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

REHNQUIST: The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Canady.

CANADY: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate.

During the next few minutes, I would like to address the constitutional issue you are called on to decide in this case. Are the crimes charged against the president offenses for which he may be removed from office? Are these crimes high crimes and misdemeanors? Are these crimes which proceed, as Alexander Hamilton said, from the abuse or violation of some public trust?

The president's lawyers have argued vigorously that even if all the charges against the president are true, the Constitution forbids the removal of this president. They contend that this isn't even a close case, that the crimes charged against the president are far removed from the constitutional category of high crimes and misdemeanors, a category of offenses they have sought to restrict narrowly to misconduct causing ruinousness harm to the system of government.

*** Eastern Time 04:49 ***

CANADY: While the president's lawyers have been consistent in urging a narrow and restricted understanding of the impeachment and removal power, they have not been, and I repeat, they have not been consistent in describing the standard used to determine if high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed.

In their submission to the House of Representatives, they stated unequivocally the Constitution requires proof of official misconduct for impeachment. Those are their words, and I quote them again. The Constitution requires proof of official misconduct for impeachment.

Indeed, that statement was the primary heading for their whole argument on constitutional standards. And likewise, in their trial memorandum submitted to the Senate, they argue that impeachment should not be used to punish private misconduct.

Now subsequently, they have apparently abandoned this position, recognizing that it would lead to the absurd result of maintaining in office presidents who were undoubtedly unfit to serve. They now begrudgingly concede that a president is not necessarily immune from impeachment and removal simply because his crimes do not involve the abuse of the powers of his office.

They have been driven to concede there are at least some circumstances in which a president may be removed for crimes not involving what they call "official misconduct." But of course, they contend that the circumstances in this case don't even justify consideration of removal.

In the proceedings in the House and in their trial memorandum submitted to the Senate, the president's lawyers made much of the argument that tax fraud by a president of the United States would not be sufficiently serious to justify impeachment and removal.

CANADY: I have mentioned this before in this proceedings, and I mention it again now because it vividly demonstrates the low standard of integrity, the pathetically low standard of integrity that would be established for the presidency if the arguments of the president's lawyers are accepted by the Senate.

Now perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall any mention of the tax fraud issue by the president's lawyers in the course of their various presentations to the Senate. Could it be that the president's lawyers have come to understand that the argument that tax fraud is not an impeachable offense does not strengthen their case, but on the contrary highlights the weakness of their case?

Tax fraud by a president, like lying under oath and obstruction of justice by a president in this case, would of course be wrong. It would be shameful. Indefensible, unforgivable. But -- and this is the big but -- it would not be impeachable, they say. Not even a close case. Bad, yes, but clearly not impeachable. And why is that? Why would it not be impeachable? Why isn't it clearly, unquestionably unimpeachable?

This is the answer. This is the heart and soul of the president's defense. Tax fraud and a host of undefined other crimes, like the lying under oath and obstruction of justice in this case, are just not serious enough for impeachment and removal. That's the answer, that's the defense. It's just not serious enough. All the grand legal arguments, all the fine legal distinctions come down to the simple, this marvelously simple proposition: It's just not serious enough.

Let me refer you once again to a statement from the 1974 report on the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment prepared by the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry.

CANADY: I want to cite a portion of that report that I have previously cited to you. The president's lawyers have also cited this very same statement in both their trail memorandum and their argument during these proceedings. Now, this is what the report says.

"Because impeachment of a president is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office."

For our purposes now, impeachment is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. That's a standard the managers accept. That's a standard the president's lawyers apparently also accept. And that's a standard I would hope all 100 members of the United States Senate could accept.

I believe we can reach agreement on this standard. The problem comes, of course, in applying the standard. There's the rub.

A wide gulf separates us on how this standard should be applied. The president's lawyers say that under this standard the case against the president isn't even worth considering. The managers argue, on the contrary, that a conscientious application of the standard leads to the firm conclusion that the president should be convicted and removed.

Now, our fundamental difference goes to the issue of seriousness. It all goes back to the claim of the president's lawyers that his offenses just are not serious enough to justify removal.

I think we have agreement that obstruction of justice and lying under oath are incompatible with the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.

CANADY: A president who has lied under oath and obstructed justice has by definition breached his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Such conduct is directly and unambiguously at odds with the duties of his office.

Now, so far, so good. But here's the real question. Is that conduct seriously incompatible with the president's constitutional duty? That's the question you all must answer. If you say yes, it is seriously incompatible, you must vote to convict and remove the president. If you say no, you must vote to acquit.

The president's defenders have not offered a clear guide to determining what is serious enough to justify removal. Instead they have simply sought to minimize the significance of the particular offenses charged against the president. Today we heard an attempt to minimize the significance of perjury. I was somewhat amazed to hear that. There was no mention made of what the first chief justice of the United States, Justice Jay had to say about perjury being of all crimes the most pernicious to society. That was omitted from the president's analysis.

But let me say this. I believe that we should focus on any mitigating circumstances. We should also focus on the aggravating circumstances that relate to the particular facts of a given case.

Now I'd like to briefly review the factors advanced as mitigating the seriousness of the president's crimes. We all know what the leading mitigating factor is. We've all heard this a thousand times. It goes like this. The offenses are not sufficiently serious because it's all about sex.

CANADY: Now this is directly linked to the claim that the president was simply trying to avoid personal embarrassment in committing these crimes. The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It's very common for people who lie under oath and obstruct justice to do so, at least in part, to avoid personal embarrassment.

Peopled engaged in such conduct, in their efforts to extricate themselves from difficult and embarrassing situations -- to a large extent, the offenses of President Nixon could be attributed to his desire to avoid embarrassing revelations. Did that reduce his culpability? Did that lessen the seriousness of his misconduct? The answer is obvious: It did not.

The desire to avoid embarrassment is not a mitigating factor. Likewise, the nature of the precipitating misconduct, a sexual affair, does not mitigate the seriousness of the president's crimes. If you accept the argument that it's just about sex, you will render the law of sexual harassment virtually meaningless.

Any defendant guilt of sexual harassment would obviously have an incentive to lie about any sexual misconduct that may have occurred, but no one, no one has a license to lie under oath about sex in a sexual harassment case or in a divorce case or in any other case. I would suggest to you that in an objective review of all the circumstances of this case -- and you need to look at all of the circumstances, all of the facts and context.

If you do that, you will be pointed not to mitigating factors, but to aggravating factors. The conduct of the president was calculated and sustained. He set -- his settled and determined purpose was corrupt. It was corrupt from start to finish.

