|
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 18:00 ***
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)
...and phone records.
ROGAN: Monica Lewinsky's testimony is further corroborated
through DNA testing and the testimony of her friends and family
members to whom she made near-contemporaneous statements about the
relationship.
Most importantly, Monica Lewinsky had every reason to tell the
truth to the grand jury. She was under a threat of prosecution for
perjury not only for her grand jury testimony, but also for the false
affidavit she filed on behalf of the president in the Jones case. She
knew then and she knows today that her immunity agreement could be
revoked at any time if she lies under oath or if she lied under oath
in the past. Truthful testimony was and remains a condition for her
immunity from prosecution.
By way of contrast, the president was under obligation to give
complete answers. Instead, he offered false answers that violated the
oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And incidentally, during his grand jury testimony, the president
actually suggested that he had a right to give less than complete
answers. Why? Because he questioned the motives of Mrs. Jones in
bringing her lawsuit.
ROGAN: If this standard is acceptable, what does that do to the
search for truth when an oath is administered in a courtroom to one
who claims to question the motives of their opponent in a trial? This
suggestion has no basis in law and it is destructive to the truth-
seeking function of the courts.
The president's perjurious legal hairsplitting used to bypass the
requirement of telling the complete truth denied Paula Jones her
constitutional right to have her day in court and an orderly
disposition of her claim in the sexual harassment case against the
president.
To dismiss this conduct with a shrug because it is just about sex
is to say that the sexual harassment laws protecting women in the
workplace do not apply to powerful employers or others in high places
of privilege.
ROGAN: As one wag (ph) recently noted, "If this case is just
about sex, then robbery is just a disagreement over money."
Next, the president perjured himself before the grand jury when
he repeated previous perjured answers he gave in the deposition in the
Paula Jones case.
In his grand jury testimony in August, the president admitted he
had to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when
he testified in the Paula Jones deposition.
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?"
Answer: "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 believe then that I had to answer the questions
truthfully. That is correct."
When the president testified in his January deposition, he knew
full well that the Monica Lewinsky's affidavit she filed in the case
stating that they never had sexual relations was false. Yet, when
this affidavit was shown to him at the deposition, he testified that
her false claim was, in his words, "absolutely true."
ROGAN: He knew that the definition of sexual relations used in
the earlier Jones deposition was meant to cover the same activity that
was mentioned in Monica Lewinsky's false affidavit. Rather than tell
the complete truth, the president lied about the relationship, the
cover stories, the affidavit, the subpoena for gifts, and the search
for a job for Ms. Lewinsky.
Later he denied to the grand jury in August that he committed any
perjury during his January deposition. This assertion before the
grand jury that he testified truthfully in the Jones case is in and of
itself perjurious testimony because the record is clear: he did not
testify truthfully in January in the Paula Jones case, he perjured
himself.
Thus, when the president testified before the grand jury in
August, he knew he had given perjurious answers in the January
deposition.
ROGAN: If the president thought, as he testified, that he had
told the truth in his January deposition testimony, he would not have
related a false account of events to his secretary, Betty Currie, whom
he knew by his own admission might be called as a witness in the Jones
case. He would not have repeatedly denied he was unable to recall
being alone with Monica Lewinsky, and he would not have told false
accounts to his aides, whom he knew, by his own admission, were
potential witnesses in later proceedings.
The evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice is
overwhelming in this case. He continued to use illegal means to
defeat Mrs. Jones' constitutional right to bring her harassment case
against him.
Next, the president committed perjury before the grand jury when
he testified that he did not allow his attorney to make false
representations while referring to Monica Lewinsky's affidavit before
the judge in the Jones case, an affidavit that he knew was false.
Remember at the Jones deposition in January 1998, Monica Lewinsky
previously had filed a false affidavit that said, quote: "I have
never had a sexual relationship with the president."
ROGAN: And that she had no relevant information to provide on
the subject to Mrs. Jones.
When Mrs. Jones' attorneys attempted to question the president
about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the president's attorney,
Mr. Bennett, objected to him even being questioned about the
relationship. Mr. Bennett claimed that, in light of Monica Lewinsky's
affidavit saying that there was no sexual relationship between the two
and there never had been, that the -- Paula Jones' lawyers had no
good-faith believe even to question the president about a relationship
with Monica Lewinsky. Listen to what Mr. Bennett told Judge Wright in
the deposition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENNETT: I need some guidance from the court at this point.
BENNETT: I'm going to object to the innuendo. I'm afraid, as I
say, that this will leak. I don't question the predicates here. I
question the good faith of counsel, the innuendo in the question.
Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed -- has an
affidavit, which they are in possession of, saying that there is
absolutely no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form, with
President Clinton and yet, listening to the innuendo in the
question...
WRIGHT: Now, just a minute. Let me make my ruling. I do not
know whether counsel is basing this question on any affidavit, but I
will direct Mr. Bennett not to comment on other evidence that might be
period of pertinent and could be arguably coaching the witness at this
juncture. Now, I -- Mr. Fisher is an officer of this court, and I
have to assume that he has a good-faith basis for asking this
question.
