Full Coverage Search Clinton in Crisis The Trial Trial Guide Evidence Guide Transcripts Video Discuss the Trial The Starr Report and Rebuttals Video Index Documents Starr Investigation Jones v. Clinton Whitewater Jones v. Clinton Whitewater

The following transcript was provided to Court TV by Federal Document Clearing House:

SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON -- CONTINUED

FEBRUARY 6, 1999

SPEAKERS: WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT

U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT, MAJORITY LEADER

LLOYD OGILVIE, SENATE CHAPLAIN

APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY J. HYDE (R-IL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BILL MCCOLLUM (R-FL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE W. GEKAS (R-PA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES T. CANADY (R-FL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN E. BUYER (R-IN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ED BRYANT (R-TN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE CHABOT (R-OH)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB BARR (R-GA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS CANNON (R-UT)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES E. ROGAN (R-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY O. GRAHAM (R-SC)

APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT:

CHARLES F.C. RUFF, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL

GREGORY B. CRAIG, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL

BRUCE R. LINDSEY, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL

CHERYL D. MILLS, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL

LANNY A. BREUER, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL

DAVID E. KENDALL, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON

NICOLE K. SELIGMAN, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON

EMMET T. FLOOD, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON

MAX STIER, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON

GLEN DONATH, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON

ALICIA MARTI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON

...and the affidavit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Well, based on prior relations with the president, the concocted stories and those things like that, did this come to mind -- was there some discussion about -- did it come to your mind about these stories?

LEWINSKY: Not in connection with the affidavit.

BRYANT: Did you discuss anything else that might in terms of -- I would draw your attention to the cover stories. I've alluded to that earlier. But did you talk about the cover story that night?

LEWINSKY: Yes sir.

BRYANT: And what was said?

LEWINSKY: I believe that the president said something you can always say you were coming in to see Betty or bringing me papers.

BRYANT: I think you've testified that you're sure he said that that night. You are sure he said that that night?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Now was that in connection with the affidavit?

LEWINSKY: I don't believe so, no.

BRYANT: Now you have testified in the grand jury -- I think your closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie. But yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997, when the president told you that you were on the witness list, he also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use misleading cover stories, isn't that correct? LEWINSKY: Well, I guess in my mind I separate necessarily signing an affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So -- those three events occurred, but they weren't linked for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: Again, the managers did not play these excerpts for you either. They don't want you to know Ms. Lewinsky's recollection which is that the cover stories and the affidavit were not connected in that telephone call.

SELIGMAN: And that's the call that's at the heart of that first obstruction charge.

The managers have suggested to you that Miss Lewinsky, for the first time this week, offered responses -- responses concerning literal truth, for example, of the cover stories designed to help the president. That was a suggestion a few days ago.

Concerned that her testimony might now undermine their case, they suddenly did an about face and attacked her on Thursday. Through this proceeding, the managers have consistently told you how credible a witness Miss Lewinsky is, and they have invoked her immunity agreement as the reason that she must be honest. And today they again credit her testimony, but carefully, only in snippets, only when it suits their purposes.

The responses Miss Lewinsky provided about the cover stores, that were mentioned on Thursday by Mr. Manager Bryant, are not new. They are the same response Miss Lewinsky gave to the independent counsel. For example, when asked about the so-called the cover stories, Miss Lewinsky testified as follows this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Would you agree that these cover stories that you've just testified to, if they were told to the attorneys for Paula Jones, that they would be misleading to them and not be the whole story, the whole truth?

LEWINSKY: They would -- yes, I guess misleading. They were literally true, but they would be misleading, so incomplete.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: Now, the managers suggest that this testimony may be new, different, tinted and tainted, I think they said on Thursday. But they don't tell you that Miss Lewinsky said the very same thing to the independent counsel. She did so repeatedly, and she did so -- and this key -- before the president testified. She didn't know what he would say; he didn't know what she had said.

For example, Miss Lewinsky referred to the two cover stories in her February 1998 proffer more than a year ago.

SELIGMAN: Remember one such cover story concerned the reasons for visiting the president before she left the White House, that was to bring papers to him. And the other concerned her reasons for visiting the president after she left the White House, and that was to visit Betty Currie.

Ms. Lewinsky was asked and said that neither of these statements was untrue. And also that there was truth to both of these statements in her proffer a year ago. She repeated this testimony in July to the independent counsel telling an FBI agent that, "These statements were not untrue, but were misleading and that some facts were omitted from this statement." That's what she said this week. The cover story's testimony is consistent and it is consistently exculpatory.

Now of course it was easy for Mr. Manager Bryant to stand before you on Thursday, reminiscing abut the "open and forthcoming" Ms. Lewinsky that he had met during the informal interview. It was easy for Mr. Manager Bryant to complain that the Ms. Lewinsky of the deposition, was I believe he said, "Not open to discussion or fully responsive to fair inquiry." Open up the (ph) questioning and the answers, and let you be the judge of that.

It was easy for him to say that because the House managers had refused Senator Daschle's request that they be allowed to make a transcript of the interview. That absence of a transcript allowed them this unverifiable fallback if their examination was disappointing. "Oh, she changed on us." The truth is that she didn't tell the story that the managers wanted to hear. So, remember those stubborn facts.

So we know that the managers are disappointed and want to blame their disappointment on Ms. Lewinsky. But when you get to the substance, today's presentation by the House managers, shows that they have not in fact, identified any significant area where Ms. Lewinsky's testimony on Monday, differs from her earlier testimony in the grand jury.

Her view of the cover stories has been consistent from day one. Now Mr. Manager McCollum has also insisted that in the December 17th call, it was clear both to the president and Ms. Lewinsky that the affidavit had to be false.

SELIGMAN: As he put it -- and I quote, "Can there be any doubt that the president was suggesting that she file an affidavit that contains lies and falsehoods, that might keep her from ever having to testify in the Jones case and give the president the kind of protection he needed when he testified? Yes, there surely is doubt."

Ms. Lewinsky herself explained this week that she did not discuss the content of the affidavit with the president. We've played those portions already, and I will not again. But also that in her mind an affidavit presented a whole range of possibilities that were not necessarily false.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: The night of the phone call, he suggested you could file an affidavit. Did you appreciate the implications of filing a false affidavit with the court?

LEWINSKY: I don't think I necessarily thought at that point it would have to be false. So, no, probably not. I don't -- I don't remember having any thoughts like that. So I imagine I would remember something like that, and I don't. But...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: Thus, as we have seen and heard, Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no discussion of what would be in an affidavit, and also that to her thinking the affidavit would not necessarily have been false. Now that the December 17th call has fallen short, the managers have tried to transform the articles as drafted by asserting that the alleged obstruction occurred also on another date, January 5, in a call that took place then, even though the articles pin everything on December 17.

With respect to a January 5 call, Mr. Manager Hutchinson made the following claim to you. He asserted -- and I quote "Well, the record demonstrates that Monica Lewinsky's testimony is that she had a conversation with the president on the telephone in which she asked questions about the affidavit. She was concerned about signing that affidavit, and" -- and this is still a quote -- "according to Ms. Lewinsky, the president said, well, you can always say that people in Legislative Affairs got it for you or helped you get it."

SELIGMAN: And this is still in the quote, "And that is in reference to a paragraph in the particular affidavit." Those were Mr. Manager Hutchinson's words.

But the record unequivocally demonstrates that Miss Lewinsky and the president did not ever discuss the content of that affidavit in this January 5 call or otherwise. And I challenge you to find any paragraph in Miss Lewinsky's affidavit -- either her draft or the final -- reflecting this conversation. There isn't one. The call wasn't about the affidavit. He didn't tell her what to say in the affidavit. It's just not there.

In fact, Mr. Manager Hutchinson repeatedly represented to you that Miss Lewinsky reviewed the content of her affidavit with the president. He had to say that, because he's asking you to remove the president from office for getting her to file a false affidavit. That's a tough sell if they never talked about the content of the affidavit. That's why he told you, and I quote, "that on January 6 -- 5th or 6th -- she discussed that with the president, signing that affidavit, and the content of the affidavit." That's why Mr. Manager Hutchinson also told you -- and I quote again -- "she went over the contents of that, even though she might not have had it in hand with the president." That's just not true. It's not true. To borrow a phrase, again, it's wanting to win too much.

What is clear from Miss Lewinsky's testimony is that she never went over the contents of the affidavit with the president on January 5 or at any other time.

Let's watch a brief excerpt about this matter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did the subject of the affidavit come up with the President?

LEWINSKY: Yes, towards the end of the conversation.

BRYANT: And how did -- tell us how that occurred.

LEWINSKY: I believe I asked him if he wanted to see a copy of it, and he said no.

BRYANT: Well, I mean, how did you introduce that into the subject -- into the conversation?

LEWINSKY: I don't really remember.

BRYANT: Did he ask you, well, how's the affidavit coming or...

LEWINSKY: No, I don't think so.

BRYANT: But you told him that you had one being prepared, or something?

LEWINSKY: I think I said -- I think I said, you know, I'm going to sign an affidavit, or something like that.

BRYANT: Did he ask you what are you going to say?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: And this is the time when he said something about 15 other affidavits?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: And tell us as best as you can recall what -- how that -- how that part of the conversation went.

LEWINSKY: I think that was the -- sort of the other half of his sentence of, no, you know, I don't want to see it. I don't need to, or, I've seen 15 others. It was a little flippant.

BRYANT: His answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has indicated that he thought he had -- might have had a way that he could have you -- get you to file a -- basically a true affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you wouldn't be called as a witness. Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?

LEWINSKY: He didn't discuss the content of my affidavit with me at all, ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: In fact, Ms. Lewinsky made clear that she did not have any indication whatsoever that the president learned of the content of the affidavit from Mr. Jordan, either.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: The fact that you assume that Mr. Jordan was in contact with the president -- and I believe the evidence would support that through his own testimony that he had talked to the president about the signed affidavit and that he had kept the president updated on the subpoena issue and the job search...

LEWINSKY: Sir, I'm not sure that I knew he was having contact with the president about this. I -- I think what I said was that I felt that it was getting his approval. It didn't necessarily mean that I felt he was going to get a direct approval from the president.

BRYANT: Did -- did -- did you have any indication from Mr. Jordan that he -- when he discussed the signed affidavit with the president, they were discussing some of the contents of the affidavit? Did you have...

LEWINSKY: Before I signed it or...

BRYANT: No; during the drafting stage.