CANADY: He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that it was in violation of the criminal law. He knew that people could go to prison for doing such things. He knew that it was contrary to his oath of office. He knew that it was incompatible with his constitutional duty as president. And he most certainly knew that it was a very serious matter.

I'm sure he believed he could get away with it. But I'm equally sure that he knew just how serious it would be if the truth were known and understood. He knew all these things. In the midst of it all, he showed not the slightest concern for the honor, the dignity and the integrity of his high office.

When he called Ms. Lewinsky at 2:30 in the morning, he was up to no good, just as my colleague Mr. Graham noted. He knew exactly what he was doing.

When he called Ms. Currie into his office twice and told her lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, he knew exactly what he was doing.

When he sent Ms. Currie to retrieve the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky -- and that's the only way it happened -- he knew exactly what he was doing. He was tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.

He was doing everything he could to make sure that Paula Jones did not get the evidence that a federal district judge had determined and ordered that she was entitled to receive. He was doing everything he could to avoid adverse legal consequences in the Jones case. That's what he planned to do, and that's what he did.

And to cap it all off, he went before the federal grand jury and lied. Whatever you may think about the president's testimony to the grand jury, one thing is clear. He didn't lie to the grand jury to avoid personal embarrassment. The DNA on the dress had ensured his personal embarrassment. There was no avoiding that.

CANADY: There was no way to explain away the DNA. The stakes were higher before the federal grand jury.

This wasn't about avoiding personal embarrassment. This wasn't about avoiding liability in a sexual harassment case. This was a federal criminal investigation concerning crimes against the system of justice. This was about lying under oath and obstructing justice in the Jones case. And what did he do when he testified to the grand jury? He said anything he thought he needed to say to avoid responsibility for his prior crimes.

The prosecutors went down to the White House and William Jefferson Clinton sat there as president of the United States in the White House and he lied to a federal grand jury. He sat there in the White House and he put on his most sincere face, he swore to God to tell the truth and then he lied. He planned to lie and he executed his plan because he believed it was in his personal and political interest to lie. Never mind the oath of office. Never mind the constitutional duty. Never mind that he solemnly swore to God to tell the truth.

Now ask yourself this simple question: was this course of conduct seriously incompatible with the president's duty as president? If this doesn't fall within the meaning of the offenses Alexander Hamilton described as proceeding from the abuse or violation of some public trust, tell me what would. I would respectfully suggest to you that this is exactly the sort of conduct that the framers had in mind when they provided a remedy for the removal of a chief executive who is guilty of misconduct.

I believe that they would have rejected the argument that this deliberate, willful, stubbornly, corrupt course of criminal conduct just isn't serious enough for the constitutional remedies the framers established -- a remedy that they designed to protect the health and integrity of our institutions.

CANADY: Those who established our Constitution would have understood the seriousness of the misconduct of William Jefferson Clinton. They would have understood that it was the president who has shown contempt for the Constitution, not the managers from the House of Representatives.

They would have understood the seriousness of the example of lawlessness he has set. They would have understood the seriousness of the contempt for the law of the president's conduct has caused.

They would have understood the seriousness of the damage the president has done to the integrity of his high office. Those wise statesmen who established our form of government would have understood the seriousness of the harm President Clinton has done to the cause of justice and constitutional government.

They would have understood that a president who does such things should not remain in office with his crimes.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, for the sake of justice and for the sake of the Constitution, this president should be convicted and removed.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.

BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chief justice, members of the Senate, distinguished colleagues. I want to -- distinguished colleagues at the bar representing the president. I want to commend them for an outstanding effort that they have made throughout these proceedings and tell them that I just read a poll, and it's from a couple of days ago, that something over 80 percent of the American people believe that the president is guilty of something here. So I think that moots our entire debate.

I don't think there's any need to even talk about the facts any longer because of the polls.

BRYANT: I use that tongue-in-cheek because that seems to beg the question that we're also going to talk about today, and that is whether the president ought to be removed for this conduct. And one of the arguments I've heard put forward since we've been here was the fact that the polls support this president and that the stability issue would be in play.

And that's -- that's simply not the case because we all clearly understand that it's this body's function to determine not only the facts of this case, but also apply to it the law as well as the constitutional law as to the removal and conviction process.

I still remain concerned with opposing counsel's continued reference that the House managers want to win too much. I know I'm not that eloquent, but I did try to make that point the other day, and I will make it again if I have to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I'll do that, and tell you that we're not trying to win at all cost.

This has been a process I think that's been healthy for this country, and regardless of the outcome, regardless -- it's going to be in your hands very shortly. Regardless of the outcome, this country I think will benefit not only in the short-term, but in the long-term for this debate. And there are many, many other issues at stake here, and I tried to tell you a few the other day, without this concept that all we want to do is win; as if it's a simple game.

We have been over the last four weeks as men and women involved -- as ordinary men and women, I might say, involved in an extraordinary process. It's uniquely thorough and we have tried to blend the facts of this case with the law of the charges, together with the politics and the polls and the media. And we tried -- we've had to make some tough decisions.

BRYANT: We've had to make some difficult decisions.

I know on our side we have as to what witnesses to call, how to treat these witnesses in depositions. I know on this side, they've had to make difficult calls, I'm sure.

There's been some talk about having the president come down or not coming down, and what has in large part made this process distinct from past impeachments -- and I'm talking about the one last century of the president and the subsequent judicial impeachments -- has been just the -- it seems the media and the daily grind on all of us, the critiques.

It's almost like we're performing. We're in a play and every day, we get a review. We've been good or bad or indifferent. And what concerns me most about that is that as you move to the very serious issue of deciding whether or not this president should be convicted based on the facts and whether that president should be removed, I'm concerned that people are stretching the trees and if that's what you see on TV and what you read in the paper -- you're going to see the trees and not the forest here and miss the big picture, because that's so important.

It's not about the personalities of these people or the personalities here of the politics involved or the polls, but it's about the facts and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, there are conclusive facts here that support a conviction. The president and his attorneys, as I said the other day, have made a good defense and have tried to paint a picture to the facts, I think, that that simply do not match with logic or common sense.

Take for instance the affidavit. Now we continue to see Ms. Lewinsky testifying she never talked with the president that she never talked with the president that night and never made -- about linking the false story the concocted story with the affidavit.

BRYANT: And Mr. Ruff, I think, challenged people to say, what do you think the president meant to do that night when he called her at 2:30 in the morning? Well, what do you think he intended to call -- do in that call at 2:30 in the morning? Do you think he called her to tell her he had a Christmas present for her? Or do you think his intent was to tell her, which he did, that you've been listed on the witness list, and you could be subpoenaed. And you know, you might give an affidavit to avoid testifying.