WRIGHT: If, in fact, he has no good-faith basis for asking the
question, he could later be sanctioned. If you would like, I would be
happy to review in camera (ph) any good-faith basis he might have.
BENNETT: Well, Your Honor, with all due respect, I would like to
know the proffer. I'm not coaching the witness in preparation of the
witness for this deposition. The witness is fully aware of Ms.
Lewinsky's affidavit, so I've not told him a single thing he doesn't
know. But I think when he asks questions like this, where he's
sitting on an affidavit from the witness, he should at least have a
good-faith proffer.
WRIGHT: I agree with you that he needs to have a good-faith
basis for asking these questions.
BENNETT: May we ask what it is?
WRIGHT: And I am assuming he does. And I will be willing to
review this in camera (ph) if he does not want to reveal it to
counsel.
BENNETT: I would welcome an opportunity to explain to the court
what our good-faith basis is in an in camera (ph) hearing.
WRIGHT: All right.
BENNETT: I would prefer that we not take the time to do that
now, but I can tell the court that I am very confident there is no
factual basis for ...
WRIGHT: As long as -- I'm going to permit the question. He's an
officer of the court and as you know, Mr. Bennett, this court has
ruled on prior occasions that a good faith basis can exist,
notwithstanding the testimony of the witness, of the deponent, and the
other party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGAN: May I say as an aside, that by presenting that, I am in
no way questioning the quality or the integrity of the president's
attorney Mr. Bennett on that date. Mr. Bennett was doing his job. As
the president's lawyer, he had an affidavit from Monica Lewinsky that
said none of this ever happened.
And so I hope that none of you will assume that by my showing
this deposition tape today, that I am trying to draw any unfair
inference against the president's attorney on that date.
ROGAN: But you can tell from what you have just observed that
Mr. Bennett was using Monica Lewinsky's false affidavit in an attempt
to stop questioning of the president about Ms. Lewinsky.
And what did the president do during that exchange? He sat mute.
He did not say anything to correct Mr. Bennett, even though the
president knew that the affidavit upon which Mr. Bennett was relying
was utterly false.
Judge Wright overruled Mr. Bennett's objection and allowed the
questioning about Monica Lewinsky to proceed. Later in the
deposition, Mr. Bennett read to the president the portion of Ms.
Lewinsky's affidavit in which she denied having a sexual relationship
with the president. Mr. Bennett then asked the president, who was
under oath, if Ms. Lewinsky's statement that they never had a sexual
relationship was true and accurate. Listen to the president as he
responds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENNETT: In paragraph eight of your affidavit she says this: "I
have never had a sexual relationship with the president. He did not
propose that we have a sexual relationship. He did not offer me
employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship.
He did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual
relationship."
BENNETT: He did not deny me employment or other benefits for
rejecting a sexual relationship."
Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?
CLINTON: That is absolutely true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGAN: The president's answer: "That is absolutely true." When
President Clinton was asked, during his grand jury testimony, eight
months later, how he could have sat silently at his earlier deposition
while his attorney made the false statement that there is no sex of
any kind, in any manner, shape or form to Judge Wright, the president
first said that he was not paying a great deal of attention to Mr.
Bennett's comments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Mr. President, I want to before I go into a new
subject area briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr.
Bennett. The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, in the Paula
Jones deposition. Counsel is fully aware -- page 54, line 5 --
counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed -- has an
affidavit, which they were in possession of, saying that there is
absolutely no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form with
President Clinton. That statement was made by your attorney in front
of Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
CLINTON: That's correct.
QUESTION: Your next statement is a completely false statement,
whether or not, Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky -- the statement that, "there is no sex of any kind, in any
manner, shape or form with President Clinton" was an utterly false
statement. Is that correct?
CLINTON: It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
CLINTON: If "is" means is and never has been, that is not --
that's one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely
true statement.
But, as I have testified, and (ph) like to testify again. This
is -- it is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked about his
lawyer's statement instead of the other way around.
I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange. I
was focusing on my own testimony.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGAN: The president added to this explanation he was giving to
the attorney questioning him. This is what the president said:
"And I am not sure, as I sit here today, that I sat there and
followed all those interchanges between the lawyers. I'm quite sure
that I didn't follow all the interchanges between the lawyers all that
carefully. And I don't really believe, therefore, that I can say Mr.
Bennett's testimony or statement is testimony and is imputable to me.
I didn't -- I don't know that I was really paying that much attention
to him."
ROGAN: This denial of the president, that while his attorney was
proffering a false statement to Judge Wright in an effort to keep the
Paula Jones lawyers from even questioning the president about his
relationship with Monica Lewinksy, simply does not withstand the test
of truth.
The videotape of the president's January deposition shows the
president paying very close attention to Mr. Bennett when this -- Mr.
Bennett was making the statement about "no sex of any kind."
View again the video clip of the president during Mr. Bennett's
argument that the Jones lawyers have no right to ask questions about
Monica Lewinsky, only this time watch the president as he focuses on
his lawyer speaking about one of the most important subjects he has
ever faced in his entire life: the survival of his presidency.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENNETT: Excuse me, Mr. President, I need some guidance from the
court at the this point. I'm going to object to the innuendo. I'm
afraid, as I say, that this will leak. I don't question the
predicates here, I question the good faith of counsel, the innuendo in
the question. Counsel is fully aware that Miss Lewinsky has filed --
has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is
absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with
President Clinton.