LEWINSKY: No, absolutely not -- either/or. I didn't. No, I did not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: And finally, lacking direct evidence of any kind that there was a discussion about the content of the affidavit, the managers have argued again and again that the president must have told Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit because it was in his interest -- not hers -- to avoid her testifying in the Jones case.

Mr. Manager Bryant argued to you at the start of these proceedings -- and I quote, "When everything is said and done, Ms. Lewinsky had no motivation, no reason whatsoever to want to commit a crime by willfully submitting a false affidavit with a court of law. She really did not need to do this at that point in her life."

Mr. Manager Bryant also argued that only the president would benefit from a false affidavit. So he must have instructed her to do it. As he put it, "Ms. Lewinsky files a false affidavit in the Jones case. What is the result of filing that false affidavit, and who benefited from that?"

But he was wrong. He was wrong, as Ms. Lewinsky made very clear when Mr. Manager Bryant asked her about this very subject this week. Let's listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: But you didn't file the affidavit for your best interest, did you?

LEWINSKY: Actually, I did.

BRYANT: To avoid testifying?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Why didn't you want to testify? Why would you have wanted to avoid testifying?

LEWINSKY: First of all, I thought it was nobody's business. Second of all, I didn't want to have anything to do with Paula Jones or her case. And it's those two reasons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: In short, Ms. Lewinsky concedes that she had a reason to act on her own. Now we've been discussing Subpart 1 of Article II, the affidavit allegation. But this testimony also undermines Subpart 2 of Article II which alleges that the president obstructed justice in that very same phone call by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie in any testimony that she might give.

SELIGMAN: Ms. Lewinsky previously denied that she and the president ever discussed the content of any deposition in that conversation. That happened before this week.

Indeed, she had told the FBI that she and the president never discussed what to say about her visit to the White House in the context of the Paula Jones case. And the managers themselves said in a press release on January 19 of this year, that the president and Ms. Lewinsky quote "did not discuss the deposition that evening because Monica had not yet been subpoenaed."

So, it's not entirely surprising that the managers did not ask Ms. Lewinsky to confirm that she and the president talked about the testimony in this call even though that's where the obstruction allegedly occurred.

They didn't ask her about that this week because they knew the answer. They knew the answer was no. They knew there was no discussion about the content of her testimony during that call.

And the testimony you have seen today confirms that answer resoundingly.

There is no evidence to support the charge in Subpart II either. The managers did not even try to elicit it. The president did not obstruct justice.

Ms. Lewinsky's testimony explodes these two claims arising out of the December 17 telephone call.

Now let's turn to the allegation in Article II concerning gifts.

Subpart III charges that on or about December 28, 1997, the president corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a federal civil rights action brought against him.

Now the managers have indicated to you that Ms. Lewinsky provided testimony useful to their case with respect to the president's involvement in the transfer of gifts to Ms. Currie.

We must have attended a different deposition. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony provides powerful support for the position that Ms. Lewinsky decided on her own to keep from the Jones' lawyers the gifts she had received from the president.

SELIGMAN: It provides powerful support for the position that she had her own reasons and concerns for keeping the gifts from them. And it provides powerful support for the position that she never discussed either the topic of gifts or her own reasons for concern with the president before making her own independent decision on how to handle the gifts.

Perhaps most notably, her testimony also provides corroboration for the president's testimony that he told her she had to turn over to the Jones lawyers what gifts she had.

That's new evidence, but it undermines the managers' case; it doesn't help it.

In one of the most extraordinary points in the deposition -- and we'll get to this in a moment -- we learned that the Office of Independent Counsel failed to disclose to the House, to the Senate, to the president, Miss Lewinsky's exculpatory statement on this point. Since the OIC evidently had chosen not to share the information with us, with the House, or with this body, we owe the managers a small debt of gratitude for allowing us to learn of it here.

Now let's look at the record with respect to the phone calls giving rise to the gift pickup.

The managers repeatedly asserted at the outset that they could prove Ms. Curry called Miss Lewinsky, and not the other way around. They claimed they had found a cell phone record documenting that initial call to arrange to pick up the gifts. As Mr. Manager Hutchinson -- Hutchinson, excuse me -- Hutchinson said tantalizing at the start of these proceedings, and I quote, "Well, it was not known at the time of the questioning of Monica Lewinsky, but since then, the cell phone record was retrieved."

"And 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 was made at 3:32 p.m. from Betty Currie to Monica Lewinsky." And this is still under quotes, "and this confirms the testimony of Monica Lewinsky that the follow up to get the gifts came from Betty Currie.

SELIGMAN: That's what Mr. Manager Hutchinson promised the record would show. But that's not, in the end, what the record now shows.

There is no evidence that the cell phone call initiated the process, as the managers claimed, and since there is no evidence that that call from Ms. Currie was the call initiating the process, there's no documentary evidence that Ms. Currie initiated the process. It's that simple. The proof has failed.

What the record does show is that there was a cell phone call that day, a proposition that no one has ever disputed. Ms. Lewinsky testified to the managers that she recalls a cell phone call that day. Let's look at the testimony. This passage that you are about to see addresses the calls between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie on December 28th. Ms. Lewinsky has just described Ms. Currie's call to her about picking something up, and this is what follows.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did -- did you have other telephone calls with her that day?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: OK. What was the purpose of those conversations?

LEWINSKY: I believe I spoke with her a little later to find out when she was coming, and I think that I might have spoken with her again when she was either leaving her house or outside or right there, to let me know to come out.

BRYANT: Do -- at that time, did you have the caller identification...

LEWINSKY: Yes, I did.

BRYANT: --on your telephone?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: And did you, at least on one occasion, see her cell phone number on your caller-ID that day?

LEWINSKY: Yes, I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SELIGMAN: Nowhere does Ms. Lewinsky say which call was the cell phone call. In fact, if anything, it's logical to assume that it was the call from Ms. Currie announcing her imminent arrival, which, of course, says nothing about how the visit initially was planned. And no one ever has disputed that Ms. Currie picked up the box. The fact that she might have called to say, "I'm downstairs now," is of no additional evidentiary value whatsoever.

Left without a documentary record, the managers assert that there is new testimonial evidence of other calls on December 28th that somehow corroborate their theory of the case, but the new testimony doesn't even establish who made the other calls that day, and the record already had evidence of other calls on that day.

SELIGMAN: And the record ready had evidence of other calls on that day. Ms. Lewinsky mentioned such calls to the grand jury. Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie spoke often, especially in that time period. There were phone calls.

There's nothing new here. Ms. Currie has one recollection, Ms. Lewinsky has a different recollection. Indeed, when asked by Mr. Manager Bryant whether there's any doubt in her mind that it was Betty Currie who called her, Ms. Lewinsky stated simply, "That's how I remember this event." Straining for something beyond this absolutely resolvable conflict, the managers promised evidence to tip the balance. And they produced none.

The much-touted cell phone call utterly fails to establish who initiated the gift pick-up by Ms. Currie. It's therefore clear that the deposition testimony does not advance the managers' case with respect to the gifts. But it sure advances the defense case.

Remember Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena on December 19, requesting gifts she had received from the president. She met with her lawyer, Frank Carter, on December 22. And she did not speak to the president in the interim. In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky testified at some length, about how she decided what to bring her attorney, Frank Carter, in response to that request for gifts.

As we will see, she decided on her own, that she would bring only innocuous things to produce, things that any intern might have in his or her possession. Again, this was on December 22, well before the December 28 meeting with the president at which the managers and the Articles say the plan to hide the gifts was hatched.

Ms. Lewinsky explained to the managers what she did and why she did it.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did you bring with you to the meeting with Mr. Jordan and -- for the purpose of carrying it I guess, to Mr. Carter, items that -- in response to this request for production?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Did you discuss those items with Mr. Jordan?

LEWINSKY: I think I showed them to him, but I'm not 100 percent sure. If I testified that I did, then I stand by that.

BRYANT: How did you select those items?

LEWINSKY: Actually, kind of in an obnoxious way, I guess. I felt that it was important to take the stand with Mr. Carter and then I guess to the Jones people that this was ridiculous -- that they were looking at the wrong person to be involved in this.

And in fact, that was true. I know and knew nothing of sexual harassment. So I think I brought the Christmas cards that I'm sure everyone in this room has probably gotten from the president and first lady and considered that correspondence and some innocuous pictures -- and they were innocuous.

BRYANT: Were they the kind of items that typically an intern would receive or that any one of us might receive?

LEWINSKY: I think so.

BRYANT: In other words, it wouldn't give away any kind of special relationship.

LEWINSKY: Exactly.

BRYANT: Was that your intent?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Did you discuss how you selected those items with anybody?

LEWINSKY: I don't believe so.

BRYANT: Did Mr. Jordan make any comment about those items?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: Were any of these items eventually turned over to Mr. Carter?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: As Ms. -- contrary to the assertion of Mr. Manager Rogan, it is also clear from that excerpt that Ms. Lewinsky knew nothing of sexual harassment. That was what she said. So it's clear from this tape that well before December 28, Ms. Lewinsky had made her own decision for her own reasons not to produce the gifts. She remained firm in this decision for her own reasons on December 28 when the president gave her more gifts. Let's watch again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did -- he gave you some gifts that day, and my question to you is, what went through your mind when he did that, when you knew all along that you had just received a subpoena to produce gifts. Did that not concern you?

LEWINSKY: No, it didn't. I was happy to get them.

BRYANT: All right. Why did it -- beyond your happiness in receiving them, why did the subpoena aspect of it not concern you?

LEWINSKY: I think at that moment -- I mean, you asked me when he gave me those gifts. So, at that moment, when I was there, I was happy to be with him, I was happy to get these Christmas presents. So I was nervous about the case, but I had made a decision that I wasn't going to get into it too much...

BRYANT: Well...

LEWINSKY: ... with a discussion.

BRYANT: Have you, in regards to that -- you've testified in the past that, from everything that the president had told you about things like this, there was never any question that you were going to keep everything quiet, and turning over all the gifts would prompt the Jones attorneys to question you. So you had no doubt in your mind, did you not, that you weren't going to turn these gifts over that he had just given you?

LEWINSKY: I think the latter half of your statement is correct. I don't know if you're reading from my direct testimony, but -- because you said -- your first statement was from everything the president had told you. So I don't know if that was -- if those were my words or not, but I -- no, I was -- I -- it -- I was concerned about the gifts. I was worried someone might break into my house or concerned that they actually existed, but I wasn't concerned about turning them over because I knew I wasn't going to, for the reason that you stated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: Now, when Ms. Lewinsky raised the issue of gifts with the president on December 28th, she cannot say he even answered. Her recollection of whether he said anything has been murky, as we've heard discussed here, and in her recent deposition, she declined to resolve the inconsistencies in favor of the version the managers have advanced.