He suggested the affidavit. And then he said, in that same conversation, well, you know, you can always use that cover story. Why would he suggest to using a cover story that night? Were they even seeing each other then? It belittles all reasonable judgment to accept this type of defense of this conduct that it was an innocent phone conversation, the president really meant nothing by it. And the fact that Ms. Lewinsky said well, I didn't connect the two.

But look at what she did. She went to her lawyer and used that concocted story in an affidavit that she filed in the case. Now, it was in the draft affidavit, and they took that out later for other reasons, but she did tell her lawyer that, and they attempted to use it. But again, it's the president's state of mind that matters, and what his intent was on the false affidavit.

And then that same false affidavit was later used in the court, and the president knew it was false. He knew it was false -- used in the deposition. And we've seen the deposition testimony with the president sitting there listening to his lawyer talk about that affidavit, when he submitted it. And he obstructed justice but not objecting at that point, not instructing his own lawyer, don't put that false evidence into testimony.

BRYANT: And people stand up and laugh and say, Well, you know, he was -- he was not paying any attention to it. And they got this silly affidavit from this guy that was there and said he look -- he was looking at his lawyer but he couldn't tell what he was thinking. Well, of course he couldn't tell what he was thinking. Nobody's mind readers. But this was a critical affidavit at that time which was going to cut off critical testimony in that case, and you can just about guarantee, I'd say a hundred percent, that the president was indeed listening very carefully and knew that his lawyer was submitting a false affidavit and did nothing to stop it. That's another count of obstruction of justice.

Tampering with Betty Currie. Two occasions. And they say, Well, nothing happened between the first time and the second time. I'm not so sure legally that matters. It was two or three days that happened -- on the day following his deposition and two or three days after that. And initially remember his defense was: I was simply trying to recall what happened. And then we brought up the fact: Well, why'd you go a second time, did you have a short memory, didn't you get it right the first time? And now we hear the defense today that, Well, gee, nothing really changed, so it's all kind of one -- one issue there, one big -- one big tampering rather than two attempts to tamper. Still obstruction of justice.

The job situation Mr. Hutchinson will talk about later. Mr. Blumenthal, same thing, I'm sure Mr. Rogan will testify or talk about in a minute.

But if you'll look carefully, you'll see that the president is the only thread that goes from each one of these from the very beginning, from the point when he met Monica Lewinsky and from that point when he looked at that pink pass and said: You know, that's going to be a problem. And you know why that was going to be a problem, because that limited her access to this president, and what he was going to do.

But from that point until they terminated the relationship, this president is involved in each one of these issues of the obstruction of justice. It's always him by himself testifying falsely, sitting there letting his lawyer submit a false affidavit, or it's him and one other person. He and Monica talking about filing a false affidavit.

BRYANT: He and Monica Lewinsky talked about a concocted story to testify. He and Betty Currie on two occasions about what Betty -- remember the testimony was like this: He and John Podesta or Sidney Blumenthal the many aides talking to them individually giving them a false story. And as Mr. Hutchinson so well pointed out in his argument the other day, it's always a private issue in terms of no one else knows what's going on. Vernon Jordan didn't know what was happening with the affidavit necessarily. Betty Currie didn't understand what was happening with the affidavit or the job search to the point that they knew what was going on. Look at and analyze each one of these and you will see that there is a compartmentalization going on with this president, and he's at the center of it each time.

Now, what do we do with it? What do you do with it? It's going to be in your hands very shortly. And I want to address just a couple of points on the constitutional issue of the conviction and the removal, because White House counsel very, very well argued the issue of proportionality. And again, proportionality simply means that the legacy of this Senate and this Congress will be that we have destroyed sexual harassment laws.

Because what we're going to say what you argue that proportionality think about what it is. We've heard this issue about, well back in my hometown 80 percent of the people that get divorces lie about this issue. Certainly that does not want to be the legacy of this Congress that we legitimize lying in divorce cases nor would we want the legacy of this Congress being that we did not support the sexual harassment laws. Because you know and I know that this is an important part -- going back and getting accurate truthful testimony is absolutely essential in these types of cases and if we send the message out on the proportionality theory that it's just about sex and you can lie about it, it will be the wrong thing it do.

The law, like the facts are a very stubborn thing.

BRYANT: And the fact that the economy is good and people are doing well, if the law has been broken; if perjury has been committed; if obstruction of justice has been committed by this president, it is my belief that the fact that the economy is good should not prevent this Senate from acting and removing the president.

Just as if the economy were bad, you wouldn't want to go -- be able to go in there and impeach the president 'cause it's bad, you don't want to not impeach him because simply -- simply because the economy's good.

It is a difficult task. We've had a difficult task bringing this case over to you. And I thank you. You have been here, the four weeks in attendance. You've paid attention. When it was your turn to ask questions, you asked very good questions. You've been ready to listen. And I thank you for that.

You've got a difficult task ahead of you. I know when I voted on this, I thought you know, if this were a Republican president, what would I do? It's a tough choice. And I said -- but, you know, I really think I would have voted the same way I voted, even if it were a Republican president.

I know, like Mr. Chabot, I voted for Mr. Carter in 1976; voted for Mr. Reagan in 1980, I might add, but voted for Mr. Carter in 1976 after the 1974 incident.

It is tough, and what has made it awfully hard is you all have also taken an oath to do impartial justice. And I simply ask you as you consider these and do impartial justice that you set a standard that if you believe the president indeed did commit either perjury or obstruction of justice or both of those, that you set that standard high for the president, for the next president, for the next generations. You set that standard high for our courts that have to deal with perjury and obstruction every day with people who are less than the president, but yet who are watching -- who are watching very closely what we do up here.

BRYANT: But set that standard high for the president. Don't lower our expectation and what we expect out of the president. And I think if you do that, if you look high, if you set the standard high, that the right thing will be done. I have confidence and have trust and have just been so pleased with the way we've been received here. I know you will do the right thing.

I apologize to you, as I will be talking to you probably for my last time, if I've come across as being up here preaching to you. It's not my intent to lecture you. You do not need any lectures from me or anyone else or preach to you.

I hope I've had that opportunity to rebut some of the area, the proof in the area that I'm in charge of. But I would just simply sit down by telling you that there is conclusive proof here, particularly in terms of the obstruction of justice charges, of the hiding of the evidence, of the filing of the false affidavit. I might -- I think I did skip over the hiding of the evidence.