BENNETT: And yet, listening to the innuendo in the question...
WRIGHT: Now, just a minute. Let me make my ruling. I do not
know whether counsel is basing this question on any affidavit, but I
will direct Mr. Bennett not to comment on other evidence that might be
pertinent and could be arguably coaching the witness at this juncture.
Now, I -- Mr. Fisher is an officer of this court, and I have to
assume he has a good-faith basis for asking this question. If, in
fact he has no good faith-basis for asking the question, he could
later be sanctioned. If you would like, I would be happy to review in
camera any good-faith basis he might have.
BENNETT: Well, Your Honor, with all due respect, I would like to
know the proffer. I'm not coaching the witness in preparation of the
witness for this deposition. The witness is fully aware of Miss
Lewinsky's affidavit, so I've not told him a single thing he doesn't
know.
BENNETT: But I think when he asks questions like this, where
he's sitting on an affidavit from the witness, he should least have a
good faith proffer.
WRIGHT: I agree with you that he needs to have a good faith
basis for asking a question.
BENNETT: Then we ask what it is.
WRIGHT: And I am assuming that he does. And I will be willing
to review this in camera if he does not want to reveal it to counsel.
ATTORNEY: I would welcome an opportunity to explain to the court
what our good faith basis is in an in camera hearing.
WRIGHT: All right.
ATTORNEY: I would prefer that we not take the time to do that
now, but I can tell the court I am very confident there is substantial
basis for these questions.
WRIGHT: All right, I'm going to permit the question. He's an
officer of the Court, and as you know, Mr. Bennett, this court has
ruled on prior occasions that a good faith basis can exist
notwithstanding the testimony of the witness, of the deponent, and the
other party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGAN: By the way, lest there be any doubt in the minds of any
member of this body as to whom the president was looking at and
focusing at, we're fully prepared to bring in a witness for you who
was present at the deposition and who will draw a map for every member
of this body and show the location of the president and every other
person around the table.
Just in case the president's "I wasn't paying any attention"
excuse didn't fly, the president, in his grand jury testimony, decided
to try another argument on for size. He suggested that when Mr.
Bennett made his statement about, "There is no sex of any kind," the
president was focusing on the meaning of the word "is."
He then said that when Mr. Bennett made the assertion that there
"is" no sex of any kind, Mr. Bennett was speaking only in the present
tense, as if the president understood that to mean, there is no sex
because there was no sex occurring at the time Mr. Bennett's remark
was made. The president stated, "It depends on what the meaning of
the word "is" is. And that "if it means there is none, that was a
completely true statement."
ROGAN: Listen and watch, again, to the same video clip from the
president's grand jury testimony we saw a few moments ago, only this
time, pay close attention to the president's excuse as to why he did
not have to comply with the truth because, in his mind, there is some
question as to what the meaning of the word "is" is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Mr. President, I want to -- before I go into a new
subject area, briefly go over something you were talking about with
Mr. Bennett. The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, in the
Paula Jones deposition. "Counsel is fully aware" -- page 54, line 5
-- "counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed -- has an
affidavit, which they are in possession of, saying that there is
absolutely no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form with
President Clinton." That statement is made by your attorney in front
of Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
CLINTON: That's correct.
QUESTION: You're -- that statement is a completely false
statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was no sex of any kind, in any
manner, shape or form with President Clinton, was an utterly false
statement, is that correct?
CLINTON: It depends upon what the meaning of the "is" is. If
the -- if he -- if "is" means is and never has been, that is not --
that's one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely
true statement.
But as I have testified and like to testify again, this is -- it
is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked about his lawyer's
statements instead of the other way around. I was not paying a great
deal of attention to this exchange. I was focusing on my own
testimony.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGAN: In essence, here is what the president says in his own
defense: I wasn't paying any attention to what my lawyer was saying
when he offered the false affidavit on my behalf to the judge.
ROGAN: However, if I was paying attention, I was focusing on the
very narrow definition of what the word "is" is and the tense in which
that was presented.
Now, I'm a former prosecutor and that's like the murderer who
says, I have an ironclad alibi. I wasn't at the crime scene. I was
home with my mother eating apple pie. But if I was there, it is a
clear case of self-defense.
The president now asks this body of lawmakers to give acceptance
to these ludicrous definitions of ordinary words and phrases. He asks
you to believe this is what he really thought when he was asked if he
ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and when he was asked
about her false affidavit.
By the way, as to the president's tense argument that he just
presented about what the meaning of the word "is" is, this fails to
take into account another important fact.
ROGAN: The false affidavit of Monica Lewinsky that Mr. Bennett
was waving that day before the judge made no such distinction. Her
affidavit never said, in the present tense, "I am not now having a
sexual relationship with the president." Her affidavit said, "I have
never had a sexual relationship with the president."
