Clinton Accused Special Report
Navigation Bar
Navigation Bar

Partners:
CLINTON
ACCUSED
 Main Page
 News Archive
 Documents
 Key Players
 Talk
 Politics
 Section

  blue line
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
Feb. 6: White House Counsel Presentation

  • More Transcripts From the Trial

  • From the Congressional Record
    Saturday, February 6, 1999

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Counsel Seligman.

    Ms. Counsel SELIGMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, the House managers have suggested to you that the deposition of Ms. Lewinsky helped their case. The opposite is true. Ms. Lewinsky undermined critical aspects of the House managers' obstruction case.

    As those of you who watched the entire video are well aware, the managers have cleverly snipped here and there in an effort to present their story even if, as a result, the story they are telling you is not Ms. Lewinsky's story. They have distorted, they have omitted, and they have created a profoundly erroneous impression.

    So let's look at the facts.

    In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky reaffirmed her previous testimony and provided extremely useful supplements to that testimony. We asked her no questions. Why? Because there was no need. Her testimony exonerated the President. In four areas in particular, what she said demonstrates that the allegations in the articles cannot stand.

    First, she refuted the allegations in article II, subpart (1), with respect to alleged efforts to obstruct and influence Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit.

    Second, she contradicted the allegations in article II, subpart (2), with respect to alleged efforts to influence Ms. Lewinsky's testimony as distinct from her affidavit.

    Third, she undermined the allegations in article II, subpart (3), with respect to alleged efforts to conceal gifts.

    And fourth, she rebutted the allegations in article II, subpart (4), with respect to Ms. Lewinsky's job search.

    I will discuss each briefly.

    Let's begin with the December 17 phone call between the President and Ms. Lewinsky, which is at the heart of article II's first two subparts. The managers have consistently exaggerated the facts, the impact, and the import of this conversation. They have relentlessly argued that you should draw inferences and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony this week should put an end to these inflated claims about that call.

    Article II charges, in subpart (1), that the President: `On or about December 17, 1997,' `corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.'

    `On or about December 17.' In other words, the allegation is firmly grounded in the December 17 phone call. That is where the House of Representatives charged the deed was done. That is the single event on which the managers base the first obstruction of justice charge.

    Indeed, Mr. Manager McCollum made this point emphatically before the Senate. He claimed:

    In this context, the evidence is compelling that the President committed both the crimes of obstruction of justice and witness tampering right then and there on December 17th.

    He went on:

    Now, Monica Lewinsky's testimony is so clear about this that the President's lawyers probably won't spend a lot of time with you on this; they didn't in the Judiciary Committee. I could be wrong, and they probably will just to show me I am wrong.

    Well, Mr. McCollum was wrong in one respect. We do plan to spend time on that call. But he was absolutely right in another respect. He was correct that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is so clear on this issue. It is so clear it exonerates the President.

    The managers asked this body to permit the deposition and later the live testimony of Ms. Lewinsky to complete their proof. As Mr. Manager Bryant stated:

    An appropriate examination--and an appropriate cross-examination, I might add; let's don't limit the White House attorneys here--of Ms. Lewinsky on the factual disputes of the affidavit and their cover story, wouldn't that be nice to hear?

    Well, the managers got their examination of Ms. Lewinsky about the December 17 phone call, and it defeated the charge. It showed that she and the President did not discuss the content of an affidavit--never ever. Again, the managers ask you to convict the President and remove him from office for what turns out to be his silence. No discussion of content.

    Let's listen to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky about that December 17 phone call. It is critically important. And we are showing it to you unvarnished, not in snippets, because the snippets you have seen are terribly misleading. The tape you will hear establishes beyond doubt that she and the President did not discuss the content of the affidavit in that call, or ever. It establishes beyond doubt that what happened is not obstruction of justice.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Sometime back in December of 1997, in the morning of December the 17th, did you receive a call from the President?

    A. Yes.

    Q. What was the purpose of that call? What did you talk about?

    A. It was threefold--first, to tell me that Ms. Currie's brother had been killed in a car accident; second, to tell me that my name was on a witness list for the Paula Jones case; and thirdly, he mentioned the Christmas present he had for me.

    Q. This telephone call was somewhere in the early morning hours of 2 o'clock to 2:30.

    A. Correct.

    Q. Did it surprise you that he called you so late?

    A. No.

    Q. Was this your first notice of your name being on the Paula Jones witness list?

    A. Yes.

    Q. I realize he, he commented about some other things, but I do want to focus on the witness list.

    A. Okay.

    Q. Did he say anything to you about how he felt concerning this witness list?

    A. He said it broke his heart that, well, that my name was on the witness list.

    Can I take a break, please? I'm sorry.

    SENATOR DeWINE: Sure, sure.

    * * * * *

    BY MR. BRYANT:

    Q. Did--did we get your response? We were talking about the discussion you were having with the President over the telephone, early morning of the December 17th phone call, and he had, uh, mentioned that it broke his heart that you were on that list.

    A. Correct.

    Q. And I think you were about to comment on that further, and then you need a break.

    A. No.

    Q. No.

    A. I just wanted to be able to focus--I know this is an important date, so I felt I need a few moments to be able to focus on it.

    Q. And you're comfortable now with that, with your--you are ready to talk about that?

    A. Comfortable, I don't know, but I'm ready to talk about.

    Q. Well, I mean comfortable that you can focus on it.

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. Good. Now, with this discussion of the fact that your name appeared as a witness, had you--had you been asleep that night when the phone rang?

    A. Yes.

    Q. So were you wide awake by this point? It's the President calling you, so I guess you're--you wake up.

    A. I wouldn't say wide awake.

    Q. He expressed to you that your name--you know, again, you talked about some other things--but he told you your name was on the list.

    A. Correct.

    Q. What was your reaction to that?

    A. I was scared.

    Q. What other discussion did you have in regard to the fact that your name was on the list? You were scared; he was disappointed, or it broke his heart. What other discussion did you have?

    A. Uh, I believe he said that, uh--and these are not necessarily direct quotes, but to the best of my memory, that he said something about that, uh, just because my name was on the list didn't necessarily mean I'd be subpoenaed; and at some point, I asked him what I should do if I received a subpoena. He said I should, uh, I should let Ms. Currie know. Uh--

    Q. Did he say anything about an affidavit?

    A. Yes.

    Q. What did he say?

    A. He said that, uh, that I could possibly file an affidavit if I--if I were subpoenaed, that I could possibly file an affidavit maybe to avoid being deposed.

    Q. How did he tell you you would avoid being deposed by filing an affidavit?

    A. I don't think he did.

    Q. You just accepted that statement?

    A. [Nodding head.]

    Q. Yes?

    A. Yes, yes. Sorry.

    Q. Are you, uh--strike that. Did he make any representation to you about what you could say in that affidavit or--

    A. No.

    Q. What did you understand you would be saying in that affidavit to avoid testifying?

    A. Uh, I believe I've testified to this in the grand jury. To the best of my recollection, it was, uh--to my mind came--it was a range of things. I mean, it could either be, uh, something innocuous or could go as far as having to deny the relationship. Not being a lawyer nor having gone to law school, I thought it could be anything.

    Q. Did he at that point suggest one version or the other version?

    A. No. I didn't even mention that, so there, there wasn't a further discussion--there was no discussion of what would be in an affidavit.

    Q. When you say, uh, it would be--it could have been something where the relationship was denied, what was your thinking at that point?

    A. I--I--I think I don't understand what you're asking me. I'm sorry.

    Q. Well, based on prior relations with the President, the concocted stories and those things like that, did this come to mind? Was there some discussion about that, or did it come to your mind about these stories--the cover stories?

    A. Not in connection with the--not in connection with the affidavit.

    Q. How would--was there any discussion of how you would accomplish preparing or filing an affidavit at that point?

    A. No.

    Q. Why--why didn't you want to testify? Why would not you--why would you have wanted to avoid testifying?

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

    Q. You--you have already mentioned that you were not a lawyer and you had not been to law school, those kinds of things. Did, uh, did you understand when you--the potential legal problems that you could have caused yourself by allowing a false affidavit to be filed with the court, in a court proceeding?

    A. During what time--I mean--I--can you be--I'm sorry--

    Q. At this point, I may ask it again at later points, but the night of the telephone--

    A. Are you--are you still referring to December 17th?

    Q. The night of the phone call, he's suggesting you could file an affidavit. Did you appreciate the implications of filing a false affidavit with the court?

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

    Q. Did you know what an affidavit was?

    A. Sort of.

    Q. Of course, you're talking at that time by telephone to the President, and he's--and he is a lawyer, and he taught law school--I don't know--did you know that? Did you know he was a lawyer?