Let me just quickly say, and I'm not sure a lot new can be added from what we said in the past. But if -- if Monica is telling the truth, as her lawyers, or as the president's lawyers seem to tell you, that's a no-brainer there. Because she says, I know for a fact that Ms. Currie called me, that she initiated the call. And as I told you the other day, from that point forward, it seems a moot issue, because the initiation of the phone call by Betty Currie began a process to hide that evidence.

And the only way that Betty Currie would have known to make that call to begin that process of hiding evidence would be to have a telephone -- or a conversation with the president, to be instructed that way.

The president, whose intent was to conceal the relationship, it would have been totally inconsistent for her -- for him to have suggested that she turn the evidence over. It would have been totally consistent for him to ask Betty Currie to go out and hide the evidence, get it from Ms. Lewinsky and hide the evidence.

BRYANT: And as I close, let me just tell you too, on the heels of Mr. Canady that there are law professors who testified in our hearing who have the contrary view to what -- the view that was expressed by other law professors that Mr. Ruff referred to, that you can, it is constitutional to impeach a president for conduct that is not clearly official, that's -- that might be described as personal. And particularly conduct of perjury or impeach -- or obstruction of justice.

Professor Turley says, "In my view, serious crimes in office such as lying under oath before a federal grand jury have always been malum in se conduct for which a president -- for a president and a sufficient grounds for impeachment."

Professor John McGinnis of Benjamin Cardozo law school says that obstruction of justice is clearly within the ambit of high crimes and misdemeanors. So, if there is any question on this private conduct versus personal conduct, that view is out there that given the right type of personal conduct -- or misconduct, I should say -- it is clearly an impeachable offense and with that I would call Mr. Manager Hutchinson to follow.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate when I was appointed as a manager I hoped to present the case before the Senate with my colleagues in a manner that was consistent with the dignity of this great body and also respectful of the constitutional independence of the Senate. I hope that you agree and believe that we have done that as we have come over here.

During the months of this trial process, I have grown to appreciate the institution of the Senate to a greater degree than ever before. But I think of even more importance to me, I have grown to respect the individuals that comprise this body more than ever.

HUTCHINSON: And let me say, it has been a privilege to appear before you. As you come to the closing of this case, let's go to the key questions that should be on your mind. First of all, has the obstruction of justice and perjury cases been proven? Have the allegations been proven? My colleagues have touched upon the perjury, let me talk about Article II on the obstruction of justice.

The White House defense team composed of extraordinarily distinguished and talented attorneys has tried to diminish the significance of the overwhelming facts on obstruction by using certain phrases, such as "it's all circumstantial" or "the managers ignore those stubborn facts" or "they want to win too badly" or "it's a shell game with no shell" and today the latest catch phrase "moving targets, empty pots."

Well those are certainly quotable phrases designed to diminish the factual presentation with dripping sarcasm, but I believe if they ignore the underlying facts, testimony and evidence that has been presented -- and let me just address a couple of arguments that Mr. Ruff has presented during his presentation.

The first argument that he presented, as he described it, was technical argument, that the Article II, Obstruction of Justice charge in the Articles of Impeachment on the lying to the aides was not really in reference to the federal civil rights case and that is a true statement. But if you read Article II, paragraph seven, it refers to this and says the false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury causing the grand jury to receive and misleading information.

HUTCHINSON: The article is appropriately drafted, is well stated, and gives them total notice as to what that charge is about.

Some of the other arguments that have been handled by my colleagues, but Mr. Ruff also said: why have the managers never, never explained, if this is such an urgent matter for the president, why did he wait until December 17 to tell Ms. Lewinsky that she was on the list? I'm afraid Mr. Ruff failed to listen to my opening presentation when I went through that timeframe. And in that timeframe, the witness list came out on December 5, it continued to accelerate, December 11 was Judge Wright's order, and then it was December 17 that the call was made at 2:00 a.m. in the morning to let Ms. Lewinsky know she was on the list.

Why was it December 17? This is in the president's mind. No one knows why he picked that particular date. But perhaps it was that the job search was well underway then. He felt like she could handle this distressing information. And in fact, on the day after that call, she already had two interviews lined up on that same day, December 18, set up by Mr. Jordan. And so perhaps it was an appropriate time to let her know she was on the witness list.

They raised the question about the Christmas gifts, that you have the testimony of Betty Currie, you have the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky. And the issue is simply, do you believe Monica Lewinsky? If you accept her reluctant testimony, yet forceful and clear testimony, that the call came from Betty Currie, then you have no choice but to conclude that the retention of the gifts, the retrieval of the gifts, was initiated by the president of the United States.

When you go to the job search and they point to the testimony, they played the video of Mr. Jordan, who said that there was never a conversation in which both the job and the false affidavit were discussed together.

HUTCHINSON: And they cut it off at that point, and you remember I had a "but" in there.

Well, if you would have heard further beyond that, you would have heard me cross-examining Mr. Jordan as I did, and reminding him of his previous testimony in which he acknowledged that in every conversation with Ms. Lewinsky, they talked about the job. And so he acknowledged that they talked about the job and the affidavit all in the same conversation together.

Mr. Ruff makes the point that the managers -- that the managers got close enough to accuse Mr. Jordan of telling Ms. Lewinsky to destroy the notes, implying that we're making up this. But is this evidence that is coming from the managers? It's my recollection that it's testimony that is coming from Ms. Monica Lewinsky. We're not concocting this. It is testimony from witnesses that have been brought before this body whose sworn testimony was received; whose sworn testimony they defend and rely upon. But when it comes to this, they say, no, it's the managers'.

Well, then they come to another pillar of obstruction -- the one that they avoid at every opportunity, but finally addressed today, and that's the coaching of Betty Currie. And I was interested that they finally talked about this -- the first coaching incident, and then the second one. And Mr. Ruff tried to go into that it's clear that it occurred on January 20th, rather than 21st. In fact, that is her testimony that it occurred on one of those days.

But they miss the point. The legal significance of the second coaching episode is that it totally goes against the defense of the president; that it was there -- he was doing this to acquire information; to get facts; to help in media inquiries.

Well, if that is the case, there is absolutely no reason for it to be done on the second occasion, and clearly she was known to be a witness at that time, and that is the legal significance. It goes to his intent, his motive, what he is trying to do to a subordinate employee.

HUTCHINSON: The fact of this matter is that this is not a case that is based upon circumstantial evidence. On each element of obstruction, there is direct testimony linking the president to a consistent pattern of conduct designed to withhold information, conceal evidence and tamper with witnesses to avoid obedience and directives of a federal court. Let's look at the direct proof, not circumstantial evidence, but direct testimony.

What did Vernon Jordan testify as to the president's involvement in the job search? Question to Mr. Jordan: "Your 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."