And then what happened after she left on December 28th?

SELIGMAN: As Ms. Lewinsky recounted the subsequent events, Ms. Currie later called and arranged to pick up something. But what?

According to Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie never said gifts when she called. Ms. Lewinsky assumed that's what she was calling about. That's her testimony. No doubt because they had been on her mind for the reasons we have just heard explained.

Now the managers' attempt to respond to all this by saying over and over, yes, the president never told Ms. Lewinsky she had to produce the gifts he had given her.

They attempt to convert his silence into a failure to perform a legal duty, and then to convert that failure to perform a legal duty into a high crime.

But are we really sure that he didn't tell her to produce the gifts? Remember the president volunteered on his own in the grand jury, that Ms. Lewinsky has raised the subject of gifts with him. That was long before he knew she had said it. And remember he said what his response was. Quote "you have to give them whatever you have," close quote.

Now the managers would have you believe Ms. Lewinsky rejected that recollection wholesale, that she said he never said any such thing.

They need that to be the case.

But it's not so we now learn, no thanks to Mr. Starr's agents.

Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Now, were you ever under the impression from anything that the president said that you should turn over all of the gifts to the Jones' lawyers?

LEWINSKY: No, but this is a little tricky and I think I might have even mentioned this last weekend, was that I had an occasion in an interview with one of the -- with the OIC -- where I was asked a series of statements, if the president had made those, and there was one statement that Agent Fallon (ph) said to me -- there were other people and they said and they asked me these statements. This is after the president testified and they asked me some statements. Did he say this, did he say this, and I said no, no, no. And Agent Fallon (ph) said something and I think it was "well you have to turn over whatever you have."

And I said to him, you know that sounds a little bit familiar to me.

So, I -- that's what I can tell you on that.

ROGAN: That's in the 302 exam?

LEWINSKY: I don't know if it's in the 302 or not, but that's what happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: This is extraordinary testimony.

SELIGMAN: Why? Because Ms. Lewinsky apparently corroborated the president. She recognized those words when she heard them. She didn't refute the president and the OIC never told us that that's what she'd said. Never told the House, never told this body. We had no idea about Ms. Lewinsky's recollection until we heard her testimony. we can only wonder in troubled disbelief, how much more we still don't know.

The president did not obstruct justice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony seriously undermines the gift claim that is before you. We've reviewed the first three subparts of Article II.

Now let's quickly at the Fourth. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony also confirms what has been clear throughout these proceedings: that her New York job search efforts began in October 1997, well before Ms. Lewinsky was ever named a potential witness in the Jones case. And that Mr. Jordan first became involved in the job search effort in November, early November. Also before she became a witness.

That Ms. Lewinsky had received a job offer in New York from the United Nations in November also, and also well before there was any indication she would be a witness. And that Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky had several contacts related to her job search in November, despite the fact that both of them were traveling extensively, including out of the country in that period.

In fact, Ms. Lewinsky makes it clear on this testimony that she and Mr. Jordan began arranging the meeting that took place on December 11, before Thanksgiving, before anyone knew Ms. Lewinsky's name would be on a witness list. All of this, of course, before anyone knew Ms. Lewinsky's name would be on a witness list.

SELIGMAN: If the fact that the assistance to Miss Lewinsky preceded her appearance on the witness list needed confirmation, it's been confirmed again.

But there's more. What has also been confirmed is Miss Lewinsky's grand jury testimony that "no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence." We have repeatedly reminded this body of these plain and simple words with their plain, simple, and exculpatory meaning.

The House managers repeatedly have tried to suggest that these words must mean something else. But at no time in their hours of questioning Miss Lewinsky did they question her about this pivotal assertion regarding the job search allegation. They did not ask her to explain it, to amend it, to qualify it. They did not challenge it, they did not confront it. They didn't dare. They knew the answer. They knew there was no quid pro quo. And their failure to elicit a response speaks volumes.

The president did not obstruct justice, Miss Lewinsky's testimony undermines this job search claim as well. Plain and simple, the evidence is to the contrary.

Now Mr. Manager Bryant remarked on Thursday that after deposing Miss Lewinsky he felt like the actor Charles Laughton in the film, "Witness for the Prosecution." As counsel for the president, I would respectfully submit that another famous role of Charles Laughton might be the more fitting reference. It is that of the dogged, tireless, obsessed Inspector Xavier (ph) once played Mr. Laughton in the 1935 movie version of "Les Miserables."

The most recent testimony of Miss Lewinsky has seriously damaged the managers' case and has confirmed that it is time for this tireless pursuit of the president to come to an end.

I turn now to my partner, Mr. Kendall, who will discuss Mr. Jordan's recent testimony.

REHNQUIST: The Chair recognizes the Majority Leader.

LOTT: I think I see in the Chief Justice's eyes the desire for a 15-minute break, or let's return shortly after 3:30 as is possible.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it is so ordered.

(RECESS)

REHNQUIST: (OFF-MIKE) Senate will be in order. The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I believe the White House counsel has an additional presenter at this time.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. White House Counsel Kendall.

KENDALL: Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, distinguished House Managers.

I'm going to deal with the Vernon Jordan videotaped deposition. And that deposition was taken of February 2, this last Tuesday, and it produced nothing at all which was significantly new.

Time and again, Mr. Manager Hutchinson cited Mr. Jordan's previous grand jury testimony, and time and again Mr. Jordan confirmed and re-cited his previous grand jury testimony.

The managers had a full and fair opportunity to take Mr. Jordan's testimony, and they indeed had time to spare, they used just about three hours of their allotted four hour's time. And they discovered nothing that was not contained in the previous 900 pages of Mr. Jordan's grand jury testimony, which had been taken in his March 3, March 5, May 5, May 28, and June 9 appearances before the OIC grand juries.

Assertion by counsel is not the same thing as proof, and I think that's clear when you watch the actual videos, as we've done today, of the three witnesses whose testimony the managers took earlier this week.

For example, with respect to Mr. Jordan, Mr. Manager Hutchinson, who did a first-rate job of interrogation.

KENDALL: As you can see from the video, told you last Thursday that he needed to have in evidence the videotape, and you admitted it into evidence. Because, and I quote, "Mr. Jordan's testimony goes to the connection, the connection, between the job search, the benefit provided to a witness and the solicited folks' testimony from that witness.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson also asserted more than once last Thursday that Mr. Jordan's testimony will prove that the president was controlling the job search. There's only one problem with these assertions. When you actually look at the videotape and listen to what Mr. Jordan testified to, there's no support for these propositions. There's no direct evidence and there's no circumstantial evidence.

It's plain that helping somebody find a job is an acceptable activity. It's only when this is tied as the Second Article of Impeachment alleges it's tied, to some obstruction in the Paula Jones case that it becomes illegal. And when fairly considered, Mr. Jordan's testimony provides no evidence whatsoever of that.

Now Mr. Jordan was a long time and close personal friend of the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: It's probably not bad from Washington standards. Would you describe the nature of your relationship with President Clinton?

JORDAN: President Clinton has been a friend of mine since approximately 1973, when I came to your state, Arkansas, to make a speech as President of the National Urban League about race and equal opportunity in our nation. And we met then and there, and our friendship has grown and developed and matured and he is my friend and will continue to be my friend.

HUTCHINSON: And just to further elaborate on that friendship, it's my understanding that he and his, the First Lady has had Christmas Eve dinner with you and your family for a number of years?

JORDAN: Every year since his presidency, the Jordan family has been privileged to entertain the Clinton family on Christmas Eve.

HUTCHINSON: And has there been any exceptions in recent years to that? JORDAN: Every year that he has been President, he has had, he and his family, Christmas Eve with my family.

HUTCHINSON: And have you vacationed together with the Clinton family?

JORDAN: Yes. I think you have seen reels of us playing golf and having fun at Martha's Vineyard.

HUTCHINSON: And so you vacation together, you play golf together on a semi-regular basis?

JORDAN: Whenever we can. We've not...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL: It's been well known since the start of this investigation that Mr. Jordan was active in helping Ms. Lewinsky secure employment in New York, and also that he construed this request which came to him through Betty Currie as having come from the president himself.

In his May 28th grand jury testimony, for example, Mr. Jordan testified that Betty Currie was the president's secretary. "She was the person who called me at the behest of the president, I believe, to ask me to look into getting Monica Lewinsky a job."

And, again, on June 9th, Mr. Jordan testified to the grand jury that the president asked me to help get Monica Lewinsky a job. Now, Mr. Manager Hutchinson played an excerpt which I will not play again which once more repeats that testimony.

Mr. Jordan, however, made clear that while he recommended Ms. Lewinsky for a job at three New York firms which he had some connection with, the decision to hire her was the companies', and he put no pressure of any kind on these companies to hire Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, she received an offer at one company, Revlon, and failed to obtain one from American Express or Burston Marsteller.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Do you believe that you were acting in the company's interest or the president's interest when you were trying to secure a job for Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: Well, what I knew was that the company would take care of its own interest. This is not the first time that I referred somebody. And what I know is that if a person being referred does not meet the standards required for that company, I have no question but that that person would not be hired.

And so the referral is an easy thing to do. The judgment about employment is not a judgment as a person referring that I make. But I do have confidence in all of the companies on whose boards that I sit that regardless of my reference that as to their needs and as to their expectations for their employees, that they will make the right decisions as happened in the American Express situation.

JORDAN: American Express called and said: We will not hire Ms. Lewinsky. I did not question it, I did not challenge it, because they understood their needs and their needs in comparison to her qualifications. They made a judgment. Revlon, on the other hand, made another judgment. I am not the employer, I am the referrer, and there is a major difference.

HUTCHINSON: Now, going back to what you knew as far as information and what you conveyed to Revlon, you indicated that you did not tell Mr. Halperin that you were making this request or referral at the request of the President of the United States.

JORDAN: Yes, and I didn't see any need to do that.

HUTCHINSON And then, when you talked to ...

JORDAN: Nor do I believe not saying that, Counselor, was a breach of some fiduciary relationship.

HUTCHINSON: And when you had your conversation with Mr. Perelman...

JORDAN: Right.

HUTCHINSON: ...at a later time...

JORDAN: Right.

HUTCHINSON: ...you do not remember whether you told him -- you do not believe you told him you were calling for the President...

JORDAN: I believe that I did not tell him.

HUTCHINSON: ...but you assumed that he knew?

