordan about the
Revlon interview in New York that presumably, hopefully it went better
on that particular day.
And then on January 9, exhibit 11, Monica is confirmed that she
has the job. Lewinsky is offered the Revlon job in New York and
accepts. Lewinsky telephones Jordan.
HUTCHISON: And then, at 4:14, Jordan notifies Currie, calls
Betty Currie and says, mission accomplished and requests that she tell
the president. Jordan notifies the president of Lewinsky's new job
offer, says, thank you very much for the president.
And then that evening, the president telephones Currie and so on.
But the president is notified that the job has been secure, mission is
accomplished. Now, let me ask you the question, after I've gone
through these exhibits. Would Mr. Jordan have pushed for a second
interview without cooperation on the affidavit?
Would Monica Lewinsky have received the support in securing a job
if she had said: I don't want to sign an affidavit? I'm just going
to go in there and tell the truth. Whatever they ask me, I'm going to
answer and I'm going to tell the truth.
Does anyone in this room believe that she would have been
granted, that Mr. Jordan had made that call to get that second
interview, that she we would ever had the help from the -- her friends
in high places?
And now, the affidavit has been signed, the job is secure, Monica
Lewinsky is on the team and the president of the United States is
armed for the deposition. So, let's move there.
Just how important was Monica Lewinsky's false affidavit to the
president's deposition? Well, let's look to see. What did the
president's attorney, Robert Bennett, say about that affidavit to the
federal judge during the deposition?
HUTCHINSON: That false affidavit allowed Mr. Bennett, the
attorney for Mr. Clinton, when talking about the question of whether
there was a relationship between the president and Miss Lewinsky, it
allowed him to assert, quote, "There is absolutely no sex of any kind
in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton," end quote. And
that is the statement of Robert Bennett, his representation to the
court about that relationship. It is a representation that he had to
later, probably based upon his own professional embarrassment, he had
to withdraw and to correct that inaccurate part of the record.
When questioned by his own attorney in the deposition, the
president stated specifically the key paragraph of Miss Lewinsky's
affidavit was, quote, "absolutely true." And that paragraph eight of
her affidavit states: "I have never had a sexual relationship with the
president."
Now, if it enters your mind at this point as to what was meant by
sexual relationship, please remember that this affidavit was draft
upon common understanding of that phrase at that point and not based
upon any definition used in the deposition of the president.
I'm sure it was the president's hope and belief that the false
affidavit used in the deposition to bolster his own testimony would be
the end of the matter.
HUTCHINSON: But that was not the case.
We know in life one lie leads to another.
Well, so it is when we attempt to thwart the administration of
justice. One obstruction leads to another.
And now, we move to another key witness, Betty Currie.
By the time the president concluded his deposition, he knew there
were too many details out about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
He knew that the only person that could probably be talking was
Ms. Lewinsky herself. He knew the cover story that they had carefully
created, converted into the false statements in the affidavit, was now
in jeopardy. It had to be backed, at this point, by the key witnesses
-- Monica Lewinksy and Betty Currie.
After the deposition, the president needed to do two things: he
had to contact Ms. Lewinsky to see if she was still on the team. But
he also had to make sure his secretary, Betty Currie, would lie to
protect him.
And so, let's look at how the concern became a frenzied and
concerted effort to keep the holes plugged in the dike. And let's
look at Exhibits 12 and 13.
What happened on the day of the deposition, really the night of
the deposition on January 17th?
HUTCHINSON: The president finishes testifying in the deposition
around 4 p.m. At 5:38 p.m., the president telephones Mr. Jordan at
home, and then at 7:02 the president telephones Ms. Currie at home,
doesn't get to her. At 7:02, the president places a call to Mr.
Jordan's office. And then at 7:13 he gets Ms. Currie at home,
finally, and asks her to meet with him on Sunday.
It's vitally important that he meet with Ms. Currie at this point
because he knows his whole operation is coming unglued. And so the
next day on January 18th, which is exhibit 13 -- now there's a whole
flurry of activity. I'm not going go through all of them. But you
can see the frantic pace at the White House.
Because at 6:11 in the morning, the president had some more bad
news. The Drudge Report was released, and that created a greater
flurry. Then between 11:49 and 2:55 p.m., three phone calls were made
between Mr. Jordan and the president.
And then at 5 p.m., we see the meeting -- that's on the second
page -- at 5 p.m., Ms. Currie meets with the president and the
president then tells Ms. Currie to find Monica Lewinsky.
*** Eastern Time 16:15 ***
HUTCHINSON: The telephone calls were generated and there was no
success in that. And then that evening, the president calls Ms.
Currie at home to try once again to see if she had found Monica
Lewinsky. But it was on that day that there was that critical meeting
-- on that Sunday -- in the Oval Office between Betty Currie and the
president of the United States.
And for that reason we need next to hear from Betty Currie, the
president's personal secretary, as to what occurred during that most
unusual meeting on Sunday following the deposition. Betty Currie
testified in the grand jury that the president said that he had just
been deposed, and that the attorneys had asked several questions about
Monica Lewinsky. And this was a violation of the judge's gag order,
and the president, you know, made some comments that were not in line
with that. He had some choices to make and he made the wrong choices.
But let's look at exhibit 14 which covers the series of
statements made to Ms. Currie at this point. This is the testimony of
Betty Currie. She is reciting to the grand jury each of the
statements the president made to her after his grand jury testimony.
The first one, "I was never alone with Monica Lewinsky, right?"
Second, "You were always there -- here when she was here, right?"
"Monica Lewinsky came on to me and I never touched her, right?"
HUTCHINSON: I'm not going to read each one of those. You can
read them for yourself. You've heard those as well. But the
president is making those simple, declaratory statements to her.
There's three areas that are covered here. First of all, the
president makes the case that he was never alone with Monica Lewinsky.
Secondly, he's making the point to her that she was the aggressor, not
me. And the third point he is making, I did nothing wrong. Those are
the basic three points of those five statements that the president
made to Betty Currie.
During Betty Currie's grand jury testimony, she was asked whether
she believed that the president wished her to agree with the
statement. Now let's look at Betty Currie for a second. She is the
classical reluctant witness. Where are her loyalties as you would
examine her testimony? Where is she uncomfortable in her testimony?
When she's asked a question, how does she shift in the chair? Those
are the kinds of ways you have to evaluate the truthfulness of the
testimony, where their loyalties lie and where their motives are. But
during the question she's clearly reluctant.
But she's asked a series of questions and she finally
acknowledges that it was -- that the president was intending for her
to agree with the statements that were made. She says that is
correct. And that is at page 74 of Betty Currie's grand jury
testimony.
HUTCHINSON: Now, when the president testified in the August 17
grand jury, he was questioned about his intentions when he made those
five statements to Ms. Currie in the office on that Sunday. And the
president's explanation is as follows to the grand jury.
The president: "I thought we were going to be deluged by the
press comments and I was trying to refresh my memory about what the
facts were."
And he goes on to testify: "So I was not trying to get Betty
Currie to say something that was untruthful, I was trying to get as
much information as I quickly could."