    A. I--I think I knew it, but it wasn't something that was present in my, in my thoughts, as in he's a lawyer, he's telling me, you know, something.

    Q. Did the, did the President ever tell you, caution you, that you had to tell the truth in an affidavit?

    A. Not that I recall.

    Q. It would have been against his interest in that lawsuit for you to have told the truth, would it not?

    A. I'm not really comfortable--I mean, I can tell you what would have been in my best interest, but I--

    Q. But you didn't file the affidavit for your best interest, did you?

    A. Uh, actually, I did.

    Q. To avoid testifying.

    A. Yes.

    Q. But had you testified truthfully, you would have had no--certainly, no legal implications--it may have been embarrassing, but you would have not had any legal problems, would you?

    A. That's true.

    Q. Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of--I would draw your attention to the cover stories. I have alluded to that earlier, but, uh, did you talk about cover story that night?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. And what was said?

    A. Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said something--you can always say you were coming to see Betty or bringing me papers.

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

    A. Yes.

    Q. Now, was that in connection with the affidavit?

    A. I don't believe so, no.

    Q. Why would he have told you you could always say that?

    A. I don't know.

    * * * * *

    We're at that point that we've got a telephone conversation in the morning with you and the President, and he has among other things mentioned to you that your name is on the Jones witness list. He has also mentioned to you that perhaps you could file an affidavit to avoid possible testifying in that case. Is that right?

    A Correct.

    Q And he has also, I think, now at the point that we were in our questioning, referenced the cover story that you and he had had, that perhaps you could say that you were coming to my office to deliver papers or to see Betty Currie; is that right?

    A Correct. It was from the entire relationship, that story.

    Q Now, when he alluded to that cover story, was that instantly familiar to you?

    A Yes.

    Q You knew what he was talking about?

    A Yes.

    Q And why was this familiar to you?

    A Because it was part of the pattern of the relationship.

    Q Had you actually had to use elements of this cover story in the past?

    A I think so, yes.

    * * * * *

    Q Okay. Now let me go back again to the December 11th date--I'm sorry--the 17th. This is the conversation in the morning. What else--was there anything else you talked about in terms of--other than your name being on the list and the affidavit and the cover story?

    A Yes. I had--I had had my own thoughts on why and how he should settle the case, and I expressed those thoughts to him. And at some point, he mentioned that he still had this Christmas present for me and that maybe he would ask Mrs. Currie to come in that weekend, and I said not to because she was obviously going to be in mourning because of her brother.

    * * * * *

    Q As I understand your testimony, too, the cover stories were reiterated to you by the President that night on the telephone--

    A Correct.

    Q --and after he told you you would be a witness--or your name was on the witness list, I should say?

    A Correct.

    Q And did you understand that since your name was on the witness list that there would be a possibility that you could be subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case?

    A I think I understood that I could be subpoenaed, and there was a possibility of testifying. I don't know if I necessarily thought it was a subpoena to testify, but--

    Q Were you in fact subpoenaed to testify?

    A Yes.

    Q And that was what--

    A December 19th, 1997.

    Q December 19th.

    Now, you have testified in the grand jury. I think your closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie, but yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997 when the President told you that you were on the witness list, he also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use misleading cover stories. Isn't that correct?

    A Uh--well, I--I guess in my mind, I separate necessarily signing affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So, does--

    Q Well, those two--

    A Those three events occurred, but they don't--they weren't linked for me.

    Q But they were in the same conversation, were they not?

    A Yes, they were.

    Q Did you understand in the context of the conversation that you would deny the--the President and your relationship to the Jones lawyers?

    A Do you mean from what was said to me or--

    Q In the context of that--in the context of that conversation, December the 17th--

    A I--I don't--I didn't--

    Q Okay. Let me ask it. Did you understand in the context of the telephone conversation with the President that early morning of December the 17th--did you understand that you would deny your relationship with the President to the Jones lawyers through use of these cover stories?

    A From what I learned in that--oh, through those cover stories, I don't know, but from what I learned in that conversation, I thought to myself I knew I would deny the relationship.

    Q And you would deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers?

    A Yes, correct.

    Q Good.

    A If--if that's what it came to.

    Q And in fact you did deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers in the affidavit that you signed under penalty of perjury; is that right?

    A I denied a sexual relationship.

    Q The President did not in that conversation on December the 17th of 1997 or any other conversation, for that matter, instruct you to tell the truth; is that correct?

    A That's correct.

    Q And prior to being on the witness list, you--you both spoke--

    A Well, I guess any conversation in relation to the Paula Jones case. I can't say that any conversation from the--the entire relationship that he didn't ever say, you know, `Are you mad? Tell me the truth.' So--

    Q And prior to being on the witness list, you both spoke about denying this relationship if asked?

    A Yes. That was discussed.

    Q He would say something to the effect that--or you would say that--you--you would deny anything if it ever came up, and he would nod or say that's good, something to that effect; is that right?

    A Yes, I believe I testified to that.

    Q In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has indicated that he thought he had--might have had a way that he could have you--get you to file a--basically a true affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you wouldn't be called as a witness.

    Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?

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

    Now, there is a lot there, but that's the testimony. I would like to go quickly through some parts of it. First, let's be very clear, as you saw, Ms. Lewinsky repeatedly told Mr. Manager Bryant that she and the President did not discuss the content of the affidavit in that phone call.

    Let's listen quickly again:

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Are you, uh--strike that. Did he make any representation to you about what you could say in that affidavit or--

    A No.

    Q What did you understand you would be saying in that affidavit to avoid testifying?

    A Uh, I believe I've testified to this in the grand jury. To the best of my recollection, it was, uh--to my mind came--it was a range of things. I mean, it could either be, uh, something innocuous or could go as far as having to deny the relationship. Not being a lawyer nor having gone to law school, I thought it could be anything.

    Q Did he at that point suggest one version or the other version?

    A No. I didn't even mention that, so there, there wasn't a further discussion--there was no discussion of what would be in an affidavit.

    * * * *

    Q In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has indicated that he thought he had--might have had a way that he could have you--get you to file a--basically a true affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you wouldn't be called as a witness.

    Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?

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

    Now, ladies and gentlemen, the managers skipped these excerpts. They hid from you this key fact about the call. To borrow a phrase, they `want to win too badly.'

    In that excerpt, Ms. Lewinsky also made clear that the President only suggested she might be able to file an affidavit that might enable her to avoid testifying.

    Let's listen:

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Did he say anything about an affidavit?

    A Yes.

    Q What did he say?

    A He said that, uh, that I could possibly file an affidavit if I--if I were subpoenaed, that I could possibly file an affidavit maybe to avoid being deposed.

    Q How did he tell you you would avoid being deposed by filing an affidavit?

    A I don't think he did.

    Q You just accepted that statement?

    A [Nodding head.]

    Q Yes?

    A Yes, yes. Sorry.

    * * * * *

    Q And in that same telephone conversation, he encouraged you to file an affidavit in the Jones case?

    A He suggested I could file an affidavit.

    She also made clear that the President was not certain she even would be subpoenaed and have to confront the issue.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q What other discussion did you have in regard to the fact that your name was on the list? You were scared; he was disappointed, or it broke his heart. What other discussion did you have?

    A Uh, I believe he said that, uh--and these are not necessarily direct quotes, but to the best of my memory, that he said something about that, uh, just because my name was on the list didn't necessarily mean I'd be subpoenaed; and at some point, I asked him what I should do if I received a subpoena. He said I should, uh, I should let Ms. Currie know. Uh----

    * * * * *

    Q How would--was there any discussion of how you would accomplish preparing or filing an affidavit at that point?

    A No.

    Now, where does this leave us? Ms. Lewinsky described a brief conversation in which the President mentioned the possibility that an affidavit might enable her to avoid testifying if the need for it arose, and they left the subject. No discussion of content. No discussion of logistics. No discussion of timing. Virtually no discussion at all. And that very brief exchange is the heart of the case.

    Now, the managers contend that because Ms. Lewinsky also recalls a reference to cover stories in that call, it is clear beyond doubt that the President instructed her to file a false affidavit.

    But for at least two reasons, this claim fails also. First, Ms. Lewinsky repeatedly told Mr. Manager Bryant that the mention of cover stories in that call was not connected to the mention of a possible affidavit--a position, I must note, that she had taken with the independent counsel for a very long time.

    Second, Ms. Lewinsky has insisted for more than a year that the cover stories were not, in any event, false--a position she reasserted this week in explaining why an affidavit didn't necessarily have to be false.

    Let's look quickly at Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, first, with respect to the alleged connection between cover stories and the affidavit.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Well, based on prior relations with the President, the concocted stories and those things like that, did this come to mind? Was there some discussion about that, or did it come to your mind about these stories--the cover stories?