JORDAN: No. I did not make any assumptions, let me say. I said, "Ronald, here is a young lady who has been interviewed. She thinks the interview has not gone well. See what you can do to make sure that she is properly interviewed and evaluated" -- in essence.

HUTCHINSON: And did you reference her as a former White House intern?

JORDAN: Probably. I do not have a recollection of whether I described her as a White House intern, whether I described her as a person who had worked for the Pentagon. I said this is a person that I have referred.

I think, Mr. Hutchinson, that I have sufficient, influence, shall we say, sufficient character, shall we say, that people have been -- throughout my career able to take my word at face value.

HUTCHINSON: And so you didn't need to reference the President. The fact that you were calling Mr. Perelman...

JORDAN: That was sufficient.

HUTCHINSON: ...and asking for a second interview for Ms. Lewinsky, that that should be sufficient?

JORDAN: I thought it was sufficient and obviously Mr.Perlman thought it was sufficient.

HUTCHINSON: There is no reason based on what you told him for him to think that you were calling at the request of the President of the United States?

JORDAN: I think that's rather (ph) right.

HUTCHINSON: And so, at least with the conversation with Mr. Halperin and Mr. Perlman, you did not reference that you were acting on the behalf of the President of the United States. Was there anyone else that you talked to at Revlon in which they might have inquired that information?

JORDAN: The only persons that I talked to in this process as I explained to you was Mr. Halperin and Mr. Perlman about this process. And it was Mr. Halperin who put the, who got the process started.

HUTCHINSON: And so those are the only two you talked about and you made no reference that you were acting on behalf the of the president.

JORDAN: That's right.

HUTCHINSON: Now the second piece of information was the fact that you knew and the president knew that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena in the Jones case. And that information was not provided to either Mr. Halperin or to Mr. Perlman. Is that correct?

JORDAN: That's correct.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

KENDALL: The most critical thing about this deposition is it contained no evidence of any kind which supports the central allegation of Article II, the obstruction of justice article that Mr. Jordan's job search assistance was tied to Ms. Lewinsky testifying in a certain way, or that the president intended Mr. Jordan's assistance to corruptly influence her testimony.

Mr. Jordan was unequivocal about the fact that he had frequently helped other people and that here there was no quid pro quo, no tie in of any kind. Indeed, he provided direct evidence of this fact.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KENDALL: Mr. Jordan you were asked questions about job assistance. Will you describe the job assistance you have over your career given to people who have come to you requesting help finding jobs, or finding employment?

JORDAN: Well, I've known about job assistance and helped for a very long time. I learned about it dramatically when I finished at Howard University Law School, 1960 to return home to Atlanta, Georgia to look for work.

JORDAN: In the process of my -- during my senior year, it was very clear to me that no law firm in Atlanta would hire me. It was very clear to me that I could not get a job as a black lawyer in the city government, the county government, the state government or the federal government.

And thanks to my high school bandmaster, Mr. Kenneth Days, who called his fraternity brother, Donald L. Hollowell, a civil rights lawyer, and said, "That Jordan boy is a fine boy, and you ought to consider him for a job at your law firm," that's when I learned about job referral, and that job referral by Kenneth Days, now going to Don Hollowell, got me a job as a civil rights lawyer working for Don Hollowell for $35 a week.

I have never forgotten Kenneth Days' generosity. And given the fact that all of the other doors for employment as a black lawyer graduating from Howard University were open to me, that's always -- that's always been etched in my heart and my mind, and as a result, because I stand on Mr. Days' shoulders and Don Hollowell's shoulders, I felt some responsibility to the extent that I could be helpful or got in a position to be helpful, that I would do that.

And there is, I think, ample evidence, both in the media and by individuals across this country, that at such times that I have been presented with that opportunity, that I have taken advantage of that opportunity, and I think that I have been successful at it.

HUTCHINSON: Was your assistance to Ms. Lewinsky, which you have described, in any way dependent upon her doing anything whatsoever in the Paula Jones case?

JORDAN: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL: That's direct evidence. That's not circumstantial evidence, that's unimpugned direct evidence.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson emphasized that Mr. Jordan now admits that he met with Ms. Lewinsky for breakfast on December 31, but Mr. Jordan also conceded in his deposition that, while he has no direct recollection of it, he also met with Ms. Lewinsky on November 5, a date well before any of the many managerial selected dates for the beginning of the corrupt conspiracy here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now, when was the first time that you recall that you met with Monica Lewinsky?

JORDAN: If you've read my grand jury testimony.

HUTCHINSON: I have.

JORDAN: And I'm sure that you have, there is testimony in the grand jury that she came to see me on or about the 5th of November. I have no recollection of that. It was not on my calendar, and I just have no recollection of her visit.

There is a letter here that you have in evidence, and I have to assume that in fact that happened. But as I said in my grand jury testimony, I'm not aware of it. I don't remember it. But I do not deny that it happened.

HUTCHINSON: And Ms. Lewinsky has made reference to a meeting that occurred in your office on November 5, and that's the meeting that you have no recollection of?

JORDAN: That is correct. We have no record of it in my office, and I just have no recollection of it.

HUTCHINSON: And in your first grand jury appearance, you were firm, shall I say, that the first time you met with Ms. Lewinsky that it was on December 11th.

JORDAN: Yeah, it was firm based on what my calendar told me, and subsequently to that, there's been a refreshing of my recollection, and I do not deny that it happened. By the same token, I will tell you, as I said in my grand jury testimony, that I did not remember that I had met with her.

HUTCHINSON: And in fact, today, the fact that you do not dispute that that meeting occurred is not based upon your recollection but is simply based upon you seeing the records, and it appears that that meeting occurred?

JORDAN: That is correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL: The manager's theory is that it wasn't the original job assistance which constitutes obstruction of justice. It was rather the intensification of it which began at a certain point, and that point has varied.

When you boil it all down, when you look at Mr. Jordan's deposition or read his grand jury testimony, you see that he acted for Ms. Lewinsky on two different occasions. On December the 11th, he made three phone calls to her -- for her to New York firms. And then on January the 8th when she thought an interview had gone badly, he made another phone call, this time to Mr. Perlman.

KENDALL: That's all he did.

Now you also will recall, I think, that the managers original theory was that what catalyzed his job search intensification, what really kick-started it, was the entry of an order in the Paula Jones case by Judge Wright on December 11. Mr. Manager Hutchinson told you on January 14 that what -- 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.

Remember what else happened on that day, December 11 again, that was the same day that Judge Write ruled that the questions about other relationships could be asked by the Jones' attorneys. That was the theory then; this is now.

We demonstrated in our own presentation, of course, that that order was entered late in the day, at a time when Mr. Jordan was high in the Atlantic in an airplane on his way to Amsterdam. And Mr. Hutchinson's -- Manager Hutchinson's very able examination did not try to resuscitate that theory. He didn't even make the attempt. He didn't ask Mr. Jordan about the December 11th order.

So today we have a different timeline. We have a new chart and a new timeline. Let's look at this. This was Mr. Manager Hutchinson's chart this morning. What is critical here? Well, we learn today that it's the December 5 date that is critical -- that's when the witness was faxed to the president's counsel. And that's what triggers the succeeding chain of events.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson remarked -- if I heard him correctly, that whenever you're talking about obstruction of justice, it ties together, it all fits together.

Well, let's look at his chart. You see that December 11th is on here, but Judge Wright's order has dropped off entirely -- unless it's there where I don't see it. Judge Wright's order is now not part of the chain of causation.

We look at December 7th, and we ask ourselves, "What happened then?" This is two days after the witness list came in.

KENDALL: Must have been some nefarious because the president and Jordan meet." But Mr. Manager Hutchinson did not represent to you that they even talked about the Jones litigation or Ms. Lewinsky, because they didn't. The managers told you that in their trial brief and it's been Mr. Jordan's consistent testimony.

Now the -- on December 11th, Mr. Jordan did have a meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, that was originally set up not on December 8th you'll recall, but back in November, when Ms. Lewinsky had agreed to call Mr. Jordan when returned from his travels. So the chronology here produces no, even circumstantial evidence of some linkage between the Paula Jones case and Mr. Jordan's job search.

It's also significant, I think that while the witness list came in on December the 5th, the president met with his lawyers on December the 6th, the president doesn't call Ms. Lewinsky until December the 17th. And Mr. Jordan doesn't learn about the fact that Ms. Lewinsky is on the witness list until December 19th. There does not seem to be a lot of urgency here.

Well, let's review the nefarious conspiracy that we've heard about today to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. We're told today that Vernon Jordan had no corrupt intent, that Ms. Lewinsky had no corrupt intent, and that Revlon had no corrupt intent. Rather, it was the president who somehow spun out this conspiracy. But I ask you, "Where in all this voluminous record is there any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the president somehow tied these things together through Mr. Jordan?"

It's a shell game, but the game doesn't have any shell in it. And I think that this is the loneliest conspiracy in human history, if it was a conspiracy, but it wasn't. Now, on the subject of quid pro quo I want to play two excerpts. And part of these, I ask your indulgence. They were played in part by Mr. Manager Hutchinson, but I think they deserve to be seen in their full context.

KENDALL: In one of them, you're going to hear Mr. Jordan say that he was running the job search, he was in control of the job search. Well, I think that's true about the Vernon Jordan job search. Ms. Lewinsky's job search had also been proceeding with Ambassador Richardson -- Mr. Jordan wasn't involved in any way in that -- and through one of her superiors at the Pentagon, Mr. Ken Bacon.

But let's listen to the full context, and listen for any evidence of a quid pro quo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Jordan, let me go back to that meeting on December 11th. I believe we were discussing that. My question would be: How did the meeting on December 11 of 1997 with Ms. Lewinsky come about?

JORDAN: Ms. Lewinsky called my office and asked if she could come to see me.

HUTCHINSON: And was that preceded by a call from Betty Currie?

JORDAN: At some point in time, Betty Currie had called me, and Ms. Lewinsky followed up on that call, and she came to my office, and we had a visit.

HUTCHINSON: Ms. Lewinsky called, set up a meeting, and at some point sent you a resume, I believe.

JORDAN: I believe so.

HUTCHINSON: And did you receive that prior to the meeting on December 11th?

JORDAN: I have to assume that I did, but I -- I do not know whether she brought it with her or whether -- it was at some point that she brought with her or sent to me -- somehow it came into my possession -- a list of various companies in New York with which she had -- which were here preferences, by the way -- most of which I did not know well enough to make any calls for.

