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: House Managers' Presentation

  • More Transcripts From the Trial

  • From the Congressional Record
    Saturday, February 6, 1999

    Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished counsel for the President, Members of the United States Senate, this is the first and only chance you will have in this historic impeachment trial to consider the evidence from a few of the actual witnesses. After weeks of proceedings, the day has finally arrived when the U.S. Senate will listen, not just to lawyers talk about the evidence, but to witnesses with direct knowledge of the unlawful conduct of the President of the United States.

    Today in particular, you will have your only opportunity to hear from the one person whose testimony invariably leads to the conclusion that the President of the United States committed perjury and obstructed justice in a Federal civil rights action. That person is Monica Lewinsky, a bright lady whose life has forever been marked by the most powerful man on the Earth.

    If her testimony is truthful, then the President committed the offenses alleged in the articles of impeachment. Many different opinions have been formed about her over the last year. Nearly all of this has been fueled by spin and by propaganda rather than by truth. Today, the analysis and the speculation ends. There is only one judgment the Senate must make for history about Monica Lewinsky: Do you believe her?

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    SENATOR DeWINE. Do you, Monica S. Lewinsky, swear or affirm that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the United States and William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

    THE WITNESS. I do.

    SENATOR DeWINE. The House managers may now begin your questioning.

    Mr. Manager ROGAN. Who is this former intern who swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Monica Lewinsky is an intelligent, articulate young woman who, until recently, held untarnished hope for tomorrow, like any other recent college graduate. That hope was drastically altered when she was subpoenaed in a lawsuit against the President of the United States.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    But for the record, would you state your name once again, your full name?

    A Yes. Monica Samille Lewinsky.

    Q And you're a--are you a resident of California?

    A I'm--I'm not sure exactly where I'm a resident now, but I--that's where I'm living right now.

    Q Okay. You--did you grow up there in California?

    A Yes.

    Q I'm not going to go into all that, but I thought just a little bit of background here.

    You went to college where?

    A Lewis and Clark, in Portland, Oregon.

    Q And you majored in--majored in?

    A Psychology.

    Q Tell me about your work history, briefly, from the time you left college until, let's say, you started as an intern at the White House.

    A Uh, I wasn't working from the time I--

    Q Okay. Did you--

    A I graduated college in May of '95.

    Q Did you work part time there in--in Oregon with a--with a District Attorney--

    A Uh--

    Q --in his office somewhere?

    A During--I had an internship or a practicum when I was in school. I had two practicums, and one was at the public defender's office and the other was at the Southeast Mental Health Network.

    Q And those were in Portland?

    A Yes.

    Q Okay. What--you received a bachelor of science in psychology?

    A Correct.

    Q Okay. As a part of your duties at the Southeast Health Network, what did you--what did you do in terms of working? Did you have direct contact with people there, patients?

    A Yes, I did. Um, they referred to them as clients there and I worked in what was called the Phoenix Club, which was a socialization area for the clients to--really to just hang out and, um, sort of work on their social skills. So I--

    Q Okay. After your work there, you obviously had occasion to come to work at the White House. How did--how did you come to decide you wanted to come to Washington, and in particular work at the White House?

    A There were a few different factors. My mom's side of the family had moved to Washington during my senior year of college and I wanted--I wasn't ready to go to graduate school yet. So I wanted to get out of Portland, and a friend of our family's had a grandson who had had an internship at the White House and had thought it might be something I'd enjoy doing.

    Q Had you ever worked around--in politics and campaigns or been very active?

    A No.

    Q You had to go through the normal application process of submitting a written application, references, and so forth to--to the White House?

    A Yes.

    Q Did you do that while you were still in Oregon, or were you already in D.C.?

    A No. The application process was while I was a senior in college in Oregon.

    Q Had you ever been to Washington before?

    A Yes.

    Q Obviously, you were accepted, and you started work when?

    A July 10th, 1995.

    That image, the image of a young woman, very much like a family member or a friend that we might know, is an image that the President did not want America to see when his indiscretions with her became public. When that happened, the President painted Monica Lewinsky in a very different and callous light.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON: But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never. These allegations are false, and I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

    `That woman' with that subtle description, the President invited a waiting America to adopt a totally false impression of Monica Lewinsky. That was not fair. Yet, with his close aides, aides that he later testified he knew would be witnesses before the grand jury, he went much further than a subtle sneer. Hear the words of Sidney Blumenthal, assistant to the President, recount how the President painted this vulnerable young intern who made the tragic mistake of becoming involved with him.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Did the President then give you his account of what happened between him and Monica Lewinsky?

    A As I recall, he did.

    Q What did the President tell you?

    A He, uh--he spoke, uh, fairly rapidly, as I recall, at that point and said that she had come on to him and made a demand for sex, that he had rebuffed her, turned her down, and that she, uh, threatened him. And, uh, he said that she said to him, uh, that she was called `the stalker' by her peers and that she hated the term, and that she would claim that they had had an affair whether they had or they hadn't, and that she would tell people.

    Q Do you remember him also saying that the reason Monica Lewinsky would tell people that is because then she wouldn't be known by her peers as `the stalker' anymore?

    A Yes, that's right.

    Q Do you remember the President also saying that--and I'm quoting--`I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again'?

    A Yes. He told me that.

    Q And that was in the same conversation that you had with the President?

    A Right, in--in that sequence.

    Q Can you describe for us the President's demeanor when he shared this information with you?

    A Yes. He was, uh, very upset. I thought he was, a man in anguish.

    He was a man in anguish. This was more than rakish behavior. When the President used his aides as a conduit to impart false information to a Federal grand jury in a criminal investigation, his behavior graduated from the unconscionable to the illegal.

    Members of the Senate, your task is to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. As you weigh that option, consider Mr. Blumenthal's conclusion drawn on the very subject.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    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.

    To justify a vote of not guilty for the President, you certainly have the right to reject Monica Lewinsky's testimony as untruthful. However, I trust your sense of fairness will dictate that you will listen to all of her testimony before you dismiss it outright. If you believe her, you will see this morning how the President wove the web of perjury and obstruction of justice. You will see why he was impeached by the House of Representatives, and you will see why a just and proper verdict in this body would be to replace him as President with Vice President Al Gore.

    Consider, for example, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony regarding witness tampering, one element of the obstruction of justice charge against the President. The President stands charged with illegally encouraging a witness in a Federal civil rights suit brought against him to give perjured testimony in that proceeding. Did he do this? Listen to Monica Lewinsky.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    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.

    It was part of the pattern of the relationship. During Ms. Lewinsky's testimony earlier this week under oath pursuant to a Senate deposition order, she further elaborated on this critical piece of evidence.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    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.

    Consider also Ms. Lewinsky's testimony regarding concealing subpoenaed evidence; namely, the gifts he gave her. This is yet another element in the obstruction of justice allegation against the President. The President stands charged with corruptly engaging in a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Did he do this? Remember, on the morning of December 28, 1997, a few days after Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena directing her to turn over any gifts she had received from the President, the President met with Ms. Lewinsky. She suggested to him that she could give the gifts he gave her to Betty Currie, the President's personal secretary. The President said that he would think about it. Listen to what Monica Lewinsky said happened next.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Did you later that day receive a call from Betty Currie?

    A Yes, I did.

    Q Tell us about that.

    A I received a call from--Betty, and to the best of my memory, she said something like I understand you have something for me or I know--I know I've testified to saying that--that I remember her saying either I know you have something for me or the President said you have something for me. And to me, it's a--she said--I mean, this is not a direct quote, but the gist of the conversation was that she was going to go visit her mom in the hospital and she'd stop by and get whatever it was.

    Q Did you question Ms. Currie or ask her, what are you talking about or what do you mean?

    A No.

    Q Why didn't you?

    A Because I assumed that it meant the gifts.

    As you can see, the only way Betty Currie would have known to come and get the gifts would have been for the President to tell her to do so.