The president perjured himself when he said that Mr. Bennett's
statement that there was no sex of any kind was, quote, "absolutely
true, depending on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
The president did not admit to the grand jury that Mr. Bennett's
statement was false, because to do so would have been to admit that
the term "sexual relations" as used in Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit meant
no sex of any kind. Admitting that would be to admit that he perjured
himself previously in his testimony in his deposition.
Now, interestingly, Ms. Lewinsky doesn't bother attempting to
match the president's linguistic deconstructions of the English
language. After she was granted immunity, Monica Lewinsky testified
under oath that the part of her affidavit denying a sexual
relationship was a lie.
ROGAN: I read from page 204 of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony.
Question to Ms. Lewinsky: "Let me ask you straightforward
question. Paragraph Eight, referring to her affidavit, at the start
says, quote, 'I have never had a sexual relationship with the
president.' End quote. Is that true?"
Answer: "No."
Thus, the president engaged in an evolving series of lies during
his sworn testimony in order to cover previous lies he told in sworn
testimony, and to conceal his conduct that obstructed justice in the
Paula Jones sexual harassment suit against him.
He did this to deny Paula Jones her constitutional right to bring
a case of sexual harassment against him, and to sidetrack the
investigation of the Office of Independent Counsel into his
misconduct.
ROGAN: Finally, the president committed perjury before the grand
jury when he testified falsely about his blatant attempts to influence
the testimony of potential witnesses, and his involvement in a plan to
hide evidence that had lawfully been subpoenaed in the civil rights
action brought against him.
This perjurious testimony breaks down into four categories.
First, he made false and misleading statements to the grand jury
concerning his knowledge of Monica Lewinsky's false affidavit.
Second, he made false and misleading statements to the grand jury
when he related a false account of his interaction with his secretary,
Betty Currie, when he reasonably knew she might later be called before
the grand jury to testify.
Third, he made perjurious and misleading statements to the grand
jury when he denied engaging in a plan to hide evidence that had been
subpoenaed in the Jones civil rights case against him.
And finally, he made perjurious and misleading statements to the
grand jury concerning statements he made to his aides about Monica
Lewinsky, when he reasonably knew these aides might be called later to
testify.
ROGAN: Let's look briefly at the first area. The president made
false and misleading statements before the grand jury regarding his
knowledge of the contents of Monica Lewinsky's affidavit. As we now
know conclusively, Monica Lewinsky filed an affidavit in the Jones
case in which she denied ever having a sexual relationship with the
president, and that was a lie, when it was filed.
Remember, during his deposition in the Jones case, the president
said that Ms. Lewinsky's denial of ever having a sexual relationship
was absolutely true. Monica Lewinsky later testified that she is 100
percent sure that the president suggested she might want to sign an
affidavit to avoid testifying in the case of Jones v. Clinton.
ROGAN: In fact, the president gave the following testimony
before the grand jury.
"And did I hope she'd be able to get out of testifying on an
affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit?
No, I did not."
This testimony is false. Because it could not be possible that
Monica Lewinsky could have filed a truthful affidavit in the Jones
case, an affidavit acknowledging a sexual relationship with the
president that would have helped her to avoid having to appear as a
witness in the Paula Jones case.
The attorneys for Paula Jones were seeking evidence of sexual
relationships with the president and ones that the president might
have had with other state or federal employees. This information was
legally obliged to be produced by the president to Paula Jones in her
sexual harassment lawsuit against him, to help her prove her claim.
ROGAN: Judge Susan Webber Wright had already ruled that Paula
Jones was entitled to this information from the president for purposes
of discovery.
If Monica Lewinsky had filed a truthful affidavit that
acknowledged a sexual relationship with the president, then she
certainly could not have avoided ever having to testify in a
deposition. The president knew this. His grand jury testimony on
this subject is perjurious.
Next, the President provided false testimony concerning his
conversations with his personal secretary Betty Currie about Monica
Lewinsky after he testified in the Jones deposition.
Recall the time line from Mr. Manager Hutchinson's presentation a
short time ago. The President had just testified on January 17, 1998
in the Paula Jones deposition. He said he could not recall being
alone with Monica Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual
relationship with her.
ROGAN: After his testimony, on the very next day, in a separate
-- and in a separate conversation with her a few days later, President
Clinton made statements to Ms. Currie that he knew were false, and he
made them to coach Ms. Currie and to influence her potential
testimony.
He coached her by reciting inaccurate answers to possible
questions that she might be asked if she were called to testify in the
Paula Jones case.
By the way, the president discussed his deposition testimony with
Ms. Currie in direct violation of Judge Wright's order that he not
discuss his testimony with anyone.
Judge Wright warned the president at the deposition, "Before he
leaves, I want to remind him, as the witness in this matter, that this
case is subject to a Protective Order regarding all discovery. All
parties present, including the witness, are not to say anything
whatsoever about the questions they were asked, the substance of the
deposition any details."
After he coached Betty Currie, the president wanted Betty Currie
to be a witness.
ROGAN: During his deposition testimony, the president did
everything he could to suggest to the Jones lawyers they needed to
depose Betty Currie. He did this by referring to her, over and over
again, as the one with the information that they need to get their
answers about Monica Lewinsky.