    A Not in connection with the--not in connection with the affidavit.

    * * * * *

    Q Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of--I would draw your attention to the cover stories. I have alluded to that earlier, but, uh, did you talk about cover story that night?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q And what was said?

    A Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said something--you can always say you were coming to see Betty or bringing me papers.

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

    A Yes.

    Q Now, was that in connection with the affidavit?

    A I don't believe so, no.

    Now, you have testified in the grand jury. I think your closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie, but yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997 when the President told you that you were on the witness list, he also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use misleading cover stories. Isn't that correct?

    A Uh--well, I--I guess in my mind, I separate necessarily signing affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So, does--

    Q Well, those two--

    A Those three events occurred, but they don't--they weren't linked for me.

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

    The managers have suggested to you that Ms. Lewinsky for the first time this week offered responses, responses concerning the literal truth, for example, of the cover story designed to help the President. That was a suggestion a few days ago. Concerned then that the testimony might now undermine their case, they suddenly did an about-face and attacked her on Thursday.

    Through these proceedings, the managers have consistently told you how credible a witness Ms. Lewinsky is and they have invoked her immunity agreement as the reason that she must be honest, and today they again credit her testimony, but carefully, only in snippets, only when it suits their purposes. The responses Ms. Lewinsky provided about the cover story that were mentioned on Thursday by Mr. Manager Bryant are not new; they are the same responses Ms. Lewinsky gave to the independent counsel. For example, when asked about the so-called cover story, Ms. Lewinsky testified as follows this week.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

    The managers suggest that this testimony may be new, different, tinted, and tainted, I think they said on Thursday, but they don't tell you that Ms. Lewinsky said the very same things to the independent counsel. She did so repeatedly, and she did so--and this is key--before the President testified. She didn't know what he would say. He didn't know what she had said.

    For example, Ms. Lewinsky referred to the two cover stories in her February 1998 proffer, more than a year ago. Remember, one such cover story concerned the reasons for visiting the President before she left the White House. That was to bring papers to him. And the other concerned her reasons for visiting the President after she left the White House, and that was to visit Betty Currie. Ms. Lewinsky was asked and said that neither of these statements was untrue and also that there was truth to both of these statements in her proffer a year ago.

    She repeated this testimony in July to the independent counsel, telling an FBI agent that `these statements were not untrue but were misleading' and that `some facts were omitted from this statement.' That is what she said this week.

    The cover story testimony is consistent and is consistently exculpatory. Of course, it was easy for Mr. Manager Bryant to stand before you on Thursday reminiscing about the open and forthcoming Ms. Lewinsky he had met during the informal interview. It was easy for Mr. Manager Bryant to complain that the Ms. Lewinsky of the deposition was, I believe he said, not open to discussion or fully responsive to their inquiry. Let the questions and answers let you be the judge of that. It was easy for him to say that, because the House managers had refused Senator Daschle's request that they be allowed to make a

    transcript of the interview. That absence of a transcript allowed them this unverifiable fallback if their examination was disappointing: Oh, she changed on us. The truth is that she didn't tell the story that the managers wanted to hear. Remember those stubborn facts.

    So we know that the managers are disappointed and want to blame their disappointment on Ms. Lewinsky. But when you get to the substance of today's presentation by the House managers, it shows that they have not in fact identified any significant area where Ms. Lewinsky's testimony on Monday differs from her earlier testimony in the grand jury. Her view of the cover story has been consistent from day 1.

    Mr. Manager McCollum has also insisted that in the December 17 call it was clear both to the President and Ms. Lewinsky that the affidavit had to be false. As he put it--and I quote-- `Can there be any doubt that the President was suggesting that they file an affidavit that contained lies and falsehoods that might keep her from ever having to testify in the Jones case, and give the President the kind of protection he needed when he testified?' Yes, there surely is doubt.

    Ms. Lewinsky herself explains this week that she did not discuss the content of the affidavit with the President--we played those portions already and I will not again--but also that in her mind an affidavit presented a whole range of possibilities that were not necessarily false.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q The night of the phone call, he's suggesting you could file an affidavit. Did you appreciate the implications of filing a false affidavit with the court?

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

    Thus, as we have seen and heard, Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no discussion of what would be in the affidavit and also that, to her thinking, the affidavit would not necessarily have been false.

    Now that the December 17 call has fallen short, the managers have tried to transform the articles, as drafted, by asserting that the alleged obstruction occurred also on another date, January 5, in a call that took place then, even though the articles pin everything on December 17.

    With respect to a January 5 call, Mr. Manager Hutchinson made the following claim to you. He asserted, and I quote:

    Well, the record demonstrates that Monica Lewinsky's testimony is that she had a conversation with the President on the telephone in which she asked questions about the affidavit. She was concerned about signing that affidavit and according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President said, `Well, you could always say the people in legislative affairs got it for you or helped you get it.'

    This is still a quote:

    And that is in reference to a paragraph in a particular affidavit.

    Those were Mr. Manager Hutchinson's words. But the record unequivocally demonstrates that Ms. Lewinsky and the President did not ever discuss the content of that affidavit in this January 5 call or otherwise. And I challenge you to find any paragraph in Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, either her draft or the final, reflecting this conversation.

    There isn't one. The call wasn't about the affidavit. He didn't tell her what to say in the affidavit. It is just not there.

    In fact, Mr. Manager Hutchinso repeatedly represented to you that Ms. Lewinsky reviewed the content of her affidavit with the President. He had to say that because he is asking you to remove the President from office for getting her to file a false affidavit. That is a tough sell if they never talked about the content of the affidavit. That is why he told you, and I quote, `On January 6th'--5th or 6th--`she discussed that with the President, signing that affidavit, and the content of the affidavit.'

    That is why Mr. Manager Hutchinson also told you, `She went over the contents of that, even though she might not have had it in hand, with the President.'

    That is just not true. It is not true. To borrow a phrase, again: It is wanting to win too much. What is clear from Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is that she never went over the contents of the affidavit with the President, on January 5 or at any other time. Let's watch a brief excerpt about this matter.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Did--did the subject of the affidavit come up with the President?

    A. Yes, towards the end of the conversation.

    Q. And how did--tell us how that occurred.

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

    Q. Well, I mean, how did you introduce that into the subject--into the conversation?

    A. I don't really remember.

    Q. Did he ask you, well, how's the affidavit coming or--

    A. No, I don't think so.

    Q. But you told him that you had one being prepared, or something?

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

    Q. Did he ask you what are you going to say?

    A. No.

    Q. And this is the time when he said something about 15 other affidavits?

    A. Correct.

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

    A. I think that was the--sort of the other half of his sentence as, No, you know, I don't want to see it. I don't need to--or, I've seen 15 others.

    It was a little flippant.

    Q. In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has indicated that he thought he had--might have had a way that he could have you--get you to file a--basically a true affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you wouldn't be called as a witness.

    Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?

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

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

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

    * * * * *

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

    A. Before I signed it or--

    Q. No; during the drafting stage.

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

    Finally, lacking any direct evidence of any kind that there was a discussion about the content of the affidavit, the managers have argued again and again that the President must have told Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit because it was in his interest, not hers, to avoid her testifying in the Jones case. Mr. Manager Bryant argued to you at the start of these proceedings, `When everything is said and done, Ms. Lewinsky had no motivation, no reason whatsoever, to want to commit a crime by willfully submitting a false affidavit with a court of law. She really did not need to do this at that point in her life.'

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

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

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. But you didn't file the affidavit for your best interest, did you?

    A. Uh, actually, I did.

    Q. To avoid testifying.

    A. Yes.

    * * * * *

    Q. Why--why didn't you want to testify? Why would not you--why would you have wanted to avoid testifying?

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

    Ms. Lewinsky concedes that she had a reason to act on her own.

    Now, we have been discussing subpart (1) of article II, the affidavit allegation. But this testimony also undermined subpart (2) of article II, which alleges that the President obstructed justice in that very same phone call by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie in any testimony that she might give. Ms. Lewinsky previously denied that she and the President ever discussed the content of any deposition testimony in that conversation. That happened before this week. Indeed, she had told the FBI that she and the President never discussed what to say about her visits to the White House in the context of the Paula Jones case. And the managers themselves said, in a press release on January 19 of this year, that the President and Ms. Lewinsky `did not discuss the deposition that evening because Monica had not yet been subpoenaed.'

    So it is not entirely surprising that the managers did not ask Ms. Lewinsky to confirm that she and the President talked about the testimony in this call, even though that is where the obstruction allegedly occurred. They didn't ask her about that this week because they knew the answer. They knew the answer was `No.' They knew there was no discussion about the content of her testimony during that call. And the testimony you have seen today confirms that answer resoundingly. There is no evidence to support the charge in subpart (2) either. The managers did not even try to elicit it.

