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

*** Elapsed Time 00:00, Eastern Time 01:06 ***

FEBRUARY 8, 1999

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

U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT, MAJORITY LEADER

REVEREND 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

REHNQUIST: The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment. The chaplain will offer a prayer.

OGILVIE: Almighty God, guide the senators today as they move closer to the completion of this impeachment trial and confront some of the most difficult decisions of their lives. Give them physical strength and mental fortitude for this day. In anticipation of your burden-lifting blessing, we place our trust in you.

We renew our prayers for peace in the Middle East. Thank you for the life and leadership of King Hussein of Jordan -- that persistent peacemaker and emissary of light in the often dim negotiations for just peace. Now at this time of his untimely death, we pray for the people of Jordan and for his son, King Abdullah, as he assumes the immense challenges of leadership.

OGILVIE: In your holy name, amen.

REHNQUIST: Amen.

The sergeant-at-arms will make the proclamation.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

LOTT: This afternoon the Senate will resume consideration of the articles of impeachment, and pursuant to S. Res. 30, the Senate will proceed to final arguments for not to exceed six hours equally divided between the House managers and the White House counsel.

At the conclusion of those arguments today, I would expect the Senate to adjourn over until tomorrow. We will expect tonight when we go out of the impeachment trial to have a period for legislative business so that we can pass a resolution or consider a resolution with regard to King Hussein.

I now ask consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment to reconvene as a court of impeachment at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, February 9th.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.

LOTT: And Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the February 5th, 1999 affidavit of Mr. Christopher Hitchens and the February 7th, 1999 affidavit of Ms. Carol Blue be admitted into evidence of this proceeding.

REHNQUIST: Is there objection?

DASCHLE: At this junction in the trial I'm compelled to object.

REHNQUIST: Objection is heard.

LOTT: I believe we're ready to proceed, Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Sensenbrenner.

SENSENBRENNER: (OFF-MIKE) Chief Justice, distinguished counsel for the president, and senators, I'm Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. I represent 580,000 people in southeastern Wisconsin in the United States House of Representatives, and during my entire service in Congress I have served as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

We are nearing the end of a long and difficult process. The Senate has considered for the past several weeks the grave constitutional responsibility to determine whether the actions of President Clinton merit his conviction and removal from office.

The Senate has been patient, attentive and engaged throughout this unwelcome task, and for this the House managers are grateful.

The managers would also like to thank the distinguished chief justice for his patience and impartial demeanor throughout this trial.

At the outset of the managers' closing arguments, it is important to distinguish what has caused only the second presidential impeachment in history from extraneous matters that bear no relation to the verdict the Senate will shortly reach.

SENSENBRENNER: When this trial began four long weeks ago, we said that what was on trial was the truth and the rule of law. That has not changed despite the lengthy legal arguments you have heard. The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders.

The news media characterizes the managers as 13 angry men. They are right in that we are angry, but they are dead wrong about what we are angry about. We have not spent long hours poring through the evidence, sacrificed time with our families, and subjected ourselves to intense political criticism to further a political vendetta.

SENSENBRENNER: We have done so because of our love for this country and respect for the office of the presidency, regardless of who may hold it.

We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come.

The Almanac of American Politics has called me a stickler for ethics. To that I plead guilty as charged. Because laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.

This trial was not caused by Kenneth Starr, who only did his duty under a law which President Clinton himself signed. It was not caused by the House Judiciary Committee's review of the independent counsel's mountain of evidence, nor was it caused by the House of Representatives approving two articles of impeachment, nor by the Senate conducting a trial mandated by the Constitution.

*** Elapsed Time 00:06, Eastern Time 01:12 ***

SENSENBRENNER: Regardless of what some may say, this constitutional crisis was caused by William Jefferson Clinton and by no one else. President Clinton's actions and his actions alone have caused the national agenda for the past year to be almost exclusively concentrated on those actions and what consequences the president and the president alone must suffer for them.

This trial is not about the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky. It is about the perjury and obstruction of justice he committed during the course of a civil rights lawsuit filed against him and the subsequent independent counsel investigation authorized by Attorney General Janet Reno.

SENSENBRENNER: The president has repeatedly apologized for his affair, but he has never, never apologized for the consequences of the perjury and obstruction of justice he has committed.

Perhaps those decisions were based upon a Dick Morris public opinion poll, which told the president that the American people would forgive his adultery, but not his perjury. Perhaps it was for another reason.

Whatever the White House's motivations were, the fact remains that the president's apologies and the statements of his surrogate contritionists have been carefully crafted for the president to continue to evade and, yes, avoid responsibility for his deceiving the courts to prevent them from administering justice.

Because the president's action to obstruct justice are so egregious and repeated, many have ignored his grand jury perjury charges before you in Article I.

SENSENBRENNER: I wish to point out four glaring examples of William Jefferson Clinton's perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury, and not at the civil deposition in the Paula Jones case.

First, the president lied under oath to the grand jury when he falsely testified about his attorney's use of a false affidavit at his deposition.

Second, he lied under oath to the grand jury about his conversations with Betty Currie.

Third, he lied under oath to the grand jury about what he told his aides about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, knowing that those aides would be called to testify to the grand jury.

Fourth, he lied under oath to the grand jury when he testified about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

*** Elapsed Time 00:09, Eastern Time 01:15 ***

SENSENBRENNER: An ordinary citizen who lies under oath four times to a grand jury is subject to substantial time in a federal prison. The decision each senator must make with respect to Article I is whether the president is to pay a price for his perjury just like any citizen must.

The president's defenders and spin doctors would have you believe that the president told all these lies under oath to protect himself and his family from personal embarrassment. And even if he did tell a lie, it was not that bad a lie.

Senators, please remember that the president's grand jury appearance was over six months after the news media broke the story about the president's affair with Ms. Lewinsky. By August 17, few people doubted that he had an affair with her. There was little left to hide, and he lied after practically everyone who was asked, including many of you, advised the president to tell the truth to the grand jury.

SENSENBRENNER: And still he lied.

We have heard a litany of excuses, including the president saying he was not paying a great deal of attention, and that he was trying to figure out what the facts were, and that he needed to know whether his recollection was right, and that he had not done anything wrong, and on and on.

The president knew what had happened. If Monica Lewinsky came on to him and made a sexual demand upon him and that he rebuffed her, as he told Sidney Blumenthal, he would have nothing to apologize for.

Senators, don't be fooled by the president's excuses and spin control. The facts and the evidence clearly show that he knew what -- he knew what he was doing was to deceive everyone, including the grand jury.

He and his defenders are still in denial.

SENSENBRENNER: They will not accept the consequences of his repeated and criminal attempts to defeat the judicial process.

His lies to the grand jury were not to protect his family or the dignity of his office, but to protect himself from criminal liability for his perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case.

Over nine years ago, the Senate removed Judge Walter Nixon from office for about the same offense: Lying under oath to the grand jury. The vote in the Senate was 89 to 8 in favor of Judge Nixon's removal, with 48 current senators and Vice President Gore voting guilty.

To boot a federal judge from office while keeping a president in power after the president committed the same offense sets a double standard and lowers the standard of what the American people should expect from the leader of their country.

SENSENBRENNER: To conclude that the standard of presidential truthfulness is lower than that of a federal judge is absurd. To conclude that perjury and obstruction of justice are acceptable if committed by a popular president during times of peace and prosperity sets a dangerous precedent which sets America on the road back to an imperial presidency above the law.

To justify the president's criminal behavior by demonizing those who seek to hold him accountable ignores the fact that President Clinton's actions and those actions alone precipitated the investigations which have brought us here today.

To keep a president in office whose gross misconduct and criminal actions are a well-established fact will weaken the authority of the presidency, undermine the rule of law, and cheapen those words which have made American different from most other nations on the Earth: equal justice under law.

SENSENBRENNER: For the sake of our country and for future generations, please find the president guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice when you cast your votes.

Mr. Cannon.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Cannon. If you'll just wait a moment, Mr. Manager Cannon, if there's no objection, the journal of proceedings of the trial are approved to date. Please go head.

CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, counsel for the president, members of the Senate. My name is Chris Cannon. I represent over 600,000 people in the 3rd District of Utah. I'd like to begin today with a couple of thank yous.

First of all, I like to thank you senators for your attention during this series of presentations. I know that you all have deep conflicts over the matter before you. Some of you made strong public statements about it. But you have all paid extraordinary attention, and for that I thank you.

CANNON: I'd also like to thank the other members of the management team. It has been a remarkable experience to have been associated with them during the past five months -- almost as good, I might say, as it would have been home with my wife and children and our new baby.

And if I might, I would like to share with you a recent family experience. I've been home just about a little over a day out of the last three weeks, and it took my 10-month baby -- 10-month-old baby about -- a little while to warm up to me when I was home last. And later as I started packing, she realized that I was leaving again and she insisted that I hold her. I think she felt that if she held on, I wouldn't disappear.

Unfortunately for her, she fell asleep on the trip to the airport. I know that other managers have had similar disruptions in their families and their family life. For instance, Charles Canady's wife had a baby during the trial. I would therefore like to thank my wife and my children and the wives and children of all the managers for their forbearance and support during this process.

CANNON: Like us, they believe in the obligation we have to assure good government. And I might say like us, they are grateful that the managers' role is ending.

For the managers, this process is almost done. I hope that history will judge that we have done our duty well. We have been congratulated and condemned, but we are done.

And while our difficult role is ending, yours is just beginning. While I'm certain that sitting here silently has been difficult, the truly daunting task before you now is to conclude this trial with some sense of legitimacy. For America is deeply divided, and the end result of an impeachment trial was designed by the Founding Fathers to salve these divisions and wounds.

Traditionally, after an airing of the facts and a vote by the Senate, either a president is removed or he is vindicated. In this case, it seems neither of those results may be realized.

While the facts are clear that the president committed perjury and obstruction of justice -- and here I'd like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Manager Sensenbrenner -- it is equally clear that this body may not remove him from office. And from this perception, you face the challenge of legitimizing the end result.

CANNON: Your vote will end this matter, it is non-justiciable. Whatever your decision is, it cannot be undone. The outcome will be right by definition. But how well you do the work of divining that outcome will affect the way that we as a nation deal with the divisions among us.

To proceed in a manner that will be trusted and viewed as legitimate by the American people, you must deal with the differences between this proceeding and prior impeachment trials. You must do this with an obvious commitment to your oath to do justice impartially according to the Constitution and the law.

The law includes the rules and precedents of the Senate. Senate Resolution 16 made this process different from all of the proceeding 13 Senate trials on impeachment, principally by removing from the managers the right to present our case as we see fit. I suspect that the lewd subject matter and the partisan fight in the House may have influenced your decision.

CANNON: But there is an integrity to the historic rules and reasons for them. For instance, the Senate by nature will be divided in the impeachment proceeding, while the managers are united. It is therefore easier for the managers to decide on how to present their case than it is for the Senate.

There are other differences in this proceeding from historic impeachment practice before the Senate. May I list the changes for you, with the intent to help you focus on the goal of a conclusion that we the people will feel legitimate?

Senate Resolution 16 called for a 24 hour presentation or trial, as it was called in the resolution, that mainly consisted of what the public saw as the yammering of lawyers. Time was equally divided, rather than sequenced as it is in a trial, where opening statements are made and then evidence is put on through witnesses. In a trial, each side typically takes the time necessary to establish its case or to undermine the witness through cross-examination.

After the moving party has made its case, the responding party makes its case. Time is dictated only by what each side feels it needs. Each witness is subject to whatever cross-examination is appropriate. The case develops tested piece by tested piece and ultimately one side prevails.

CANNON: Here the managers had to cut very important portions of our limited case. We had a limited number of witnesses, limited videotape appearances, limited to -- had an arbitrary three-hour rule. That time was lessened because we had to reserve time for rebuttal.

According to judicial traditions, defendants have to challenge each witness as they appear, not wrap the credibility of all in one wide-ranging response. In these proceedings, the Senate has not had the opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses as they case developed. The White House then used its time with long video portions and small, cutting accusations. Who knows what the White House might have done if it had been able, or if it had found it necessary to challenge the witnesses as they testified?

Another diversion from traditional and Senate trial precedent was that the only rebuttal for the managers was that -- was what we reserved after our video presentation and awkwardly in the questioning period, where important, complicated issues were cut off by artificial time limits, while peripheral issues got more time than they deserved. This questioning period had the unfortunate side effect of focusing the public on the partisanship of the Senate.

*** Elapsed Time 00:25, Eastern Time 01:31 ***

CANNON: The problem of the newness of the presentation format was exacerbated by the new media environment -- the Internet with its immediate and often unvetted content and cable television with its perpetual talking heads, gave equal time and equivalency of weight to the managers and the White House, with no witness testimony at all to constrain them.

The process gave rise to the perception that the fix was in, leaving some to gloat at having scammed the situation, and others angry at being unheard. And that is the context with which the Senate must -- now finds itself, and must pursue a legitimate outcome.

Given the wide-ranging options discussed, it is clear that this is no easy task. Will it be adjournment with condemnation? Findings of fact about the president's behavior? A bifurcated vote with the articles of impeachment, but not removing the president? A simple up and down vote on the articles of impeachment? Or a vote for acquittal followed by a censure vote?

CANNON: I don't know which, if any, of these options really make sense. And I don't know of any other options. I do know that the issue is grave, and that your responsibility is great.

So I'm here today to ask you to set aside some of your natural inclinations for the good of the country. I would implore you, senators, both Republican and Democrat, to set aside partisanship, politics, polls and personalities and exchange them for loftier inclinations, those of procedure, policy and precedent. These are the only guidelines this body should have.

As the Senate deliberates this case, I would ask that a few key facts never be forgotten: That the president committed perjury when he lied under oath and he obstructed justice. The Senate has historically impeached judges for perjury, even recently by some of you assembled here.

Any American watching these proceedings who commits perjury will be punished by the law.

If the Senate follows our nation's precedents of punishing perjurers, and if the Senate follows its own precedents of convicting perjurers, then there is only one clear conclusion in this matter: conviction.

CANNON: Senators, we as Americans and legislators have never supported a legal system which has one set of laws for the ruler and another for the ruled. After all, our very Pledge of Allegiance binds us together with the language "liberty and justice for all."

If that is the case, if we intend to live up to oaths and pledges we take, then our very own president must be subject to the precedents in our national judicial system and this Senate body have heretofore set.

Because I love this country and its institutions, I pray for inspiration for each of you as you seek the proper, legitimate outcome. May God bless you in this process.

Thank you.

I'd now turn the time over to Mr. Gekas.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Gekas.

GEKAS: Chief Justice, colleagues on each side of the podium, members of the Senate. If I were to take some time to thank the chief justice for his patience in all of this, would that be counted against my time?

(LAUGHTER)

REHNQUIST: Yes.

GEKAS: It would? Then I'll send you a note.

(LAUGHTER)

And we do -- we do offer our thanks to the chief justice.

GEKAS: I come from Pennsylvania, and the people in my district and the entire state and in their 49 brethren states across the nation -- the people of our country recognize that there's really only one issue. With all the fury and the tumult and the shouting and the invective and the language and the just plain shouting that has occurred across the halls of Congress and everyplace else in the country, it all swoops down in his telescope to one issue: Did the president utter falsehoods under oath?

Everyone understands that. Everyone comes to the conclusion that that's a serious allegation that has been made through the impeachment, and one which you must judge in the final vote that you will be casting.

GEKAS: But why is it important about whether or not the president uttered falsehoods under oath? It is important not just to constitute the basis of perjury, as is alleged, or -- and/or obstruction of justice, which is alleged. But even if those two were not proved in all their elements as crimes, you would still have to consider a falsehood under oath as constituting an impeachable offense.