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, you have to determine what
the purpose of those five statements to Betty Currie were. Were they
to get information or were they to get her to falsely testify when she
was called as a witness?
Logic tells us that the president's argument that he was just
trying to refresh his memory is, well, so much of a novel legal
defense strategy. First, consider the president's option after he
left the deposition.
He could have abided by the judge's gag order and not said
anything.
Secondly, he could have called Betty Currie in and asked a
question, an open-ended question: Ms. Curry, or Betty, what do you
remember happened?
The third option was to call her in and to make these declaratory
statements, violate the judge's order, and tamper with the anticipated
testimony of Betty Currie. And that is the course that the president
chose.
He made sure it was a face-to-face meeting, not a telephone call.
He made sure no one else was present. He made sure that the meeting
was on his territory, in his office, where he could feel comfortable
and he could utilize the power and prestige of the -- of his office,
the greatest influence on her future testimony.
HUTCHINSON: After Ms. Currie was in the president's office, he
made short, clear, understandable declarative statements telling Ms.
Currie what the story was. He was not interested in what she knew.
Why? Because he knew the truth, but he did not want Ms. Currie to
tell the truth. The only way to ensure that was by telling her what
to say, not asking her what she remembered.
You do not refresh someone's memory by telling that person what
he or she remembers. And you certainly do not make declarative
statements regarding factual scenarios of which the listener was
unaware. The statements that were made to her, Betty Currie could not
have any possible knowledge about as to whether they were ever alone;
as to whether she came on to him. No, this was not any attempt for
the president to refresh his recollection. It was witness tampering,
pure and simple.
Understanding the seriousness of the president's attempting to
influence the testimony of Ms. Currie, his attorneys have tried to
argue that those statements could not constitute obstruction of
justice because she had not been subpoenaed and the president did not
know that she was a potential witness at this time.
HUTCHINSON: Well, the argument is refuted by both the law and
the facts. The law is clear that a person may be convicted of
obstructing justice if he corruptly influenced the testimony of a
perspective witness. The witness does not actually have to give
testimony. The witness does not have to be under any subpoena. The
witness does not have to be on any witness list. And so the law is
clear.
Secondly, let's examine the defense in light of the facts. The
president himself brought Ms. Currie into the civil rights case as a
corroborating witness when he repeatedly used her name in the
deposition. And just as significantly, the president had to be
concerned about a looming perjury charge against him in light of his
false testimony in the deposition.
At least six times in that deposition, the president challenged
the plaintiff's attorneys to question Ms. Currie about a particular
issue. You don't have it in front of you, but you will see it when we
distribute the copies of my remarks. I'll go through those six times.
At page 58 of the deposition, president, when asked whether he
was alone with Ms. Lewinsky, said -- the president said that he was
not alone with her or that Betty Currie was there with Monica.
At page 70, when asked about the last time the president saw Ms.
Lewinsky, he falsely testified the only -- he only recalled that she
was there to see Betty.
HUTCHINSON: At page 64, he told the Jones lawyers to ask Betty
whether Lewinsky was alone with him in the White House or not or with
Betty in the White House between the late hours.
At page 65 of the deposition, the president was asked whether Ms.
Lewinsky sent packages to him, and he stated that Betty handled the
packages.
At page 72, the president was asked whether he may have assisted
in any way with the job search. He stated that he thought Betty
suggested Vernon Jordan talk to Ms. Lewinsky.
At page 74, he said that Monica asked Betty to ask someone to
talk to Ambassador Richardson.
He asserted Betty as a corroborating witness at least six times
in the deposition. There is no question but that Ms. Currie was a
prospective witness and the president clearly wanted her to be deposed
as a witness as his "ask Betty" questions testimony demonstrates.
But there's another very important fact that has been thus far
overlooked, and let me draw your attention to this. Two days before
the president's deposition, Betty Currie receives a call from Michael
Isikoff, a report with Newsweek magazine, inquiring about the records
of the cour -- the courier records of gifts going from Ms. Lewinsky to
the president.
HUTCHINSON: You've got a news reporter for a national
publication two days before the president's deposition, talking to the
president's secretary saying, I need to see the courier records of the
White House.
What does Betty Currie do?
She testified that she probably told the president this, then she
tells Bruce Lindsey. But she (ph) also goes to see Vernon Jordan.
Why?
Why would the secretary go see Vernon Jordan because she had a
press inquiry?
The reason is, as we see later on -- remember, this is January
15th. What happened on December 28th, that we'll get to a little bit
later? December 28th, Betty Currie went and put those gifts under her
bed.
Why is she nervous? Because Michael Isikoff is calling about the
gifts that are presently under her bed.
And she's nervous. I would be nervous. And so, she goes to see
Bruce Lindsey, she goes to see Vernon Jordan -- I need help. What do
I do?
And she probably told the president. She -- it's all breaking
loose.
The house of cards is falling down, and she is either going to
report to Mr. Jordan or to seek advice from him. Either way, she
knows it's serious and it all has legal consequences and she is a
witness to it all.
HUTCHINSON: And not only does Betty Currie's testimony talk
about this call from Michael Isikoff and going to see Vernon Jordan,
but Vernon Jordan's testimony confirms this visit as well. The
president claims that he called Ms. Currie into work on that Sunday
night only to find out what she knew. But the president knew about
the truth on the relationship, and if he told the truth in the
deposition the day before, he would have had no reason to be refreshed
by Betty Currie.
More importantly, the president's demeanor, Ms. Currie's
reaction, and the suggested lies clearly prove that the president was
not merely interviewing Ms. Currie. Rather, he was looking for
corroboration for his false cover up, and that is why he coached her.
He needed a witness for him, not against him.
Now let's go to exhibit five of Betty Currie's testimony; excuse
me, exhibit 15. This is Betty Currie's testimony before the grand
jury on January 27, 1998. And Betty Currie is asked about this.
HUTCHINSON: Now remember, it was on a Sunday that Betty Currie
was first called into the White House to go through these five
statements, this coaching by the president.
And then she testified to the grand jury "Question: Did there
come a time after that you had another conversation with the president
about some other news about what was going on -- that would have been
Tuesday or Wednesday -- when he called you into the Oval Office?"
Betty Currie's answer: "It was Tuesday or Wednesday. I don't
remember which one this was, either. But the best I remember, when he
called me in the Oval Office, it was sort of a recapitulation of what
we had talked about on Sunday, quote, 'You know, I was never alone
with her,' that sort of thing."
Question: "Did he pretty much list the same?"
Answer: "To my recollection, sir, yes."
Question: "And did he say it in sort of the same tone and
demeanor that he used the first time he told you on Sunday?"
Answer: "The best I remember, yes, sir."
And this needs to be emphasized. Not only was that witness
coaching taking place on Sunday, but it took place a couple of days
later. It was twice repeated by the president to Betty Currie. He
needed to have her good and in line.
This is more than witness tampering, it is witness compulsion of
false testimony by an employer to a subordinate employee. This has
nothing to do with facts, nothing to do with media inquiries. It has
to do with keeping his team on board, keeping the ship from sinking
and the hiding of facts that are important.
HUTCHINSON: At this point we're not talking about hiding
personal facts from inquiring minds, but an effort to impede the
legitimate and necessary functioning of our court system.