His answer, "yes." Acting at the direction of the president and he was in control.

What did Vernon Jordan testify? He told the president, when a job was secured for a key witness and the false affidavit was signed, "Mr. President, she signed the affidavit." "She signed the affidavit."

And then the next day the job is secured and the report to Betty Currie. The report to the president, mission accomplished. Is this circumstantial evidence? This is direct testimony by a friend and confident of the president, Vernon Jordan.

Who is the one person who clearly knew all of the ingredients to make the job search and obstruction of justice. It was the president that knew he had a dangerous relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He knew his friend was securing a job at his direction and he knew a false affidavit was being procured at his suggestion. He was the one person that knew all the facts.

Fourthly, Ms. Lewinsky. Is this circumstantial evidence or direct testimony when she talked about what the president told her on December 17th. She was a witness and immediately following the fact that she was a witness, the suggestion that she could use the cover stories, the suggestion that she could use an affidavit.

HUTCHINSON: Direct testimony. Was there direct proof about the president's tampering with the testimony of Betty Currie. It was Betty Currie herself who acknowledged this and testified to it. No, this is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct testimony.

The same with Sidney Blumenthal. Direct testimony after direct testimony, painting a picture, setting up the pillars of obstruction.

Now, they want you to believe Monica Lewinsky sometimes, but they don't want you to believe her other times, and you have to weigh her testimony.

I could go on on the facts, but the truth is that our case on obstruction of justice has been established.

Now, some of you might conclude that, Well, I accept five or six of those pillars of obstruction, but there's one I have a reservation about. Well, if you look at the article, if there's one element of obstruction that you accept and believe and you agree upon, then that is sufficient for conviction, and surely it's sufficient to convict the president if there is even one element of obstruction.

I would remind you that a typical jury instruction on conspiracy for obstruction would be that it only takes one overt act to satisfy the requirements for a conviction. The government goes not have to prove all the overt acts, just one that was carried out.

Another question some of you might be thinking about: Is this serious enough to warrant conviction and removal? One of the foundations of our judicial system is that any citizen, regardless of position or power, has access to the court. Can you imagine the shock and outrage of this body if a corporation in an effort to protect itself from liability concealed evidence and provided benefits to those witnesses who are cooperative? Outrage. Injustice. And those are the allegations against the tobacco companies.

HUTCHINSON: Those are the allegations last night on CBS 60 Minutes about a major corporation. And there should be outrage by this body. But we would rightfully be outraged about that, and we should also be outraged if it happened by the president. It should be no less when it is conducted by the president.

The next argument is, well yes, the president should be held accountable, but he can always be prosecuted later. In fact, I understand a censure resolution is being circulated emphasizing that the president can be held criminally responsible for his actions when he leaves office. This is not too subtle of a suggestion that the independent counsel go ahead and file criminal charges against the president.

I appreciate Judge Starr, but I do not believe that is what the country has in mind when they say they want to get this matter over. I do not believe your vote on the articles of impeachment should be a signal to the independent counsel to initiate criminal proceedings. It appears to me that that is the implication of the censure resolution being discussed.

I would emphasize that it is this body that the founding fathers entrusted with the responsibility to determine whether a president's conduct has breached the public trust, and your decision in this body should conclude this matter. It should not be the initiation of another national drama that will be carried out over the next three years.

And finally, there are some who consider the politics of this matter. We have proven our case, and I entered this body thinking that this was a legal judicial proceeding, and not political. And I have been reminded that there are political aspects under the Constitution to a Senate trial, and so I concede the point.

We're all familiar with "Profiles in Courage," written by John F. Kennedy. He reminds us of the courageous act of Senator Edmund G. Ross (ph) in voting for the acquittal of President Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial. Senator Ross was a profile in courage because he knew the case against President Johnson was not legally sufficient, even though the politically expedient vote was to vote for conviction. Senator Ross followed the facts and he followed the law and he voted his conscience. It was to his political detriment, but it reflected his political courage.

Today, we have a different circumstance.

HUTCHINSON: The question is: Will the senators of this body have the political courage to follow the facts and the law as did Senator Ross, despite enormous political pressure to ignore the facts and the law and the Constitution? You will make that decision.

I appear before this body as an advocate. I am not paid for this special responsibility, but I am here because I believe the Constitution requires me to make this case. The facts prove overwhelmingly that the president committed obstruction and justice and perjury. Despite this belief, whatever conclusion you reach will not be criticized by me. And I will respect this institution regardless of the outcome.

As the late federal Judge Orrin Harris (ph) of Arkansas always said from the bench to the jury when I was trying cases, and I hated his instruction, because I was the prosecutor. But he would tell the jury: Remember, the government never wins or loses a case. The government always wins when justice is done.

Well, this is the Congress and this is the Senate, and it is your responsibility to determine the facts and to let justice roll down like mighty waters.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan.

ROGAN: Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished counsel for the president, members of the United States Senate.

For me, the most poignant part of this entire proceeding was the day a few weeks ago when we were addressed by the distinguished former senator from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers.

ROGAN: And probably the thing that touched me most about his presentation is when he talked about the human element of what this impeachment proceeding has meant and how difficult that has been. It touched me because it made me remember that that difficulty is not limited solely for Democrats in this chamber. I am one of the House managers. I am a Republican today. But that was not always the case. I used to be a Democrat. And being a House manager in the impeachment of President Clinton has been especially difficult for me, and I'd like to tell you why.

Twenty years ago, in December 1978, I was finishing my last semester of college and had just applied to law school. I was waiting for my application to be accepted someplace. And in December of 1978 I was a delegate in Memphis, Tennessee to the Democratic midterm convention.

Now, on that time -- at that time President Carter was halfway through his term of office. He was not particularly popular among the party faithful. There was a great deal of sentiment that a member of this body today should challenge him for the nomination. That decision had not yet been made. But among the delegates to that convention there was an overwhelming desire to see Senator Ted Kennedy appear.

The Carter White House froze Senator Kennedy out of the proceedings. He was not invited to address the convention. His name appeared nowhere in the program.

So the delegates did something on their own. There were workshops being held during the day, and a workshop on health care was called, and Senator Kennedy was invited to fly out that day and address that workshop, and he did that in the afternoon, and he left after he addressed it.

I had gone to a workshop that morning where President Carter personally appeared, and my recollection is about two or three hundred people came to that. Senator Kennedy's workshop had to be transferred to a large auditorium because about 2000 people appeared to hear him.