    The President did not obstruct justice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony explodes these two claims arising out of the December 17 telephone call.

    Now let's turn to the allegation in article (2) concerning gifts. Subpart (3) charges that:

    On or about December 28, 1997, [the President] corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

    Now, the managers have indicated to you that Ms. Lewinsky provided testimony useful to their case with respect to the President's involvement in the transfer of gifts to Ms. Currie. We must have attended a different deposition. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony provides powerful support for the position that Ms. Lewinsky decided on her own to keep from the Jones lawyers the gifts she had received from the President. It provides powerful support for the position that she had her own reasons and concerns for keeping the gifts from them. And it provides powerful support for the position that she never discussed either the topic of gifts or her own reasons for concern with the President before making her own independent decision on how to handle the gifts.

    Perhaps most notably, her testimony also provides corroboration for the President's testimony that he told her she had to turn over to the Jones lawyers what gifts she had. That is new evidence. But it undermines the managers' case, it doesn't help it.

    In one of the most extraordinary points in the deposition--and we will get to this in a moment--we learned that the Office of Independent Counsel failed to disclose to the House, to the Senate, to the President, Ms. Lewinsky's exculpatory statement on this point.

    Since the OIC evidently had chosen not to share the information with us, with the House or with this body, we owe the managers a small debt of gratitude for allowing us to learn of it here.

    Now let's look at the record with respect to the phone calls giving rise to the gift pickup. The managers repeatedly asserted at the outset that they could prove Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky and not the other way around. They claimed they had found a cell phone record documenting that initial call to arrange to pick up the gifts. As Mr. Manager Hutchinson said tantalizingly at the start of these proceedings:

    Well, it was not known at the time of the questioning of Monica Lewinsky, but since then, the cell phone record was retrieved. And you don't have it in front of you, but it will be available. The cell phone record was retrieved that showed on Betty Currie's cell phone calls that a call was made at 3:32 p.m. from Betty Currie to Monica Lewinsky and--

    Still under quotes--
    this confirms the testimony of Monica Lewinsky that the followup to get the gifts came from Betty Currie.

    That is what Mr. Manager Hutchinson promised the record would show. But that is not, in the end, what the record now shows. There is no evidence that the cell phone call initiated the process, as the managers claimed, and since there is no evidence that that call from Ms. Currie was the call initiating the process, there is no documentary evidence that Ms. Currie initiated the process. It is that simple. The proof has failed.

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

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Did--did you have other telephone calls with her that day?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Okay. What was the purpose of those conversations?

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

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

    A. Yes, I did.

    Q. --on your telephone?

    A. Yes.

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

    A. Yes, I did.

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

    Left without a documentary record, the managers assert that there is new testimonial evidence of other calls on December 28 that somehow corroborate their theory of the case. But the new testimony doesn't even establish who made the other calls that day, and the record already had evidence of other calls on that day. Ms. Lewinsky mentioned such calls to the grand jury. Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie spoke often, especially in that time period. There were phone calls.

    There is nothing new here. Ms. Currie has one recollection; Ms. Lewinsky has a different recollection. Indeed, when asked by Mr. Manager Bryant whether there was any doubt in her mind that it was Betty Currie who called her, Ms. Lewinsky stated simply, `That's how I remember this event.'

    Straining for something beyond this absolutely unresolvable conflict, the managers promised evidence to tip the balance, and they produced none. The much-touted cell phone call utterly fails to establish who initiated the gift pickup by Ms. Currie.

    It is, therefore, clear that the deposition testimony does not advance the managers' case with respect to the gifts, but it sure advances the defense case. Remember, Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena on December 19 requesting gifts she had received from the President. She met with her lawyer, Frank Carter, on December 22, and she did not speak to the President in the interim.

    In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky testified at some length about how she decided what to bring her attorney, Frank Carter, in response to that request for gifts. As we will see, she decided on her own that she would bring only innocuous things to produce, things that any intern might have in his or her possession.

    Again, this was on December 22, well before the December 28 meeting with the President at which the managers and the articles say the plan to hide the gifts was hatched. Ms. Lewinsky explained to the managers what she did and why she did it. Let's listen.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Did, uh, did you bring with you to the meeting with Mr. Jordan, and for the purpose of carrying it, I guess, to Mr. Carter, items in response to this request for production?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you discuss those items with Mr. Jordan?

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

    Q. Okay. How did you select those items?

    A. Uh, actually, kind of in an obnoxious way, I guess. I--I felt that it was important to take the stand with Mr. Carter and then, I guess, to the Jones people that this was ridiculous, that they were--they were looking at the wrong person to be involved in this. And, in fact, that was true. I know and knew nothing of sexual harassment. So I think I brought the, uh, Christmas cards, that I'm sure everyone in this room has probably gotten from the President and First Lady, and considered that correspondence, and some innocuous pictures and--they were innocuous.

    Q. Were they the kind of items that typically, an intern would receive or, like you said, any one of us might receive?

    A. I think so.

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

    A. Exactly.

    Q. And was that your intent?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you discuss how you selected those items with anybody?

    A. I don't believe so.

    Q. Did Mr. Jordan make any comment about those items?

    A. No.

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

    A. Yes.

    As an aside, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Manager Rogan, it is also clear from that excerpt that Ms. Lewinsky knew nothing of sexual harassment. That is what she said.

    So it is clear from this tape that well before December 28 Ms. Lewinsky had made her own decision for her own reasons not to produce the gifts. She remained firm in this decision for her own reasons on December 28 when the President gave her more gifts. Let's watch again.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

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

    Q. Well--

    A. --with a discussion.

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

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

    Now, when Ms. Lewinsky raised the issue of gifts with the President on December 28, she did not state he even answered. Her recollection of whether he said anything has been murky, as we have heard discussed here. And in her recent deposition she declined to resolve the inconsistencies in favor of the version the managers have advanced.

    And then what happened after she left on December 28? As Ms. Lewinsky recounted the subsequent events, Ms. Currie later called and arranged to pick up something. But what? According to Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie never said `gifts' when she called. Ms. Lewinsky assumed that was what she was calling about--that is her testimony--no doubt because they had been on her mind for the reasons we have just heard explained.

    Now, the managers attempt to respond to all this by saying over and over, yes, but the President never told Ms. Lewinsky she had to produce the gifts he had given her. They attempt to convert his silence into a failure to perform a legal duty and then to convert that failure to perform a legal duty into a high crime.

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

    Now, the managers would have you believe Ms. Lewinsky rejected that recollection wholesale, that she said he never said any such thing. They need that to be the case. But it is not so, we now learn, no thanks to Mr. Starr's agents.

    Let's watch.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Okay. Now, were you ever under the impression from anything that the President said that you should turn over all the gifts to the Jones lawyers?

    A. No, but where this is a little tricky--and I think I might have even mentioned this last weekend--was that I had an occasion in an interview with one of the--with the OIC--where I was asked a series of statements, if the President had made those, and there was one statement that Agent Phalen said to me--I--there were--other people, they asked me these statements--this is after the President testified and they asked me some statements, did you say this, did you say this, and I said, no, no, no. And Agent Phalen said something, and I think it was, `Well, you have to turn over whatever you have.' And I said to you, `You know, that sounds a little bit familiar to me.'

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

    Q. That's in the 302 exam?

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

    Q. Uh-huh.

    This is extraordinary testimony. Why? Because Ms. Lewinsky apparently corroborated the President. She recognized those words when she heard them. She didn't refute the President. And the OIC never told us that that was what she said. Never told the House. Never told this body. We had no idea about Ms. Lewinsky's recollection until we heard her testimony. We can only wonder--in troubled disbelief--how much more we still don't know. The President did not obstruct justice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony seriously undermines the gift claim that is before you.

    We have reviewed the first three subparts of article II. Now, let's look quickly at the fourth.

    Ms. Lewinsky's testimony also confirms what has been clear throughout these proceedings: That her New York job search efforts began in October 1997, well before Ms. Lewinsky was ever named a potential witness in the Jones case; and that Mr. Jordan first became involved in the job search effort in November, early November, also before she became a witness; that Ms. Lewinsky had received a job offer in New York from the United Nations in November also, and also well before there was any indication she would be a witness; and that Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky had several contacts related to her job search in November, despite the fact that both of them were traveling extensively, including out of the country in that period.

    In fact, Ms. Lewinsky makes it clear in this testimony that she and Mr. Jordan began arranging the meeting that took place on December 11 before Thanksgiving, before anyone knew Ms. Lewinsky's name would be on a witness list--all of this, of course, before anyone knew Ms. Lewinsky's name would be on a witness list. If the fact that the assistance to Ms. Lewinsky preceded her appearance on the witness list needed confirmation, it has been confirmed again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.