And I say that advisedly. It starts, my contention does, with the assertions of our esteemed colleagues who represent the president. Time after time, and in their briefs and in their statements on and off the floor, they have stated you need not have a criminal offense for it to constitute an impeachable offense.

*** Elapsed Time 00:24, Eastern Time 01:30 ***

GEKAS: And they've provided examples of that. And they said that all you have to demonstrate is that an impeachable offense is one that rocks against the integrity -- the system of government. I'm paraphrasing, of course.

And I submit -- and I feel this so strongly that it bothers me that I can't make it clear -- that to violate the oath as a witness in a civil case or a criminal case, in the Jones matter or in the grand jury, smashes against the integrity of our system of government and our sundry reasons for that.

And in this case, if you follow the logic and the extreme intellectual presentation made by White House counsel that refutes every item that -- or attempts to refute, not refutes -- attempts to refute every item asserted by the managers -- if you believe all of that then are confused or in doubt about the Jones case and whether lies under oath were committed, or at the grand jury, you must think about this.

GEKAS: This is, to me, proof positive that the president uttered falsehoods under oath in all his public stances.

On December the 23rd, the president under oath answered interrogatories that were sent to him by the court in the Jones case in which he said, in the -- in answer to the question: Have you ever had sexual relations with anyone in a subordinate role while you were governor of Arkansas or president of the United States?

GEKAS: Now, this is important. At that time -- and the record will disclose all this -- at that time, there was no definition in front of him, no gaggle of attorneys trying to dispute what word meant what, no judge there to interpose the legal standards that should be employed, but rather, the bold-faced, naked phrase of sexual relations that everyone in the whole world understands to be what it is. And the president answered under oath, "None."

Now, I submit to the members of the Senate, if he answered then, on December the 23rd, before ever stepping foot in the deposition of the Paula Jones case; he never appeared there.

GEKAS: Or, if whatever he said there was so clouded that you can't draw a conclusion, certainly you can refer back to December 23 and see a starting point of a pattern of conduct on the part of the president that proves beyond all doubt that he committed a pattern and actual falsehoods under oath time and time again.

And if that's not enough, on January the 15th, as the record will disclose, he answered under oath requests for documents in which the question is asked under oath, and which the president responded, "Have you ever received any gifts or documents from," and it mentions, among others, Monica Lewinsky. And the president under oath signed no or none. The record will show for sure exactly what he said, but he denied that any gifts were transferred from or any documents or any items of personalty from Lewinsky to the president.

GEKAS: I submit to you that if you're confused about, because of the great presentation made by the counsel for the president, about the murkiness and cloudiness of the Jones deposition, the maddening consequences of the president's testimony, maddening they said, then you can revert back to January the 15th before the deposition and December the 23rd and find proof positive in the documents, already a part of the case that you have to decide, that indeed a pattern of falsehoods under oath was initiated and conducted by the president of the United States.

That's very important.

And those allegations, by the way, have gone completely uncontradicted by the president of the United States. I think they took great delight, these colleagues of mine on behalf of the president, great delight in saying at one point -- and they put in the marquee in the sky that, in so many different ways -- when Monica Lewinsky said: Nobody told me to lie.

GEKAS: That was the case for them. What a case they made. "Nobody told me to lie." They won the case right then and there in their minds. But because that was exculpatory and that was brandishing this case once and for all. Monica said "nobody told me to lie."

Well, I'm going to take some liberties with the Latin that I learned when I was in school, where we all learned in college and in law school falsam in unum is falsam in toto meaning if you say something false in one phase of your testimony, more than likely the triers of fact can find that you were false in all of it.

Well, I'm going to change that.

GEKAS: Well, I'm going to change that. I think I'm right when I say, veritas in unum is veritas in toto. So when Monica Lewinsky says, I -- nobody told me to lie -- and that's the indomitable, indestructible truth that the White House counsel say -- that's the case -- then it also must be veritas in totem, because when she says, when she said that she gave gifts to the president, then you must accept that. Veritas in unum is veritas in toto. And that goes on and on and on.

Somebody's waving, cut this short.

(LAUGHTER)

Very tough for me to do that, but I will comply.

I have a witness. I call a witness to bolster my part of this summation. The witness is the American people.

GEKAS: Mr. Craig in his last appearance on this podium was delighted to be able to quote a poll that showed that 75 percent of the people of our country felt that there was no need to present videotapes to the Senate in the trial. "Seventy-five percent," he said with great gusto, "of the American people."

And of course, the polls of all types were quoted time and time again by the supporters of the president as showing why you should vote to acquit -- the polls, the polls, the polls. I now call the American people's poll on whether or not the president -- do they believe that they president committed falsehoods under oath? Eighty percent of the American people -- I call them to my side here at the podium to verify to you that the president committed falsehoods under oath.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Chabot.

CHABOT: I'm Steve Chabot and I represent the 1st District of Ohio, which is Cincinnati.

This week we will likely finally conclude this trial. Has it been difficult? Yes. Would we all have preferred that none of this ever happened? Of course.

But the president has put our nation through a terrible ordeal, and it has been our duty to pursue this case to its conclusion. And despite the dire warnings and scare tactics and heavy-handed threats by those who would circumvent the solemn constitutional process that we're all engaged in, our great country has survived. We have finished this trial in just a few weeks. The economy continues to be strong. And the nation's business is getting done.

CHABOT: But senators, before you turn out the lights and head home, you must make one final decision. It's a decision that should not be influenced by party affiliation or by politics or by personal ties. It's a decision that should be guided by our Constitution, by our laws, and by your own moral compass.

A few months ago I stood in your shoes, as did all the colleagues here and the colleagues in the House, in preparing to make what would likely be the most important vote of our careers. Throughout the process, I did my best to be fair and to keep an open mind, and I listened carefully to the views of my constituents -- the people that sent me to Congress.

I reviewed the evidence in excruciating detail. Ultimately, for me the choice was clear. I came to the conclusion that it was my duty to support impeachment. Now it's your turn to cast what could be the most important vote of your political careers.

CHABOT: The question is, will moral fortitude or political expediency rule the day?

This past weekend I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours at my college alma mater, William and Mary, not too far from here, down at Williamsburg, Virginia. As I walked around the campus, I couldn't help but think back to my college days and what motivated me to seek public office in the first place.

Back in 1972, I was a 19-year-old college student casting my first ballot in a presidential election. Like a majority of Americans that year, I voted for a Republican, Richard Nixon, for president. Four years later, however, I voted for a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. This decision stemmed my -- from my profound disappointment over Watergate and a strong conviction that President Nixon should not have received immunity for his actions.

Now, just as in college, I find myself extremely troubled by the actions of a president.

CHABOT: In fact, as I started to think about what I would say today, I wasn't sure where to begin. How exactly do you wrap up in 10 minutes or less everything we've witnessed in the last year? We've seen Bill Clinton's finger-waving denial to the American people. We've seen the president lie before a federal grand jury. We've seen the president obstruct justice. We've seen the president hold a public celebration immediately following the House impeachment vote.

We all know the president's behavior has been reprehensible. President Clinton, however, refuses to admit what all of us know is true. To this day, he continues to deny and distort. He continues to dispute the undeniable facts that are before the Senate and before the American people.

The president's attorneys have done their best to disguise the truth as well.

*** Elapsed Time 00:36, Eastern Time 01:42 ***

CHABOT: At the beginning of this trial, I predicted in my presentation that they would use legal smokescreens to mask the law and the facts. To their credit, they produced smoke so thick that it continues to cloud this debate.

But if you look through the smoke and the mirrors employed by these very able lawyers, you will see the truth. The truth is that President Clinton lied to a federal grand jury. He lied about whether or not he had committed perjury in a civil deposition, about the extent of his relationship with a subordinate federal employee, about his coaching of his secretary, Betty Currie, and about the countless other matters.

In my opening statement before this body, I outlined the four elements of perjury: an oath, intent, falsity, materiality. In this case, all those elements have been met.