HUTCHINSON: All right. And I want to come back to that, but I believe -- would you dispute if the record shows that you received the resume of Ms. Lewinsky on December 8th?

JORDAN: I would not. HUTCHINSON: And presumably, the meeting on December 11th was set up somewhere around December 8th by the call from Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: I -- I would not dispute that, sir.

HUTCHINSON: All right. Now, you mentioned that she had sent you a -- I guess some people refer to it -- a wish list, or a list of jobs that she...

JORDAN: Not jobs -- companies.

HUTCHINSON: ... companies that she would be interested in seeking employment with.

JORDAN: That's correct.

HUTCHINSON: And you looked at that, and you determined that you wanted to go with your own list of friends and companies that you had better contacts with.

JORDAN: I'm sure congressman that you too have been in this business and you do know that you can only call people that you know of, that you feel comfortable in calling.

HUTCHINSON: Absolutely. No question about it, and let me just comment and ask your response to this, that many times I will be listed as a reference and they can take that to any company. You might be listed as a reference and the name Vernon Jordan would be a good reference anywhere, would it not?

JORDAN: I would hope so.

HUTCHINSON: And so, even though it was a company you might not have the best contacts with, you know, you could have been helpful in that regard.

JORDAN: Well, the fact is I was running the job search, not Ms. Lewinsky and therefore the companies that she brought or listed were not of interest to me. I knew where I would need to call.

HUTCHINSON: And that is exactly the point, that you looked at getting Ms. Lewinsky a job as an assignment, rather than just something that you were going to be a reference for.

JORDAN: I don't know whether I looked upon it as assignment. Getting jobs for people is not unusual for me, so I don't view it as an assignment. I just view it as something that is part of what I do.

HUTCHINSON: You were (ph) acting on behalf of the president when you're trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a job, and you were in control of the job search?

JORDAN: Yes.

HUTCHINSON: Now going back, going to your meeting that we're talking about on December 11th, prior to the meeting, did you make any calls to prospective employers on behalf of Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: I don't think so. I think, I think not. I think I wanted to see here before I made any calls.

HUTCHINSON: And so if they were not before, after you met with her, you made some calls on December 11th?

JORDAN: I believe that's correct. HUTCHINSON: And you called Mr. Richard Halperin (ph) of McAndrews and Forbes?

JORDAN: That's right.

HUTCHINSON: You called Mr. Peter...

JORDAN: Gorjesco (ph).

HUTCHINSON: Gorgesco (ph) and he is the -- with what company?

JORDAN: He is chairman and chief executive officer of Young and Rubicam, a leading advertising agency on Madison Avenue.

HUTCHINSON: And did you make one other call?

JORDAN: Yes. I called Ursie Fairbairn who runs Human Resources at American Express -- at American Express Company where I am the senior director.

HUTCHINSON: All right. And what did you base the communique (ph) to each of these officials in behalf of Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: I essentially said that you're going to hear from Ms. Lewinsky and I hope that you will afford her an opportunity to come in and be interviewed and look favorably upon her if she meets your qualifications and your needs for work. calls on December 11th. You believe that they were after you met with Ms. Lewinsky--

JORDAN: I doubt very seriously if I would have made the calls in advance of meeting her.

HUTCHINSON: And why is that?

JORDAN: You sort of have to know what you're talking about, who you're talking about.

HUTCHINSON: And what did you basically communicate to each of these officials in behalf of Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: I essentially said that you're going to hear from Ms. Lewinsky, and I hope that you will afford her an opportunity to come in and be interviewed and look favorably upon her if she meets your qualifications and your needs for work.

HUTCHINSON: Okay. And at what level did you try to communicate this information?

JORDAN: By -- what do you mean by `what level'?

HUTCHINSON: In the company that you were calling, did you call the chairman of human resources, did you call the CEO -- who did you call, or what level were you seeking to talk to? JORDAN: Richard Halperin is sort of the utility man; he does everything at McAndrews & Forbes. He is very close to the chairman, he is very close to Mr. Gittis. And so at McAndrews & Forbes, I called Halperin. As I said to you, and as my grand jury testimony shows, I called Young & Rubicam, Peter Georgescu as its chairman and CEO.

I have had a long-term relationship with Young & Rubicam going back to three of its CEOs, the first being Edward Ney, who was chairman of Young & Rubicam when I was head of the United Negro College Fund, and it was during that time that we developed the great theme, `A mind is a terrible thing to waste.' So I have had a long- term relationship with Young & Rubicam and with Peter Georgescu, so I called the chairman in that instance.

At American Express, I called Ms. Ursie Fairbairn who is, as I said before, in charge of Human Resources. So that is the level--in one instance, the chairman; in one instance a utilitarian person; and in another instance, the head of the Human Resources Department.

HUTCHINSON: And the utilitarian connection, Mr. Richard Halperin, was sort of an assistant to Mr. Ron Perlman?

JORDAN: That's correct. He's a lawyer.

HUTCHINSON: Now, going to your meeting on December 11th with Ms. Lewinsky, about how long of a meeting was that?

JORDAN: I don't--I don't remember. You have a record of it, Congressman.

HUTCHINSON: And actually, I think you've testified it was about 15 to 20 minutes, but don't hold me to that either.

HUTCHINSON: During the course of the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, what did you learn about her?

JORDAN: Enthusiastic, quite taken with herself and her experience, bubbly, effervescent, bouncy, confident, actually, I sort of had the same impression that you House Managers had of her when you met with her. You came out and said she was impressive, and so we come out about the same place.

HUTCHINSON: And did she relate to you the fact that she liked being an intern because it put her close to the President?

JORDAN: I have never seen a White House intern who did not like being a White House intern, and so her enthusiasm for being a White House intern was about like the enthusiasm of White House interns -- they liked it. She was not happy about not being there anymore -- she did not like being at the Defense Department. And I think she actually had some desire to go back. But when she actually talked to me, she wanted to go to New York for a job in the private sector, and she thought that I could be helpful in that process.

HUTCHINSON: Did she make reference to someone in the White House being uncomfortable when she was an intern, and she thought that people did not want her there?

JORDAN: She felt unwanted -- there is no question about that. As to who did not want her there and why they did not want her there, that was not my business.

HUTCHINSON: And she related that...

JORDAN: She talked about it.

HUTCHINSON: ...experience or feeling to you?

JORDAN: Yes.

HUTCHINSON: Now, your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky was on December 11th, and I believe that Ms. Lewinsky has testified that she met with the President on December 5 -- excuse me, on December 6 at the White House and complained that her job search was not going anywhere, and the President then talked to Mr. Jordan. Do you recall the President talking to you about that after that meeting?

JORDAN: I do not have a specific recollection of the President saying to me anything about having met with Ms. Lewinsky. The President has never told me that he met with Ms. Lewinsky, as best as I can recollect. I am aware that she was in a state of anxiety about going to work. She was in a state of anxiety in addition because her lease at Watergate, at the Watergate, was to expire December 31st. And there was a part of Ms. Lewinsky, I think, that thought that because she was coming to me, that she could come today and that she would have a job tomorrow. That is not an unusual misapprehension, and it's not limited to White House interns.

JORDAN: She could come to today and that she would have a job tomorrow. That is not an unusual misapprehension, and it's not limited to White House interns.

HUTCHINSON: I mentioned her meeting with the President on the same day, December 6. I believe the record shows the President met with his lawyers and learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the Jones witness list. Now, did you subsequently meet with the president on the next day, December 7th?

JORDAN: I may have met with the President. I'd have to, I mean, I'd have to look. I'd have to look, I don't know whether I did or not.

HUTCHINSON: If you would like to confer, I believe the record shows that. But I'd like to establish that through your testimony.

MS. WALDEN: Yes.

JORDAN: Yes.

HUTCHINSON: All right. So you met with the President on December 7th. And was it the next day after that, December 8th, that Ms. Lewinsky called to set up the job meeting with you on December 11th?

JORDAN: I believe that is correct.

HUTCHINSON: And sometime after your meeting on December 11th with Ms. Lewinsky, did you have another conversation with the President?

JORDAN: You do understand that conversations between me and the President, was not an unusual circumstance?

HUTCHINSON: And I understand that.

JORDAN: All right.

HUTCHINSON: And so let me be more specific. I believe your previous testimony has been that sometime after the 11th, you spoke with the president about Ms. Lewinsky.

JORDAN: I stand on that testimony.

HUTCHINSON: All right. And so there's two conversations after the witness list came out. One that you had with the president on December 7th. And then a subsequent conversation with him after you met with Ms. Lewinsky on the 11th.

Now, in your subsequent conversation after the 11th, did you discuss with the President of the United States Monica Lewinsky? And if so, can you tell us what that discussion was?

JORDAN: If there was a discussion subsequent to Monica Lewinsky's visit to me on December the 11th with the President of the United States, it was about the job.

HUTCHINSON: All right.

JORDAN: Search.

HUTCHINSON: And during that, did he indicate that he knew about the fact that she had lost her job in the White House, and she wanted to get a job in New York?

JORDAN: He was aware that, he was obviously aware that she had lost her job in the White House, because she was working at the Pentagon. He was also aware that she wanted to work in New York, in the private sector, and understood that that is why she was having conversations with me. There's no doubt about that.

HUTCHINSON: Okay. And he thanked you for helping her?

JORDAN: There's no question about that, either.

HUTCHINSON: And on either of these conversations that I've referenced that you had with the President after the witness list came out: your conversation on December 7th, and your conversation sometime after the 11th, did the President tell you that Ms. Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Jones case?

JORDAN: He did not.

HUTCHINSON: And did you consider this information to be important in your efforts to be helpful to Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: I never thought about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL: Mr. Jordan found out about Ms. Lewinsky subpoena on December the 19th when a weeping Ms. Lewinsky telephoned him and came to his office. Mr. Manager Hutchinson played that excerpt from the testimony this morning, I won't replay it.

Mr. Jordan than did what I think is best called due diligence.

KENDALL: He talked to Ms. Lewinsky, got her a lawyer, asked her whether there was any sexual relationship with the president, and was assured that there was none (ph).

That same evening he went to the White House and made a similar inquiry of the president and received a similar response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: And still on December 19th, after your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, did you subsequently see the President of the United States later that evening?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: And is this when you went to the White House and saw the president?

JORDAN: Yes.

HUTCHINSON: Now at the time that Ms. Lewinsky came to see you on December 19th, did you have any plans to attend any social function at the white House that evening?

JORDAN: I did not.

HUTCHINSON: And in fact there was a social invitation that you had at the White House but you had declined...