    Finally, consider Ms. Lewinsky's testimony regarding the President's help in securing a New York job for her to encourage her silence, which is another element of the obstruction of justice charge against him. The President is charged with chasing a job for her in order to prevent her truthful testimony. Did he do this? Remember that the President learned on December 6, 1997, that Ms. Lewinsky was on the Paula Jones witness list.

    Listen to Monica Lewinsky.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Okay. Between your meeting with Mr. Jordan in early November, and December the 11th when you met with Mr. Jordan again, you did not feel that Mr. Jordan was doing much to help you get a job; is that correct?

    A I hadn't seen any progress.

    Q Okay. After you met with Mr. Jordan in early December, you began to interview in New York and were much more active in your job search; correct?

    A Yes.

    Q In early January, you received a job offer from Revlon with the help of Vernon Jordan; is that correct?

    A Yes.

    Members of the Senate, these are but a few highlights of a broad tapestry of corruption that Mr. Manager Hutchinson and I will develop for you this morning through videotape testimony and through other evidence.

    Before we proceed to that, it is worth briefly recounting the circumstances that elevated the President's initial indiscretions to the level of impeachable offenses. The lesson is not complex. It is quite elementary.

    In all the things we do in life, life is about making choices. Parents teach children that bad choices bring sorrow and consequences. We do that because the failure to impose meaningful consequences for bad choices brings about more bad choices. That simple primer on life encapsulates the political and personal legacy of Bill Clinton, his continuing pattern of indulging all choices and accepting no consequences. This is demonstrated by the actions he took leading to his impeachment and trial before the Senate.

    In May 1991, an incident allegedly occurred that led the President to make a bad choice. According to Paula Jones, a subordinate government employee, then-Governor Clinton made a crude and unwelcome sexual advance on her. She later filed a legal claim for sexual harassment against him.

    In November 1995, the President made another bad choice. He began a physical relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern. He chose to begin a physical relationship with her. This was not, as he told the grand jury, a relationship that began as a friendship only to later blossom into intimacy. The President impulsively began using her for his gratification the very day he first spoke with her. Later, he made the bad choice of continuing the relationship after Monica became a paid Government employee.

    An important note. As regrettable as his choice was here, any accountability for the private aspect of this should not be determined by the Congress of the United States. It should be determined by his family. Had the President's bad choice simply ended with this indiscretion, we would not be here today. Adultery may be a lot of things, but it is not an impeachable offense.

    Unfortunately, the President's bad choices only grew worse. In December 1997, the President made a bad choice. In order to avoid any possible legal accountability to Paula Jones, he chose to destroy her lawful right to proceed with her case. And this is how he did it: During the so-called discovery portion of the Paula Jones case, Federal Judge Susan Wright ordered the President to answer questions under oath about any intimate relationship he may have had with subordinate female government employees while he was Governor or President.

    Why did Judge Susan Wright order him to answer these questions? She did it because sexual harassers in the workplace usually do not commit their offenses in the open. Typically they get their victims alone and isolated. Predators know if they can do this, one of two things generally will happen. Out of fear and intimidation the victim will submit, or out of fear and intimidation the victim will not submit but the victim will not tell anybody about it.

    There usually is no other way for a sexual harassment victim to learn if there is evidence of a pattern of similar conduct by a predator without being able to ask these kinds of questions in a sexual harassment case. Without this information, a harassment victim in the workplace generally

    would not be able to prove her case. This is why courts routinely order defendants to answer these kinds of questions in almost every sexual harassment case in the country.

    Now, President Clinton vigorously pursued legal arguments and motions to avoid answering these questions about his sexual relations with subordinate government employees. Yet, after hearing his arguments, Judge Susan Wright ordered the President to answer under oath these routine questions. And by the way, Paula Jones also was required to provide truthful answers under oath as part of the trial of the discovery process. Had Paula Jones lied in providing such answers, she would have been liable for criminal prosecution.

    It was while the Paula Jones case was proceeding in the summer of 1995, that a 22-year-old named Monica Lewinsky went to work as an intern at the White House. Shortly thereafter, in November 1995, the President began his physical relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And this continued from 1995 until the early part of 1997.

    In order to shield him, Monica Lewinsky promised the President that she would always deny the sexual nature of their relationship. She said she would always protect him. The President spoke words of approval and encouragement to this pledge of secrecy. Monica and the President even agreed to cover stories to disguise the true nature of their relationship.

    In April 1996, Monica was transferred, against her will, from the White House job to a job at the Pentagon. After she left employment at the White House, she frequently returned there to continue her secret relationship with the President under the guise of visiting Betty Currie, the President's personal secretary.

    After working at the Pentagon for over a year, Monica became disheartened. Despite the President's promises to the contrary, Monica was not returned to work at the White House. In July 1997, she began looking for a job in New York. She wasn't having any luck, despite the President's promise to help her with this, too. By early November 1997, Monica became frustrated with the lack of assistance.

    Finally, Betty Currie arranged a meeting for Monica with Vernon Jordan, one of the President's closest friends. They sought to enlist his help in her New York job search. On November 5, 1997, Monica met for 20 minutes with Mr. Jordan in his office. No job referrals followed, no job interviews were arranged, and there were no contacts from Mr. Jordan. In short, Mr. Jordan made no effort to find Monica a job. Indeed, getting her a job was so unimportant to him that Mr. Jordan later testified that he didn't even remember meeting her on November 5.

    Nothing happened on her job search through the month of November, because Mr. Jordan was either gone or he simply wasn't returning Monica's phone calls. All that changed on December 5, 1997. That was the day Monica Lewinsky's name appeared on the Paula Jones witness list.

    Members of the Senate, this is how the whole thing started. A lone woman in Arkansas felt that she had been wronged by the President of the United States. The law said that she had a right to have her claim heard in a court of law. At each stage the President could have chosen to uphold the law. Instead, he chose to obstruct justice and to commit perjury.

    In his presentation, Mr. Manager Hutchinson will show you, through videotape words of the key witnesses, how the President used his position to obstruct justice as set forth in the articles of impeachment. I will then return to make the same showing respecting the allegations of perjury in the articles. Throughout all of this, throughout this presentation, it is important to keep in mind that we seek no congressional punishment for a man who chose to cheat on his wife. However, we have a legal obligation to expect constitutional accountability for a President who chooses to cheat the law.

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

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I want to continue the presentation that was commenced this morning by Mr. Rogan. Let me continue with the path of obstruction. The obstruction, for our purposes, began on December 5, 1997, when the witness list came out in the civil rights case. It was faxed to the President's lawyers. It was later given to the President.

    At that point, the administration of justice became a threat to the President of the United States. He determined that the truth would be harmful to the case that he was trying to defend, and the President made a decision to take whatever steps were necessary to suppress the truth rather than to uphold the law. The acts of obstruction included attempts to improperly influence the testimony of witnesses in the case against him, the procurement of a false affidavit in the case, the willful concealment of evidence that was under subpoena, and efforts to illegally influence the testimony of witnesses before the Federal grand jury.

    You have heard these areas of obstruction presented to you before by managers on behalf of the House. Today it is important that you hear this case from those who have testified by deposition at your direction. And as you hear their testimony, you will see that the President may have been the only individual who had the complete picture. He had all the facts, and he did not always share those facts with others. He did not share those facts with Mr. Vernon Jordan, nor did he share all the facts with Ms. Monica Lewinsky, until he determined the time was right to do so.

    For example, he knows that Ms. Lewinsky is a witness but does not tell Ms. Lewinsky that fact until the time is right and whenever the job search is proceeding. He asks Mr. Jordan to help Ms. Lewinsky to get a job, but he does not tell Mr. Jordan the essential facts, first of all, that Ms. Lewinsky is a witness and, secondly, that there is a dangerous relationship between them in which, if she testified, her testimony would be harmful.

    The President was obviously concerned about the truth of the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky. It would have been harmful to his interests in the case. As a result, the President personally obstructed and directed the efforts of Mr. Jordan to secure Ms. Lewinsky a job and urge the filing of the affidavit. Now, what is the President's defense to this charge? Let's listen.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    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.