The president stated to the Jones lawyers in his deposition, for
example, that the last time he had seen Ms. Lewinsky was when she had
come to the White House to see Ms. Currie. That Ms. Currie was
present when the president had made a joking reference about the Jones
case to Ms. Lewinsky. That Ms. Currie was his source of information
about Vernon Jordan's assistance to Ms. Lewinsky. And that Ms. Currie
had helped set up the meetings between Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan
regarding her move to New York.
Because the president referred so often to Betty Currie, it is
obvious he wanted her to become a witness in the Jones' case,
particularly if specific allegations about the president's
relationship with Monica Lewinsky came to light. According to Ms.
Currie, President Clinton even told her at some point that she might
be asked about Monica Lewinsky.
ROGAN: Two and a half hours after the president returned from
his deposition in the Jones case, President Clinton called Betty
Currie at home and asked her to come to the White House the next day,
which was a Sunday. Ms. Currie testified that it was rare for the
president to ever ask her to come in to work on a Sunday.
At about 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, January 18, the day after his
deposition testimony, Ms. Currie went to meet with President Clinton
at the White House. Listen to what Betty Currie told the jury, grand
jury.
"He said that he had had his deposition yesterday, and they had
asked several questions about Monica Lewinsky.
ROGAN: "And I was a little shocked by that or -- shrugging --
and he said -- 'I don't know if he said -- I think he may have said --
'there are several things you may want to know,' or 'there are things'
-- he asked me some questions."
According to Betty Currie, the president then said to her in
rapid succession:
"You were always there when she was there, right? We were never
really alone."
"You could see and hear everything."
"Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?"
"She wanted to have sex with me, and I can't do that."
Ms. Currie indicated that these remarks were quote, "more like
statements than questions."
Ms. Currie concluded that the president wanted her to agree with
him. Ms. Currie also said that she felt the president made these
remarks to see her reaction. Ms. Currie said that she indicated her
agreement with each of the president's statements, although she knew
that the president and Monica Lewinsky had in fact been alone in the
Oval Office and in the president's study.
ROGAN: Ms. Currie also knew that she could not, and did not hear
or see the president and Ms. Lewinsky while they were alone.
Ms. Currie testified that two or three days after her
conversation with the president at the White House, he again called
her into the Oval Office to discuss this.
She described their conversation as, quote, "sort of a
recapitulation of what we had talked about on Sunday -- you know, 'I
was never alone with her' -- that sort of thing."
Question to Ms. Currie: "Did he pretty much list the same?
Answer: "To my recollection, sir, yes."
In his grand jury testimony, the president was asked why he might
have said to Ms. Currie in their meeting on that Sunday: "We were
never alone together, right?" and "you could see and hear everything."
Here is how the president responded:
"What I was trying to determine was whether my recollection was
right and that she was always in the office complex when Monica was
there, and whether she thought she could hear any conversations we
had, or did she hear any. I was trying to -- I knew to a reasonable
certainty that I was going to be asked more questions about this.
ROGAN: "I didn't really expect you to be in the Jones case at the
time. I thought what would happen is that it would break in the
press, and I was trying to get to get the facts down. I was trying to
understand what the facts were."
The president told the grand jury that he was putting those
questions to Betty Currie on that Sunday to refresh his recollection,
and trying to pin down what the facts were.
Now later the president stated that he was referring to a larger
area than simply the room where he and Ms. Lewinsky were occupying.
He also testified that his statements to Ms. Currie were intended
to cover a limited range of dates.
ROGAN: Listen to the president's answer:
"When I said we were never alone, right, I think I also asked her
a number of other questions, because there were several times, as I'm
sure she would acknowledge, when I either asked her to be around.
"I remember once in particular when I was talking with Ms.
Lewinsky when I asked Betty to be in the -- actually, in the next
room, in the dining room. And as I testified earlier, once in her own
office.
"But I meant that she was always in the Oval Office complex, in
that complex, while Monica was there. And I believe that this was
part of a series of questions I asked her to try to quickly refresh my
memory. So, I wasn't trying to get her to say something that wasn't
so. And, in fact, I think she would recall that I told her to just
relax, go to the grand jury and tell the truth when she had been
called as a witness."
ROGAN: Now the president was treating the grand jury to his
construction of what the word "alone" means to him. When asked, he
answered, "It depends on how you define "alone," and there were a lot
of times we were alone, but I never really thought we were."
The president also was asked about his specific statement to
Betty Currie, that "you could see and hear everything." He testified
that he was uncertain what he intended by that comment.
Question to the president: "When you said to Mrs. Currie that
you could see and hear everything, that wasn't true either, was it, as
far as you knew?"
Answer: "My memory of that was that she had the ability to hear
what was going on if she came in the Oval Office from her office.
ROGAN: "And a lot of times, you know, when I was in the Oval
Office, she just had the door open to her office. Then there was the
door was never completely closed to the hall.
So I think there was -- I'm not entirely sure what I meant by
that, but I could have meant that she generally would be able to hear
conversations, even if she couldn't see them. And I think that's what
I meant."