And now let's go to Martin Luther King holiday, almost exactly a
year ago, Monday, January 19th. And again, you'll see the example of
the frantic search for Monica Lewinsky; it continues. Exhibit 16 --
and I'm just -- I am not going to go through all of this, but I want
just want to briefly show the frantic activity on this particular day.
First of all, you'll see Betty Currie is trying to fulfill her
responsibility to get a hold of Ms. Lewinsky. She uses the pager
system and she says "Please call Kay at home." Now, "Kay" is the code
name that is used for Betty Currie; that's the agreed-upon signal.
And she uses three messages: "Please call Kay." "Please call Kay."
"Please call Kay."
And then she starts using different techniques to get her
attention --- it's a social call. And then she later uses, it's a
family emergency. And then she later uses, It's good news.
She uses every means possible to get the attention of Monica
Lewinsky.
HUTCHINSON: And then at 8:50 a.m the president telephones Currie
at home. At 8:56 a.m. the president telephones Jordan, going on down
to 10:56 a.m. the president telephones Jordan at his office.
And so what is going on here? They're nervous. They're afraid.
It is all breaking loose. They're trying to get a hold of Monica
Lewinsky to find out what is going on, why -- who she is talking to.
Later that day, things continue to destabilize for the president.
At 4:54 p.m. Mr. Jordan learned from the Attorney Frank Carter that he
no longer represented Ms. Lewinsky. And so Mr. Jordan's link had been
cut off. Mr. Jordan continued to attempt to reach the president or
someone at the White House.
Between 4:58 and 5:22 p.m., he made six calls trying to get a
hold of someone at the White House, the president. When Mr. Jordan
was asked why he was urgently trying to get a hold of the White House.
He responded, quote "Because the president asked me to get Monica
Lewinsky a job."
And he thought it was, quote "Information they ought to have."
Well, Jordan finally reaches the president about 6:00 p.m. and tells
him that Mr. Carter had been fired.
Why this flurry of activity? It shows how important it was for
the president of the United States to find Ms. Lewinsky. Betty Currie
was in charge of contacting Monica and it could not happen -- it did
not happen.
HUTCHINSON: Ms. Lewinsky was a co-conspirator in hiding this
relationship from the federal court, and he was losing control over
her fast. In fact, she ultimately agreed to testify truthfully under
penalties of perjury in this matter, and this was trouble for the
president.
And so now let's continue. Let's continue exploring the web of
obstruction, but to do this, we have to backtrack to what I've already
referred to, and that was the incident on December 28th, the episode
with the gifts.
On December 28th, another brick in the wall of obstruction was
laid. It was the concealment of evidence. Ms. Lewinsky testified
that she discussed with the president the fact that she had been
subpoenaed, and that the subpoena called for her to produce gifts.
And this is what Ms. Lewinsky was telling the president at the meeting
with him on December 28th.
She testified before the grand jury she recalled telling the
president that the subpoena in question had requested the hat pin and
other items, and this concerned her -- the specificity of it -- and
the president responded, it bothered him, too.
HUTCHINSON: Well, let's look at the testimony of Ms.` Lewinsky,
which is exhibit seven in your booklet. She's referring to this
meeting. Excuse me, I'm sorry, exhibit 17, thank you. Exhibit 17.
This is Lewinsky testifying about the meeting.
"And then at some point I said to him, the president, well, you
know, should I -- maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house
somewhere, or give them to someone, maybe Betty," end quote.
And he sort of said, I think he responded, I don't know or let me
think about that, and left that topic. Not exactly the response you
would hope for, or expect from the president. But the answer led to
action. Later that day Ms. Lewinsky got a call from Ms. Currie who
said, "I understand you have something to give to me," or, according
to Ms. Lewinsky, "The president said you have something to give me."
She wasn't exactly sure of the phrase, but it was either "I
understand you have something to give me," what Betty Currie said, or
Betty Currie said, "The president said you have something to give to
me."
And, so, ladies and gentlemen, if you accept the testimony of
Monica Lewinsky on that point, you must conclude that the directive to
retrieve the gifts came from the president.
HUTCHINSON: I will concede that there is a conflict in the
testimony on this point with the testimony of Betty Currie. Ms.
Currie in her grand jury testimony had a fuzzy memory, a little
different recollection. She testified that the best she can remember
Ms. Lewinsky called her, but when she was asked further she said, that
maybe Ms. Lewinsky's memory is better than hers on that issue.
But there is helpful evidence to clear up this discrepancy or
this inconsistency. Monica, you recall in her deposition said she
thought, that Betty had called her and she thought that the call came
from her cell phone number. Well it was not know at the time of the
question of Monica Lewinsky, but since then the cell phone record was
retrieved. You don't have it in front of you, but it will be
available. The cell phone record was retrieved that showed on Betty
Currie's cell phone calls that a call made at 3:32 from Betty Currie
to Monica Lewinsky. And this confirms the testimony of Monica
Lewinsky that the follow-up to get the gifts came from Betty Currie.
HUTCHINSON: The only way she would know about it, if the
president directed her to go retrieve the gifts, as was discussed with
Monica earlier.
Now, the president will argue that Monica's timeline does not fit
with the time of the cell phone call, but remember, the cell phone
record was retrieved subsequent to both the testimony of Monica
Lewinsky and Betty Currie before the grand jury, and therefore the
record was not available to refresh the recollection or to make
inquiry with them about that.
Monica Lewinsky's time estimate as to when Betty Currie arrived
to pick up the gifts was based upon her memory, without the benefit of
records. The questions raised by the president on this issue are
legitimate and demonstrate the need to call the key witnesses to the
trial of this case, and to assess which version of the events is
believable and substantiated by the corroborating evidence.
This is certainly an area of testimony where the juror needs to
hear from Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky, and to examine all of the
circumstantial evidence and documentary evidence to determine the
truth. It is my belief, based upon common sense and based upon the
documentary evidence, that the testimony of Monica Lewinsky is
supported in the record, and it leads to the conclusion that it was
the president who initiated this retrieval of the gifts, and the
concealment of the evidence.
HUTCHINSON: Now, there are many lawyers here in this room, and
you know that in federal cases all across this country judges instruct
juries on circumstantial evidence. We have presented to you a great
amount of direct evidence, grand jury testimony, eyewitness testimony,
documentary evidence, but juries can use circumstantial evidence as
well.
And a typical line from the instruction that is given to federal
courts -- federal juries all across the land: the law makes
absolutely no distinction between the weight or value to be given
either to direct or circumstantial evidence, nor is a greater degree
of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct
evidence.
And so I think it's incumbent upon you to evaluate the
circumstances very carefully in addition to the testimony.
Now, let's examine the key question for a moment: why did Betty
Currie pick up the gifts from Monica Lewinsky? Monica Lewinsky states
that she did not request this and the retrieval was initiated by the
call from Betty Currie. This was after the meeting with the
president. Monica Lewinsky's version is corroborated by the cell
phone record and the pattern of conduct on the part of Betty Currie.