    Now, you have heard that before. As you can see, Mr. Jordan defends his actions and, by implication, defends the actions of the President. You can weigh his intentions, but his intentions are not the issue, because regardless of your view of Mr. Jordan and his motivations, they are irrelevant. His view as to whether there is a connection between the job and the testimony is not an issue. It is not an issue as to whether Ms. Lewinsky thought there was a connection between the job and the testimony. It is not an issue as to whether Revlon thought there was a connection between the job and the testimony.

    There is only one issue, and that is whether the President viewed that there was a connection between those two. And it is the President who, under the law, had to have the corrupt intent, and that is the question that you have to answer. And I believe that the evidence will show that regardless of what anyone else believed, he knew the direct connection.

    Now, after each of you hears the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan, some of you will conclude that surely he had to know that there was an inappropriate relationship between the President and Ms. Lewinsky. And why do I say that? Well, Ms. Lewinsky will testify that he made it clear--that she made it clear to Mr. Jordan that there was that type of relationship. At first, she sort of is careful about it, but then she just ultimately tells him, as you will see from her testimony. But Mr. Jordan also, for those who have listened to his testimony, refers to mother wit, and his oft relied upon mother wit would have told him as well, under the circumstances, that there is something more going on.

    If he knew about the relationship, he had to know that all was not as it should be in what the President was asking him to do. The President requested a job for Ms. Lewinsky at the same time he was monitoring the filing of a false affidavit and knowing she was a witness in a case against him: All indicated that the job was not a favor for a young friend but it was a favor for someone in high office that had to be accomplished in order to assure the cooperation of a dangerous witness. That evidence will show that it is the President who suggested the assistance from Ms. Lewinsky and it is the President who suggested the false affidavit.

    Now, let's listen to the testimony, step by step, through the job search, through the signing of the false affidavit, to the encouragement to file the false affidavit on December 17, to the discussion of the gifts on December 28, through the tampering with the testimony of Betty Currie on two occasions, and then with the President's aide when they were called before the Federal grand jury, or prior to that.

    First, let's go to the job benefit to Ms. Lewinsky. How involved was the President in this activity? Let's first listen to the President as to what he said when he testified under oath in his deposition.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Do you know a man named Vernon Jordan?

    A I know him well.

    Q You have known him for a long time?

    A A long time.

    Q Has it ever been reported to you that he met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about this case?

    A I knew that he met with her. I think Betty suggested he met with her and she may have met with her. I thought that he talked with her about something else. I thought he had given her some advice about her move to New York. It seems like that is what Betty said.

    Rather vague. Attributes all of his knowledge about Vernon Jordan, in reference to Ms. Lewinsky, to Betty, to Betty.

    Let's go on and hear more of what the President has to say in this connection.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Have you ever had a conversation with Vernon Jordan in which Monica Lewinsky was mentioned?

    A I have. He told me that he thought he mentioned in passing to me that he had talked to her and she had come to him for advice about moving to New York.

    Q She had come to him for advice.

    A She had come to him for advice about moving to New York. She had called him and asked if she could come see him, and Betty, I think, maybe had said something to him about talking to him and he had given her some advice about moving to New York.

    That's all I know about that.

    That is all I know about that--diminished knowledge, diminished responsibility.

    But let's see what his good friend and confidant, Mr. Jordan, says about what the President knew, when he knew it, and to what extent he controlled this effort.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Now, is it true that your efforts to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky that you referenced in that meeting with Mr. Gittis--were your efforts carried out at the request of the President of the United States?

    A There is no question but that through Betty Currie, I was acting on behalf of the President to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. I think that's clear from my grand jury testimony.

    Q Okay. And I just want to make sure that that's firmly established. And in reference to your previous grand jury testimony, you indicated, I believe, on May 28th, 1998, at page 61, that `She'--referring to Betty Currie--`was the one that called me at the behest of the President.'

    A That is correct, and I think, Congressman, if in fact the President of the United States' secretary calls and asks for a request that you try to do the best you can to make it happen.

    Q And you received that request as a request coming from the President?

    A I--I interpreted it as a request from the President.

    Q And then, later on in June of '98 in the grand jury testimony at page 45, did you not reference or testify that `The President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job'?

    A There was no--there was no question but that he asked me to help and that he asked others to help. I think that is clear from everybody's grand jury testimony.

    Q And just one more point in that regard. In the same grand jury testimony, is it correct that you testified that `He'--referring to the President--`was the source of it coming to my attention in the first place'?

    A I may--if that is--if you--if it's in the--

    Q It's at page 58 of the grand jury--

    A I stand on my grand jury testimony.

    As Mr. Jordan testified, the President was a source of it coming to his attention in the first place. Mr. Jordan, the President's friend, testified that this was not a casual matter for the President. He was interested, he was directing the show and, as will be clear, he was consumed with preventing the truth from coming out in the civil rights case.

    But let's start back, for a moment, at the beginning. In the packet provided to you, there is a time line, and you can see again that there was the witness list that came out on December 5. That triggered the action in this case. But as we know, there was a meeting on November 5 between Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan in Mr. Jordan's office. Ms. Lewinsky wanted a job before the witness list came out, but not a whole lot was happening in that regard.

    Let's look at the testimony of Mr. Jordan in regard to this November 5 meeting that he was first asked about, which he had no recollection about. When the records were reproduced for him, he had a recollection.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Well, regardless of whether you met with her in November or not, the fact is you did not do anything in November to secure a job for Ms. Lewinsky until your activities on December 11 of '97?

    A I think that's correct.

    Q And on December 11, I think you made some calls for Ms. Lewinsky on that particular day?

    A I believe I did.

    There will be a pattern developing, as you can see. Mr. Jordan had no recollection of the November 5 meeting when he originally testified before the grand jury. He had no recollection whatsoever of that meeting. Basically, he said it didn't happen.

    The second time he testified before the grand jury, the record was produced and it was substantiated. He recalls that. The second thing you can see from this was the meeting was of absolutely no consequence to him because this was not a priority issue to him. He was not going to do anything. It started happening, of course, when the witness list came out. The President met with the attorneys with the witness list, and on December 7 the President and Mr. Jordan meet. On December 8, a meeting is set up by Ms. Lewinsky with Mr. Jordan for the 11th, and it was on the 11th when they met that things started moving and calls were being made. Of course, that was done at the direction of the President.

    Look at Ms. Lewinsky's recollection of that same November 5 meeting.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q . . . you did not feel that Mr. Jordan was doing much to help you get a job; is that correct?

    A I hadn't seen any progress.

    Q Okay. After you met with Mr. Jordan in early December, you began to interview in New York and were much more active in your job search; correct?

    A Yes.

    Q In early January, you received a job offer from Revlon with the help of Vernon Jordan; is that correct?

    A Yes.

    Ms. Lewinsky, at this point, is at their mercy. She doesn't know what the communication is, she doesn't know what the President knows. The witness list has come in, and she hoped things were moving, but she doesn't know it. Finally, they start moving after the witness list comes in. On December 11, she has the meeting at which things start moving.

    Was this a typical referral? Each of you in this body have had occasions where friends and acquaintances, at different levels, or previous employees come to you and say: I am going to be applying for a job with such and such a company. Will you be a reference for me?

    Sometimes they ask you to make a call to that company that they are applying for a job. This is not a typical referral, as you will see from the testimony. A few days prior to the December 11 meeting, Ms. Lewinsky sends up a wish list of the companies she wanted to apply. Mr. Jordan quickly said, `I'm not concerned about your wish list. I have the people I want to deal with.' He took control of the job search.

    Let's listen to the testimony of Mr. Jordan as he emphasizes that point.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q 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.

    The testimony is very clear as to Mr. Jordan running the job search--in essence, a job placement on behalf of the President.

    Let's go again to that meeting of December 11 at which Ms. Lewinsky goes, for the first time Mr. Jordan remembers, for that meeting about the jobs. Ms. Lewinsky's view of this meeting--again, Jordan's list--he was the one controlling the job search. Also, you will see that Mr. Jordan acquires some knowledge from Ms. Lewinsky as to the relationship.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Let's go forward another week or so to December the 11th and a lunch that you had with Vernon Jordan, I believe, in his office.