President Clinton also obstructed justice and encouraged others to lie in judicial proceedings. He sought to influence the testimony of a potentially adverse witness with job assistance, and he attempted to conceal evidence that was under subpoena. These truths cannot be ignored, distorted or swept under the rug.

CHABOT: Some of the president's partisan defenders want you to do just that, but it would be wrong. It would be wrong for you to send the message to every American that it's acceptable to lie under oath and obstruct justice.

It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.

I must agree with Phyllis and Jack Stanley, constituents of mine who live in my district, who wrote me a letter saying, and I quote, "We believe that president Bill Clinton should definitely be impeached for the sake of country. If he is not impeached, will not the rule of law in this country be weakened? We do not feel glee over the prospect of President Clinton's impeachment, however. For the sake of coming generations, acknowledging that integrity, honor and decency matter greatly is very important, especially in the highest office of the land," unquote.

CHABOT: Like most of you, I have spent countless hours at grocery stores, shopping malls and at schools and at my church, talking to my constituents. I've also read thousands of letters that have been sent to my office, just as we all have. What I've heard and read doesn't surprise me. People in Cincinnati, Ohio have a variety of views on what the ultimate verdict should be by this body.

Many want the president removed from office. Others want a censure. Still others would just like to see the process end. But regardless of their views, they're honorable people who care about our country and our future.

Now I know that throughout the process, some of the president's more partisan defenders have harshly criticized the managers, the House of Representatives, and anyone who would dare believe that the president committed any crimes. These partisan attacks have been unfortunate, because I think we all know that these issues are serious and that they deserve serious consideration.

I know it. The American people know it. And I think you all know it too.

But despite the partisan and rhetoric attacks, I believe that once this trial ends, we must work together.

CHABOT: So I would ask everyone here today to make a commitment, a commitment to every American, that regardless of the trial's outcome we will join together to turn the page on this unfortunate chapter that President Clinton has written into our nation's history.

The question before you now is, how will this chapter end? Will the final chapter say that the United States Senate turned its back on perjury and obstruction of justice by the president of the United States? Or will it say that the Senate took a principled stand and told the world that no person, not even the president, stands above the law? That all Americans, no matter how rich, how powerful, or how well connected, are accountable for their actions, even the president?

As the father of two children, and a former schoolteacher myself, at an inner-city school in Cincinnati, I believe that it is very important that we teach our children that honesty, integrity, and the rule of law do matter.

CHABOT: When I'm in Cincinnati, I spend a lot of time visiting schools throughout my community. I taught the seventh and eighth grade back in Cincinnati. And when I go there, I go to elementary schools, I go to junior highs, I go to high schools. And I've been doing this for a number of years.

And do you know what is inevitably one of the questions that the kids will ask me? Almost every time it's: Have you ever met the president of the United States?

Now, why do the kids ask that question? Because our kids understand how important the office of the presidency is. The person who occupies that office owes it to the children of this nation to treat the office with respect.

In the past, when those kids asked me that question, they asked me that question out of pride and respect. They looked up to the office, they looked up to everything the office represents. Bill Clinton has let our children down, and that's one of the greatest things that bothers me, as to the effect that this will have the children of this nation.

CHABOT: Let me conclude with a statement that I received from a student, Juliette Ascension (ph), who is a student at Mother of Mercy High School, who wrote to me recently.

And she said, "I'm writing to express my feelings on the scandalous situation that has taken over the White House for the past couple of months. First I'd like to state the qualities that should be found in the president of the United States. Since the president is the official representative of the United States, he should uphold the values and ideals held by the people of this country.

"The president should be honest and a trustworthy person. He should be a good decisionmaker, have good morals, and have his priorities straight. He should be devote his time to the country and set a good example for the people of this nation.

"I feel that President Clinton does not measure up to these standards. He's lied to the American people. He's committed perjury. For someone in his position this is unforgivable act, and he should not be allowed to just walk away wound a punishment. He's shown that he feels he can go above the law, and I strongly believe the president should be impeached."

CHABOT: And I'll conclude by telling you that when you cast your vote, I would ask that you remember -- and you remember that by your vote, you're determining the lesson that Juliette (ph) that your children and your grandchildren will learn.

So how will this chapter end? The decision is yours.

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Manager Barr.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Barr.

BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Distinguished and worthy adversaries, counsel for the president, including my good friend and former Georgetown law professor Charles Ruff, gentlemen and ladies of the Senate.

My name is Bob Barr.

BARR: I represent the Seventh District of Georgia. But in a broader sense, I represent the country because I have been directed as every one of the other 12 managers of the House have been directed by the American people, by majority vote of the House of Representatives, to urge you to review the evidence and issue a verdict of conviction on two articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives.

Two days ago all of us celebrated the birthday of former President Ronald Reagan. During his first year in office on may 17th, 1982 -- '81 -- this president, known for having given voice to America's most decent and honorable instincts, spoke to American people from Notre Dame University.

Though spoken nearly 18 years ago clearly not in contemplation of an impeachment, the former president's words provide guidance for you here today. It was on that date that President Reagan spoke of a certain principle, and in so doing, he quoted another giant of the 20th century, Winston Churchill.

BARR: Specifically, President Reagan then spoke of those who derided simple, straightforward answers to the problems confronting our country, those who decry clarity and certainty of principle in favor of vagueness and relativism. He said: They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what is morally right. Winston Churchill said that the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we must learn we are spirits, not animals.

And he said: There is something going in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.

Duty, a clear, simple concept, a foundational principle. Your duty is clearly set forth in your oath, your oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the law.

BARR: In the past month you have heard much about the Constitution and even more about the law -- probably more than you prefer. In a dizzying recitation of the U.S. criminal code -- 18 U.S.C., 1503, 1512, 1621, 1623 -- tampering, perjury, obstruction.

Now that's a lot to digest, but these are real laws and they are applicable to these proceedings and to this president. Evidence and law, you've seen it and you've heard it.

Now, you've also seen and heard about straw men, raised up by the White House's lawyers and then stricken down mightily. You've heard them essentially describe the president alternatively as victim or saint.

You've heard even his staunchest allies describe his conduct as reprehensible. Even some of you on the president's side of the aisle have concluded there's no question about his having given false testimony under oath, and he did that more than once.

BARR: There has also been much smoke churned up by the defense.

Men and women of the Senate, Monica Lewinsky is not on trial. Her conduct and her intentions are not at issue here. Vernon Jordan is not on trial, and his conduct and his intentions are not at issue here. William Jefferson Clinton is on trial here. His behavior, his intentions, his actions, these and only these are the issues before you.

When the White House lawyers raise up as a straw man that Vernon Jordan might not have had an improper motive in seeking a job for Ms. Lewinsky, or that there was no formal conspiracy proved between the president and Vernon Jordan, or that Ms. Lewinsky says she did not draw a direct link between the president's raising the issue of a false affidavit and the cover stores -- keep in mind, these are irrelevant issues.

When the White House lawyers strike these theories down, even if you were to conclude that they did, they are striking down nothing more than irrelevant straw men.

BARR: What stands today, as it has throughout these proceedings, are facts -- a false affidavit that benefits the president; the coaching of witnesses by the president; the secreting of subpoenaed evidence that would have harmed the president; lies under oath by the president.

These reflect President Clinton's behavior, President Clinton's intentions, President Clinton's actions and President Clinton's benefit, not through the eyes of false theories, but by the evidence through the lens of common sense.

You've heard tapes and read volumes of evidence not pursuant to the precise process we, as House managers, would have preferred, but much evidence nonetheless has been presented.

Many are saying with a degree of certainty that usually comes only from ignorance, that there's nothing I or any of us can say to you today on the eve of your deliberations to sway your minds. I beg to differ with them.

BARR: Moreover, we have been directed by the people of this country, by majority vote of the House of Representatives, to fulfill and reaffirm a process and to present evidence to you and to argue this case to you.

There is much in urging a vote for conviction that can be gained by turning to and keeping in mind President Reagan's words to America to do duty -- duty unclouded by relativism, unmarred by artificiality; duty that lives on after your vote, just as America will live on and prosper after a vote to convict; duty untainted by polls.