What do I mean by that? As a loyal secretary to the president,
it is inconceivable that she would go to retrieve gifts that she knows
the president is very concerned about and could bring down the whole
house.
*** Eastern Time 16:39 ***
HUTCHINSON: Betty Currie, a subordinate employee, would not
engage in such activity on such a sensitive matter without the
approval and direction of the president himself.
In addition, let's look further at the actions of Betty Currie.
It becomes clear that she understands the significance of these gifts,
their evidentiary value in the civil rights case and the fact that
they're under subpoena. She retrieved these items, and where does she
place them? She hides them under bed, significantly, a place of
concealment.
Now, let's look at the president's defense. The president stated
in his response to questions 24 and 25 that were submitted from the
House to the president, he said he was not concerned about the gifts.
In fact, he recalled telling Monica that if the Jones lawyers request
the gifts, she should just turn them over to him.
The president testified he is not sure if he knew the subpoena
asked for gifts. Now why in the world would Monica and the president
discuss turning over gifts to the Jones lawyer if Ms. Lewinsky had not
told him that the subpoena asked for gifts?
On the other hand, if he knew the subpoena requested gifts, why
would he give Monica more gifts on December 28th? This seems odd.
But Ms. Lewinky's testimony reveals the answer. She said that
she never questioned, but that, quote, "that we were ever going to do
anything but keep this private." End quote.
HUTCHINSON: And that means to take quote "whatever appropriate
steps need to be taken." End quote. That's from Monica's grand jury
testimony of August 6th.
Why would the president even meet with Monica Lewinsky on
December 28th when their relationship was in question and he had a
deposition coming up? Certainly he knew he would be questioned about
it. Certainly if Monica became a witness, she would be questioned
about the relationship; that she would be asked: When was the last
time you met with the president? And now they have to say December
28th if they were going to tell the truth.
The answer is the president knew he had to keep Monica Lewinsky
on the team and he is willing to take more risk so that she would
continue to be a part of the conspiracy to obstruct the legitimate
functions of the federal court in the civil rights case.
It should be remembered that the president has denied each and
every allegation of the two articles of impeachment. He has denied
each element of the obstruction of justice charges, including this
allegation that he encouraged a scheme to conceal evidence in a civil
rights case. This straightforward denial illustrates the dispute in
the evidence and testimony.
HUTCHINSON: It sets the credibility of Monica Lewinsky, the
credibility of Betty Currie, the credibility of Vernon Jordan, and
others, against the credibility of the president of the United States.
How can you, as jurors, determine who is telling the truth? I
pointed to the corroborating evidence, the circumstantial evidence, as
well as common sense, supporting the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, but
let me ask you two questions.
Can you convict the president of the United States without
hearing personally the testimony of one of the key witnesses? The
second question is, can you dismiss the charges under this strong set
of facts and circumstances without hearing and evaluating the
credibility of the key witnesses?
Now, let me take this a step further and evaluate the credibility
of the president.
Let's first look back at his testimony on the December 28 meeting
that he gave in his deposition. In that case, he seriously
misrepresented the nature of his meeting with Miss Lewinsky, and that
was the gift exchange.
First he was asked: "Question: Did she tell you that she had been
served with a subpoena in this case?" The president answered flatly:
"No, I don't know if she had been." Again, this is his testimony in
the deposition.
He was also asked in the deposition if he ever talked to Monica
Lewinsky about the possibility of her testifying.
HUTCHINSON: His answer, quote, "I'm not sure," he said. He then
added he may have joked that the Jones lawyer might subpoena every
woman he'd ever spoken to, and that I don't think we ever had more of
a conversation about it than that.
Not only does Monica Lewinsky directly contradict this testimony,
but the president later had to answer questions in the grand jury
about these same set of circumstances, and the president directly
contradicted himself. Speaking of this December 28 meeting, he said
that, quote, "He knew by then, of course, she had gotten a subpoena,"
and they, quote, "Had a conversation about the possibility of her
testifying," end quote.
I submit to this body that the inconsistencies of the president's
own testimony as well as common sense seriously diminish his
credibility on this issue.
Now, let's go forward once again to the time period in which the
president gave his deposition in the Paula Jones case. The president
testified under oath on January 17th, and immediately thereafter
remember he brought Betty Currie in to present the set of false facts
to her, seeking her agreement and coaching her. But the president is
fully convinced he can get by with his false denials because no one
would really be able to prove what did or did not happen in the Oval
Office.
HUTCHINSON: There were no witnesses. And it boils down to a he
said/ she said scenario, and as long as that's the case he believes he
can win. If the president can simply destroy Monica Lewinsky's
credibility in public and before the grand jury, then he will escape
the consequences for his false statements under oath and the
obstruction in the civil rights case.
Now, remember, this viewpoint, though, is all before the DNA
tests were performed on the blue dress, forcing the president to
acknowledge certain items. In order to carry out this cover-up and
obstruction the president needed to go further. He needed not only
Betty Currie to repeat his false statements, but also other witnesses,
that would assuredly be called before the federal grand jury, and who
would also be questioned by the news media in public forums. And this
brings us to the false statements that the president made to his White
House staff and presidential aides.
Let's call Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta to the witness
stand and I would concede that they would be adverse witnesses. And
this is referred to in Exhibit 18 -- Exhibit 18 that you have in front
of you.
First the testimony of Sidney Blumenthal. Mr. Blumenthal, to put
this in perspective is testifying about his conversations when the
president called him in to go through these facts and what happened.
And so, Mr. Blumenthal testified that it was at that point, that he,
referring to the president, gave his account as to what happened to
me. And he said that -- and it was coming very fast -- he said,
"Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me. He
rebuffed her. He said I've gone down that road before; I've caused
pain for a lot of people; and I'm not going to do that again."
HUTCHINSON: Look at this next line. "She threatened him. She
said that she would tell people they had an affair, that she was known
as a stalker among her peers, and that she hated it, and if she had an
affair or she had an affair, then she wouldn't be the stalker
anymore."
And he said -- he talks about this character in the novel, and I
haven't read that book -- but the last line, "And I said to him, I
said, 'When this happened with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone?' He
said, 'Well, I was within eyesight or earshot of someone.' "
Now, let's go to John Podesta's testimony, where he was called in
the same fashion. The president talked to him about what has
happened. "OK" -- question: "OK, share that with us." Answer:
"Well, I think he said that there was some spate of, you know, what
sex acts were counted, and he said that he had never had sex with her
in any way whatsoever. OK, that they had not had oral sex."
And then just briefly, Dick Morris, we've heard this, I'll just
briefly refer to the last, "They're not ready for it" -- meaning the
voters -- and he told the president, "Well, we just have to win then."
HUTCHINSON: As the president has testified before the grand
jury, he knew these witnesses would be called before the grand jury.
At page 106 of the president's testimony before the grand jury --
I just want to confirm this point because it's important.
He testified --- the question was, you know that they -- and this
is referring to John Podesta, Sidney Blumenthal and his aides -- that
they might be witnesses.
You knew they might be called in to the grand jury, didn't you?
His answer: "That's right."
So there's no question that these were witnesses that were going
to testify before the grand jury. He was giving them false
information and he did not limit it to that.