    A Yes.

    Q How did--how was that meeting set up.

    A Through his secretary.

    Q Did you instigate that, or did he call through his secretary?

    A I don't remember.

    Q What was the purpose of that meeting?

    A Uh, it was to discuss my job situation.

    Q And what, what--how was that discussed?

    A Uh, Mr. Jordan gave me a list of three names and suggested that I contact these people in a letter that I should cc him on, and that's what I did.

    Q Did he ask you to copy him on the letters that you sent out?

    A Yes.

    Q During this meeting, did he make any comments about your status as a friend of the President?

    A Yes.

    Q What--what did he say?

    A In one of his remarks, he said something about me being a friend of the President.

    Q And did you respond?

    A Yes.

    Q How?

    A I said that I didn't, uh--I think I--my grand jury testimony, I know I talked about this, so it's probably more accurate. My memory right now is I said something about, uh, seeing him more as, uh, a man than as a President, and I treated him accordingly.

    Q Did you express your frustration to Mr. Jordan with, uh, with the President?

    A I expressed that sometimes I had frustrations with him, yes.

    Q And what was his response to you about, uh--after you talked about the President?

    A Uh, he sort of jokingly said to me, You know what your problem is, and don't deny it--you're in love with him. But it was a sort of light-hearted nature.

    Q Did you--did you have a response to that?

    A I probably blushed or giggled or something.

    That was on December 11. And I am sure Mr. Jordan and others were starting to kick in, at this point, understanding that there was something a little bit more involved in the relationship between Ms. Lewinsky and the President.

    But let's go to another aspect of the relationship on the job search. Let's look how information is controlled. Mr. Jordan learns ultimately on December 19 clearly that Ms. Lewinsky is on the witness list because she presents a subpoena to him. But whenever he pursues the jobs later on and maybe the call to Mr. Perelman, he does not pass that information along to the company. Does that make a difference to Revlon? You will hear some reference to Mr. Halperin, who is one of the executives at MacAndrews & Forbes, the parent company of Revlon, and Mr. Perelman, who is the CEO of MacAndrews and Forbes as well.

    Let's listen to the testimony of Mr. Jordan on how information is controlled.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    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.

    Q Now, I wanted to read you a question and answer of Mr. Howard Gittis in his grand jury testimony of April 23, 1998.

    The question was: `Now, you had mentioned before that one of the responsibilities of director is to have a fiduciary duty to the company. If it was the case that Ms. Lewinsky had been noticed as a witness in the Paula Jones case, and Vernon Jordan had known that, is that something that you believe as a person who works for MacAndrews & Forbes, is that something that you believe that Mr. Jordan should have told you, or someone in the company, not necessarily you, but someone in the company, when you referred her for employment?'

    His answer was `Yes.'

    Do you disagree with Mr. Gittis' conclusion that that was important information for MacAndrews & Forbes?

    A I obviously didn't think it was important at the time, and I didn't do it.

    Why would Revlon want to know that Ms. Lewinsky was on a witness list and under subpoena in a case that was adverse to the President and the fact the President was really the one that was wanting the job placement for Ms. Lewinsky? I think everyone understands the extraordinary conflict, extraordinary impropriety of that circumstance. As Mr. Jordan himself testified previously, that whenever the subpoena was issued, it changed the circumstances, and, yet, that information was not provided to Revlon, and Mr. Gittis certainly would have thought that it should have been.

    So Revlon wanted to know for the same reason, really, that Mr. Jordan would have liked to have had that information. But when the President learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list, he did not share that information with Mr. Jordan himself.

    So it is explosive information that the President did not make available to him until the right time.

    Let's listen to Mr. Jordan.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    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.

    The President knew it was not disclosed to Mr. Jordan, according to his testimony. Mr. Jordan has to be reminded as to how important this information was because, he previously testified, that he expected to be told. It was significant enough information that if Ms. Betty Currie knew that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena that Betty Currie should tell him. He expected the President to tell him. That was his expectation, for natural reasons--that this is an extraordinary conflict whenever the President knows there is a relationship. She is an adverse witness. She is under subpoena, and provided a job benefit. But he kept some of those details to himself without disclosing.

    Let's listen again to Mr. Jordan.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Precisely. She disclosed to you, of course, when she received the subpoena, and that's information that you expected to know and to be disclosed to you?

    A Fine.

    Q Is--

    A Yes. Fine.

    Q And in fact, if Ms. Currie--I'm talking about Betty Currie--if she had known that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena, you would have expected her to tell you that information as well since you were seeking employment for Ms. Lewinsky?

    A Well, it would have been fine had she told me. I do make a distinction between being a witness on the one hand and being a defendant in some sort of criminal action on the other. She was a witness in the civil case, and I don't believe witnesses in civil cases don't have a right for--to employment.

    Q Okay. I refer you to page 95 of your grand jury testimony, in which you said: `I believe that had Ms. Currie known, that she would have told me.'

    And the next question: `Let me ask the question again, though. Would you have expected her to tell you if she knew?"

    And do you recall your answer?

    A I don't.

    Q `Yes, sure.'

    A I stand by that answer.

    Q And so it's your testimony that if Ms. Currie had known that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena, you would have expected her to tell you that information?

    A It would have been helpful.

    Q And likewise, would you have expected the President to tell you if he had any reason to believe that Ms. Lewinsky would be called as a witness in the Paula Jones case?

    A That would have been helpful, too.

    Q And that was your expectation, that he would have done that in your conversations?

    A It--it would certainly have been helpful, but it would not have changed my mind.

    Q Well, being helpful and that being your expectation is a little bit different, and so I want to go back again to your testimony on March 3, page 95, when the question is asked to you--question: `If the President had any reason to believe that Ms. Lewinsky could be called a witness in the Paula Jones case, would you have expected him to tell you that when you spoke with him between the 11th and the 19th about her?'

    And your answer: `And I think he would have.'

    A My answer was yes in the grand jury testimony, and my answer is yes today.

    Q All right. So it would have been helpful, and it was something you would have expected?

    A Yes.

    Q And yet, according to your testimony, the President did not so advise you of that fact in the conversations that he had with you on December 7th and December 11th after he learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list?

    A As I testified--

    MR. KENDALL: Objection. Misstates the record with regard to December 11th.

    MR. HUTCHINSON: I--I will restate the question. I believe it accurately reflects the record, and I'll ask the question.

    BY MR. HUTCHINSON:

    Q And yet, according to your testimony, the President did not so advise you of the fact that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list despite the fact that he had conversations with you on two occasions, on December 7th and December 11th?

    A I have no recollection of the President telling me about the witness list.

    Now, I am providing some long snippets because I want you to see the testimony of the witnesses. I think it is very important as you piece it together. You might say, well, there is nothing explosive here. Whenever you are talking about obstruction of justice, it ties together, it fits together. Information is controlled and that is what we see in this particular case.

    Clearly, Mr. Jordan expected information because he knew that something that the President should have shared, it was not shared, according to Mr. Jordan's testimony. And for natural reasons.

    If you look at the exhibit that I passed out, on the time line we have talked about when the witness list came out, on the 7th, and on the 11th, or sometime thereafter, the President and Mr. Jordan meet, and that information is not disclosed, despite the fact that the President knows she is on the witness list.

    And now, let's go to the 17th, because now the President is ready to share some additional information with Ms. Lewinsky. Now that he has got the job search moving, perhaps she is in a more receptive mood so that she can handle the news that she is on the witness list. So let's listen to Ms. Lewinsky's testimony as to this December 17, 2 a.m., telephone conversation from the President of the United States.

    (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 will try to ask sharper questions to avoid these objections. At that point we 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's also, I think, now at the point that we were in our questioning in reference to the cover story that you and he 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's correct.

    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 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--

    * * *

    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.