The president also was asked about his comment to Ms. Currie that
Monica Lewinsky had "come on" to him and that he had never touched
her. Question to the president: "If Ms. Currie testified that you
told her 'Monica came on to me and I never touched her,' you did in
fact, of course, touch Ms. Lewinsky, isn't that right, in a physically
intimate way?"
Answer by the president: "Now I've testified about that and
that's one of those questions that I believe is answered by the
statement I made." And incidentally, that's the statement that he
read at the beginning of his deposition testimony that I've already
discussed.
Question to the president: "What was your purpose in making these
statements to Mrs. Currie, if it wasn't for the purpose of trying to
suggest to her what she should say if ever asked?"
Answer by the president: "Now, Mr. Bittman, I told you, the only
thing I remember is when all this stuff blew up, I was trying to
figure out what the facts were. I was trying to remember. I was
trying to remember every time I had seen Ms. Lewinsky. I knew this
was all going to come out. I did not know at the time that the Office
of Independent Counsel was involved. And I was trying to get the
facts and try to think of the best defense we could construct in the
face of what I thought was going to be a media onslaught."
And finally, the President was asked why he would have called Ms.
Currie into his office a few days after the Sunday meeting and
repeated the statements about Ms. Lewinsky to her.
The President testified that although he would not dispute Ms.
Currie's testimony to the contrary, he did not remember having a
second conversation with her along these lines.
ROGAN: Thus the president referred to Ms. Currie many times in
his deposition when describing his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
He himself admitted that a large number of questions about Ms.
Lewinsky were likely to be asked in the very near future.
The president reasonably could foresee that Ms. Currie either
might be deposed or questioned, or might need to prepare an affidavit.
When he testified he was only making statements to Ms. Currie to
ascertain what the facts were, trying to ascertain what Betty's
perception was, this statement was false and it was perjurious.
We know it was perjury, because the president called Ms. Currie
into the White House the day after his deposition to tell her -- not
ask her, to tell her -- that he was never alone with Monica Lewinsky.
To tell her that Ms. Currie could always hear or see them, and to tell
her that he never touched Monica Lewinsky.
These were false statements, and he knew that the statements were
false at the time he made them to Betty Currie.
The president's suggestion that he was simply trying to refresh
his memory when talking to Betty Currie is nonsense.
ROGAN: What if Miss Currie -- what if Miss Currie had confirmed
these statements, statements the president knew were false? It could
not, in any way, remind the president of what really happened in the
Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky, because the president already knew
he was alone with Monica Lewinsky; the president already knew that,
obviously, Mrs. Currie couldn't always see him back in the Oval Office
area with Monica Lewinsky; and the president already knew that he had
an intimate, sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
There is no logical way to justify his claim that he made these
statements to refresh his memory. The only reasonable inference from
the president's conduct is that he tried to enlist a potential witness
to back up his perjury from the day before at the deposition.
ROGAN: The circumstances surrounding the president's statements
clearly show -- clearly show -- that he improperly sought to influence
Ms. Currie's potential future testimony.
His actions were an obstruction of justice and a blatant attempt
to illegally influence the truthful testimony of a potential witness.
And his later denials about it under oath are perjury.
Next, the president gave perjurious, false and misleading
testimony before the grand jury when he denied he was engaged in a
plot to hide evidence that had been subpoenaed in the Paula Jones
case.
On December 19, 1997, Paula Jones-- strike that -- Monica
Lewinsky was served with a subpoena in the Paula Jones case.
The subpoena required her to testify at a deposition in January,
and the subpoena required her to produce each and every gift given
President Clinton had ever given her.
Nine days after she received this subpoena, Ms. Lewinsky met with
the president for about 45 minutes in the Oval Office.
By this time, President Clinton knew that she had been subpoenaed
in the case. At this meeting, they discussed the fact that the gifts
that he had given Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, including a hat
pin -- the first gift the president had ever given Ms. Lewinsky.
ROGAN: Monica Lewinsky testified that at some point in the
meeting she said to the president, "Well, you know, I -- maybe I
should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to
someone, maybe Betty.
"And he sort of said -- I think he responded, 'I don't know' or
'Let me think about that,' and then left that topic."
President Clinton provided the following explanation to the grand
jury and to the House Judiciary Committee regarding this conversation.
Statement by the president: "Ms. Lewinsky said something to me
like, 'what if they ask me about the gifts you've given me,' but I do
not know whether that conversation occurred on December 28, 1997, or
earlier. Whenever this conversation occurred, I testified, I told her
that if they -- meaning the Jones Lawyers -- asked her for gifts,
she'd have to give them whatever she had. I simply was not concerned
about the fact that I had given her gifts. Indeed, I gave her
additional gifts on December 28, 1997."
The president's statement that he told Ms. Lewinsky that if the
attorneys for Paula Jones asked for the gifts, then she had to provide
them, is perjury.
It strains all logic to believe the president would encourage
Monica Lewinsky to turn over the gifts.
ROGAN: To do so would have raised questions about their
relationship and would go against all of their other efforts to
conceal the relationship, including filing a false affidavit about
their relationship.