But his false statements then constitute witness tampering and
obstruction of justice. But I think there are two significant points
in the statements the president made to his aides.
First of all, the president who wants to do away with the
politics of personal destruction indicates a willingness to destroy
the credibility and reputation of a young person who worked in his
office for what reason?
In order to preserve, not only his presidency, but more
significantly, to defeat the civil rights case against him.
HUTCHINSON: It's not a matter of saying he didn't do it, because
he could have simply uttered a denial. But he engaged in character
assassination that he knew would be repeated to the federal grand jury
and throughout the republic. She was a stalker. She threatened me.
She came on to me. And it was -- it was repeated.
Secondly, it makes it clear in his statements to John Podesta
that he denies any sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, including
oral sex. There's no quibbling about definitions in his statement, it
clearly reflects an intent to deceive, lie and obstruct our system of
justice.
In this case, at every turn, he used whatever means available to
evade the truth, destroy evidence, tamper with witnesses, and any
other actions required to prevent evidence coming forth in the civil
rights case that would prove a truth contrary to the president's
interest. He had obstructed the administration of justice before the
United States district court in a civil rights case and before the
federal grand jury.
But as we move toward a conclusion, let's focus on the supporting
-- not just on the supporting cast that we've talked about, but we
need to look at the direct and personal actions of the president.
HUTCHINSON: And I want to look at exhibit 20. And this just
summarizes the seven pillars of obstruction.
What did the president do that constitutes evidence of
obstruction? He personally encouraged a witness, Monica Lewinsky, to
provide false testimony.
Number two. The president had direct involvement in assuring a
job for a witness. Underline direct involvement. He made the calls.
And Vernon Jordan did. And it was connected with the filing of the
false affidavit by that witness.
Third, the president personally, with corrupt intentions,
tampered with the testimony of a perspective witness, Betty Currie.
Fourthly, the president personally provided false statements
under oath before a federal grand jury.
Fifth, by direct and circumstantial evidence, the president
personally directed the concealment of evidence under subpoena in a
judicial proceeding.
Sixth, the president personally allowed false representations to
be made by his attorney, Robert Bennett, to a federal district judge
on January 17th.
Seventh, the president intentionally provided false information
to witnesses before a federal grand jury, knowing that those
statements would be repeated with the intent to obstruct the
proceedings before that grand jury, and that is the statements that he
made to the aides.
The seven pillars of obstruction case were personally constructed
by the president of the United States.
HUTCHINSON: It was done with the intent that the 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.
At the beginning of my presentation I tried to put this case into
perspective for myself by saying that this proceeding is the same as
to what takes place in every courtroom in America: the pursuit of
truth, seeking equal justice, and upholding the law. All of that is
true, but we know there is even more at stake in this trial. What
happens here affects the workings of our Constitution. It will affect
the presidency in future decades and it will have an impact on a whole
generation of Americans. What is at stake is our Constitution and
the principle of equal justice for all.
I have faith in the Constitution of the United States, but the
checks and balances of the Constitution are carried out by
individuals, individuals who are entrusted under oath with upholding
the trust given to us by the people of this great land. If I believe
in the Constitution, that it will work, then I must believe in you.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I trust the Constitution of
the United States, but today it is most important that I believe in
you. I have faith in the United States Senate.
HUTCHINSON: You have earned the trust of the American people,
and I trust each of you to make the right decision for our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.
LOTT: Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent we take another 15
minute break in the proceedings. And I urge the senators return
promptly to the chambers so that we can begin after a 15 minute break.
REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.
*** Eastern Time 16:52 ***
(RECESS)
*** Eastern Time 17:11 ***
REHNQUIST: Senate will be in order. Chair recognizes the
majority leader.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we're ready to resume the
final presentation of the afternoon. Several senators had inquired
about what would happen for the balance of the day. I believe that
the presentation by Congressman Rogan would be the last of the day.
It's anticipated that would go some time around 6:30 or 6:45. I yield
the floor.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan.
ROGAN: Mr. Chief Justice, counsel for the president, members of
the United States Senate, my name is Congressman James E. Rogan and I
represent the 27th District of California.
May I say at the outset that some of the facts and evidence you
will hear in my presentation may sound familiar in light of the last
presentation. Although at times the facts may appear to be a
crossover, the relevance will be presented in a different light.
Mr. Manager Hutchinson's presentation offered the evidence as it
relates to the obstruction of justice charge against the president in
Article II. I will be inviting this body to view the evidence within
the framework of Article I, perjury before the grand jury.
ROGAN: On behalf of the House of Representatives, and in the
name of the people of the United States, I will be presenting to the
Senate evidence against the president to demonstrate he committed
perjury before a federal grand jury as set forth in Article I of the
articles of impeachment.
Article I of the impeachment resolution against President Clinton
alleges that he committed felony -- strike that -- he committed
perjury before the grand jury.
On August 17th, 1998, President Clinton swore to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The evidence shows that
contrary to that oath, the president willfully provided perjurious,
false and misleading statements to the grand jury in four general
areas.
First, he perjured himself when he gave a false account to the
grand jury about the nature and details of his relationship with a 21-
year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky, who was a subordinate federal
government employee.
Second, he perjured himself before the grand jury when he
repeated previous perjured answers he gave under oath in a sexual
harassment suit, which was a federal civil rights action brought
against him by Paula Jones.
Third, he perjured himself before the grand jury when he repeated
previous perjured answers to justify his attorney's false
representations to a federal judge in the Paul Jones sexual harassment
lawsuit against him.
ROGAN: Finally, he perjured himself before the grand jury when
he testified falsely about his attempts to get other potential grand
jury witnesses to tell false stories to the grand jury and to prevent
the discovery of evidence in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit
against him.
In a judicial proceeding, a witness has a very solemn obligation
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Perjury is a serious crime because our judicial system can only
succeed if citizens are required to tell the truth in court
proceedings. If witnesses may lie with impunity for personal or
political reasons, justice is no longer the product of the court
system, and we descend into chaos.
That is why the United States Supreme Court has placed a premium
on truthful testimony and shows no tolerance for perjury. More than
20 years ago, the court addressed this very concept of perjury and its
dangerous effect on our system of law. Listen to the words of the
United States Supreme Court.
*** Eastern Time 17:15 ***
ROGAN: In this constitutional process of securing a witnesses'
testimony, perjury simply has no place, whatever (sic). Perjured
testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of
judicial proceedings.
Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal act
punishable by severe penalties. In no other way can criminal conduct
be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it.
That is the framework under which the House of Representatives
acted in impeaching the president of the United States, and now
respectfully urges this body to call the president to constitutional
accountability.
The key to understanding the facts of this case is to understand
why the president was asked under oath questions about his private
life in the first place.
Despite the popular spin, it wasn't because members of Congress
or lawyers of from the Office of Independent Counsel or a gaggle of
reporters suddenly decided to invade the president's privacy.
No. This all came about because of a claim against the president
from when he was the governor of Arkansas.
During the discovery phase of the Paula Jones sexual harassment
case against the president, Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered
him to answer questions under oath relating to any sexual relationship
he may have had while governor and president with subordinate female
government employees.