    Do you believe Monica Lewinsky? I believe her testimony is credible. She is not trying to hammer the President. She is trying to tell the truth as to her recollection of this 2 a.m. call to her by the President of the United States on December 17.

    The news is broken to her that she is on the witness list. It puts it in a legal context. This is a 24-year-old ex-intern. She might not have the legal sophistication of the President, but the President certainly knows the legal consequences as to his actions. What he is telling a witness in a case that is adverse to him is that: You do not have to tell the truth. You can use the cover stories that we used before. And that might have been in a nonlegal context, but now we are in a different arena and he says: Continue the same lies, even though you are in a court of law. Continue the same pattern.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, in my book that is illegal, and I hate to say it, but that is obstruction of justice by the President of the United States. And, if you believe Ms. Lewinsky, then you have to accept that fact. Otherwise, we are saying that it is all right for someone to take a witness who is against them and say: Don't tell the truth, don't worry about that, use the cover stories. You can file an affidavit. You can avoid telling the truth.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is significant. It is important. Do not diminish this, the impact of what happened on December 17, with the obstruction of justice on that occasion.

    And, now, let's move on. That is December 17. We can move on to December 19, and this is when the subpoena is actually delivered to Ms. Lewinsky. She calls Vernon Jordan. She is in tears. She is upset. Vernon Jordan says, `Come over to my office,' and they have the discussion. And you are going to hear Mr. Jordan's version of what happens on December 19. You are going to hear Ms. Lewinsky's testimony as to what happens in that office on December 19 as well.

    Let's hear from Mr. Jordan.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q And during this meeting, did she in fact show you the subpoena that she had received in the Jones litigation?

    A I'm sure she showed me the subpoena.

    Q And the subpoena that was presented to you asked her to give a deposition, is that correct?

    A As I recollect.

    Q But did it also ask Ms. Lewinsky or direct her to produce certain documents and tangible objects?

    A I think, if I'm correct in my recollection, it asked that she produce gifts.

    Q Gifts, and some of those gifts were specifically enumerated.

    A I don't remember that. I do remember gifts.

    Q And did you discuss any of the items requested under the subpoena?

    A I did not. What I said to her was that she needed counsel.

    Q Now, just to help you in reference to your previous grand jury testimony of March 3, '98--and if you would like to refer to that, page 121, but I believe it was your testimony that you asked her if there had been any gifts after you looked at the subpoena.

    A I may have done that, and if I--if that's in my testimony, I stand by it.

    Q And did she--from your conversation with her, did you determine that in your opinion, there was a fascination on her part with the President?

    A No question about that.

    Q And I think you previously described it that she had a `thing' for the President?

    A `Thing,' yes.

    Q And did you make any specific inquiry as to the nature of the relationship that she had with the President?

    A Yes. At some point during that conversation, I asked her directly if she had had sexual relationships with the President.

    Q And is this not an extraordinary question to ask a 24-year-old intern, whether she had sexual relations with the President of the United States?

    A Not if you see--not if you had witnessed her emotional state and this `thing,' as I say. It was not.

    Q And her emotional state and what she expressed to you about her feelings for the President is what prompted you to ask that question?

    A That, plus the question of whether or not the President at the end of his term would leave the First Lady; and that was alarming and stunning to me.

    Q And she related that question to you in that meeting on December 19th?

    A That's correct.

    Q Now, going back to the question in which you asked her if she had had a sexual relationship with the President, what was her response?

    A No.

    Q And I'm sure that that was not an idle question on your part, and I presume that you needed to know the answer for some purpose.

    A I wanted to know the answer based on what I had seen in her expression; obviously, based on the fact that this was a subpoena about her relationship with the President.

    Q And so you felt like you needed to know the answer to that question to determine how you were going to handle the situation?

    A No. I thought it was a factual data that I needed to know, and I asked the question.

    Q And why did you need to know the answer to that question?

    A I am referring this lady, Ms. Lewinsky, to various companies for jobs, and it seemed to me that it was important for me to know in that process whether or not there had been something going on with the President based on what I saw and based on what I heard.

    Why was it important? Why was it important for Mr. Jordan to know whether she was under subpoena? Why was it important for Mr. Jordan to know whether there was a sexual relationship? Why was it important? Because those would be incredible, explosive ingredients in a circumstance that is fraught with danger and impropriety, and he knows that and he asked the right questions. But he doesn't listen to the right answer, nor does he take the right steps, because he is acting at the direction of the President.

    As you will see, during his meeting on December 19, he was keeping the President very closely informed. You will see in your packet of materials that the call--as soon as he was notified, Mr. Jordan was notified Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena, he tried to get ahold of the President, exhibit H-25, a 3:51 call to the President. He didn't make contact at that point. Ms. Lewinsky came into his office about 4:47. It was at 5:01 that he received a call from the President. So the President actually called him at the same time Ms. Lewinsky was in the office.

    Let's look at Ms. Lewinsky's testimony as to her recollection of that December 19 meeting with Mr. Jordan.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q You went to see Mr. Jordan, and you were inside his office after 5 o'clock, and you did--is that correct?

    A Yes.

    Q Were--were you interrupted, in the office?

    A Yes. He received a phone call.

    Q And you testified that you didn't know who that was that called?

    A Correct.

    Q Did you excuse yourself?

    A Yes.

    Q What--after you came back in, what--what occurred? Did he tell you who he had been talking to?

    A No.

    Q Okay. What happened next?

    A I know I've testified about this--

    Q Yes.

    A --so I stand by that testimony, and my recollection right now is when I came back in the room, I think shortly after he had placed a phone call to--to Mr. Carter's office, and told me to come to his office at 10:30 Monday morning.

    Q Did you know who Mr. Carter was?

    A No.

    Q Did Mr. Jordan tell you who he was?

    A No--I don't remember.

    Q Did you understand he was going to be your attorney?

    A Yes.

    Q Did you express any concerns about the--the subpoena?

    A I think that happened before the phone call came.

    Q Okay, but did you express concerns about the subpoena?

    A Yes, yes.

    Q And what were those concerns?

    A In general, I think I was just concerned about being dragged into this, and I was concerned because the subpoena had called for a hatpin, that I turn over a hatpin, and that was an alarm to me.

    Q How--in what sense was it--in what sense was it an alarm to you?

    A The hatpin being on the subpoena was evidence to me that someone had given that information to the Paula Jones people.

    Q What did Mr. Jordan say about the subpoena?

    A That it was standard.

    Q Did he have any--did he have any comment about the specificity of the hatpin?

    A No.

    Q And did you--

    A He just kept telling me to calm down.

    Q Did you raise that concern with Mr. Jordan?

    A I don't remember if--if I've testified to it, then yes. If--I don't remember right now.

    Q Did--would you have remembered then if he made any comment or answer about the hatpin?

    A I mean, I think I would.

    Q And you don't remember?

    A I--I remember him saying something that it was--you know, calm down, it's a standard subpoena or vanilla subpoena, something like that.

    What we see here is another example of compartmentalization of information. During this meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan receives a call from the President, presumably in response to a call he had placed to the President, to tell him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. When the President calls, Mr. Jordan takes that call in private. It is about Ms. Lewinsky, it is about the subpoena, and that information is not shared with Ms. Lewinsky. It is of interest to her.

    Let's go on and hear some more about Ms. Lewinsky's version of that conversation on December 19.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Did Mr. Jordan during that meeting make an inquiry about the nature of the relationship between you and the President?

    A. Yes, he did.

    Q. What was that inquiry?

    A. I don't remember the exact wording of the questions, but there were two questions, and I think they were something like did you have sex with the President or did he--and if--or did he ask for it or some--something like that.

    At this point, Ms. Lewinsky denies the relationship. She thinks this is some type of a test. She is not sure the reason for the question. She thinks he knows there is a little confusion on that. Clearly, Mr. Jordan is not satisfied with the answer. Mother wit is still around, as he indicated. But he feels so concerned about it that that night he goes to see the President, that we will later see, and asks that same question of the President.