Polls -- the country's fascination with polls wormed its way even into these proceedings when just a few days ago we heard one of the White House lawyers cite polls as a reason not to release the videotapes. Polls played no role in the great and glorious decisions -- decisive decisions -- that made American a nation and kept it free and strong. Quite the opposite was true.

*** Elapsed Time 00:49, Eastern Time 01:55 ***

BARR: Polls, likewise, played no role in the great trials of our nation's history that opened schools equally to all of America's children, or that provided due process and equal protection of the laws for all Americans, regardless of skin color or economic might or political power.

Yet it is now in many respects polls that threaten to become the currency of political discourse, and even of judicial process as we near to enter the 21st century.

Your duty, as I know you recognize, is and must be based on polls -- not on polls or politics, but on law and the Constitution. In other words, principle.

What you decide in this case, the case now before you, will tell America and the world what it is we have as a foundation for our nation, not just today, but for ages to come. It will tell us in this nation whether these seats here today will continue to be occupied by true statesmen, whether these seats in this chamber will continue to echo with the booming principles, eloquence and sense of duty of Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, Everett Dirksen, Robert Byrd.

BARR: I would add to that list of statesmen my fellow Georgian and your former colleague Sam Nunn, whose concern for duty and our national security caused him recently on CNN to raise grave concerns over our nation's security because of the reckless conduct of this president.

Will the principles embodied in our constitution and our laws be reaffirmed, wrested from the pallid hands of pollsters and pundits and from the swarm of theorists surrounding these proceedings? Will they be taken up by you and reaffirmed into the hands of Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many other true statesmen of America's heritage? Principles that have stricken down bigotry, tyrants and demagogues. Principles that through open and fair trials have saved the innocent from the hangman's noose and likewise have sent the guilty, clothed in due process, to the nether regions.

BARR: It is principle, founded and nurtured in our Constitution and law, that you are called upon now to both use and reaffirm. Not only America is watching, but the world is, too.

And for those who say people from foreign lands and in foreign lands deride this process and look down it, I say not so. Let me speak briefly of a man not born in this country, but a man who has made this his country; a man born not in Atlanta, Georgia, though Atlanta is now his home. A man born thousands of miles away in Eritrea, a man who President Reagan surely was in a sense speaking both in 1981 when he spoke of America's duty, and in January 1985 when he spoke of the American sound that echoes still through the ages and across the continents.

The man whose words I quote is a man who watches this process through the eyes of immigrant -- Mr. Saume (ph) Tesfaue (ph). Now I've never met Mr. Tesfaue (ph), but I've read his words.

BARR: In the February 5th Atlanta Journal and Constitution, just three days ago, he wrote that this impeachment process is an example of America at its best; a core constitutional principle that profoundly distinguishes America from almost all other nations. He noted, without hyperbole, that this process, far from being the sorry spectacle that many of the president's defenders have tried to make it, truly is a hallmark of representative democracy, reaffirming the principle that no man is above the law, not even the president.

These are not the words of the House managers, though they echo ours. These are not the words of a partisan. They're the words of an immigrant -- a man who came to America to study and who has stayed to work and pay taxes just as countless millions of us do every day.

Men and women of the United States, you must, by reaffirming your duty to render impartial justice based on the Constitution and the law, reaffirm those same laws and that very same Constitution which drew Mr. Tisfayet (ph) and millions of other immigrants to our shores over the ages.

Now this is not a comfortable task for any of us, but as Martin Luther King, Jr., correctly noted, in words that hang on my office wall and perhaps on some of yours: "It is not in times of comfort and convenience that we find the measure of a man's character, but in times of conflict and controversy." This is such a defining time.

Obstruction of justice and perjury must not be allowed to stand. Perjury and obstruction cannot stand alongside the laws and the Constitution. By your oath, you must, like it or not, choose one over the other, up or down, guilt or acquittal.

I respectfully submit, on behalf of the House of Representatives and on behalf of my constituents in the seventh district of Georgia, that the evidence clearly establishes guilt, and that the Constitution and laws of this land demand it.

BARR: I thank the members of the Senate and yield to Mr. Manager Buyer.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Buyer.

BUYER: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished counsel, and senators, my name is Steve Buyer, House manager from Monticello, Indiana. I represent 20 counties between South Bend and Indianapolis.

I will not try to claim the cornerstone of Hoosier common sense. Mr. Kendall would wrestle me for that cornerstone. But as a former criminal defense attorney, I want to take a moment and compliment the White House counsel and Mr. Kendall for doing your best to defend your client in the face of overwhelming facts and compelling evidence.

(LAUGHTER)

BUYER: Your role here -- this is sort of a side compliment, do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

Your role here is much easier, though, in a court of impeachment as opposed to a criminal court of law. As a former federal prosecutor, I compliment Chairman Henry Hyde and my colleagues, the House managers, who've embraced and given life meaning to the rule of law and presented this case to the Senate in a professional, thorough and dignified manner.

I assure that you the House managers would not have prosecuted the articles of impeachment before the bar of the Senate had we not had the highest degree of faith, belief and confidence that based on the evidence, the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors which warrant his removal from office.

As you come to judgment, I would recommend you square yourself with your duty first. On January 7th, I witnessed as the chief justice administered your oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. You should follow this prescription, follow the truth -- strike that -- follow this prescription: Find the truth, define the facts, apply the law, give reverence to the Senate precedents while defending the Constitution.

BUYER: But I submit, it is the integrity of your oath in which you must regulate to uphold the principle of equal justice under the law.

During the question and answer phase with the chief justice on Saturday, January 23, I stood here in the well of the Senate and recommended that you vote on findings of fact.

Now, I want to clear the record of my intent of the recommendation since it has been grossly distorted. It is not to establish the guilt, as some has alleged. A finding of fact is not a finding of fiction.

BUYER: On the contrary, it is to prevent decisions by triers of fact from basing their judgment on fiction or chance or politics.

The chief justice ruled that you are triers of fact. And since this constitutional proceeding of impeachment is more like a civil proceeding than a criminal trial, I bring your attention to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that provides in pertinent part that when judges sit alone as a trier of fact, he or she is required to set down in precise words the facts as he or she finds them.

Now this requirement is mandatory and cannot be waived by the parties in federal practice. A memorandum of finding of facts is not a radical concept to American jurisprudence. It is customary and habitually used in state and federal courts all across this land. Since you sit collectively as a court of impeachment, as triers of fact, I recommended the findings of fact to guarantee that you have carefully reviewed the evidence and have a rational of basis for your final judgment.

BUYER: To claim that findings of fact is unconstitutional is false. The Supreme Court has consistently permitted the Senate to shape the contours and the due process of an impeachment trial. The Senate owes the American people and history an accounting of the stubborn facts.

I'd like to comment on some statements. I've heard some senators state publicly that they are using the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. But the Senate has held consistently that the criminal standard of proof is inappropriate for impeachment trials. The result of conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office. It is not meant to punish. You are to be guided by your own conscience, not by the criminal standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

*** Elapsed Time 00:59, Eastern Time 02:05 ***

BUYER: Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.

Now, so long as William Jefferson Clinton is president, the only mechanism to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors is the power of impeachment and removal. The Constitution is very clear. You cannot vindicate the rule of law by stating high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but leave the president in office subject to future prosecution after his term has expired.

Without respect for the law, the foundation of our Constitution is not secure. Without respect for the law, our freedom is at risk.

BUYER: Now, the president is answerable his alleged crimes to the Senate here and now. Moreover, if criminal prosecution and not impeachment is the way to vindicate the rule of law, then the Senate would never have removed other civil officers, such as the federal judges, who are not insulated from criminal prosecution while holding office.

Thus, in providing for criminal punishment after conviction and removal from office, it was the framers who ensured that the rule of law would be vindicated both in cleansing the office and in punishing the individual for the criminal act.