ROGAN: These orders are common in similar cases. And the
questions posed to President Clinton are questions routinely posed to
defendants in civil rights sexual harassment cases every single day in
this country in courthouses throughout the land.
During the president's deposition in the Paula Jones case, he was
asked questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The
judge allowed these questions, because they possibly could lead Mrs.
Jones to discover if there was any pattern of conduct to help prove
her case.
The president repeatedly denied that he had a sexual relationship
with Monica Lewinsky.
A few days later the story about his relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky broke in the press. A criminal investigation began to
determine whether the president perjured himself in the Paula Jones
sexual harassment case and obstructed justice by trying to defeat her
claim against him by corrupt means.
On the afternoon of August 17th, 1998, President Clinton raised
his right hand and took an oath before the grand jury in their
criminal investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
CLERK: Mr. President, would you raise your right hand, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this
matter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
CLINTON: I do.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
ROGAN: Note the incredible solemn obligation of the oath the
president took. "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?"
ROGAN: When the president made that solemn pledge, he was not
obliging himself to tell the grand jury the partial truth. He was not
obliging himself to tell the "I didn't want to be particularly
helpful" truth. He was not obliging himself to tell the "this is
embarrassing so I think I'll fudge on it a little bit" truth. He was
required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, and he made that pledge in the name of God.
The attorneys for the Office of Independent Counsel showed great
deference to the president when they questioned him that day.
ROGAN: The president's attorneys were allowed to be there with
him during the entire proceeding so that he could confer with them at
his leisure if he was unsure of how to respond to a question. As a
matter of fact, the attorney who questioned the president encouraged
him to confer with his lawyer if there arose in the president's mind
any reason to hesitate before answering a question.
The following exchange occurred at the beginning of the
president's testimony. The president was told: "Normally grand jury
witnesses, while not allowed to have attorneys in the grand jury room
with them, can stop and consult with their attorneys. Under our
arrangement today, your attorneys are here and present for
consultation, and you can break to consult with them as necessary. Do
you understand that?" The president responded: "I do understand
that."
As a practical matter, the president had three options as he
appeared before the grand jury testifying. First, the president could
tell the truth about his true relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
However, the evidence will clearly show that the president rejected
the option of telling the truth.
ROGAN: Secondly, the president could invoke his Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination. The independent counsel's
attorney explicitly reminded the president about this right to refuse
to answer any question that might tend to incriminate him.
The president was asked: You have a privilege against self-
incrimination. If a truthful answer to any question would tend to
incriminate you, you can invoke the privilege and that invocation will
not be used against you. Do you understand?
The president's response was: I do.
The president knew he had the right to refuse to answer any
incriminating questions and that no legal harm would come to him for
doing so.
But he rejected that option, just as he rejected the option of
telling the truth.
Instead, he selected a third path. He continued to lie about
corrupt efforts to destroy Paul Jones' sexual harassment case against
him.
If a trial is permitted before this body where live witnesses can
be called and where their credibility can be scrutinized, the evidence
will show this distinguished body that the chart -- that the course
the president charted was a course of perjury.
ROGAN: Despite the president's unique level of judicial
sophistication and expertise, the attorneys at the grand jury were
careful to make sure the president understood the responsibilities to
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They did
this at the outset of his testimony before any questions were asked
that might tempt the president to lie under oath. And they
specifically warned him that if he were to lie or intentionally
mislead the grand jury, he could face perjury and obstruction of
justice charges, both of which are felonies under federal law.
This exchange occurred before the president's testimony.
"Mr. President, you understand that your testimony here today is
under oath?"
Answer: "I do."
"And you understand that because you have sworn to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that if you were to
lie or intentionally mislead the grand jury, you could be prosecuted
for perjury and/or obstruction of justice?"
ROGAN: Answer: "I believe that's correct."
Question: "Is there anything that I've stated to you regarding
your rights and responsibilities that you would like me to clarify or
that you don't understand?"
Answer: "No, sir."
Despite this ominous warning, the prosecutors continue
emphasizing the need for the president to resist lying to the grand
jury.
Still intent on making sure the president understood his
obligations, the attorneys further advised him, "Mr. President, I
would like to read for you a portion of federal rule of evidence 603
which discusses the important function the oath has in our judicial
system. It says that the purpose of the oath is calculated to awaken
the witness's conscience and impress the witness's mind with the duty
to tell the truth. Could you please tell the jury what that oath
means to you for today's testimony?"
The president responded: "I have sworn an oath to tell the grand
jury the truth and that's what I intend to do."
When the president said in that very last answer I just read that
he swore an oath to tell the grand jury the truth, the prosecutor
immediately followed up with another question.
ROGAN: Here is what he was told. Question to the president:
"You understand that the oath requires you to give the whole truth --
that is, a complete answer to each question, sir." Answer by the
president: "I will answer each question as accurately and fully as I
can."
Now one would think these repetitive explanations to the
president of the United States would be enough to warn even the most
legally unsophisticated witness about the need to treat a grand jury
criminal investigation seriously, and the need to tell the whole truth
at any cost. No reasonable person could believe at this point that
the president did not understand his obligations.
Yet just to be sure, the attorneys impressed on the president his
solemn duty to tell the truth. Question to the president: "Now, you
took the same oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth on January 17, 1998 in a deposition in the Paula Jones
litigation. Is that correct sir?"
*** Eastern Time 17:26 ***
ROGAN: The answer by the president: "I did take an oath then."
Question: Did the oath you took on that occasion mean the same
to you then as it does today?
Answer: "I believed then that I had to answer the questions
truthfully. That is correct."
Question: "And it meant the same to you then as it does today?"
Answer: "Well, no one read me a definition then, and we didn't
go through this exercise then. I swore an oath to tell the truth and
I believed I was bound to be truthful, and I tried to be."
Having just received his refresher course on either taking the
Fifth and remaining silent or telling the whole truth and nothing but
the truth, the president acknowledged he was required to tell the
truth when he gave answers to questions eight months earlier in the
Paula Jones sexual harassment civil rights lawsuit.
Question to the president: "At the Paula Jones deposition, you
were represented by Mr. Robert Bennett, your counsel, is that
correct?"
Answer: "That is correct."
Question: "He was authorized by you to be your representative
there, your attorney, is that correct?"
Answer: "That is correct."
Question: "Your counsel, Mr. Bennett, indicated, and I'm
quoting, 'The president intends to give full and complete answers as
Ms. Jones is entitled to have.'
ROGAN: "My question to you is, do you agree with your counsel
that a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case is -- to use his words --
entitled to have the truth?"
Answer by the president: "I believe that I was bound to give
truthful answers, yes, sir."
Question: "But the question is, sir, do you agree with your
counsel that a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case is entitled to
have the truth?"
Answer by the president: "I believe when a witness is under oath
in a civil case or otherwise under oath, the witness should do
everything possible to answer the questions truthfully."
Thus, the groundwork was laid for the president to testify under
oath before the grand jury. He knew how the rules worked respecting
testimony before the grand jury. If a question was vague or
ambiguous, the president could ask for a clarification. If he was
unsure how to answer, or indeed whether to answer a question, he could
stop the questioning, take a break, and consult privately with his
attorneys who were present with him.