JORDAN: I had declined it, that's right

HUTCHINSON: And subsequent to Ms. Lewinsky visiting you did you change your mind and go see the president that evening?

JORDAN: After a social engagement that Mrs. Jordan and I had, we went to the White House for two reasons.

We went to the White House to see some friends who were there, two of whom were staying in the White House. And secondly, I wanted to have a conversation with the president.

HUTCHINSON: And this conversation that you wanted to have with the president was one that you wanted to have with him alone?

JORDAN: That is correct.

HUTCHINSON: And did you let him know in advance that you were coming and wanted to talk to him?

JORDAN: I told him I would see him sometime that night after dinner.

HUTCHINSON: Did you tell him why you wanted to see him?

JORDAN: No.

HUTCHINSON: Now was this what you told him you wanted to see him, did it occur the same time that you talked to him while Ms. Lewinsky was waiting outside?

JORDAN: It could be. I made it clear I would come by after dinner and he said fine.

HUTCHINSON: Now let me backtrack for just a moment because whenever you talked to the president, Ms. Lewinsky was not inside the room.

JORDAN: That's correct.

HUTCHINSON: And therefore you did not know the details about her questions on the president might leave the first lady and those questions that set off all of these alarm bells.

And so you're having a -- is the answer yes?

JORDAN: That's correct.

HUTCHINSON: And so you're having this discussion with the president, not knowing the extent of Ms. Lewinsky's fixation?

JORDAN: Ah...

HUTCHINSON: Is that correct?

JORDAN: Correct.

HUTCHINSON: And regardless, you wanted to see the president that night and so you went to see him, and was he expecting you?

JORDAN: I believe he was.

HUTCHINSON: And did you have a conversation with him alone?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: No one else around?

JORDAN: No one else around.

HUTCHINSON: And I know that's a redundant question.

JORDAN: It's okay.

HUTCHINSON: Now, would you describe your conversation with the President?

JORDAN: We were upstairs in the White House. Mrs. Jordan -- we came in by way of the Southwest Gate into the Diplomatic Entrance -- we left the car there. I took the elevator up to the residence, and Mrs. Jordan went and visited at the party. And the President was already upstairs -- I had ascertained that from the usher -- and I went up, and I raised with him the whole question of Monica Lewinsky and asked him directly if he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and the President said, `No, never.'

HUTCHINSON: All right. Now, during that conversation, did you tell the President again that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed?

JORDAN: Well, we had established that.

HUTCHINSON: All right. And did you tell him that you were concerned about her fascination?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: And did you describe her as being emotional in your meeting that day?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: And did you relate to the President that Ms. Lewinsky asked about whether he was going to leave the First Lady at the end of the term?

JORDAN: I did. HUTCHINSON: And as -- and then, you concluded that with the question as to whether he had had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: And he said he had not, and I was satisfied -- end of conversation.

HUTCHINSON: Now, once again, just as I asked the question in reference to Ms. Lewinsky, it appears to me that this is an extraordinary question to ask the President of the United States. What led you to ask this question to the President?

JORDAN: Well, first of all, I'm asking the question of my friend who happens to be the President of the United States.

HUTCHINSON: And did you expect your friend, the President of the United States, to give you a truthful answer?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: Did you rely upon the President's answer in your decision to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job?

JORDAN: I believed him, and I continued to do what I had been asked to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL: This morning, a very short portion of the president's grand jury testimony was played. The sound was not very good. It was a very short snippet, but it relates to what happened between Mr. Jordan and the president in that December 19th late night meeting at the White House.

KENDALL: The snippet that was played for you was, Question: "And Mr. Jordan informed you of that? Is that right" -- that being the subpoena. Answer: "No sir," and that leaves the misleading impression that, in his grand jury testimony, the president did not acknowledge this visit with Mr. Jordan.

The question right above the one that was quoted, however, was the following: "You were familiar, weren't you, Mr. President, that she had received a subpoena. You have already acknowledged that." The answer was, "Yes, sir, I was," and then two pages later, the president was asked by the OIC, "Did you in fact have a conversation with Mr. Jordan on the evening of December 19th, 1997, in which he talked to you about Monica being in Mr. Jordan's office, having a copy of the subpoena, and being upset about being subpoenaed?"

And the president's answer was: "I remembered that Mr. Jordan was in the White House on December 19th, and for an event of some kind. Betty came up to the residence floor and told me that he had -- that Monica had gotten a subpoena, or that Monica was going to have to testify, and I think he told me he recommended a lawyer for her. I believe that's what happened, but it was a very brief conversation."

So I think it's absolutely clear that there is no conflict between the president's testimony and Mr. Jordan's testimony about this.

Mr. Jordan had recommended Ms. Lewinsky, and he took her to the lawyer's office, to a lawyer, Mr. Frank Carter, a respected Washington, D.C. lawyer, to whom Mr. Jordan had recommended other clients.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now, you have referred other clients to Mr. Carter during your course of practice here in Washington, D.C.?

JORDAN: Yes, I have.

HUTCHINSON: About how many have you referred to him?

JORDAN: Oh, I don't know. Maggie Williams is one client that I -- I remember very definitely. I like Frank Carter a lot. He's a very able young lawyer. He's a first-class person, a first-class lawyer, and he's one of my new acquaintances amongst lawyers in town, and I like being around him. We have lunch, and he's a friend. HUTCHINSON: And is it true, though, that when you've referred other clients to Mr. Carter that you never personally delivered and presented that client to him in his office?

JORDAN: But I delivered Maggie Williams to him in my office. I had Maggie Williams to come to my office, and it was in my office that I introduced Maggie Williams to Mr. Carter, and she chose other counsel. I would have happily taken Maggie Williams to his office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL: Gary, I'm going to skip the next two videotapes, 21 and 22. I hear a sigh of relief.

I want to use the next videotape, and I'm almost through, to correct the record as to one point that was made by the managers on Thursday, and again, this representation was important because it asserted an interconnection between the job search assistance and testimony in the Jones case.

KENDALL: You were shown a chart on Thursday, and it was a chart which was entitled "Interconnection Between Job Help and Testimony -- Managers Version." "Question: So you talked to her both about the job and her concern about parts of the affidavit?" Answer, according to Managers' Version, "That is correct."

Now when we actually look at the testimony which we're going to see in just a second, the question is "Did you in fact talk to her about the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?" Answer: "I have never in any conversation with Ms. Lewinsky talked to her about the job on the one hand or job being interrelated with the conversation about the affidavit. The affidavit was over here, the job was over here."

I don't suggest any intentional misrepresentation. But I think the record deserves to be corrected.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Do you know why you would have been calling Mr. Carter on three occasions the day before the affidavit was signed?

JORDAN: Yeah. My recollection is that I was exchanging or sharing with Mr. Carter what had gone on, what she had asked me to do, what I had refused to do, reaffirming to him that he was the lawyer, and I was not the lawyer. I mean, it would be so presumptuous of me to try to advise Frank Carter as to how to practice law.

HUTCHINSON: Would you have been relating to Mr. Carter your conversations with Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: I may have.

HUTCHINSON: And if Ms. Lewinsky expressed to you any concerns about the affidavit, would you have relayed those to Mr. Carter?

JORDAN: Yes.

HUTCHINSON: If Mr. Carter was a good attorney that was concerned about the economics of law practice, he would have likely billed Ms. Lewinsky for some of those telephone calls.

JORDAN: You'd have to talk to Mr. Carter about his billing.

HUTCHINSON: It wouldn't surprise you if his billing did reflect a charge for a telephone conversation with Mr. Jordan? JORDAN: Bear in mind that Mr. Carter spent most of his time being a legal services lawyer. I think his concentration is primarily on service rather than billing.

HUTCHINSON: But again, based upon the conversations you had with him which sounds like conversations of substance in reference to the affidavit that it would be consistent with the practice of law if he charged for those conversations?

JORDAN: That's a question you'd have to ask Mr. Carter.

HUTCHINSON: They were conversations of substance with Mr. Carter concerning the affidavit?

JORDAN: And they were likely conversations about more than Ms. Lewinsky.

HUTCHINSON: But the answer was yes, that they were conversations of substance in reference to the affidavit?

JORDAN: Or at least a portion of them.

HUTCHINSON: In other words, other things might have been discussed?

JORDAN: Yes.

HUTCHINSON: In your conversation with Ms. Lewinsky prior to the affidavit being signed, did you in fact talk to her about both the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?

JORDAN: I have never in any conversation with Ms. Lewinsky talked to her about the job, on one hand, or job being interrelated with the conversation about the affidavit. The affidavit was over here. The job was over here.

HUTCHINSON: But the -- in the same conversations, both her interest in a job and her discussions about the affidavit were contained in the same conversation?

JORDAN: As I said to you before, Counselor, she was always interested in the job.

HUTCHINSON: Okay. And she was always interested in the job, and so, if she brought up the affidavit, very likely it was in the same conversation?

JORDAN: No doubt.

HUTCHINSON: And that would be consistent with your previous grand jury testimony when you expressed that you talked to her both about the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?

JORDAN: That is correct. HUTCHINSON: Now, on January 7th, the affidavit was signed. Subsequent to this, did you notify anyone in the White House that the affidavit in the Jones case had been signed by Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: Yes. I'm certain I told Betty Currie, and I'm fairly certain that I told the President.

HUTCHINSON: And why did you tell Betty Currie?

JORDAN: I'm -- I kept them informed about everybody else that was -- everything else. There was no reason not to tell them about that she had signed the affidavit.

HUTCHINSON: And why did you tell the President?

JORDAN: The President was obviously interested in her job search. We had talked about the affidavit. He knew that she had a lawyer. It was in the due course of a conversation. I would say, "Mr. President, she signed the affidavit. She signed the affidavit."

HUTCHINSON: And what was his response when you informed him that she had signed the affidavit?

JORDAN: "Thank you very much."

HUTCHINSON: All right. And would you also have been giving him a report on the status of the job search at the same time?

JORDAN: He may have asked about that. And part of her problem was that, you know, she was -- there was a great deal of anxiety about the job. She wanted the job, she was unemployed, and she wanted to work.

HUTCHINSON: Now, I think you indicated that he was obviously concerned about -- was it her representation and the affidavit?

JORDAN: I told him that I had found counsel for her. And I told him that she had signed the affidavit.

HUTCHINSON: Okay. You indicated that he was concerned, obviously, about something. What was he obviously concerned about in your conversations with him?

JORDAN: Throughout, he had been concerned about her getting employment in New York. Period.

HUTCHINSON: Alright. And he was also concerned about the affidavit?