Now I have asked myself many times how a president can remain in office while having committed perjury and obstruction of justice is fair to those across the country who are sitting in jail for having committed the same crimes. I have had the fairness argument thrown into my face consistently. Now fairness is important. Fairness is something that's simple in its nature and it's powerful in the statement that it makes. A statement which you send carries us into tomorrow and becomes the future legacy.

BUYER: If you vote to acquit, think for a moment about what you would say to those who have been convicted of the same crimes as the president. What would you say to the 182 Americans who are sentenced in federal court in 1997 for committing perjury? What would you say to the 144 Americans who were sentenced in federal court for obstruction of justice and witness tampering? Would you attempt to trivialize the evidence and say this was -- this case was only lying about sex?

I want to cite the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee of one woman who experienced the judicial system in the most personal sense, and that was the testimony of Dr. Barbara Battalino. I think it's compelling.

Now she -- she held degrees in medicine and law, and Manager Rogan showed some of the testimony just the other day. You see, she was prosecuted by the Clinton Justice Department and convicted for obstruction of justice because of her lie under oath about one act of consensual oral sex with a patient on VA premises.

BUYER: Her untruthful response was made in a civil suit which was later dismissed. In a legal proceeding, Dr. Battalino was asked under oath, quote, "Did anything of a sexual nature take place in your office on June 27th, 1991?" end quote. Her one word reply, "No," convicted her and forever changed her life.

Her punishment? She was convicted of a felony, forced to wear an electronic monitoring device, and is presently on probation. She lost her license to practice law and her ability -- she lost her license to practice medicine and her ability to practice law.

Now, our prisons hold many who are truly contrite. They're sorry. They feel pain for their criminal offenses; and some whose victims have even forgiven them. Others were very popular citizens, had many friends, and apologized profusely. But they were still held accountable under the law.

Just like the president is acclaimed to be doing a good job, many in prison today were doing a good job in their chosen professions.

BUYER: None of our laws provide for good job performance, contrition, forgiveness or popularity polls as a remedy for criminal conduct.

These were the closing lines of Dr. Battalino's opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee, quote, "We all make mistakes in life, but common frailty does not relieve us from the responsibility to uphold the rule of law. Regardless, this nation must never let any person or people undermine the rule of law. If liberty and justice for all does not reign, we like great civilizations before us will surely perish from the face of the Earth."

What would you say to Dr. Battalino and others similarly situated is very important, because fairness is important. Alexander Hamilton, writing not long after the Constitution was adopted, well expressed the harm that would come to our republic from those who, by example, undermined the respect for the law.

In a statement that bears repeating, Hamilton wrote, quote, "If it were to be asked what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a republic, the answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and the laws, the first growing out of the last."

BUYER: Those, therefore, who set examples which undermine or subvert the authority of the laws lead us from freedom to slavery, they incapacitate us for a government of laws.

President Clinton, by his persistent and calculated misconduct and illegal acts, has set a pernicious example of lawlessness, an example which by its very nature subverts respect for the law. His perverse example inevitably undermines the integrity of both the office of the president and the judicial process.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, without choice, we were all born free. And we inherited a legacy of liberty at great sacrifice by many who've come before us. We cannot collectively as a free people enjoy the liberties without measured personal restraint. And that's the purpose of the rule of law. It's the functions of the courts to uphold the dignity of that prescription and the God-given liberties to all of us. That's how we are able to carry this nation forward into future generations.

BUYER: So in light of the historic principles regarding impeachment, the overwhelming evidence, the offenses as alleged, the application of the Senate precedents, I believe it makes it very clear that our president, whose shown such contempt for the law, the dignity and the integrity of the office of the presidency that was entrusted to him, must be held to account, and it can only be his removal from office.

The House managers reserve the balance of our time.

REHNQUIST: Very well. The chair recognizes the White House counsel.

RUFF: Mr. Chief Justice, thank you. I wonder, Mr. Majority Leader, whether we might take a brief break because there's going to need to be some rearrangement of furniture here.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: I was hesitant to suggest it too early today, Mr. Chief Justice, but on request of counsel, I ask that we take a 10 minute recess. And please return quickly to the chamber so we can get back to business.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.

(RECESS)

REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order.

The chair recognizes Mr. White House Counsel Ruff.

RUFF: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

How's the sound system today? Good.

Mr. Chief Justice, managers for the House, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I can't resist beginning, following the lead of my colleagues across the well here, by telling you that my name is Charles Ruff and I'm from the District of Columbia, and we don't have a vote in the Congress of the United States.

(LAUGHTER)

I truly did not intend to begin quite this way, but I -- I must. I don't think there is a court in the land where a prosecutor would be able to stand up for one-third of his allotted time, speak in general terms about the -- what the people are entitled to and what the rule of law stands for, as important as all of that may be, then sit down and turn to the defendant's counsel and ask that defense counsel go forward, reserving two hours for rebuttal.

RUFF: I recognize that procedural niceties have not necessarily characterized the way this trial has gone forward. But I do believe -- and this is the only time today I will say this, I promise -- that kind of prosecutorial gambit is symptomatic of what we have seen before in these last weeks, wanting to win too much.

Now, that said, let me begin where I intended to begin. We are taking the last steps along a path that for most of us has seemed to be unending. Indeed some of us may have a sense that we've gone well beyond Yogi Berra land to deja vu all over again and all over again and all over again.

RUFF: I thought long and hard as I thought about what I was going to say today. How I could be of most help to you as you make this momentous decision that will soon be entrusted to you. I momentarily considered whether the answer to that question was simply to yield back my time, but I weighed that against the special pleasure of stretching out our last hours with you.

(LAUGHTER)

Or as Ernie Banks would have said: "It's such a nice day, let's play too."

(LAUGHTER)

But cursed as I am with lawyerly instincts, I decided to compromise. I promise you as much brevity as I can manage, even if not much wit, while making a few final points that I think you need to carry with you as you go into your deliberations.

RUFF: Now you have heard the managers' vision, or at least some part of it, their vision of the process we've been engaged in, and the lessons we've learned, and what it will look like at the end of our journey.

I respect them as elected representatives of their people, and as we're the adversaries. But I believe their vision to be too dark, a vision too little attuned to the needs of the people. Too little sensitive to the needs of our democracy. I believe it to be a vision more focused on retribution, more designed to achieve partisan ends, more uncaring about the future we face together.

RUFF: Our vision, I think, is quite different, but it is not naive. We know the pain the president has caused our society and his family and his friends, but we know, too, how much the president has done for this country. And more importantly we know that our primary obligation, the duty we all have, is to preserve that which the founders gave us. And we can best fulfill that duty by carefully traveling the path that they laid out for us.

Now, you have heard many speeches over the past few weeks about high crimes and misdemeanors. As I look back on the arguments and the counter-arguments, it seems to me that really very little can be gained by repeating them. For when all is said and done, what they mean is this: the framers chose stability, they made impeachment and removal constitutional recourses of last resort.

*** Elapsed Time 01:34, Eastern Time 02:40 ***

RUFF: The question that the managers appear to have asked -- and I am unable to tell what you they will ask today -- is whether perjury or obstruction of justice in the abstract are impeachable offenses. That is not the question you must answer. Nor must you assume, as the managers appear to, that because judges are removed for having committed perjury, a president must be removed as well.

That is not what the law -- the rule of law requires. The rule of law and even-handed justice is something more than a simple syllogism. You must decide whether on these facts arising out of these circumstances, this president has so endangered the state that we can no longer countenance his remaining in office.

RUFF: Now I think in their hearts the managers do not truly disagree. Whatever tidbits they have been able to glean from the historical record or more modern scholarship, they cannot in the end avoid the conclusion that removal of the president is not something that the framers took lightly.

Indeed, two of their own witnesses in the Judiciary Committee, Professor Van Alstyne and Judge Wiggins, tried to make it clear to them that even if they were to find that the offenses described in the independent counsel's referral had been committed, another decision had to be made. And that decision was whether in the interests of society the president should be impeached.

As Professor Van Alstyne put it, in words that I admit are unflattering to my client but nonetheless make the point, "In my own opinion," he said, "I regard if the president did that which the special counsel's report declared are crimes of such a low order that it would unduly flatter the president by submitting him to trial in the Senate, i would not bother to do it."