ROGAN: If giving an answer would tend to incriminate him, he
could refuse to answer the question by claiming his Fifth Amendment
rights. But if after all of this, he decided to give an answer, the
answer he gave was required to be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
And it was no different than the obligation when he testified in
the Paula Jones deposition -- same oath, same obligation. Let's look
at how the president chose to meet his obligation.
As noted in my opening remarks, the president's grand jury
perjury is the basis for Article I of the impeachment resolution. The
evidence shows and live witnesses clearly will demonstrate that the
president repeatedly committed perjury before the grand jury when he
testified as a defendant in the sexual harassment civil rights lawsuit
against him. He intentionally failed in his lawful obligation to tell
the truth in four general areas.
First, the president committed perjury before the grand jury when
he testified about the nature of his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky, a 21-year-old White House intern who by definition was a
subordinate government employee.
ROGAN: On December 5th, 1997, Monica Lewinsky's name appeared on
the Paula Jones witness list. Later, the president was ordered by
Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright to answer questions about Monica
Lewinsky because the president was a defendant in the sexual
harassment case. At his deposition in the Paula Jones case, the
president was shown a definition approved by Judge Wright of what
constitutes sexual relations.
I'm going to read the definition that was presented to the
president. And let me say at the outset that I'm going to slightly
sanitize it. You have in your materials, members of this body, a copy
of the actual definition that was given to him, so you will be able to
understand precisely what was put before the president.
"Definition of sexual relations. For the purposes of this
deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person
knowingly engages in or causes contact with the certain enumerated
body parts of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person."
ROGAN: Members of the Senate, just for clarification, I did not
feel the need to actually relate to this body what those enumerated
body parts are.
After reviewing the definition, the president then denied that he
ever had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
As we have already seen, from the day in January when the
president testified in the Jones deposition until the day he appeared
in August for his grand jury testimony, he vehemently denied ever
having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Listen to the president addressing the American people on the
subject of his credibility. The date is January 26th, 1998, five days
after the Lewinsky story broke in the press.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: But I want to say one thing to the American people. I
want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again.
CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms.
Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.
These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the
American people.
Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGAN: Beginning in January, 1998, the president went on an
eight month campaign, both under oath and in the press, denying any
sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky in any way, shape or form.
But eight months after his deposition testimony and these passionate
denials, the tide had turned against his story.
By August, Monica Lewinsky was now cooperating with the Office of
the Independent Counsel. If she was telling the truth in her sworn
testimony, then the president's January denial in the Paula Jones case
would have been a clear case of him committing perjury and obstructing
justice.
ROGAN: Why? Because she was describing in very graphic detail
conduct occurring between her and the president that clearly fit the
definition of sexual relations as used in the Paula Jones deposition,
conduct that he repeatedly denied under oath.
So by the time the president sat down for his grand jury
testimony to answer these questions under oath, he had put himself in
a huge box. He could not continue the outright lie because Ms.
Lewinsky had turned over her blue dress for DNA testing. And at the
time of his grand jury testimony, he didn't know what the results were
of that FBI test.
Under such circumstances, continuing the lie was too risky of a
strategy even for the most accomplished of gamblers. But if he told
the truth, his earlier perjury and obstruction of justice would have
ended his presidency. He was sure he would have been driven from
office.
Remember that the president had actually authorized that a poll
be taken for him by Dick Morris, and the poll wasn't just taken on
whether the American people would forgive him for adultery.
ROGAN: The president asked Dick Morris to poll in two other
areas. He asked Dick Morris to poll whether the American people would
forgive him for perjury and obstruction of justice.
When he got the poll results aback, he learned that the American
people would forgive the perjury but they would not forgive -- strike
that -- they would forgive for the adultery but they would not forgive
him for perjury or for obstruction of justice.
Once he got the bad news from Dick Morris that his political
career was over if he perjured himself he told Dick Morris: "We'll
just have to win."
So at his grand jury testimony, once the first question was asked
about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, the president produced a
prepared statement and read from it.
ROGAN: This prepared statement he read to the grand jury on
August 17th, 1998, was the lynchpin in his plan to win.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, were you physically intimate with
Monica Lewinsky?
CLINTON: Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save you and the grand
jury a lot of time if I read a statement which I think will make it
clear what the nature of my relationship with Miss Lewinsky was and
how it related to the testimony I gave, what I was trying to do in
that testimony, and I think it will perhaps make it possible for you
to ask even more relevant questions from your point of view. And with
your permission, I'd like to read that statement.
QUESTION: Absolutely, please, Mr. President.
CLINTON: When I was alone with Miss Lewinsky on certain
occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct
that was wrong.
CLINTON: These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse.
They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to
be defined at my January 17, 1998 deposition. But they did involve
inappropriate intimate contact. These inappropriate encounters ended
at my insistence in early 1997.
I also had occasional telephone conversations with Miss Lewinsky
that included inappropriate sexual banter.
CLINTON: I regret that what began as a friendship came to
include this conduct and I take full responsibility for my actions.
While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can,
because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself and
others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold,
this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular
matters.
I will try to answer to the best of my ability other questions,
including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions
about my understanding of the term "sexual relationship" as I
understood it to be defined at my January 17, 1998 deposition; and
questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of
justice, and intimidation of witnesses.
That, Mr. Bittman is my statement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGAN: Beyond that statement, the president generally refused to
answer specific questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The president used that prepared statement as a substitute answer for
specific questions about his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky 19 separate
times during his testimony before the grand jury.
The purpose of the prepared statement was to avoid answering the
types of specific harassment lawsuit questions for which the United
States Supreme Court and Judge Susan Webber Wright had earlier cleared
the way.
The evidence shows the president used this prepared statement in
order to justify the perjurious answers he gave at his deposition
which were intended to affect the outcome of the Paula Jones case.
The fact that this statement was prepared in advance shows his
intent to mislead the grand jury in this very area. Ironically, this
prepared statement was supposed to inoculate the president from
perjury.
ROGAN: Instead it opened him up to 19 more examples of giving
perjurious, false and misleading answers under oath. For example, in
that prepared statement, the president said his sexual contact with
Ms. Lewinsky began in 1996 and not in 1995 as Ms. Lewinsky had
testified.
This was not a mere slip of memory over a meaningless timeframe.
There is a discrepancy in the dates for a reason. You see, under the
president's version, in 1996 Monica Lewinsky was a paid White House
employee. Under the facts as testified to be Ms. Lewinsky, when the
relationship really began, in 1995, she was not a paid employee at the
White House, she was a young, 21-year-old White House intern.
The concept of a president having a sexual relationship in the
White House with a young intern less than half his age was a public
relations disaster for the president, as everyone vividly remembers.
ROGAN: It is clear that the president somehow viewed the concept
as less combustible if he could take the young intern phrase out of
the public lexicon.
Yet, in his deposition testimony, the president admitted he met
her and saw her when she was an intern working in the White House in
November, 1995, during the government shutdown.