The fact that the president gave Monica Lewinsky additional gifts
on December 28, 1997, doesn't exonerate the president. It
demonstrates that the president never believed that Monica Lewinsky,
in light of all of their relationship, all of the cover stories, all
of the plans that they had put forward -- her willingness to subject
herself to a perjury prosecution by filing a false affidavit -- all of
that was because he knew that Monica Lewinsky would never turn those
gifts over pursuant to the subpoena.
And as Ms. Lewinsky testified, she never questioned as she said,
"That we were ever going to do anything but keep this quiet."
ROGAN: This meant that they would take, in her words, quote,
"whatever steps needed to be taken," end quote, to keep it quiet. By
giving more gifts to Monica Lewinsky, after she received a subpoena to
appear in the Jones case, the president believed that Monica Lewinsky
would never testify truthfully about their relationship.
Additionally, Ms. Lewinsky said she could not answer why the
president would give her more gifts on the 28th, when he knew she had
to produce gifts in response to a subpoena. She did testify, however,
"that, to me, it was never a question in my mind, and I -- from
everything he said to me, I never questioned him, that we were never
going to do anything but keep this private, so that meant deny it."
ROGAN: "And that meant do -- take whatever appropriate steps
needed to be taken, you know, for that to happen....So by turning over
these gifts, it would at least prompt the [Jones attorneys] to
question me about what kind of friendship I had with the President."
At this meeting on the morning of December 28, Betty Currie
called Monica Lewinsky and made arrangements to pick up gifts the
president had given to Ms. Lewinsky.
Monica Lewinsky testified under oath before the grand jury that a
few hours after meeting with the President on December 28, where they
discussed what to do about the gifts he gave to her, Betty Currie
called Monica Lewinsky.
Monica Lewinsky explained it to the grand jury as follows:
Question: "What did [Betty Currie] say?"
Answer: "She said, 'I understand you have something to give me.'
Or, 'The President said you have something to give me.' Along those
lines."
Question: "And when she said something along the lines of 'I
understand you have something to give me,' or 'The president said you
have something to give me,' what did you understand her to mean?"
ROGAN: Answer: The gifts."
Later in the day on December 28th, Ms. Currie drove to Monica
Lewinsky's home. Ms. Lewinsky gave Ms. Currie a sealed box that
contained several gifts Ms. Lewinsky had received from the president,
including the hat pin that was specifically named in the Jones
subpoena.
Ms. Currie testified that she understood the box contained gifts
from the president. She took the box to her home and put it under her
bed for safe keeping. Betty Currie testified that she did not recall
the president asking her to retrieve the gifts. She said she thought
Monica Lewinsky called her and asked her to come and get the gifts.
However, when confronted with Monica Lewinsky's account, that Ms.
Currie had in fact spoken to the president about the gift transfer,
Ms. Currie replied: "She may remember better than I. I don't
remember."
As further corroboration, Monica Lewinsky had told the FBI
earlier that when Betty Currie called her about these gifts, it
sounded like Betty Currie was calling on her cell phone.
ROGAN: Ms. Lewinsky gave her best guess on the time of day the
call came on December 28.
Although Ms. Lewinsky's guess on the hour the call came was a bit
off, phone records were later produced revealing that Betty Currie in
fact called Monica Lewinsky on her cell phone just as Ms. Lewinsky had
described. The only logical conclusion is that Betty Currie called
Monica Lewinsky about retrieving the president's gifts.
There would have been no reason for Betty Currie, out of the
blue, to return gifts unless instructed to do so by the President.
Betty Currie didn't know about the gift issue ahead of time. Only the
president and Monica Lewinsky had discussed it. There is no other way
Ms. Currie could have known to call Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts
unless the President told her to do it.
ROGAN: President Clinton perjured himself when he testified
before the grand jury on this issue, and reiterated to the House
Judiciary Committee that he did not recall any conversation with Ms.
Currie around December 28th.
He also perjured himself when he testified before the grand jury
that he did not tell Betty Currie to take possession of gifts that he
had given Ms. Lewinsky.
Question to the president: "After you gave her the gifts on
December 28th, did you speak with your secretary, Ms. Currie, to ask
her to pick up a box of gifts that were some compilation of gifts that
Ms. Lewinsky would have...
Answer: "No, sir, I didn't do that."
Question: "To give to Ms. Currie?"
Answer: "I did not do that."
The president had a motive to conceal the gifts because both he
and Ms. Lewinsky were concerned that the gifts might raise questions
about their relationship.
By confirming that the gifts would not be produced, the President
ensured that these questions would never arise.
The concealment of these gifts from Paula Jones's attorneys
allowed the president to provide perjurious statements about the gifts
at his deposition in the Jones case.
ROGAN: Finally, The President gave perjurious testimony to the
grand jury concerning statements he made to his top aides regarding
his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Here is a portion of his grand jury transcript where the
president testified about his conversations with key aides, once the
Monica Lewinsky story became public:
Question to the president: "Did you deny to them or not, Mr.
President?"
Answer: "I did not want to mislead my friends, but I want to
define language where I can say that. I also, frankly, do not want to
turn any of them into witnesses, because I - and, sure enough, they
all became witnesses."
Question: "Well, you knew they might be witnesses, didn't you?"