ROGAN: The senator came, he spoke and he left. I stayed, even though most people left with him, because I was fascinated by the young fellow who was moderating the program that day. He was bright. He was in control. He was articulate. He didn't look that much older than me and I was stunned that this young man was not only the attorney general of his state, but he was the governor-elect of his state.

Sometime after that workshop, I walked up to him and introduced myself. I told him who I was and he spent about 15 minutes encouraging me to go to law school, to stay active in politics. His name was Bill Clinton. I've never forgotten that day 20 years ago when then Attorney General Clinton took the time for a young fellow who had and interest in the law and politics and I've never forgotten in recent days the graciousness he has shown to me, to my wife and to my children when we have encountered him.

This has been a very difficult proceeding for me and for my colleagues, the House Managers, but our presence here isn't out of personal animosity toward our president. It is because we believe that after reviewing all the evidence, the president of the United States had committed obstruction of justice and perjury. He had violated his oath of office and in so doing, he had sacrificed the principle that no person is above the law and friendship and personal affection could not control under those circumstances.

Up until now, the idea that no person is above the law has been unquestioned and yet this standard is not our inheritance automatically. Each generation of Americans ultimately has to make that choice for them self. Once again, it is a time for choosing. How will we respond? By impeaching the president, the United States House of Representatives made that choice.

ROGAN: It went on record as saying that our body would not tolerate the most powerful man in the world trampling the constitutional rights of a lone woman, no matter how obscure or humble she might be.

We refused to ignore presidential misconduct despite its minimization by spin doctors, pundits, and yes, even the polls. The personal popularity of any president pales when weighed against the fundamental concept that forever distinguishes us from every nation on the planet: No person is above the law.

The House of Representatives jettisoned the spin and the propaganda. We sought and we have now presented the unvarnished truth.

Now it is your unhappy task to make the final determination, face the truth, and polish the Constitution; or allow this presidency, in the words of Chairman Henry Hyde, to take one more chip out of the marble. The Constitution solemnly required President Clinton, as a condition of his becoming president, to swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

That oath of obligation required the president to defend our laws that protect women in the workplace, just as it also required him to protect the legal system from perjury, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice. Fidelity to the presidential oath is not dependent on any president's personal threshold of comfort or embarrassment. Neither must it be a slave to the latest polling data.

How important was this oath to our founders? Did they intend the oath to have primacy over the shifting winds of political opinion? Or did they bequeath to us an ambiguous Constitution that was meant to roll with the punches of the latest polling data and focus groups?

The Constitution gives us that answer. In Article Two, Section One it says that before he enters on the execution of his office, he shall take an oath, and the oath is then prescribed.

ROGAN: The mere fact that a person is elected president doesn't give him the right to become president, no matter how overwhelming his vote margin. Votes alone do not make a person president of the United States. There is a requirement that precedes obtaining the power and authority of the presidency. It is the oath of office. It is swearing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. It is accepting the obligation that the laws are to be faithfully executed. No oath, no presidency. It is the oath of office and not public opinion polls that give life and legitimacy to a presidency.

This is true no matter how popular an elected president may be or how broad his margin of victory. The founders did not intend the oath to be an afterthought or a technicality. They viewed it as an absolute requirement before the highest office in the land was entrusted to any person.

The evidence shows the president repeatedly violated his oath of office. Now the focus shifts to your oath of office.

The president hopes that in this chamber the polls will govern. On behalf of the House of Representatives, we entreat you to require that the Constitution reign supreme. For if polls matter more than the oath to uphold the law, then yet another chip out of the marble has been struck.

The cry has also been raised that to remove the president is to create a constitutional crisis by undoing an election. There is no constitutional crisis when the simple process of the Constitution comes into play. Listen to the words of Dr. Larry Arnn from the Claremont Institute.

He said, "Elections have no higher standing under our Constitution than the impeachment process. Both stem from provisions of the Constitution. The people elect a president to do a constitutional job. They act under the Constitution when they do it. At the same time, they elect a Congress to do a different constitutional job.

ROGAN: The president swears an oath of the Constitution, both in elections and in the impeachment process.

If a president is guilty of acts justifying impeachment, than he, not the Congress, will have overturned the election. He will have acted in ways that portray the purpose of his election. He will have acted, not as a Constitutional representative, but as a monarch subversive of, or above the law. If the great powers given the president are abused, then to impeach him defends -- not only the results of the election, but that higher thing which elections are in service, namely the preeminence of the Constitution.

The evidence clearly shows that the president engaged in repeated and lengthy patterns of felonious conduct. Conduct for which ordinary citizens can be and have been jailed and lost their liberty. This simply can not be wished or censured away. With his conduct aggravated by a motivation of personal and monetary leverage in the Paula Jones law suit, the solemnity of our sacred oath obliges us to do what the president regrettably failed to do, defend the rule of law, defend the concept that no person is above the law.

On the day the House impeached President Clinton, I said that when they are old enough to appreciate the solemnity of that action, I wanted my little girls to know that when the role was called, their father served with colleagues who counted it a privilege to risk political fortunes in defense of the Constitution.

ROGAN: Today, I am more resolute in that opinion.

From the time I was a little boy, it was my dream to one day serve in the Congress of the United States. My dream was fulfilled two years ago.

Today, I am a Republican in a district that is heavily Democratic. The pundits keep telling me that my stand on this issue puts my political fortunes in jeopardy. So be it. That revelation produces from me no flinching. There is a simple reason why: I know that in life dreams come and dreams go, but conscience is forever. I can live with the concept of not serving in Congress. I cannot live with the idea of remaining in Congress at the expense of doing what I believe to be right.

I was about 12 years old when a distinguished member of this body, the late Senator Ralph Yarborough (ph) of Texas, gave me this sage advice about elective office. He said always put principle above politics, put honor above incumbency.

I now return that sentiment to the body from which it came. Hold fast to it, Senators, and in doing so you will be faithful both to our founders and to our heirs.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham.

GRAHAM: Mr. Chief Justice, how much time is left?

REHNQUIST: The managers have 45 minutes remaining.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

Shall I continue? OK. I promise not to take the whole 45 minutes. I've been told that my voice fades and I'll try to -- try not to let that happen here.

As we bring the trial to conclusion, I think it needs to be said from our side of the aisle that our staff has been terrific. You don't know how many hours of sleep has been lost by the young men and women working to put this case together under the procedures that the Senate developed. They have done an absolutely magnificent job. And if there's anybody to blame for our side not being told, blame -- blame us, because our staff has done a terrific job, and that just needs to be said.

Let's talk about Mr. Rogan's district. Truly, if there's anybody on our side of the aisle that's had a risk, it's been Jim. And I've made some lifelong friends in this situation, really on both sides of the aisle, and this has been tough, tough for our country, but sometimes some good comes from tough situations.