Monica Lewinsky confirmed this. In fact, she testified that the
first time she ever spoke to the president was on November 15, 1998
during the government shutdown. And she also said that the very first
time that ever spoke to the president was the same day he invited her
back to the Oval Office and began a sexual relationship with her.
It is obvious the reference in the president's prepared statement
to the grand jury that this relationship began in 1996 was
intentionally false.
The president's statement was intentionally misleading when he
described being alone with Ms. Lewinsky only on certain occasions.
Actually, they were alone in the White House at least 20 times and had
at least 11 sexual encounters at the White House.
The president attempted to use language that suddenly minimized
the number of times they were alone.
The president's statement was misleading when he described his
telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky as occasional.
ROGAN: In fact, there are at least 55 documented telephone
conversations between conversations between the president of the
United States and the young intern.
And without going into further graphic detail, the evidence shows
that at least on 17 of those occasions, those conversations included
much more than mere sexual banter, as the president described it.
The most unsettling part of that statement was uttered near the
close. Listen to what the president said: "I regret that what began
as a friendship came to include this conduct."
A friendship. The very day the president met and spoke with a
young White House intern for the first time was the day he invited her
back to the Oval Office to perform sex acts on him.
In fact, Monica Lewinsky said that after their sexual
relationship was over a month old, she didn't even think the president
knew her name. The president's statement about his relationship with
Monica Lewinsky beginning as a friendship is a callous and deceptive
mischaracterization of how his relationship with this young woman
really began.
ROGAN: Thus the president began his deposition testimony, by
reading a false and misleading statement to the grand jury. He then
used that statement as an excuse not to answer specific questions that
were directly relevant to allowing the grand jury to complete its
criminal investigation.
Had he given specific answers to specific questions about the
true nature of his relationship, the grand jury would have been able
to learn the whole truth about whether the president perjured himself
and obstructed justice in the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil
rights lawsuit.
Paula Jones had a legal and constitutional right to learn if the
president, while as president or governor, used his position of power
and influence to get sexual favors from subordinate female employees
in the workplace, or to reward subordinate female employees for
granting such favors to him.
ROGAN: Instead, the president intentionally provided on 19
separate occasions a misleading statement instead of giving a true
characterization of his conduct as required by his oath. He had no
legal or constitutional right to refuse to answer such questions
without claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege and then allowing Judge
Wright to make a determination as to whether the privilege applied.
The president's preliminary statement delivered 19 times was an
initial shot across the perjury bow offered by the president
throughout his grand jury testimony. It showed a premeditated effort
to thwart the grand jury's criminal investigation, to justify his
prior wrongdoing and to deny Paula Jones her constitutional right to
bring forward her claim in a court of law.
The president gave further perjurious, false, and misleading
testimony regarding the nature and details of his relationship with
Monica Lewinsky.
ROGAN: One of the ways the president tried to justify his
perjurious answers in the Jones deposition about his relationship was
to deconstruct the English language. Remember, the president was
shown a copy of the definition of sexual relations that Judge Wright
approved in his January deposition. This definition was directed by
Judge Wright to be used as the guide under which the president was to
answer questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. After
carefully reviewing that definition, the president said under oath
that it did not apply to his relationship with her.
It is important to remember that at the time the president
testified that he never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky this
was not a risky perjury strategy. After all, he had successfully used
Vernon Jordan to get Monica Lewinsky a good job in New York, despite
her questionable qualifications. She had filed a false affidavit in
the Jones case denying a sexual relationship with the president. She
and the president had previously agreed to comprehensive cover
stories, to deny the truth of their relationship if anyone ever
confronted them about it. And the bevy of gifts the president had
given to Monica were now nestled safely under Betty Currie's bed so
that they would never be produced to or discovered by Mrs. Jones's
attorneys in compliance with their subpoena to have those gifts
produced.
ROGAN: The perjury strategy was a safe bet in January at his
deposition. But it soon turned upside down for the president. By the
time of his grand jury testimony in August, the president knew things
had changed drastically. But not in his favor.
In light of Miss Lewinsky's cooperation with the independent
counsel, the impending FBI report on her -- on the DNA testing on the
blue dress and the president's decision not to confess to his crime,
the president needed to come up with some excuse.
Here is how the president at his August grand jury appearance
tried to explain away his January deposition denial of engaging in
sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky:
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(UNKNOWN): Did you understand the word in the first potion of
the exhibit, Mr. President, and that is for the purposes of this
deposition, a person engages in quote/unquote "sexual relations" when
the person knowingly engages in or causes -- did you understand -- do
you understand the word there in that phrase?
CLINTON: My -- I can tell you what my understanding of the
definition is, if you want me to. (OFF-MIKE)
My understanding of this definition is that it covers contact by
the person being deposed with the enumerated areas, if the contact is
done with an intent to arouse or gratify. That's my understanding of
the definition.
(UNKNOWN): What did you believe the definition to include and
exclude? What kind of an activities?
CLINTON: I thought the definition included any activity by the
person being deposed, where the person was the actor and came in
contact with those parts of the body with the purpose of intent for
gratification and excluded any other activity. For example, kissing
is not covered by that I don't think.
QUESTION: Did you understand the definition to be limited to
sexual activity?
CLINTON: Yes, I understood the definition to be limited to
physical contact with those areas of the body with the specific intent
to arouse or gratify. That's what I understood it to be.
QUESTION: What specifics acts did the definition include as you
understood the definition on January 17, 1998?
CLINTON: Any contact with the areas that are mentioned, sir. If
you contacted the -- if you contacted those parts of the body with an
intent to arouse or gratify, that is covered.
QUESTION: What did you understand...
CLINTON: The person being deposed. If the person being deposed
contacted those parts of another person's body with an intent to
arouse or gratify, that was covered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGAN: If that answer sounded confusing to you, there's a reason
for that: it was meant to be.
What the president now is saying to the grand jury is that during
their intimate relationship in the Oval Office, Monica Lewinsky had
sexual relations with him; he didn't have sexual relations with her.
Consider that for a moment. The president is asking everyone to
believe that between the years 1995 and 1997, while Monica Lewinsky
was engaged in a pattern of explicit availability for him, as she
described in her testimony, the president carefully avoided having any
intimate contact with her, as described in Judge Wright's very
detailed definition.
And according to the president, since he never intimately touched
her as described in the definition -- she only touched him -- then he
was under no obligation to answer questions in the harassment suit
about Monica Lewinsky as Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered him
to do under oath.
ROGAN: Not only does the president's claim strain all boundaries
of common sense, it is directly in conflict with Monica Lewinsky's
detailed and corroborated accounts of their relationship.
And if this ridiculous expansion of Judge Wright's definition of
what constituted sexual relations wasn't enough, the president then
decided to take his interpretation of the judge's definition one step
further. He added a new element as to why he claimed the definition
didn't apply to him. When asked again at his grand jury testimony
what he thought the definition of sexual relations meant, here is the
new twist that the president came up with.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: As I remember from the previous discussion, they said
this was some kind of definition that had something to do with sexual
harassment. So, that implies is forcing to me. And I -- and there
was never any issue of forcing in the case involving, well, any of
these questions they were asking me.
They made it clear in this discussion I just reviewed th | 
Full Coverage