    Now, let's talk to President Clinton and see what he testifies about when this information was reported to him on the subpoena. Let's listen to the testimony of President Clinton.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with subpoena in this case?

    A I don't think so.

    Q Did you ever talk with Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case?

    A Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she was, I think maybe that's the first person told me she was. I want to be as accurate as I can.

    Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair recognizes the Senator from NebraskA

    Mr. KERREY. Can I ask the manager to identify which deposition this is?

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. This is the January deposition.

    Mr. KERREY. Mr. Chief Justice, will the manager answer the question and then show that again? This is the second time he has shown a tape of the President without indicating which deposition it was.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes, I think it would be a good idea for the manager if he will indicate what deposition it was, if you are showing a deposition video of the President.

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and I thank the Senator for the question. It is a very fair question, and I will try to be more clear in the identification of that. This is the testimony of William Jefferson Clinton before the deposition in the Jones case in January, January 17. I believe--can we replay that? We are not going to replay that. Let me go on.

    The testimony that he gave at that time was, `Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in that case,' and the answer was, `I don't think so.' Clearly, Mr. Jordan was keeping close contact with the President, telling him every step of the way, when the subpoena, the call, he is placing a call back--the information is there, but, of course, the President tries to diminish that.

    Let's go on with some more testimony of Ms. Lewinsky.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Did you ask Mr. Jordan to call the President and advise him of the subpoena?

    A. I think so, yes. I asked him to inform the President. I don't know if it was through telephone or not.

    Q. And you did that because the President had asked you to make sure you let Betty know that?

    A. Well, sure. With Betty not being in the office, I couldn't--there wasn't anyone else that I could call to get through to him.

    Q. Did Mr. Jordan say to you when he might see the President next?

    A. I believe he said he would see him that evening at a holiday reception.

    Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, could I inquire, was the manager thinking in terms of concluding this portion in 15 minutes, or do you want to take a break now?

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. This would be a good time for a break.

    RECESS

    Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that we take a 15-minute break at this time.

    There being no objection, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate recessed until 11:53 a.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice.

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

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I was going to take the opportunity to replay the videotape--in fact, I will now--that I did not properly explain before. This is the videotape of President Clinton and his testimony before the civil deposition in the Jones case in January of 1997.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. When you say `before,' you actually mean `during,' don't you? It is not before the deposition; his testimony was during the deposition.

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chief Justice, you are absolutely correct. Excuse me. Thank you.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with subpoena in this case?

    A I don't think so.

    Q Did you ever talk with Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case?

    A Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she was, I think maybe that's the first person told me she was. i want to be as accurate as I can.

    And now let's go to what Mr. Jordan has to say in reference to his contacts with the President when he learned of the subpoena on December 19. Let's play that tape.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Now, Mr. Jordan, you indicated you had this conversation with the President at about 5:01 p.m. out of the presence of Ms. Lewinsky. Now, during this conversation with the President, what did you tell the President in that conversation?

    A That Lewinsky--I'm sure I told him that Ms. Lewinsky was in my office, in the reception area, that she had a subpoena and that I was going to visit with her.

    Q And did you advise the President as well that you were going to recommend Frank Carter as an attorney?

    A I may have.

    Q And why was it necessary to tell the President these facts?

    A I don't know why it was not unnecessary to tell him these facts. I was keeping him informed about what was going on, and so I told him.

    Q Why did you make the judgment that you should call the President and advise him of these facts?

    A I just thought he ought to know. He was interested it--he was obviously interested in it--and I felt some responsibility to tell him, and I did.

    Q All right. And what was the President's response?

    A He said thank you.

    Q Subsequent to your conversation with the President about Monica Lewinsky, did you advise Ms. Lewinsky of this conversation with the President?

    A I doubt it.

    Once again, Mr. Jordan testifies that the President was obviously interested in it. This was not a matter of casual interest to him. It was a matter of deep concern that jeopardized what he saw as his position in that lawsuit.

    Now, let's go back again to the testimony of President Clinton, this time before the grand jury in August of 1998.

    (Playing of videotape.)

    Mr. STEVENS. We cannot hear that monitor.

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. I will read the answer again:

    . . . and Mr. Jordan informed you of that, is that right?

    Answer: No, sir.

    Now, in fairness to the President, he gives a longer answer than that. I welcome anybody to read it, but it appears rather convoluted. I think that you can see the contrast. There is no question in Mr. Jordan's mind as to the details that he is providing to the President on a regular basis. We are on December 19. The subpoena is issued. He notifies the President. He notifies the President how the job search is going. He notifies the President that they got representation through Mr. Carter. So the details are provided to the President and to contrast that with the President's recollection as to did he have any contact with Mr. Jordan, once again diminishing that.

    Let's go back to December 19, back to the chart--to December 19 when the subpoena is issued. Mr. Jordan meets with Monica Lewinsky. He confronts her about the relationship. Now, he goes that evening to see the President at the White House to confront him personally about it to discuss this with him. Let's hear from Mr. Jordan, and this is at the White House.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    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.'

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    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.

    Q Well, my question was more did you rely upon the President's answer in your decision to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job.

    A I did not rely on his answer. I was going to pursue the job in any event. But I got the answer to the question that I had asked Ms. Lewinsky earlier from her, and I got the answer from him that night as to the sexual relationships, and he said no.

    You will have to judge for yourselves as to why Mr. Jordan felt compelled to ask the question. He is asking the right questions. It was important information. If the President had said, `Yes; there is,' then it would certainly have been inappropriate to continue providing a job benefit for a witness that you are seeking an affidavit from denying a relationship when you know the relationship exists, when that witness would be adverse to the President's interest who is seeking the job.

    To some that might be convoluted, and perhaps I didn't explain it as best it can be. But it looks to me like that is why Mr. Jordan is asking the question because he knows it would be inappropriate if that, in fact, did exist. He got an answer `no.' I don't know what he thought in his mind. But clearly you see the conversations develop when Ms. Lewinsky made it totally clear to him without any question that there was that relationship. But still the job benefit was provided.

    We are not going to have time to go through it all. But sequentially, the next thing that happens is December 2 when Ms. Lewinsky goes to Mr. Jordan's office where Mr. Jordan drives her in the chauffeur-driven government vehicle to Mr. Frank Carter's office where the attorney is that is provided for Ms. Lewinsky. And that is the only time that it happened in the referral that Mr. Jordan took it upon himself to personally deliver a client to Mr. Carter. During that conversation, Ms. Lewinsky tells Mr. Jordan more of the details of their relationship.

    But let's go to another element of obstruction--on December 28, a few days after Christmas. You are very familiar with this episode in which Ms. Lewinsky and the President meet. They exchange gifts. The testimony in the Jones case is discussed. There is concern expressed about the gifts. She asks the President in essence, Should I get them out of my house? And you will hear her answer. Her testimony is very clear on this. That is what I would like you to listen to. There is no ambiguity. There are no `what-ifs.' It is very clear. And let's move now to the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky.

    (Inaudible.)

    Mr. LAUTENBERG. I can't hear.

    Mr. GRAMM. Can we turn this up?

    Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. I don't think the question is audible.

    Well, that is a different--it's not as sophisticated a sound collection system as the U.S. Senate used in the depositions here, so I apologize for the fact that that was inaudible but the question was asked of the President:

    Q. After you gave her the gifts on December 28, did you speak with your secretary, Ms. Currie, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that was some compilation of gifts that Ms. Lewinsky would have?

    His answer:

    No, sir, I did not do that.

    His denial and then the facts presented by Ms. Lewinsky and the circumstantial evidence, the question was asked of Ms. Lewinsky:

    Q. Did the President ever tell you to turn over the gifts?

    A. Not that I remember.

    But when I say that she that testified unequivocally, whenever Ms. Lewinsky was asked `Did you later that day receive a call from Ms. Currie,' the answer was, `Yes, I did,' and she goes ahead and explains it. There is no hesitation. There is no question. But their memory is clear that the call came from Betty Currie.