RUFF: Now, I read that statement to you not, obviously, because the professor and I are on the same side of the political divide, of the same view of the president's conduct, but because it is important, I think, to understand, as I feel the managers do not, that the framers full well understood what they were doing when they drafted the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. They consciously chose not to make all misconduct by the president a basis for removal. They chose instead only that conduct that they viewed as most serious, as most dangerous to our system of government.

As I've said, I think in their hearts, the managers recognize the force of this, for they've argued to you that perjury and obstruction merely should be treated as the equivalent of treason and bribery in the danger that they pose to our society.

RUFF: They've offered on this much rhetoric, and a few substantive arguments, and I want to look at just a few of these arguments as they were advanced in the managers' opening and not really addressed since then.

First, an historical argument that Blackstone in his commentaries listed bribery and perjury and obstruction of justice under the same heading of offenses against public justice.

Second, a sort of modern statutory equivalent of that argument that under the sentencing guidelines, we actually treat perjury more severely than we do bribery.

And third -- and this is a theme you've heard throughout these proceedings, what I'll call the system of justice argument -- that the president's conduct, if he is not removed, will somehow subvert enforcement of our civil rights laws.

RUFF: But all these arguments are more subterfuge, offered because the managers knew that to make any plausible case for removal, they must bring these articles within the very small circle of offenses that the framers believed were truly dangerous to the state.

First, Blackstone. It's true that the commentaries rate perjury as among 21 offenses against public justice. Notably, however, Blackstone ranks the 21 in order of seriousness, or as he puts it, malignity. Now, number one on the list, the most malignant offense, is a felony that I have to admit is unknown to me, that of vacating records.

Number six is returning from transportation, also an offense rarely seen in our modern society. Numbers 10 to 12 are barratry, maintenance, and champerty, especially dear to me because they involve my profession, but rarely pursued these days, I think you'll agree.

RUFF: And at number 15 is perjury. Now if as Madison told us, Blackstone was in the hand of every man, what does that tell us about why the framers chose treason and bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors as the grounds for impeachment? It tells us that they fully understood the comparative gravity of offenses against public justice and nonetheless chose only those that truly posed that danger to the state.

Treason for obvious reasons, and bribery because to them, the risk that the executive would sell himself to a foreign country, for example, was much more than mere speculation. And then other -- other high crimes of similar severity.

*** Elapsed Time 01:40, Eastern Time 02:46 ***

RUFF: Now, as to the lessons to be learned from the more modern day -- the sentencing guidelines -- Mr. Manager McCollum argued to you a few weeks ago that those to whom you have given the responsibility to assess the comparative severity of crimes have concluded that perjury is at least as serious a crime as bribery. That decision, he told you, is evidenced by the commission's decision to assign to perjury an offense level of 12, or approximately one year in prison; and to bribery, an offense level slightly below that.

But even to the extent that such an argument were to be weighed in a constitutional balance, Manager McCollum was simply not being candid with you, for he failed to explain that under these same guidelines, a bribe of let's say $75,000 taken by an elected official or a judge for that matter, automatically carries an offense level of 24 -- twice that of perjury and a prison sentence four to five times longer.

RUFF: The drafters of our guidelines, to the extent that Manager McCollum asked you to look at, full well understand the special gravity of bribes taken by the country's leaders and are prepared to distinguish that offense from the offenses, even at best, that are before you now.

And lastly, the system of justice argument, the notion that somehow President Clinton has undermined our civil rights laws. Well, whatever I might say could not match the eloquence of my colleague Ms. Mills, and therefore I will not tempt fate by venturing further into that territory.

I really don't want to become further immersed in the minutiae here. On this I do agree with the managers: we cannot lose sight of the constitutional forest for some of the analytical trees.

RUFF: There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact, and law, and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the president in office?

Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit.

Now each of you has a sense of this in your mind and your heart better than anything I could convey or I suspect anything better than my colleagues could convey to you. And I won't undertake to instruct you further on this issue.

And just as we ultimately leave that question in your hands, we'll leave to the conscience of each member the question of what standard of proof to apply. Despite Congressman Buyer's exhortation to the contrary, this body has never decided for any of you what standard is appropriate, what standard inappropriate. Each senator is left to his or her own best judgment.

RUFF: I suggested to you when I last spoke to you that I believe you must apply a standard sufficiently stringent to enable you to make this most important decision with certainty and in a manner that will ensure that the American people understand that it has been made with that certainty.

This is not an issue as to which as a people and we as a republic can be in doubt.

Let me move to the articles. Just as you have listened patiently to our debate about the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors, you have as well heard seemingly endless discourse about the specific details of the various matters that the managers allege constitute grounds for removal.

RUFF: I will strive therefore not to be unduly repetitive, more than is at least absolutely necessary.

My colleagues last Saturday and in their earlier presentations have done my work for me. But I want to focus for just a little while on those aspects of the managers' presentation that merit your special attention, or those that have been particularly elucidated or for that matter beclouded by the testimony you heard and watched on Saturday.

As we start this discussion, let me offer you a phrase that I hope you will remember as I move through the articles with you, and that phrase is: Moving targets and empty pots.

*** Elapsed Time 01:45, Eastern Time 02:51 ***

RUFF: Moving targets, ever-shifting theories, each one advanced to replace the last as it has fallen, fallen victim to the facts.

Empty pots. Attractive containers, but when you take the lid off, you'll find nothing to sustain you.

Now, I used the term "empty vessels" in my opening presentation, but it since struck me that that was much too flattering, and might even suggest that they had the capacity to float, which they don't.

Article I, the first moving target. Now as we've said repeatedly, we've been more than a little puzzled as to the exact nature of the charges advanced by the managers under the rubric of Article I. And our puzzlement has only increased, I must tell you, since this trial began.

We've argued, I think with indisputable force, that both articles are so deficient that they would not survive a motion to dismiss in any court in the land.

*** Eastern Time 02:52 ***

RUFF: Now, we're not insensitive to the claim that we are advancing some lawyer's argument, and we're seeking some technical escape. But I urge you not to treat this issue so lightly.

As you look to Article I, for example, ask yourselves whether you can, at this late moment in the trial, identify for yourselves with any remote sense of certainty the statements that the managers claim are perjurious. I suspect you will hear a lot about that in the two hours following my presentation, but I'll try to look ahead just a bit.

Ask yourselves whether you are comfortable in this gravest of proceedings that when you retire to your deliberations you could ever know that the constitutionally required two-thirds votes is present on any one charge.

RUFF: Now, we've been making this argument for some time and with some frequency, and so you would think that at least once the trial began, the managers would have fixed on a definable set of charges.

But, no. Indeed, it struck me even earlier this afternoon, that when Manager Sensenbrenner rose to speak to you, he was prepared to give you four examples of perjury. We've heard a lot examples, we haven't heard much certainty.

Now, just to give you an example of how rapidly the target can move, you'll recall that in describing the incidents of perjury allegedly committed by the president, the managers made much of the preliminary statement he read to the grand jury, including the use of the words "occasionally" and "on certain occasions" to describe the frequency of certain conduct, and made the general allegation the statement itself was part of the scheme to deceive the grand jury.

Yet strangely, when Mr. Manager Rogan was asked about these very charges as late as January 20th, he quite clearly abandoned them.

*** Eastern Time 02:54 ***

RUFF: I direct your attention to the exhibits before you and to the chart. Appearing on television on January 20th with Chris Matthews, this is what transpired:

Mr. Matthews: Now defend these elements -- one, that the president lied when he said "these relationships with her on certain occasions." Is that the language?

Representative Rogan: That is the ...

And Matthews: And why is that perjurious -- perjurious?

Representative Rogan: In fact, I'm not -- I don't think it's necessarily perjurious. In fact, that's not one even of the four areas that's alleged. But they're trying to pick these little dots out of the matrix and try to hang their hat on that. MORE

RUFF: That is, that's one little piece of this answer he gave at the grand jury.