And I think some good will come from this before it's all said and done, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. I know it doesn't look to be so now, but it will be so later on.

I come from a district where I'm the first Republican in 120 years. They tell me they hung the other guy, so I know I'm doing better.

(LAUGHTER)

So I'm four years into this thing, this is my third term, and you can take -- you can take the national polls and turn them upside down in my district.

GRAHAM: But I have on occasion said if the president would reconcile himself with the law, I would be willing to consider something less than impeachment. I can assure you that did not go over well with some people in my district, but I thought that would have been good for the country. Because elections come and go and we can get through just about anything and everything in this country, but it does take leadership and character does still count. Having said that, I am a sinner like the rest of you and a part of the problem with this case is that we have to confront our own sins, because who are we to judge others when the things get to be private and personal?

I'm not asking you to use that standard. I'm standing before you as a sinner and I would never want my president or your president removed because of private sins. Only when it gets to be constitutionally out of bounds. Only when it gets to be so egregious that you can't look your children in the eye and explain what happened here in terms of the law. When can all explain human failings, but we've got a real mixed message going on and it needs to be straightened out quickly.

If you can bring the founding fathers back, as everybody suggested, the first debate would be could we call him as witness? There would be some people objecting to that -- alive or dead, it's been hard to get a witness.

(LAUGHTER)

And I guarantee you, you know what I think they would tell us? What's a poll?

(LAUGHTER)

They would be instructive but we can't summon them back, but you know what I really think they would tell us? We started this thing, it's up to you all to carry it on and it is and they would be right. It's not their job to tell us what to do. It's our job to take the spirit of what they did and build on it.

GRAHAM: And if you've kept an open mind, you have fulfilled your job. If you have listened to the facts and vote your conscience, you have fulfilled your job. I will not trample on your conscience, I have said that before.

I have started this process with great concern and I leave with a lot of contentment, because I'll believe the facts have stood the test of every type scrutiny, demagoguery you can throw at them, and they stand, they stand firm. And you know what? They're going to stand, they're going to stand the test of history. People suggest that history may judge you badly if you have to vote to convict this president. I suggest that will not, that will be the least of your problems.

Our past and this present moment becomes our nation's future. And what are we going to leave to the future generations? What do we do when the next federal judge is brought before this body, having been impeached by the House for cheating on their taxes? Are we going to self-righteously throw that federal judge out after having listened to this massive case of obstruction of justice and perjury before a grand jury? We may throw that federal judge out, but we'll have to walk out the door backwards. We will not walk out boldly.

What happens when the next federal judge is acquitted by a jury of his peers and you know the result would be just to remove that judge? You did the right thing by not being bound by the acquittal in the case of Judge Hastings, you did the right thing to get to the truth and act accordingly, because people who sit in judgment of others -- there needs to be no reasonable doubt about who they are and what they're able to do in that role.

GRAHAM: The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed.

And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck. That's the legacy that Bill Clinton has left all of us if we keep him in office.

The idea that "I was truthful, but misleading" -- that scenario focuses around whether or not one type sex occurred versus the other type of sex. He's wanting you to buy into this definition that was allowed to exist because the wording wasn't quite right. That's the essence of it. "I was truthful, but I was misleading."

Mr. Podesta asked a little more questions than the other people did, and the president denied any type sexual relationship to him. Was he truthful there? Was he truthful in his grand jury testimony? How can you be both? It's just absolutely impossible.

I would like to play two clips for you now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: Now you've stated I think very honestly, and I appreciate that you were lied to by the president. Is it a fair statement, given your previous testimony concerning your 30 minutes 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 VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: Thank you. Before you put the other tape in, every member of this body should need to answer this question: Is that a truthful statement?

GRAHAM: If you believe that the president of the United States is a victim of Ms. Lewinsky, we all owe him an apology. He is not. He is not. You ask me why I want this president removed? Not only are there high crimes, not only do they arise to the level of Constitutional out of bounds behavior, not only are they worse than what you remove judges for -- they show a tremendous willingness as a national leader to put yourself above anything decent and good.

I hope that still matters in America. Next clip.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: Would it be fair to say that you were sitting there during this conversation and that you had previously been told by the president that he was in essence a victim of Ms. Lewinsky's sexual demands and you said nothing to anyone?

WILLIAM MCDANIEL, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: Is the question, you said nothing to anyone about what the president told you?

GRAHAM: Right.

BLUMENTHAL: I never told any of my colleagues about what the president told me.

GRAHAM: And this is after the president recounts his story to you for he's visibly upset, feels like he's a victim, that he associates himself with a character who's being lied about and you at not time suggested to your colleagues that there's something going on here with the president and Ms. Lewinsky you need to know about. Is that your testimony?

BLUMENTHAL: I never mentioned my conversation. I regarded that conversation as a private conversation in confidence. And I didn't mention it to my colleagues. I didn't mention it to my friends. I didn't mention it to my family, besides my wife.

GRAHAM: Did you mention it to any White House lawyers?

BLUMENTHAL: I mentioned it many months later to Lanny Breuer in preparation for one of my grand jury appearances, when I knew I would be questioned about it. And I certainly never mentioned it to any reporter.

GRAHAM: OK.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I have asked you several times to vote your conscience and I will not step on it if you disagree with me but I've always said, let us tell the story about what happened here. I am saying it again. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to get to the truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

Let me just say this idea about being truthful and misleading. Can you sit back as the president of the United States after he told a lie to a key aide where you portray yourself as a victim, and watch the press stories fold out -- or roll out along the lines that she wears her dresses too tight; she comes from a broken home; she's a stalker; she's sex-obsessed?

Can you sit back and watch all that happen and still be truthful but misleading?

We have laws against that in this country. We have laws in this country that even high government officials cannot tell a lie to somebody knowing that lie would be repeated to a grand jury. And that's exactly what happened here. He portrayed himself as a victim, which is not a misleading statement, it's a lie, because if you knew the truth, you wouldn't consider him a victim.

And that lie went to a federal grand jury and those citizens were trying very hard, very hard to get it right, and he was trying very hard to mislead them. At every turn when they tried to get to the truth, he ran the other way and he took the aura of the White House with him.

GRAHAM: If you believe he's a victim, then you ought to acquit him. If you believe he's lying, then he ought not be our president.

There's two things in this case that are crimes, two aspects of it, before the Paula Jones deposition and after the Paula Jones deposition, and I'm going to revisit that with you for the very last time.