JORDAN: I don't know that that was concern. I did tell him that the affidavit was signed. He knew that she had counsel, and he knew that I had arranged the counsel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL: In his presentation, Mr. Manager Hutchinson discussed the breakfast with Ms. Lewinsky, which Mr. Jordan now concedes he had on December the 31st. He showed you the restaurant bill.

I'm not going to dwell long on that because it really is not relevant to Article II. First of all, it is nowhere alleged as a ground of obstruction of justice. Mr. Manager Hutchinson referred to the Seven Pillars of Obstruction in Article II. Those are seven different factual grounds this alleged destruction is nowhere one of the grounds.

There is plainly a conflict in the testimony between Ms. Lewinksy and Mr. Jordan, although Mr. Jordan, as you recall, vehemently denies ever giving that instruction. Saying in that videotape that was played this morning, "I'm a lawyer and I'm a loyal friend, but I'm not a fool. That's ridiculous. I never did that."

The second reason why I think this is irrelevant is it was not presented as a separate ground for impeachment by the Independent Council. It was identified, the fact that the conflict in testimony was identified, but it was not urged as a separate ground, despite the very, very energetic investigation of Mr. Starr.

KENDALL: We've heard a lot in this case about dogs that won't hunt. In my mind this is like the Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark. If the independent counsel didn't raise it, that is significant.

And finally, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the president by anybody's contention.

Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to raise a question now which arose in the final stage of the Vernon Jordan deposition.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson had taken the deposition. I had asked a couple of questions in response. Then after I had concluded, Mr. Jordan made a statement defending his own integrity, to which Mr. Manager Hutchinson objected.

I would propose that since the issue has arisen of his integrity, since Mr. Jordan is an honorable man, and a distinguished -- has had a distinguished career, that I be allowed to play the approximately two minute segment of his own statement about his integrity.

REHNQUIST: Do the managers object?

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Chief Justice, it's my understanding it's not a part of the Senate record and therefore it would not be appropriate to be played under the rules of the Senate.

REHNQUIST: Well, is it a part of his -- the deposition of him that was taken?

HUTCHINSON: It is not a part of the deposition that was entered into the Senate record under the Senate rule.

REHNQUIST: The parliamentarian advises me that division one of the motion on Thursday which was approved would prevent the playing of that. So the chair will rule that it not, not acceptable.

KENDALL: Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.

LEAHY: Mr. Chief Justice...

REHNQUIST: The Senator from Vermont.

LEAHY: Mr. Chief Justice, I was one of the Senators at that deposition. I think it would be extremely interesting to hear it. It was taken at the deposition. REHNQUIST: Well...

LEAHY: I would ask unanimous consent that it be allowed.

REHNQUIST: The Senator from Vermont may appeal the decision of the chair which is that it not be played.

LEAHY: I, I'm not...

REHNQUIST: Ask consent for further...

LEAHY: I'm asking unanimous consent under the circumstances, and because it is such a short one, that the deposition -- and it would clarify it, that part of the deposition that Mr. Jordan took and which has been videotaped, be allowed to be shown here on the floor.

REHNQUIST: Is there objection?

UNKNOWN: Objection.

REHNQUIST: There is -- objection is heard. Counsel may proceed.

UNKNOWN: I'd like to recognize my colleague.

KENDALL: I think that concludes our presentation.

UNKNOWN: We'll yield back the remainder of our time, Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST: Very well.

UNKNOWN: How much?

REHNQUIST: The managers have 31 minutes remaining.

The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant. The Senate will be in order. The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.

BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

We will conclude our roughly half-hour by responding to as many of the contentions and statements raised by counsel for the White House as we can, and I first want to talk first, I suppose, about this statement that we heard back a couple of weeks ago, and was repeated today by one of White House counsels that the managers want to win too much.

This is not a game. This is not a game to anyone here. There are extraordinary consequences to what we're doing, and what we've been doing, and what your decision will be. The stakes are very high, and we don't need to take a poll to do what we did.

I'm reminded of the testimony of the president and Dick Morris taking a poll to determine whether to tell the truth or not, and then, after deciding that the public would not forgive his perjury, he said, "We'll just have to win."

BRYANT: But that's not the attitude this House has -- the managers have in bringing this case here. We fully appreciate the seriousness of it and the long term consequences of it, and we want to do the right thing.

We're not here just to win. We're here to help the Senate in this constitutional process do the constitutional thing not only for the precedent of this Senate, but for the precedent of the future generations in terms of how the courts now and later will view obstruction of justice and perjury.

And we believe this is a constitutional effort and not a gain. The question about snippets -- that we just put some snippets on the air today. We wanted to call live witnesses. We wanted Ms. Lewinsky to be here and let everybody examine her fully and completely.

But we're working with a time frame, and we brought up those points in her testimony and in Mr. Jordan's testimony and Mr. Blumenthal's testimony that we felt proved our case. With regard to the issue that Ms. Seligman raised about filing the false affidavit, she ran my testimony many times. I thought we ran the president's testimony earlier in these hearings several times, but I think she beat our record with my testimony. And I appreciate the exposure.

But what that's important for is not what Ms. Lewinsky felt was going on that night, but I think it perfectly illustrates what I told you the other day about her testimony. While she was truthful and while she gave us the testimony she had to give us to keep her immunity agreement, where there were some blanks to fill in or where there was something that could be bent, she did so.

Now as they pointed out, the question of the linkage -- the linkage between filing an affidavit and this cover story was so obvious that they were connected that the OIC did not ask that question did you think about this and that. It was obvious, but he did not ask that question. She was right. The question was not asked.

So when she, Ms. Lewinsky, had an opportunity in these hearings, when I asked her, she said, well, you know, I really didn't link the two together. Now let's don't throw away all our common sense here. She gets a phone call in the middle of the night with a message that you're on the witness list, and she says these three things occurred. You're on the witness list, you can file an affidavit, and you can use this cover story. Why else did the president raise the issue of the cover story at 2:30 in the morning if he didn't intend for her to use that?

BRYANT: But keep in mind, too, it really doesn't matter how she appreciated this. It really matters what the president intended, and he intended to let her now that she was on the list, she could be subpoenaed, she could file an affidavit, and she could use the cover story.

And in fact, she did use that cover story. She went to her lawyer, Mr. Carter, and told him that, and it was incorporated in the draft affidavit, that she went to take papers to the president to sign, and on those occasions, she may have been alone.

But they didn't like this, the specter of her being alone, so they struck that provision out of the final affidavit, but they did attempt to use it.

But keep in mind also that it's the president's intent, and his intent was to hinder justice, to impede the Paula Jones case, and to have her give a false affidavit, and that's why he so suggested that.

On the gift retrieval, it -- is it really an issue? Is there really an issue here? Some fabulous lawyering over here, but there's no issue here. Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no doubt in her mind that Ms. Currie initiated the call, and that's all there is to this issue.

The fact that there were other calls in the day, the fact that one of those other calls may have been at 3:30, really are moot point. The issue is, if Betty Currie initiated that phone call, the only impetus for her to initiate that call had to come from the president -- had to come from the president. She was not in that conversation that morning. The president had to tell her, and apparently did so, because she made the call.

At the end of the examination, or her testimony, or toward the end, it was shown several times, we asked her, "Did the president ever tell you anything about the gifts," and she said, "Not that I remember." And then later, on the segment you also saw, she was asked the question again by me.

BRYANT: "Okay. Were you ever under any impression or the impression that anything the president -- from the president that you should turn over all the gifts to the Jones' lawyers?" And she said, "No." And then she goes on to say, "This gets a little tricky here, and it could be that I've heard this statement from an agent somewhere along the line," and perhaps it did sound familiar.

I would suggest to you what happened there is that Mr. Carter, and it's clearly in his testimony before all of us, in the records. Mr. Carter, her own lawyer, told her she had to turn over all the records. And that's where she heard that. But it -- logic demands you reject that view because why would the president whose intent it was to conceal this whole affair ever think of telling her that you've got to turn over all those gifts?

And if he did tell her that she had to turn over all those gifts, why would she immediately go out that afternoon and reject that instruction? Just completely say, "Well, I'm going to forget what he told me to do. I'm going to call his secretary and have her come pick up these gifts and store them for me." That's not logical. Common sense tells you that didn't happen that way. And Ms. Lewinsky was absolutely positive that there was not doubt Betty Currie initiated the call. And that's that.

Job search very quickly. This is not a bribery case. This is not giving her a job, bribing her with a job to get her false testimony. It's not a bribery case. If it was we wouldn't argue -- we wouldn't be arguing about the impeachability of obstruction of justice. It would be clear that bribery is mentioned in the Constitution.

It's about attempting to corruptly persuade or influence the behavior of a witness. And that's exactly what that's about. I would also close very quickly by telling you, in the beginning, I urged you to look at -- in the -- particularly the obstruction of justice charges, the result-benefit analysis. And I don't ever hear anybody talking about that but me, so maybe I'm off base here.

But I ask you to consider each of these Seven Pillars of Obstruction that Mr. Hutchinson raised and look at the end result of those acts. And look at who benefited from those results. And what I believe you would have found, and can still find, is that in each case, the result impeded justice in the Paula Jones case in some way that favored the president. And the benefit naturally inured to the president.

BRYANT: And I guess if you reject that result-benefit test, and if you accept each and every argument of these extremely fine defense counsel, that the president wasn't behind any of this, then I guess you just have to reach the conclusion that the president was the luckiest man in the world, that people would crimes by filing false affidavits, by hiding evidence, by going out and possibly trashing witnesses and giving false testimony and grand jury proceedings.

If that's the way you feel about it, then so be it. We will abide by your judgment.

But I suggest to you that the facts of this case really aren't in contest. They've been argued very -- very well by defense counsel for the White House.

And I'm about to exhaust my time, so I would yield at this point to Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Manager Hutchinson, to make. . . .

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. This will be very brief, and then I'll yield to Mr. Gramm.

Let's recall Miss Monica Lewinsky to the stand for a brief moment. Let's go to the Park Hyatt Hotel, December 31, 1997 -- breakfast between Miss Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEWINSKY: I gave to Mr. Jordan was that I was trying to sort of alert to him that, gee, maybe Linda Tripp might be saying these things about me having a relationship with the President, and right now, I'm explaining this to you. These aren't the words that I used or how I said it to him, and that, you know, maybe she had seen drafts of notes, trying to obviously give an excuse as to how Linda Tripp could possibly know about my relationship with the President without me having been the one to have told her. So that's what I said to him.

BRYANT: And what was his response?