    Now, how could Betty Currie know to go pick up the gifts? I think you understand there is only one way that could have come about, and that would be through a communication from the President to her.

    Now, let's go on down the path. After we see the meeting on December 28, there was a meeting at the Hyatt on December 31. We could play this video--I would like to--with Vernon Jordan and with Ms. Lewinsky. This is a meeting at the Hyatt that Mr. Jordan totally denied ever happened in his first few testimonies before the grand jury. But in his most recent testimony before the Senate, in the deposition, he was confronted with receipts from the Hyatt, and the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky which was clear, and the corroborating facts. And he said yes, in fact, it did happen. And not only did he recall the meeting, but then he recalled what was discussed, that yes, in fact, notes were discussed there.

    And Ms. Lewinsky testifies that she raised the issue of other evidence that would be possibly in her apartment, notes to the President. According to her testimony, she was told that: You need to get rid of those.

    Now, Mr. Jordan totally denies that. But the point is, there is more evidence at risk for the President. Mr. Jordan, who is doing the work for the President, has this conversation with Ms. Lewinsky that he earlier denied ever happened.

    So, I think you look at credibility there. You believe Ms. Lewinsky? If you accept the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, then you have more evidence that is at issue, and that is being urged to be destroyed and not available for the truth-seeking endeavor in the civil rights case. I think that is significant.

    Now, you say that is not the President, that is Mr. Jordan. You have to put this in context. It is Ms. Lewinsky who says that she is talking to the President when she is talking to Mr. Jordan--and I am paraphrasing that, but that is what she was seeing--seeing Mr. Jordan as a conduit to the President.

    Then we go on after the meeting in the Hyatt, we go into January, where the job search continues. But it is tied directly to the signing of the affidavit, which is false by its nature.

    If we look at the testimony of Mr. Jordan, in the January 5 timeframe where the affidavit is prepared and discussed with Mr. Jordan:

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Do you know why you would have been calling Mr. Carter on 3 occasions the day before the affidavit was signed?

    A Yeah, my recollection is, is that I was exchanging or sharing with Mr. Carter what had gone on, what she 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 conversation 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.

    So you have Mr. Jordan discussing the affidavit with both Ms. Lewinsky and her attorney, Mr. Carter. And if you look at the testimony of Mr. Carter, he talks about the fact that he did bill some time for his conversations with Mr. Jordan. Certainly they are matters of substance in relation to the affidavit that was being discussed between the three: Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Carter.

    Now, let's hear what Ms. Lewinsky has to say on the changes that were made in the affidavit:

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q OK, have you had an opportunity to review the draft of your affidavit?

    A I--yes.

    Q Do you have any comment or response?

    A I received it. I made the suggested changes. And I believe I spoke with Mr. Jordan about the changes I wanted to make.

    Now, because of time, I am not going to be able to go completely through all of their testimony but let me tell you time sequentially what is happening here. This is the second page of the time chart that you have.

    January 5 and 6, the affidavit is prepared and discussed with Mr. Jordan and with the President.

    On the 7th, the affidavit is signed. You recall Mr. Jordan lets the President know that the affidavit was signed. And he says he was interested, he was obviously interested in this.

    On January 8 the job came through, the day after the affidavit was signed. And of course it had to come through, the personal call of Mr. Jordan to Mr. Perelman to `make it happen--if it can happen.' Once that job is secured, the President is informed: Mission accomplished.

    January 15, there are some inquiries from the news media about the gifts that had been delivered to the White House. This makes Betty Currie nervous enough that she has to go see Mr. Jordan about it.

    You go to the 17th; the President gives his deposition in which that false affidavit is presented on behalf of Ms. Lewinsky and the President's attorney.

    And then the next day, after that deposition is given, you

    go to January 18, where he is very concerned because he mentions Betty Currie's name so many times.

    We were not able--we did not ask for the deposition of Betty Currie. We wish that we had had that opportunity. We would like to call her here. But that is one of the most critical and important elements of the structure in which the truth is so critically clear, because it happened not just on one day, because it happened on a couple of days.

    We see on the 17th, the President is deposed. This is the third chart that you have. The 18th, the President coaches Betty Currie, going through the series of questions. On the 19th, there is this dramatic search for Ms. Lewinsky. On the 20th, the Washington Post story becomes known, because the President's counselors get calls and the OIC investigation becomes known.

    On the 21st, at 12:30 a.m., the Post story appears on the Internet. At 12:41, the President calls Bruce Lindsey. At 1:16 a.m, the Post story appears. The President calls Betty Currie for 20 minutes, discusses the Post story. And then, according to Betty Currie, on the 20th or the 21st, it was the second incident of coaching that took place, where the President calls her in and goes through that series of questions: I did nothing wrong; she came on to me; we were never alone. And so that was the second time that it happened. And that, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, is another example of witness tampering: A known witness clearly going to be testifying, a subordinate employee who is called in and coached.

    Now, the President says, `I was trying to gain facts.' You determine that. You are the ones who have to defend that question as to whether, under common sense, the President was gaining information on two separate occasions or whether he was actually trying to tamper with the testimony of a witness.

    The 21st, she is subpoenaed by the OIC. The 23rd, she is added to the Jones witness list.

    Now I want to play the last video clip that I am going to move to on Ms. Lewinsky, some things that she said that are different with regard to the President:

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

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

    A That's correct.

    * * * * *

    Q But the--the pattern that you had with the President to conceal this relationship, it was never questioned that, for instance, that given day that he gave you gifts you were not going to surrender those to the Jones attorneys because that would--

    A In my mind there is no reflection; no.

    We have one more here we would like you to listen to.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    A Sure, gosh, I think to me that if the President had not said to Betty in letters us--cover--let us just say if we refer to that which I am talking about in paragraph 4 of page 4, I would have known to use that. So, to me, encouraging or asking me to lie would have, you know if the President had said now listen you better not say anything about this relationship, you better not tell them the truth, you better not--for me the best way to explain how I feel what happened was, you know, no one asked or encouraged me to lie, but no one discouraged me either.

    It is very important to understand that we want you to know very clearly that Ms. Lewinsky says that the President never told her to lie. There is no question about that. There is no dispute about that, either. I think you have to look at all the context of this. What the President did suggest to her was to use an affidavit to avoid truthful testimony, to stick with the cover stories under legal context.

    Is the issue here whether Ms. Lewinsky believed the President was encouraging her to lie, that's what the President was trying to do here? Or is the issue what the President was trying to do? It is your determination. You have to make the decision whether the President, in talking to a 24-year-old ex-employee, whether he is encouraging her to come forward and to tell the truth or, in a legal context, to use the old cover stories, to lie, to use false affidavits, to avoid the truth from coming out.

    It is not Ms. Lewinsky's viewpoint that is important. It is what the President intended. What did the President intend by this conversation when he told her on December 17, `Guess what, bad news; you're a witness'. Then he proceeded to suggest to her ways to avoid truthful testimony.

    I really don't care what is in Ms. Lewinsky's mind at that point. The critical issue is what is in the President's mind at that point as to what he was intending. Was it an innocent conversation, or was it a conversation with corrupt intent?

    I believe that if you put all of this in context--from the affidavit to the job search, to the coaching of Ms. Betty Currie, to all of the other conversations with the aides--that it was the President's intent to avoid the workings of the administration of justice, to impede the flow of the truth in the administration of justice for his own benefit, and that is what obstruction of justice is about. That is what people go to jail about, and that is what we are presenting to you as a factual basis for this case.

    I now yield to my fellow manager, Mr. Rogan.

    RECESS

    Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I think it would be appropriate if we take a break at this time for lunch and return at 1:15, and I so ask unanimous consent.

    There being no objection, at 12:22 p.m., the Senate recessed until 1:24 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 we are ready to resume the presentation by the House managers, and Mr. Manager Rogan is prepared to speak.

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

    Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, before the break, you had the opportunity to hear the very able presentation from Mr. Manager Hutchinson relating to the article of impeachment alleging obstruction of justice against the President of the United States. I would like to use my portion to discuss very briefly article I of the impeachment resolution that alleges on August 17, 1998, the President committed perjury before a Federal grand jury conducting a criminal investigation. He did this in a number of ways, embarking on a calculated effort to cover up illegal obstruction of justice.