Matthews: And another time he used a phrase with regard to this ridiculous thing called phone sex, he referred to it as occasional or on occasion. Why do you add them in as part of the perjury indictment?

Representative Rogan: That's not added in as part of the perjury indictment in Article I, simply raised that issue when I was addressing the Senate.

Matthews: You better get to those senators, because I think they made the mistake I did of thinking that was one of the elements in the perjury charge.

And similarly over here, although I've reversed the order a bit, go through what you think of the main elements.

Representative Logan: One of the things that we're focusing on is a point I think I made last week when I was presenting the case for perjury, dealing with that preliminary statement that the president read, but just really gave the grand jury a misperception of what the president's relationship was with Monica Lewinsky. Now, I never said that was the basis for the perjury charge.

RUFF: Well, I have to tell you, as did Mr. Matthews, I made the same mistake. I heard Manager Rogan say, quote, "This prepared statement he read to the grand jury on August 17th, 1998, was the lynchpin in his plan to, quote, 'win,'" unquote.

I heard him say, "It is obvious that the reference in the president's prepared statement to the grand jury that this relationship began in 1996 was intentionally false." I heard him say, "The president's statement was intentionally misleading when he described being alone with Ms. Lewinsky only on certain occasions." And I heard him say, "The president's statement was intentionally misleading when he described his telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky as occasional."

That's what I heard when Manager Rogan spoke to you a few weeks ago.

Now, I know it's unusual to be given a bill of particulars on television. And maybe that's part of the modern litigation age.

RUFF: And so as to Article I's charge, now that this is off the books, that the president perjured himself concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, we are once again left with the claim that he lied about touching; about his denial that he engaged in conduct that fell within his subjective understanding of a definition used in the Jones deposition -- this, in the course of testimony, members of the Senate, in which the president had already made the single most devastating admission that any of us can conceive of.

It defies common sense and as any experienced prosecutor -- and five experienced prosecutors said this to the Judiciary Committee -- will tell you, it defies real world experience to charge anyone, president or not, with perjury on the ground that you disbelieve his testimony about his own subjective belief in a definition of a term used in a civil deposition.

RUFF: Nothing in the evidentiary record has changed since the OIC referred this matter to the House six months ago. Indeed, it is impossible to conceive what could change in the evidentiary record.

And the managers have offered this charge and persist in it for reasons not entirely clear to me, but some blind faith that they must go forward, facts or no.

Now, there are three other elements to Article I. First, that the allegation -- first the allegation that the president lied when he claimed that he'd not perjured himself in the Jones deposition. The president, of course, made no such representation in the grand jury, and the managers cannot, no matter how they try, resurrect the charges of the article, the Article II, that was so clearly rejected by the House of Representatives.

RUFF: Yet, if you listened to their presentations over the past weeks, it becomes evident that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, they, themselves, have come to the point where the president's testimony on January 17 in the Jones deposition and August 17 in the grand jury are treated as though they were one and the same.

Now, just -- just a few minutes ago, you heard Manager Gekas talk to you about perjury. And probably 90 percent of what he talked to you about was perjury in the Jones case.

*** Eastern Time 01:54 ***

RUFF: In the Jones case. It doesn't exist anymore. The House of Representatives determined that that was not an impeachable offense.

It appears to make no difference, though, that the House rejected this charge, for the managers do continue to dwell on it, as though somehow they could show the House from which they came that they'd made a mistake.

Only last Saturday Manager Graham could be heard decrying the president's claim that he had never been alone with Monica Lewinsky. Something that comes, not out of the grand jury, but out of the Jones deposition.

At the same time he was taking him to task for his disposition on the meaning of the word "is," something that is in the grand jury but is entirely irrelevant to these perjury charges.

You could even see it in their videotape presentation last Saturday, when snippets from January 17th and August 17th were played without any definition and without any sense that there was any distinction between the two events.

RUFF: There's literally nothing in the president's grand jury testimony that purports to adopt wholesale his testimony in the Jones deposition. If anything, it's evident that he's explaining at length and clarifying and adding to his deposition testimony.

Indeed, even if article -- the original Article II had survived, the president's belief that he had worked, quote, "worked through the minefield of the Jones deposition without violating the law," which is a quote from his grand jury testimony, could not allow the managers somehow to establish that that statement was independently perjurious, and they surely cannot do so now that the original Article II has disappeared.

RUFF: Now, as to the second and third remaining elements of Article I, that he -- the president lied about Mr. Bennett's statement to Judge Wright at the time of the Jones deposition and that he lied about his own statements to his staff, I will deal with them in my discussion of the obstruction charges in Article II.

Suffice it to say that nothing in the record as it came to you in January could support conviction on Article I, and nothing added to the record since then has changed that result.

And we move to Article II.

Manager Hutchinson told you in his original presentation that Article II rested on, in his words, seven pillars of obstruction. I have suggested in my opening statement of a few weeks ago that it would be more accurate to call them seven shifting sandcastles of speculation.

RUFF: But Manager Hutchinson has not proved willing to accept my description, and so I will accept his.

Let's remove one pillar right at the start. Article II charges that the president engaged in a scheme to obstruct the Jones case -- the Jones case. And alleges as one element of this scheme that in the days following January 21st, the president lied to his staff about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky -- conduct that could not possibly have had anything to do with the Jones litigation.

I will get to the merits of that charge standing alone in a little while, but I bring up the more, forgive me, technical argument here to highlight once more the extent to which the House simply ignored the most basic legal principles in bringing these charges to you.

*** Eastern Time 03:04 ***

RUFF: I have yet to hear from the managers a single plausible explanation for the inclusion of this charge as part of a scheme to obstruct the Jones litigation, and I can think of none. I'm sure that in the 120 minutes remaining to them, some portion of will be spent explaining just this point.

And so, one pillar gone, a slight list observed.

Next. Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit and the first of the empty pots. The managers charge that the president corruptly encouraged a witness to execute a sworn affidavit that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading, and similarly encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie if she were of called as a witness.

In my opening statement, and Mr. Kendall's more detailed discussion, we made two points: first, that Ms. Lewinsky had repeatedly denied that she had ever been asked or encouraged to lie; and second, that there was simply no direct or circumstantial evidence that the president had ever done such a thing.

RUFF: Now it's not in dispute that the president called Ms. Lewinsky on the early morning of December 17th to tell her about the death of Betty Currie's brother, and in the same call that he told her that she was now listed on the Jones witness list.

The managers have from the beginning relied on one fact and on one baseless hypothesis stemming from this call, which in the managers' minds was the beginning and the middle and the end of the scheme to encourage the filing of a false affidavit.

RUFF: There was literally no other event or statement on which they can rely.

Now, the one fact to which the managers point is Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that the president said that if she were actually subpoenaed, she possibly could file an affidavit to avoid having to testify, and at some point in the call mentioned one of the so-called cover stories that they had used when she was still working at the White House; that is, bringing papers to him.

And it is on this shaky foundation, a very slim pillar indeed, that the managers build their hypothesis.

In the face of the seemingly insurmountable hurdle of Ms. Lewinsky's repeated denials that anyone ever asked or encouraged her to lie, the managers have persisted in arguing and continue to do so that the president did somehow encourage her to lie, even if she didn't know it.

RUFF: Now, you've heard that theme sounded, really, for the first time on Saturday and then a little bit today -- even if she didn't know it -- because both really understood that any affidavit Ms. Lewinsky would file would have to be false, if it were to result in her avoiding her deposition.

But neither the fact on which they rely nor their hypothesis was of much help to the managers before Ms. Lewinsky's deposition, and neither, surely, has any force after her deposition.

After you saw Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, there can be nothing left of what was, at best, only conjecture. Even before her deposition, Ms. Lewinsky had testified, as had the president in the grand jury, that given the claims being made in the Jones case, a truthful, albeit limited affidavit, might -- might -- establish that Ms. Lewinsky had nothing relevant to offer in the way of testimony in the Jones case.

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.