Answer: "And so I said to them things that were true about this
relationship. That I used -- in the language I used, I said, 'There
is nothing going on between us.' That was true. I said, 'I have not
had sex with her as I defined it.' That was true.
"And did I hope that I would never have to be here on this day
giving this testimony?
ROGAN: "Of course. But I also didn't want to do anything to
complicate this matter further. So, I said things that were true.
They may have been misleading, and if they were, I have to take
responsibility for it, and I'm sorry."
The president's testimony that day that he said things that were
true to his aides is clearly perjurious. Just as the president
predicted, several of the president's top aides later were called to
testify before the grand jury as to what the president told them. And
when they testified before the grand jury, they passed along the
president's false account, just as the president intended them to do.
I will not belabor the point any further with the members of this
body, because I think Mr. Manager Hutchinson ably presented that
testimony, but we know from the testimony that Erskine Bowles, John
Podesta, Sidney Blumenthal, all came before the grand jury, they all
provided testimony to the grand jury establishing that the president's
comments to them were the truth. The president had them go in, the
president gave them that information so false information would be
shared with the grand jury, so that the grand jury would never be on
to the truth.
ROGAN: And when witnesses are called to come before this body,
you will have an opportunity to make that determination.
Mr. Chief Justice and members of the United States Senate,
posterity looks to this body to defend in a courageous way the public
trust and take care that the basis of our government is not
undermined. On January 17, 1998, President Clinton, while a defendant
in a civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit, gave sworn testimony in a
deposition presided over by a federal judge. In this deposition he
raised his hand and he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.
On August 17, President Clinton testified before a federal grand
jury in a criminal investigation. At this appearance, he raised his
hand and he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth.
The evidence conclusively shows that the president rejected his
obligations under oath on both occasions.
ROGAN: He engaged in a serial pattern of perjury and obstruction
of justice. These corrupt acts were done so he could deny a United
States citizen, Mrs. Paula Jones, her constitutional right to bring
her claim against him in a court of law.
In so doing, he intentionally violated his oath of office; his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed;
and his solemn obligation to respect Mrs. Jones' rights by providing
truthful testimony under oath.
The evidence reviewed by the House of Representatives and relied
upon by our body in bringing articles of impeachment against the
president was not political; it was overwhelming. He has denied all
allegations set forth in these articles.
ROGAN: Who is telling the truth? There is only one way to find
out.
On behalf of the House of Representatives, we urge this body to
bring forth the witnesses and place them all under oath. If the
witnesses can make the case against the president -- if the witnesses
that make the case against the president, who, incidentally, are his
employees, his top aides, his former interns and his close friends --
if all of these people in the president's universe are lying, then the
president has been done a grave disservice. He deserves not just an
acquittal, he deserves the profound of apologies.
But if they are not lying, if evidence is true -- if the chief
executive officer of our nation used his power and his influence to
corruptly destroy a lone woman's right to bring forth her case in a
court of law, then there must be constitutional accountability.
And by that I mean the kind of accountability the framers of the
Constitution intended for such conduct, and not the type of
accountability that satisfies the temporary mood of the moment.
Our Founders bequeathed to us a nation of laws, not of polls, not
of focus groups, and not of talk-show habitues.
ROGAN: America is strong enough to absorb the truth about their
leaders when those leaders act in a manner destructive to their oath
of office. God help our country's future if we ever decide otherwise.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the court
stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. tomorrow and that all members remain
standing at their desk as the chief justice departs the chamber.
I further ask that after the court adjourns in a moment, the
Senate will, while in legislative session, stand in recess subject to
the call of the chair.
REHNQUIST: Without objection, it is so ordered.
UNKNOWN: The Senate will come to order. The Senate will come to
order.
LOTT: Mr. President?
UNKNOWN: The majority leader.
LOTT: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
appointments that are now at the desk which were made pursuant to law
during the sine die adjournment of the Senate be printed in the
record.
UNKNOWN: Without objection.
LOTT: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of S. Res. 18 regarding majority committee
assignments and further the resolution be agreed to and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
UNKNOWN: Without objection, so ordered.
LOTT: This is with regard to the size of the Aging Committee.
Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Cong. Res. 1, which is at
the desk.
UNKNOWN: Without objection. The clerk will report.
CLERK: House Concurrent Resolution One providing for a joint
session of Congress to receive a message from the president.
LOTT: I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
UNKNOWN: Without objection, so ordered.
LOTT: And Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the
hour of 1 p.m. on Friday, January 15th. I further ask that on Friday
immediately following the prayer, the Senate resume consideration of
the articles of impeachment.
UNKNOWN: Without objection.
LOTT: For the information of all senators, then, the Senate will
reconvene tomorrow at 1 p.m. to consider the articles of impeachment.
Tomorrow's presentation is expected to last until approximately 6
p.m., and therefore, senators are asked to plan their schedules
according. If there's any change in that time, if it would be
completed earlier or there's an indication of that, I certainly would
make that known to all senators by our rotary system.
If there's no further business to come before the Senate, I will
now ask the Senate to stand in adjournment under the previous order.
UNKNOWN: Without objection, the Senate stands in adjournment.
END
COPYRIGHT 1999 BY FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR
RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF
FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
Testimony index
| 
Full Coverage