LEWINSKY: I think it was something like go home and make sure-- oh, something about a--I think he asked me if they were notes from the President to me, and I said no. I know I've testified to this. I stand by that testimony, and I'm just recalling it, that I said no, they were draft notes or notes that I sent to the President.

LEWINSKY: And that I believe he said something like, well, go home and make sure they're not there.

BRYANT: And what did you do when you went home?

LEWINSKY: I went home, and I searched through some of my papers and the drafts of notes I found. I sort of -- I got rid of some of the notes that day.

BRYANT: So you threw them away?

LEWINSKY: Uh-hmm. Yes. Sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Thank you. This goes to the overall pattern of obstruction. It goes to credibility. I believe it's relevant in this case, and I yield to Mr. Graham.

REHNQUIST: The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham.

GRAHAM: How much do we have left?

REHNQUIST: You have 18 minutes and 7 seconds.

GRAHAM: May I yield some of the seconds, I hope. Point of agreement -- rebuttal is to refocus, and the law allows that for the person or the party with the burden, and we do have that burden.

Point of agreement -- White House counsel says there's much more that we need to know. There is much more we need to know. The White House counsel says strongly when these proceedings opened up the president is not guilty of obstruction of justice. The president is not guilty of perjury.

Refocus -- no fair-minded person in my opinion could come to any other rational conclusion that our president obstructed justice, that our president committed perjury in front of a grand jury. You vote your conscience. I told you to do so. And if we disagree at the end of the day, that's America at its best.

I have never suggested that there was any reasonable doubt that this president committed crimes. I will ask you at the conclusion of this to remove him with a clear conscience. You vote your conscience, and I know it will be clear. Refocus -- the gifts, simply put. If you believe the president of the United States in his grand jury testimony said I told her, I said, look, the way these things work is when a person gets a subpoena, you have to give them whatever you have.

GRAHAM: That's the way -- that's what the rule -- that's what the law is.

If you believe that, we need to congratulate our president because he did in fact state the law correctly. He fulfilled his obligation as chief executive officer of the land. He fulfilled his obligation as an honorable person by telling someone who happened to be Ms. Lewinsky, "you're doing a bad thing here, even by suggesting that we do something with these gifts. You need to turn them over because that's what the law says."

If you believe that, that's the only time he really embraced the law in this case I can see.

Everything about him and the way he behaved was 180 degrees out from that statement.

That is the most self serving statement that flies in the face of every action he took for months. The truth is that a reasonable person should conclude that when Ms. Lewinsky approached him about what to do with the gifts, he said I will have to think about that.

And you know what, ladies and gentlemen, he thought about it and you know what he did after he thought about it -- "Betty, go get those gifts."

And they wound up under the bed of the president's secretary and people are wondering what the heck happened here.

What the heck happened here is you've got a man trying to hide his crimes.

Affidavit -- where I come from you call somebody at 2:30 in the morning, you're up to no good.

(LAUGHTER)

GRAHAM: That will be borne out if you listen to the testimony and use your common sense, who (ph) is up to no good.

He told her "my heart is breaking because you're on this witness list and maybe here's a way to get out of it." That's the God's truth; that's what he did and it was wrong and that's a crime.

The rule of law -- what does it mean? It means that process and procedure wins out over politics and personality. That means that subpoenas have to be honored by the great and the small.

That means when subpoenas come you can't as the president try to defeat them because you're nobody special in the eyes of the law, except that you're the guardian (ph) of the law.

GRAHAM: If you're special, you're special in a more ominous way -- not a less way. When you file an affidavit in a court of law, nobody because of their position in society has the right to cheat and to get somebody to lie for them, even as the president.

That means we're not a nation of men or kings. We're a nation of laws, and that's what this case has always been about to me. This affidavit was false for a reason -- because the president and Ms. Lewinsky wanted it to be false.

The job search -- mission accomplished says it all. Mission accomplished. It went from being no big deal to the biggest deal in the world with a telephone bill. I don't know what the telephone bill was to get this job, but it was huge. Mission accomplished.

All these are crimes. All these are things that average Americans should not be allowed to do. But I'm going to tell you something. At this point in time, what is going on is that he's trying to conceal a relationship about the work place that would be embarrassing and that would be illegal, that would help Ms. Jones, that would hurt him, and it's just not about his private life.

But you can say this about the president. He was trying to get her a job, and he was trying to just get her to file a false affidavit so this would go away, and he was trying to hide the gifts, and that's bad. But that's not nearly as bad as what was to come.

Let me tell what was to come, ladies and gentlemen. After the deposition, when it was clear that Ms. Lewinsky may have been talking or somebody knew something they weren't supposed to know, the alarm bells went off and concealing the relationship changed to redefining the relationship. That is why he should not be our president.

The redefining of the relationship began very quickly after that deposition. It started with the president's secretary, and it goes like this.

GRAHAM: The president, on two occasions, under the guise of refreshing his memory, makes the following statements to his secretary: "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 couldn't do that."

If you believe that's about refreshing your memory, you're not being reasonable. That is about coaching a witness, but here's where it gets to be nasty, here's where it gets to be mean. "Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?" "She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that."

He didn't say it once; he said it twice, just to make sure Ms. Currie would get the point.

Now that Miss Lewinsky may be a problem, let me tell you how the discussion goes. It's not from concealing, it's redefining.

Conversation with Mr. Morris after they did the poll about what to do here, and "we just got to win."

The president had a follow up conversation with Mr. Morris during the evening of January 22, 1998, the day after the story broke, when Mr. Morris was considered holding a press conference to blast Miss Lewinsky out of the water, the president told Mr. Morris to be careful -- to be careful. According to Mr. Morris, the president warned him not to be too hard on Miss Lewinsky, "because there's some slight chance she may not be cooperating with Mr. Starr, and we don't want to alienate her by anything we're going to put out."

In other words, don't blast her now; she may not be a problem to us.

During this period of time, it went from concealing to redefining. When he knew he "had to win," what did he do? He went to his secretary and he made her a sexual predator and him an innocent victim -- and he did it twice. But did he do it to anybody else? Did he redefine his relation to anybody else?

I now would like to have a clip from Mr. Blumenthal, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: You have a conversation with the President on the same day the article comes out, and the conversation includes a discussion about the relationship between him and Ms. Lewinsky.

GRAHAM: Is that correct?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Next tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Now you stated I think very honestly, and I appreciate that you were lied to by the president. Is it a fair statement given you previous testimony, concerning your 30 minute conversation, that the president was trying to portray himself as a victim of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I think that's the import of his whole story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Ladies and gentleman, that is the import of his whole story. That story was told on the day this broke in the press and it goes on.

That story is very detailed; it makes him the victim of a sexual predator called Ms. Lewinsky. He had to rebuff her. He threatened her. She threatened him -- excuse me. And it goes on and on and on and I have always wondered, how did that story make it to the grand jury and how did it make it into the press.

We know how it made it to the grand jury, because Mr. Blumenthal told it and the president told him and they claimed executive privilege. And the president never straightened it out.

Your president redefined this relationship and your president let that lie be passed to a grand jury. Your president obstructed justice in a mean way.

Next tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Tape 49?

GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

GRAHAM: That's where you start talking about the story that the president told you. Knowing what you know now, do you believe the president lied to you about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Next tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Do you have any idea how White House sources are associated with statements such as, "She's known as `Elvira'," "She's obsessed with the president," "She's known as a flirt," "She's the product of a troubled home, divorced parents," "She's known as `The Stalker' "? Do you have any idea how that got in the press?

LANNY BREUER, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I'm going to object. The document speaks for itself, but it's not clear that the terms that Mr. Lindsey has used are necessarily -- any or all of them --are from a White House source. I object to the form and the characterization of the question.

GRAHAM: The ones that I have indicated are associated with the White House as being the source of those statements and...

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Senator Edwards and I think that question is appropriate, and the objection is overruled.

BLUMENTHAL: I have no idea how anything came to be attributed to a White House source.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Everybody wants this over so bad you can taste it, including me, but let's don't leave a taste behind that history cannot stand. It was shouted in these chambers, "For God's sake, vote!"

Let me quietly, if I can, for God's sake, get to the truth. For God's sake, figure out what kind of person we have here in the White House. For God's sake, spend some time to fulfill your constitutional duty, so that we can get it right, not for just our political moment, but for the future of this nation.

When the president redefined this relationship, he did so by telling a lie. He told a lie to a White House aide, who repeated that lie to a federal grand jury. In our system, ladies and gentlemen, that is a crime. That lie made it into the public domain. That lie was mean. That lie would have the effect to run this young lady over, and you can think what you want to think, too, about Ms. Tripp, and I agree she's not going to be in the hall of fame of friends, but let me tell you, the best advice she ever gave that young lady was to keep that blue dress. The final thing is that our president, in my opinion, and for you to judge, in August of last year, after being begged not to by many members of this body and prominent Americans, appeared before a federal grand jury to answer for the conduct in this case, his conduct.

GRAHAM: We have alleged that with forewarning and knowledge on his part, that instead of clearing it up to make America a better place, instead of fulfilling his role as the chief law enforcement officer of the land to do honor to the law, instead of taking this burden off all Americans' back, he told a story that defies common sense.

That he played a butchery game with the English language, that is: maybe is not is, and alone is not alone. And he told John Podesta, my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was not sexual, including oral sex. He went on and told an elaborate farce to a federal grand jury that they just didn't ask the right question and really the sexual relationship did include one thing, but not another.

And he says he never lied to his aid. And he says he never lied to a grand jury. Well, God knows he lied to somebody. And he lied to that grand jury and this whole story is a fraud and a farce. And the last people in the United States to straighten it out, is the United States Senate. God bless you in your endeavors.

BOXER: Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST: Yes the Chair recognizes the Senator from California.

BOXER: In light of the negative comments made against Mr. Jordan by Manager Hutchinson and Manager Graham, I ask once again unanimous consent that in fairness...

REHNQUIST: The regular order of business has been called for.

BOXER: I ask unanimous consent that in fairness Mr. Jordan's two minute testimony regarding his own integrity be shown to the Senate at this time.

REHNQUIST: Is there objection.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I object.

REHNQUIST: The objection carries.

LOTT: Yes. Chief Justice has all time been used or yielded back?

REHNQUIST: All time has been used or yielded back.

LOTT: Then that concludes the presentations for today. The Senate will reconvene as a Court of Impeachment on Monday, beginning at 1:00. At that time the House managers and the White House will proceed with their closing arguments, for up to three hours. I ask the Court of Impeachment stand adjourned under the previous order and further business resume after that.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.

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.