The affidavit was an attempt to have a cover story where both of them could lie and go on about their lives. The job search was to take somebody who was being friendly and get them a job so they could go on about their lives in someplace else and get this matter behind them and conceal from a court the truth. Those things are crimes.

The gifts were being under the bed of Betty Currie, the president's secretary, is no accident. They didn't walk over there by themselves. They got conveyed by a secretary after she picked them up from his consensual lover. People have figured that part out. It's no accident that happened. That's a crime when you're subpoenaed to give those gifts. But it's still about getting her a job and having a cover story so she could go on with her life.

But when the article came out on January the 21st, the whole flavor of this case changed. And I don't know how you're going to explain this to yourself or others, but I'm going to lay out to you what I think happened based on the evidence.

That January the 21st, when the cover story -- when the story broke that she may have been telling what went on and the president was faced with the idea that the knowledge of the relationship was out in the public forum, what did he do then? There was no more nice jobs using a good friend. There was not more, let's see if we can hide the gifts and play hide the ball. You know what happened then? He turned on her.

GRAHAM: It's not my favorite part of the case. It's the most disgusting part of the case. It's the part of the case that history will judge. The crimes change. They become more ominous because the character traits become more ominous.

The young lady that was the stalker, that was sex-obsessed, that wore skirts too tight -- that young lady was being talked about openly in public; that young lady was being lied about in the federal grand jury. And the truth is, that young lady fell in love with him, and probably to this day, 24- or 25-year-old young girl, doesn't believe it or want to believe what was going to come her way.

But you all are adults. You all are the leaders of this nation. For you to look at these facts and conclude anything else would be an injustice because without that dress, ladies and gentlemen, the stories were going to grown in number, and we would have no admissions of misleading and truthful.

The White House is the bully pulpit, but it should never be occupied by a bully. The White House will always be occupied by sinners, including our founding fathers and future occupants. What we do today will put a burden on the White House and the burden on our future -- one way or the other. Is it too much of a burden to say to future presidents: Don't fabricate stories in front of a grand jury. Don't parse words. Don't mislead. Don't lie when you're begged not to.

Is it too much to say to a president: If you're ever sued, play it straight?

GRAHAM: Don't hide the gifts under the bed? Don't get people to file false testimony for you? Don't try to trash out people who are witnesses against you? If that's too much of a burden to put on the White House, this nation is in hopeless decline. It is not too much of a burden ladies and gentlemen. It is only common decency being applied to the occupant of the White House.

To acquit, under these facts, will place a burden on the Constitutional process of impeachment and how we deal with others for a federal judges and other high public officials that I suggest to you will be almost irreconcilable. I want my country to go boldly into the next century. I don't want us to limp into the next century. I don't want us to crawl in the next century regarding the rule of law.

No matter what you do, we will make it, but the difference between how you vote here, I think determines whether we go boldly with a rule of law intact or we have explaining to do for generations to come. I leave with you an example that I think says much.

General MacArthur was removed by President Truman -- a very popular fellow at the time. The reaction to the MacArthur dismissal was even more violent than Truman had expected and for an entire year, majority public opinion ranked itself furiously against him. He said characteristically of the hostile polls, "I wonder how far Moses would have gone it he had taken poll in Egypt. What would Jesus Christ have preached if you'd taken a poll in the land of Israel?"

GRAHAM: It isn't polls that count, it's right and wrong, and leadership, men with fortitude, honesty and a belief in the right that make ethics in the history of the world.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, thank you for listening. If you've got any doubts about whether this president has committed high crimes, we need to make sure the Senate itself was told the truth. Don't leave any doubts lingering, because the evidence is overwhelming that these offenses occurred, the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice have traditionally been high crimes under our Constitutions. For God's sakes, let them remain so, and let it be said that no president can take the presidency and the bully pulpit of the presidency and hurt average citizens from it.

Thank you very much.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hyde.

HYDE: Mr. Chief Justice, learned counsel, and the Senate, we are blessedly coming to the end of this melancholy procedure, but before we gather up our papers and return to the obscurity from whence we came...

(LAUGHTER)

... permit please a few final remarks.

HYDE: First of all, I want to thank the chief justice not only for his patience and his perseverance, but for the aura of dignity that he has lent to these proceedings, and it has been a great thrill really to be here in his company as well as in the company of you distinguished senators.

Secondly, I want to compliment the president's counsel. They have conducted themselves in the most professional way. They have made the most of a poor case, in my opinion.

Excuse me. There's an old Italian saying, and it has nothing to do with the lawyers, but to your case. Says: You may dress the shepherd in silk; he will still smell of the goat.

(LAUGHTER)

But all of you are great lawyers and it's been an adventure being with you.

You know, the legal profession, like politics, is ridiculed pretty much, and every lawyer feels that and understands the importance of the rule of law -- to establish justice, to maintain the rights of mankind, to defend the helpless and the oppressed, to protect innocents, to punish guilt. These are duties which challenge the best powers of man's intellect and the noblest qualities of the human heart. We are here to defend that bulwark of our liberty, the rule of law.

As for the House managers, I want to tell you and our extraordinary staff how proud I am of your service. For myself, I cannot find the words to adequately express how I feel. I must use the inaudible language of the heart. I've gone through it all by your side, the media condemnations, the patronizing editorials, the hate mail, the insults hurled in public, the attempts at intimidation, the death threats, and even the disapproval of our colleagues, which cuts the worst.

HYDE: You know, all a congressman ever gets to take with him when he leaves this building is the esteem of his colleagues and his constituents. We've risked that for a principle and for our duty as we've seen it.

In speaking to my managers of whom I am terminally proud, I can borrow the words of Shakespeare's Henry V, as he addressed his little army of longbowmen at the Battle of Agincourt, and he said: "We few -- we happy few; we band of brothers. For he who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. And gentlemen in England abed will curse the fact that they are not here, and hold their manhood cheap when any speaks who fought with us on St. Crispin's Day."

As for the juror judges, you distinguished senators, it's always a victory for democracy when its elected representatives do their duty no matter how difficult and unpleasant, and we thank you for it.

Please don't misconstrue our fervor for our cause to any lack of respect or appreciation for your high office. But our most formidable opponent has not been opposing counsel nor any political party. It's been the cynicism -- the widespread conviction that all politics and all politicians are by definition corrupt and venal. That cynicism is an acid eating away at the vital organs of American public life. It is a clear and present danger because it blinds us to the nobility and the fragility of being a self-governing people.

One of the several questions that needs answer is whether your vote on conviction lessens or enlarges that cynicism. Nothing begets cynicism like the double standard -- one rule for the popular and the powerful and another for the rest of us.

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.