    RECESS

    Mr. LOTT. I think I see in the Chief Justice's eyes the desire for----

    (Laughter.)

    Mr. LOTT. --a 15-minute break. Let's return as shortly after 3:30 as is possible.

    Thereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the Senate recessed until 3:42 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.

    Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I believe the White House counsel has an additional presenter at this time.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes White House Counsel Kendall.

    Mr. Counsel KENDALL. Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, distinguished House Managers, I am going to deal with Vernon Jordan's videotape deposition. That deposition was taken on February 2, this last Tuesday, and it produced nothing at all which was significant and new. Time and again, Mr. Manager Hutchinson cited Mr. Jordan's previous grand jury testimony, and time and again Mr. Jordan confirmed and recited his previous grand jury testimony.

    The managers had a full and fair opportunity to take Mr. Jordan's testimony, and they, indeed, had time to spare. They used just about 3 hours of their allotted 4-hour time. And they discovered nothing that was not contained in the previous 900 pages of Mr. Jordan's grand jury testimony which has been taken in his March 3, March 5, May 5, May 28, and June 9 appearances before the OIC grand jury. Assertions by counsel is not the same thing as proof. And I think that it is clear when you watch the actual video as we have done today of the three witnesses whose testimony the managers took earlier this week.

    For example, with respect to Mr. Jordan, Mr. Manager Hutchinson, who did a first-rate job of interrogation as you can see from the video, told you last Thursday that he needed to have in evidence the videotape, and you admitted it into evidence, because--and I quote--`Mr. Jordan's testimony goes to the connection between the job search, the benefit provided to a witness, and the solicited false testimony from that witness.'

    Mr. Manager Hutchinson also asserted more than once last Thursday that Mr. Jordan's testimony will prove that the President was controlling the job search. There is only one problem with these assertions. When you actually look at the videotape and listen to what Mr. Jordan testified to, there is no support for these propositions. There is no direct evidence and there is no circumstantial evidence. It is plain that to help somebody find a job is an acceptable activity. It is only when this is tied, as the second article of impeachment alleges it is tied, to some obstruction in the Paula Jones case that it becomes illegal. And, when fairly considered, Mr. Jordan's testimony provides no evidence whatsoever of that.

    Mr. Jordan was a long-time and close personal friend of the President.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. It's probably not bad from Washington standards.

    Would you describe the nature of your relationship with President Clinton?

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

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

    A. Every year since his Presidency, the Jordan family has been privileged to entertain the Clinton family on Christmas Eve.

    Q. And has there been any exceptions in recent years to that?

    A. Every year that he has been President, he has had, he and his family, Christmas Eve with my family.

    Q. And have you vacationed together with the Clinton family?

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

    Q. And so you vacation together, you play golf together on a semi-regular basis?

    A. Whenever we can.

    It has been, since the start of this investigation, well known that Mr. Jordan was active in helping Ms. Lewinsky secure employment in New York, and also that he construed this request which came to him through Betty Currie as having come from the President himself. In his May 28 grand jury testimony, for example, Mr. Jordan testified that Betty Currie is the President's secretary. `She was the person who called me at the behest of the President, I believe, to ask me to look into getting Monica Lewinsky the job.'

    And, again, on June 9, Mr. Jordan testified to the grand jury that, `The President asked me to help get Monica Lewinsky a job.'

    Mr. Manager Hutchinson played an excerpt, which I will not play again, which once more repeats that testimony.

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

    (Text of video presentation:)

    Q. Okay. Do you believe that you are acting in the company's interest or the President's interest when you were trying to secure a job for Ms. Lewinsky?

    A. Well, what I knew was that the company would take care of its own interest. This is not the first time that I referred somebody, and what I know is, is that if a person being referred does not meet the standards required for that company, I have no question but that that person will not be hired. And so the referral is an easy thing to do; the judgment about employment is not a judgment as a person referring that I make. But I do have confidence in all of the companies on whose boards I sit that, regardless of my reference, that as to their needs and as to their expectations for their employees that they will make the right decisions, as happened in the American Express situation.

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

    I am not the employer. I am the referrer, and there is a major difference.

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

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

    Q. And then, when you talked to Mr:

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

    Q. And when you had your conversation with Mr. Perelman--

    A. Right.

    Q. --at a later time--

    A. Right.

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

    A. I believe that I did not tell him.

    Q. --but you assumed that he knew?

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

    Q. And did you reference her as a former White House intern?

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

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

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

    A. That was sufficient.

    Q. --and asking for a second interview for Ms. Lewinsky, that that should be sufficient?

    A. I thought it was sufficient, and obviously, Mr. Perelman thought it was sufficient.

    Q. And so there is no reason, based on what you told him, for him to think that you were calling at the request of the President of the United States?

    A. I think that's about right.

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

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

    Q. So those are the only two you talked about, and you made no reference that you were acting in behalf of the President?

    A. Right.

    Q. Now, the second piece of information was the fact that you knew and the President knew that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena in the Jones case, and that information was not provided to either Mr. Halperin or to Mr. Perelman; is that correct?

    A. That's correct.

    The most critical thing about this deposition is it contained no evidence of any kind which supports the central allegation of article II, the obstruction of justice article, that Mr. Jordan's job search assistance was tied to Ms. Lewinsky testifying in a certain way or that the President intended Mr. Jordan's assistance to corruptly influence her testimony. Mr. Jordan was unequivocal about the fact that he had frequently helped other people and that here there was no quid pro quo, no tie-in of any kind. Indeed, he provided direct evidence of this fact.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Mr. Jordan, you were asked questions about job assistance. Would you describe the job assistance you have over your career given to people who have come to you requesting help finding a job or finding employment?

    A. Well, I've known about job assistance and have for a very long time. I learned about it dramatically when I finished at Howard University Law School, 1960, to return home to Atlanta, Georgia to look for work. In the process of my--during my senior year, it was very clear to me that no law firm in Atlanta would hire me. It was very clear to me that, uh, I could not get a job as a black lawyer in the city government, the county government, the State government or the Federal Government.

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

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

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

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

    A. No.

    That is direct evidence. That is not circumstantial evidence. That is unimpugned direct evidence.

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

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. . . . Now, when was the first time that you recall that you met with Monica Lewinsky?

    A. If you've read my grand jury testimony--

    Q. I have.

    A. --and I'm sure that you have--there is testimony in the grand jury that she came to see me on or about the 5th of November. I have no recollection of that. It was not on my calendar, and I just have no recollection of her visit. There is a letter here that you have in evidence, and I have to assume that in fact that happened. But as I said in my grand jury testimony, I'm not aware of it, I don't remember it--but I do not deny that it happened.

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

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

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

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

    Q. And in fact today, the fact that you do not dispute that that meeting occurred is not based upon your recollection but is simply based upon you've seen the records, and it appears that that meeting occurred?

    A. That is correct.

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

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

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

    Mr. Manager Hutchinson told you on January 14 that what triggered--

    Let's look at the chain of events. The judge--the witness list came in, the judge's order came in, that triggered the President into action and the President triggered Vernon Jordan into action. That chain reaction here is what moved the job search along. . . . Remember what else happened on that day, December 11. Again, that was the same day that Judge Wright ruled that the questions about other relationships could be asked by the Jones attorneys.

    That was the theory then. This is now. We demonstrated, in our own presentation, of course, that that order was entered late in the day at a time when Mr. Jordan was high over the Atlantic in an airplane on his way to Amsterdam.

    Mr. Manager Hutchinson's very able examination did not try to resuscitate that theory. He didn't even make the attempt. He didn't ask Mr. Jordan about the December 11 order.

    So today we have a different time line. We have a new chart and a new time line. Let's look at this.

    This is Mr. Manager Hutchinson's chart this morning. What is critical here? Well, we learned today that it is the December 5 date that is critical. That is when the witness list was faxed to the President's counsel, and that is what triggered the succeeding chain of events. Mr. Manager Hutchinson remarked, if I heard him correctly, that whenever you are talking about obstruction of justice, it ties together, it all fits together.

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

    We look at December 7. We ask ourselves what happened then; this is 2 days after the witness list came in. It must have been something nefarious, because the President and Jordan meet. But Mr. Manager Hutchinson did not represent to you that they even talked about the Jones litigation or Ms. Lewinsky because they didn't. The managers told you that in their trial brief, and it has been Mr. Jordan's consistent testimony.

    On December 11, Mr. Jordan did have a meeting with Ms. Lewinsky. That was originally set up not on December 8, you will recall, but back in November when Ms. Lewinsky had agreed to call Mr. Jordan when he returned from his travel.

    So the chronology here produces no even circumstantial evidence of some linkage between the Paula Jones case and Mr. Jordan's job search.

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

    Let's review the nefarious conspiracy that we have heard about today to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. We are told today that Vernon Jordan had no corrupt intent, that Ms. Lewinsky had no corrupt intent, and that Revlon had no corrupt intent. Rather, it was the President who somehow spun out this conspiracy. But I ask you, where, in all of the voluminous record, is there any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the President somehow tied these things together through Mr. Jordan? It is a shell game, but the game doesn't have any shell in it, and I think this is the loneliest conspiracy in human history, if it was a conspiracy. But it wasn't.

    On the subject of quid pro quo, I want to play two excerpts, and part of these I ask your indulgence. They were played in part by Mr. Manager Hutchinson, but I think they deserve to be seen in their full context. In one of them you are going to hear Mr. Jordan say that he was running the job search, he was in control of the job search. I think that is true about the Vernon Jordan job search. Ms. Lewinsky's job search had also been proceeding with Mr. Richardson--Mr. Jordan was not involved in any way with that--and through her superior at the Pentagon, Mr. Ken Bacon. Let's listen to the full context and listen for any evidence of a quid pro quo.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    BY MR. HUTCHINSON:

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

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

    Q. And was that preceded by a call from Betty Currie?

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

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

    A. I believe so.

    Q. And did you receive that prior to the meeting on December 11th?

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

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

    A. I would not.

    Q. And presumably, the meeting on December 11th was set up somewhere around December 8th by the call from Ms. Lewinsky?

    A. I--I would not dispute that, sir.

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

    A. Not jobs--companies.

    Q. --companies that she would be interested in seeking employment with.

    A. That's correct.

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

    A. I'm sure, Congressman, that you too have been in this business, and you do know that you can only call people that you know or feel comfortable in calling.

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

    A. I would hope so.

    Q. And so, even though it was a company that you might not have the best contact with, you could have been helpful in that regard?

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

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

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

    Q. You're acting in behalf of the President when you are trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a job, and you were in control of the job search?

    A. Yes.

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

    A. I don't think so. I think not. I think I wanted to see her before I made any calls.

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

    A. I--I believe that's correct.

    Q. And you called Mr. Richard Halperin of McAndrews & Forbes?

    A. That's right.

    Q. You called Mr. Peter--

    A. Georgescu.

    Q. --Georgescu. And he is with what company?

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

    Q. And did you make one other call?

    A. Yes. I called Ursie Fairbairn, who runs Human Resources at American Express, at the American Express Company, where I am the senior director.

    * * * * *

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

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

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

    A By--what do you mean by `what level'?

    Q In the company that you were calling, did you call the chairman of human resources, did you call the CEO--who did you call, or what level were you seeking to talk to?

    A Richard Halperin is sort of the utility man; he does everything at McAndrews & Forbes. He is very close to the chairman, he is very close to Mr. Gittis. And so at McAndrews & Forbes, I called Halperin.

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

    At American Express, I called Ms. Ursie Fairbairn who is, as I said before, in charge of Human Resources.

    So that is the level--in one instance, the chairman; in one instance a utilitarian person; and in another instance, the head of the Human Resources Department.

    Q And the utilitarian connection, Mr. Richard Halperin, was sort of an assistant to Mr. Ron Perelman?

    A That's correct. He's a lawyer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A I have never seen a White House intern who did not like being a White House intern, and so her enthusiasm for being a White House intern was about like the enthusiasm of White House interns--they liked it.

    She was not happy about not being there anymore--she did not like being at the Defense Department--and I think she actually had some desire to go back. But when she actually talked to me, she wanted to go to New York for a job in the private sector, and she thought that I could be helpful in that process.

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

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

    Q And she related that--

    A She talked about it.

    Q --experience or feeling to you?

    A Yes.

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

    Do you recall the President talking to you about that after that meeting?

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

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

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

    Q If you would like to confer--I believe the record shows that, but I'd like to establish that through your testimony.

    MS. WALDEN: Yes.

    THE WITNESS: Yes.

    BY MR. HUTCHINSON:

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

    A I believe that is correct.

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

    A Uh, you do understand that conversations between me and the President, uh, was not an unusual circumstance.

    Q And I understand that--

    A All right.

    Q --and so let me be more specific. I believe your previous testimony has been that sometime after the 11th, you spoke with the President about Ms. Lewinsky.

    A I stand on that testimony.

    Q All right. And so there's two conversations after the witness list came out--one that you had with the President on December 7th, and then a subsequent conversation with him after you met with Ms. Lewinsky on the 11th.

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

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

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

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

    Q And he thanked you for helping her?

    A There's no question about that, either.

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

    A He did not.

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

    A I never thought about it.

    Mr. Jordan found out about Ms. Lewinsky's subpoena on December 19 when a weeping Ms. Lewinsky telephoned him and came to his office. Mr. Manager Hutchinson played that excerpt from the testimony this morning. I won't replay it. Mr. Jordan then did what I think is best called due diligence. He talked to Ms. Lewinsky, got her a lawyer, asked her whether there was any sexual relationship with the President, and was assured that there was not. That same evening, he went to the White House and made a similar inquiry of the President and he received a similar response.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

    A I did.

    Q And is this when you went to the White House and saw the President?

    A Yes.

    Q At the time that Ms. Lewinsky came to see you on December 19th, did you have any plans to attend any social function at the White House that evening?

    A I did not.

    Q And in fact there was a social invitation that you had at the White House that you declined?

    A I had--I had declined it; that's right.

    Q And subsequent to Ms. Lewinsky visiting you, did you change your mind and go see the President that evening?

    A After the--a social engagement that Mrs. Jordan and I had, we went to the White House for two reasons. We went to the White House to see some friends who were there, two of whom were staying in the White House; and secondly, I wanted to have a conversation with the President.

    Q And this conversation that you wanted to have with the President was one that you wanted to have with him alone?

    A That is correct.

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

    A I told him I would see him sometime that night after dinner.

    Q Did you tell him why you wanted to see him?

    A No.

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

    A It could be. I made it clear that I would come by after dinner, and he said fine.

    Q Now, let me backtrack for just a moment, because whenever you talked to the President, Ms. Lewinsky was not inside the room--

    A That's correct.

    Q --and therefore, you did not know the details about her questions on the President might leave the First Lady and those questions that set off all of these alarm bells.

    A [Nodding head up and down.]

    Q And so you were having--is the answer yes?

    A That's correct.

    Q And so you were having this discussion with the President not knowing the extent of Ms. Lewinsky's fixation?

    A Uh--

    Q Is that correct?

    A Correct.

    Q And, regardless, you wanted to see the President that night, and so you went to see him. And was he expecting you?

    A I believe he was.

    Q And did you have a conversation with him alone?

    A I did.

    Q No one else around?

    A No one else around.

    Q And I know that's a redundant question.

    A It's okay.

    Q Now, would you describe your conversation with the President?

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

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

    A Well, we had established that.

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

    A I did.

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

    A I did.

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

    A I did.

    Q And as--and then, you concluded that with the question as to whether he had had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?

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

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

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

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

    A I did.

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

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

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

    Q And Mr. Jordan informed you of that, is that correct?

    `That' being the subpoena.

    A No, sir.

    That leaves the misleading impression in his grand jury testimony the President did not acknowledge this visit with Mr. Jordan. The question right above the one that was quoted, however, was the following:

    Q You were familiar, weren't you, Mr. President, that she had received the subpoena? You have already acknowledged that.

    The answer was, `Yes, sir, I was.'

    And then two pages later, the President was asked by the OIC:

    Q Did you, in fact, have a conversation with Mr. Jordan on the evening of December 19, 1997, in which he talked to you about Monica being in Mr. Jordan's office, having a copy of the subpoena and being upset about being subpoenaed?

    And the President's answer was:

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

    So I think it is absolutely clear that there is no conflict between the President's testimony and Mr. Jordan's testimony about this. Mr. Jordan had recommended Ms. Lewinsky and took her to the lawyer's office, to a lawyer, a Mr. Frank Carter, a respected Washington, DC, lawyer, to whom Mr. Jordan had recommended other clients. (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

    A Yes, I have.

    Q About how many have you referred to him?

    A Oh, I don't know. Maggie Williams is one client that I--I remember very definitely.

    I like Frank Carter a lot. He's a very able young lawyer. He's a first-class person, a first-class lawyer, and he's one of my new acquaintances amongst lawyers in town, and I like being around him. We have lunch, and he's a friend.

    Q And is it true, though, that when you've referred other clients to Mr. Carter that you never personally delivered and presented that client to him in his office?

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

    Gary, I will skip the next two videotapes 21 and 22. I hear a sigh of relief.

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

    We were shown a chart on Thursday and it was a chart that was entitled `Interconnection Between Job Help and Testimony.'

    Managers' version:

    Q [so you] Talk to her both about the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit.

    Answer, according to the managers' version, `That is correct.'

    When we actually looked at the testimony which we will see in just a second, the question is:

    Q Did you, in fact, talk to her about the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?

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

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

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

    A I may have.

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

    A Yes.

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

    A You have to talk to Mr. Carter about his billing.

    Q It wouldn't surprise you if his billing did reflect a--a charge for a telephone conversation with Mr. Jordan?

    A Keep in mind that Mr. Carter spent most of his time in being a legal services lawyer. I think his concentration is primarily on service, rather than billing.

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

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

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

    A And they were likely conversations about more than Ms. Lewinsky.

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

    A Or at least a portion of them.

    Q In other words, other things might have been discussed?

    A Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

    A No doubt.

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

    A That is correct.

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

    A Yeah. I'm certain I told Betty Currie, and I'm fairly certain that I told the President.

    Q And why did you tell Betty Currie?

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

    Q And why did you tell the President?

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

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

    A `Thank you very much.'

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

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

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

    A I told him that I had found counsel for her, and I told him that she had signed the affidavit.

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

    A Throughout, he had been concerned about her getting employment in New York, period.

    Q And he was also concerned about the affidavit?

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

    In his presentation, Mr. Manager Hutchinson discussed the breakfast with Ms. Lewinsky, which Mr. Jordan now concedes he had, on December 31. He showed you the restaurant bill. I am not going to dwell long on that because it really is not relevant to article II.

    First of all, it is nowhere alleged as a ground of obstruction of justice. Mr. Manager Hutchinson referred to the 7 pillars of obstruction in article II. Those are 7 different factual grounds. This alleged obstruction is nowhere in the grounds.

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

    The second reason why I think this is irrelevant is, it was not presented as a separate ground for impeachment by the independent counsel. It was identified--the fact of the conflicted testimony was identified, but it was not urged as a separate ground, despite the very, very energetic investigation of Mr. Starr. We have heard a lot in this case about `dogs that won't hunt.' In my mind, this is like a Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark. If the independent counsel didn't raise it, that is significant. Finally, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the President, by anybody's contention.

    Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to raise a question now, which arose in the final stage of the Vernon Jordan deposition. Mr. Manager Hutchinson had taken the deposition. I had asked a couple of questions in response. After I had concluded, Mr. Jordan made a statement defending his own integrity to which Mr. Manager Hutchinson objected. I propose--since the issue has arisen of his integrity and since Mr. Jordan is an honorable man and has had a distinguished career--that I be allowed to play the approximately 2-minute segment of his own statement about his integrity.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Do the managers object?

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

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. But is it a part of the deposition of him that was taken?

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. It is not a part of the deposition that was entered into the Senate record under the Senate rules.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Well, the Parliamentarian advises me that Division I of the motion on Thursday, which was approved, would prevent the playing of that. So the Chair will rule that that is not acceptable.

    Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, is recognized.

    Mr. LEAHY. I was one of the Senators at that deposition. I think it would be extremely interesting to hear it. It was taken at the deposition. I ask unanimous consent that it----

    Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Vermont may appeal the decision of the Chair, which is that it not be played, ask consent for----

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

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there objection?

    Mr. NICKLES. Objection.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Objection is heard.

    Counsel may proceed.

    Mr. Counsel KENDALL. I would like to recognize my colleague. Well, I think that concludes our presentation.

    Mr. Counsel RUFF. We yield back the remainder of our time, Mr. Chief Justice.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. The managers have 31 minutes remaining.

    The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.

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

    This is not a game. This is not a game to anyone here. There are extraordinary consequences to what we are doing and what we have been doing and what your decision will be. The stakes are very high. We don't need to take a poll to do what we did. I am reminded of the testimony of the President and Dick Morris taking the poll to determine whether to tell the truth or not, and then after deciding the public would not forgive his perjury, he said, `We will just have to win.' But that's not the attitude the House managers have in bringing this case here. The managers fully appreciate the seriousness and the consequences of this. We want to do the right thing. We are not here just to win. We want to help the Senate in this constitutional process do the constitutional thing--not only for the precedent of this Senate but for the precedent of future generations in terms of how the courts now and later will view obstruction of justice and perjury. We believe this is a constitutional effort and not a game.

    The question about snippets, that we just put some snippets on the air today--we wanted to call live witnesses. We wanted Ms. Lewinsky to be here and let everybody examine her fully and completely. But we are working with a timeframe, and we brought up those points in her testimony and in Mr. Jordan's testimony and Mr. Blumenthal's testimony that we felt proved our case.

    With regard to the issue that Ms. Seligman raised about filing a false affidavit, she ran that testimony many times. I thought we ran the President's earlier in these hearings several times, but I think she beat our record with that testimony. I appreciate that.

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

    As they pointed out on the question of the linkage between filing an affidavit and this cover story, it was so obvious that they were connected that the OIC did not ask that question, `Did you think about this when you'--and that. It was obvious. But he did not ask that question. She was right; the question was not asked. So when she, Ms. Lewinsky, had an opportunity in these hearings when I asked her, she said, `Well, you know, I really didn't link the two together.' Let's not throw away all of our common sense here.

    She gets a phone call in the middle of the night with a message that you are on the witness list, and she says three things occurred: You are on the witness list, you can file an affidavit, and you can use a cover story. Why else would the President raise the issue of a cover story at 2:30 in the morning if he didn't intend for her to use that?

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

    And in fact she did use that cover story. She went to her lawyer, Mr. Carter, and told him that. And it was incorporated into the draft affidavit that she went to take papers to the President to sign, and in those cases she may have been alone. But they didn't like the specter of her being alone. So they struck that provision out of the final affidavit. But they did attempt to use it.

    But keep in mind also that it is the President's intent. And his intent was to interfere with justice in the Paula Jones case and to have her give a false affidavit. And that is why he so suggested that.

    On the gifts to people, is it really an issue? Is there really an issue here? There is some fabulous lawyering over here. But there is no issue here. Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no doubt in her mind that Ms. Currie initiated the call. That is all there is to this issue. The fact that there were other calls in the day, the fact that one of the other calls may have been at 3:30, really are moot points. The issue is, if Betty Currie initiated that phone call, the only impetus for her to initiate that call had to come from the President. She was not in that conversation that morning. The President had to tell her, and apparently did so, because she made the

    call.

    At the end of the examination of her testimony, or toward the end--it was shown several times--we asked her, `Did the President ever tell you anything about the gifts?' And she said, `Not that I remember.' And then later on in the segment, you also saw she was asked the question again by me: `OK. Were you ever under any impression or the impression from the President that you should turn over all the gifts to the Jones lawyers?' And she said, `No.' Then she goes on to say, `This gets a little tricky here, and it could be I heard the statements from agents, or somewhere along the line, or perhaps that it did sound familiar.'

    I would suggest to you what happened there is that Mr. Carter--it is clearly in the testimony and before all of us in the record--her own lawyer told her she had to turn over all the records. That is where she heard that.

    But logic demands that you reject that view, because why would the President, whose intent was to conceal this whole affair, ever think of telling her that, `You have to turn over all those gifts'? If he did tell her that she had to turn over all of those gifts, why would she immediately go out that afternoon and reject that instruction, and just completely say, `Well, I am going to forget what he told me to do, I am going to call his secretary and have her come pick up these gifts and store them for me'?

    That is just not logical. Common sense tells us that didn't happen that way, and Ms. Lewinsky was absolutely positive that there was no doubt that Betty Currie initiated the call, and that is that.

    Job search: Very quickly, this is not a bribery case. This is not giving her a job, bribing her with a job to get her false testimony. It is not a bribery case. If it was, we wouldn't be arguing about the impeachability of obstruction of justice. It would be clear that bribery is mentioned in the Constitution. It is about attempting to corruptly persuade or influence the behavior of a witness. That is exactly what that is about.

    I would also close very quickly by telling you in the beginning that I urged you to look at particularly obstruction of justice charges, the result-benefit analysis. And I do not ever hear anybody talking about that but me. So maybe I am off base here. But I ask you to consider each of these seven pillars of obstruction that Mr. Hutchinson raised, and look at the end results of those acts, and look at who benefited from those results. And what I believe you would have found and can still find is that each case resulted in impeding justice in the Paula Jones case in some way that favored the President. And the benefit naturally inured to the President.

    I guess if you reject that result-benefit test, and if you accept each and every argument of these extremely fine defense counsel that the President wasn't behind any of this, then I guess you just have to reach the conclusion that the President was the luckiest man in the world, that people would commit crimes by filing false affidavits, by hiding evidence, by going out and possibly trashing the witnesses and giving false testimony in grand jury proceedings, and that--if that is the way you feel about it, so be it; we will abide by your judgment. But I suggest to you that the facts of this case are really not in contest. They have been argued very well by defense counsel for the White House.

    I am about to exhaust my time. So I yield at this point to Mr. Manager Hutchinson to make some remarks.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. This will be very brief, and then I will yield to Mr. Graham.

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

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

    Q. And what was his response?

    A. I think it was something like go home and make sure--oh, something about a--I think he asked me if they were notes from the President to me, and I said no. I know I've testified to this. I stand by that testimony, and I'm just recalling it, that I said no, they were draft notes or notes that I sent to the President, and then I believe he said something like, well, go home and make sure they're not there.

    Q. And what did you do when you went home?

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

    Q. So you threw them away?

    A. Mm-hmm.

    THE REPORTER: Is that a `yes'?

    THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry.

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

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham.

    Mr. Manager GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. How much time do I have?

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. You have 18 minutes and some seconds.

    Mr. Manager GRAHAM. I may yield back some of the seconds, I hope.

    (Laughter.)

    Point of agreement, rebuttal is to refocus, and the law allows that for the person or the party with the burden, and we do have the burden.

    Point of agreement, White House counsel says there is much more that we need to know. There is much more we need know.

    White House counsel said strongly, when these proceedings opened up, the President is not guilty of obstruction of justice, the President is not guilty of perjury. Refocus: No fair-minded person, in my opinion, could come to any other rational conclusion than that our President obstructed justice, that our President committed perjury in front of a grand jury.

    You vote your conscience. I have told you to do so. And if we disagree at the end of the day, that is America at its best. I have never suggested there was any reasonable doubt that this President committed crimes. I will ask you at the conclusion of this case to remove him with a clear conscience. You vote your conscience, and I know it will be clear.

    Refocus: The gifts--simply put, if you believe the President of the United States in his grand jury testimony said:

    I told her, I said, look, the way these things work is when a person gets a subpoena, you have to give them whatever you have. That's the way--that's what the rule--that's what the law is.

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

    If you believe that, that is the only time he really embraced the law in this case, as I can see. Everything about him, in the way he behaved, was 180 degrees out from that statement. That is the most self-serving statement that flies in the face of every action he took for months. The truth is that a reasonable person should conclude that when Ms. Lewinsky approached him about what to do with the gifts, he said, `I'll have to think about that.' And you know what, ladies and gentlemen, he thought about it. And do you know what he did after he thought about it? `Betty, go get those gifts.' And they wound up under the bed of the President's secretary. And the people are wondering what the heck happened here? What the heck happened here is you have a man trying to hide his crimes.

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

    (Laughter.)

    That will be borne out, if you listen to the testimony and use your common sense. He was up to no good. He told her, `My heart is breaking because you are on this witness list and maybe here's a way to get out of it.' That is the God's truth. That is what he did and that is wrong and that is a crime.

    The rule of law, what does it mean? It means that process and procedure wins out over politics and personality. That means that subpoenas have to be honored by the great and the small. That means when subpoenas come, you can't, as the President, try to defeat them because you are nobody special in the eyes of the law--except that you are the guardian of the law. If you are special, you are special in a more ominous way, not a lesser way.

    When you file an affidavit in a court of law, nobody, because of their position in society, has the right to cheat and to get somebody to lie for them, even as the President. That means we are not a nation of men or kings, we are a nation of laws. And that is what this case has always been about to me.

    This affidavit was false for a reason--because the President and Ms. Lewinsky wanted it to be false. The job search? `Mission accomplished,' says it all. `Mission accomplished.'

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

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

    trying to get her a job and he was trying to just get her to file a false affidavit so this would go away. And he was trying to hide the gifts. And that is bad but that is not nearly as bad as what was to come.

    Let me tell you what was to come, ladies and gentlemen. After the deposition, when it was clear that Ms. Lewinsky may have been talking, or somebody knew something they weren't supposed to know, the alarm bells went off and concealing the relationship changed to redefining the relationship. That is why he should not be our President. The redefining of the relationship began very quickly after that deposition. It started with the President's secretary, and it goes like this: The President, on two occasions, under the guise of refreshing his memory, makes the following statements to his secretary, `You are always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone? You could see and hear everything? Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right? She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.'

    If you believe that is about refreshing your memory, you are not being reasonable. That is about coaching a witness. But here is where it gets to be nasty. Here is where it gets to be mean: `Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right? She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.' He didn't say it once, he said it twice, just to make sure Ms. Currie would get the point.

    Now that Ms. Lewinsky may be a problem, let me tell you how the discussion goes. It is not from concealing; now it is redefining.

    Conversation with Mr. Morris, after they did the poll about what to do here, and `We just have to win.' The President had a followup conversation with Mr. Morris during the evening of January 22, 1998, the day after the story broke, when Mr. Morris was considering holding a press conference to blast Ms. Lewinsky out of the water, the President told Mr. Morris to be careful, to be careful. According to Mr. Morris, the President warned him not to be too hard on Ms. Lewinsky because `there is some slight chance that she may not be cooperating with Mr. Starr and we don't want to alienate her by anything we are going to put out.' In other words, don't blast her now, she may not be a problem to us.

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

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

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. You have a conversation with the President on the same day the article comes out, and the conversation includes a discussion about the relationship between him and Ms. Lewinsky, is that correct?

    A. Yes.

    Next tape:

    Q. Now, you 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-minute conversation, that the President was trying to portray himself as a victim of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

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

    Ladies and gentlemen, that is the import of his whole story. That story was told on the day this broke in the press, and it goes on. That story is very detailed. It makes him the victim of a sexual predator called Ms. Lewinsky. He had to rebuff her. He threatened her--she threatened him, excuse me. And it goes on and on and on. And I have always wondered, how did that story make it to the grand jury and how did it make it into the press? We know how it made it to the grand jury, because Mr. Blumenthal told it and the President told him and they claimed executive privilege and the President never straightened it out. Your President redefined this relationship, and your President let that lie be passed to a grand jury. Your President obstructed justice in a mean way.

    Next statement.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    MR. McDANIEL: Page 49?

    MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir.

    MR. McDANIEL: Thank you.

    BY MR. GRAHAM:

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

    A I do.

    Next statement.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

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

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

    SENATOR SPECTER: Senator Edwards and I think that question is appropriate and the objection is overruled.

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

    Everybody wants this over so bad you can taste it, including me, but don't let's leave a taste behind that history cannot stand. It was shouted in this Chamber, `For God's sakes, vote.'

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

    When the President redefined this relationship, he did so by telling a lie. He told a lie to a key White House aide, who repeated that lie to a Federal grand jury, and in our system, ladies and gentlemen, that is a crime. That lie made it into the public domain. That lie was mean. That lie would have the effect of running this young lady over. You think what you want to think, too, about Ms. Tripp, and I agree she is not going to be in the hall of fame of friends, but let me tell you, the best advice she gave that young lady was to keep that blue dress.

    The final thing is that our President, in my opinion, and for you to judge, in August of last year, after being begged not to by many Members of this body and prominent Americans, appeared before a Federal grand jury to answer for the conduct in this case, his conduct. We have alleged that with forewarning and knowledge on his part, that instead of clearing it up and making America a better place, instead of fulfilling his role as the chief law enforcement officer of the land to do honor to the law, instead of taking this burden off all Americans' backs, he told a story that defies common sense, that he played a butchery game with the English language that `is' maybe is not is, and `alone' is not alone, and he told John Podesta, `My relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was not sexual, including oral sex.'

    He went on and told an elaborate farce to a Federal grand jury that they just didn't ask the right question and really the sexual relationship did include one thing but not another. And he says he never lied to his aide and he says he never lied to the grand jury. Well, God knows he lied to somebody, and he lied to that grand jury, and this whole story is a fraud and a farce. The last people in the United States to straighten it out is the U.S. Senate. God bless you in your endeavors.

    Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the Senator from California.

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

    Mr. GREGG. Regular order.

    Mr. LOTT. Regular order.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Regular order of business has been called for.

    Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that, in fairness, Mr. Jordan's 2-minute testimony regarding his own integrity be shown to the Senate at this time.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there objection?

    Mr. GREGG. I object.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Objection is heard.

    Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, has all time been used or yielded back?

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. All time has been used or yielded back.

       


    Copyright © 1999 The Washington Post Company

    Back to the top

    Navigation Bar
    Navigation Bar
     
    yellow pages