    First, the President lied about statements he made to his top aides regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is significant because the President admitted, under oath, that he knew these aides were potential witnesses before a criminal grand jury.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    A. And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship. That I used--in the language I used, I said there was nothing going on between us. That was true. I said I have not had sex with her as I define it. That was true. And did I hope that I never had to be here on this day giving this testimony, of course. But I also didn't want to do anything to complicate this matter further.

    So I said things that were true that may have been misleading, and if they were, I have to take responsibility for it, and I am sorry.

    Q. It may have been misleading, but you knew, though, after January 21 when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew they might be witnesses, you knew they might be called into the grand jury?

    A. That's right.

    Q. And you do you recall denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to the following people: Harry Thomasson, Erskine Bowles, Harold Ickes, Mr. Podesta, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Jordan, Miss Betty Currie. Do you recall denying any sexual relation--

    The question to the President: `You knew they might be called into a grand jury, didn't you?' Answer by the President: `That's right.'

    The President's testimony that he said things that were misleading but true to his aides was perjury.

    Just as the President predicted, several of his top aides later were called to testify before the grand jury as to what the President told them. When they testified before the grand jury, they passed along the President's false account, just as the President intended. The President's former chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, and his current chief of staff, John Podesta, went before the grand jury and testified that the President told them he did not have sexual relations with Monica and he did not ask anybody to lie.

    Mr. Podesta had an additional meeting with the President 2 days after the story broke. Mr. Podesta testified that at that meeting with the President the President was extremely explicit in saying he never had sex with her in any way whatever and that he was not alone with her in the Oval Office.

    The most glaring example of the President using an aide as a messenger of lies to the grand jury was his manipulation of his Presidential assistant, Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blumenthal has been assistant to the President since August of 1997. Mr. Blumenthal testified that dealing with the media was one of his responsibilities on January 21, 1998, the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke. Mr. Blumenthal testified under oath that once the story became public, he attended twice-a-day White House strategy sessions called to deal with the political, legal, and media impact of the Clinton scandals on the White House.

    In his deposition testimony taken just this week by authority of the U.S. Senate, Mr. Blumenthal shared in chilling detail the story of how the President responded to the public discovery of his longstanding relationship with a young woman who had shared tearful and emotional descriptions of her love for him. Mr. Clinton responded not in love, not in friendship, not even with a grain of concern for her well-being or emotional stability. Instead, the President took the deep and apparently unrequited emotional attachment Monica Lewinsky had formed for him, and prepared to summarily take her life and throw it on the ash heap.

    The date is January 21, 1998. The Lewinsky scandal had just broken in the newspapers that morning. Mr. Blumenthal met initially with the First Lady, Mrs. Clinton, to get her take on the growing political fire storm. Later that day, Mr. Blumenthal is summoned to the Oval Office. Listen as Sidney Blumenthal describes, step by step, the destructive mechanism of the man who twice was elected President under the banner of feeling other people's pain.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Mr. Blumenthal, specifically inviting your attention to January 21, 1998, you testified before the grand jury that on that date you personally spoke to the President regarding the Monica Lewinsky matter, correct?

    A. Yes.

    * * * * *

    Q. You are familiar with the Washington Post story that broke that day?

    A. I am.

    * * * * *

    Q. The story stated that the Office of Independent Counsel was investigating whether the President made false statements about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones case?

    A. Right.

    Q. And also that the Office of Independent Counsel was investigating whether the President obstructed justice in the Jones case, is that your best recollection of what that story was about?

    A. Yes.

    * * * * *

    Q. And you now remember that the President asked to speak with you?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you go to the Oval Office?

    A. Yes.

    Q. During that conversation were you alone with the President?

    A. I was.

    Q. Do you remember if the door was closed?

    A. It was.

    Q. When you met with the President, did you relate to him a conversation you had with the First Lady earlier that day?

    A. I did.

    Q. What did you tell the President the First Lady told you earlier that day?

    A. I believe that I told him that the First Lady had called me earlier in the day, and in the light of the story in the Post had told me that the President had helped troubled people in the past and that he had done it many times and that he was a compassionate person and that he helped people also out of his religious conviction and that part it was part of--his nature.

    Q. And did she also tell you that one of the other reasons he helped people was out of his personal temperament?

    A. Yes. That is what I mean by that.

    * * * * *

    Q. Do you remember telling the President that the First Lady said to you that she felt that with--in reference to the story that he was being attacked for political motives?

    A. I remember her saying that to me, yes.

    Q. And you relayed that to the President?

    A. I'm not sure I relayed that to the President. I may have just relayed the gist of the conversation to him. I don't --I'm not sure whether I relayed the entire conversation.

    Mr. ROGAN: Inviting the Senators and counsel's attention to the June 4th, 1998 testimony of Mr. Blumenthal, page 47, beginning at line 5.

    By Mr. ROGAN:

    Q. Mr. Blumenthal, let me just read a passage to you and tell me if this helps to refresh your memory?

    A. Mm-hmm.

    Q. Reading at line 5, `I was in my office, and the President asked me to come to the Oval Office. I was seeing him frequently in this period about the State of the Union and Blair's visit'--that was Prime Minister Tony Blair, as an aside --correct?

    A. That's right.

    * * * * *

    Q. Reading at line 7, `So I went up to the Oval Office and I began a discussion, and I said that I HAD received--that I had spoken to the First Lady that day in the afternoon about the story that had broke in the morning, and I related to the President my conversation with the First Lady and the conversation went as follows. The First Lady said that she was distressed that the President was being attacked, in her view, for political motives for his ministry of a troubled person. She said that the President ministers to troubled people all the time,' and then it goes on to--

    Does that help refresh your recollection with respect to what you told the President the First Lady had said earlier?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And do you now remember that the First Lady had indicated to you that she felt the President was being attacked for political motives?

    A. Well, I remember she said that to me.

    Q. And just getting us back on track, a few moments ago, I think you--you shared with us that the First Lady said that
    the President helped troubled people and he had done it many times in the past.

    A. Yes.

    Q. Do you remember testifying before the grand jury on that subject, saying that the First Lady said that he has done this dozens, if not hundreds, of times with people--

    A. Yes.

    Q. --with troubled people?

    A. I recall that.

    Q. After you related the conversation that you had with the First Lady to the President, what do you remember saying to the President next about the subject of Monica Lewinsky?

    A. Well, I recall telling him that I understood he felt that way, and that he did help people, but that he should stop trying to help troubled people personally, that troubled people are troubled and that they can get you in a lot of messes and that you had to cut yourself off from it and you just had to do it. That's what I recall saying to him.

    Q. Do you also remember in that conversation saying to him, `You really need to not do that at this point, that you can't get near anybody who is even remotely crazy. You're President'?

    A. Yes. I think that was a little later in the conversation, but I do recall saying that.

    Q. When you told the President that he should avoid contact with troubled people, what did the President say to you in response?

    A. I'm trying to remember the sequence of it. He--he said that was very difficult for him. He said he--he felt a need to help troubled people, and it was hard for him to--to cut himself off from doing that.

    Q. Do you remember him saying specifically, `It's very difficult for me to do that given how I am. I want to help people'?

    A. I recall--I recall that.

    Q. And when the President referred to helping people, did you understand him in that conversation to be referring to Monica Lewinsky?

    A. I think it included Monica Lewinsky, but also many others.

    Q. Right, but it was your understanding that he was all--he was specifically referring to Monica Lewinsky in that list of people that he tried to help?

    A. I believe that--that was implied.

    Q. Do you remember being asked that question before the grand jury and giving the answer, `I understood that'?

    A. If you could point it out to me, I'd be happy to see it.

    * * * * *

    By Mr. ROGAN: Inviting Senators' and counsels' attention to June 25th, 1998 grand jury, page 5, I believe it's at lines 6 through 8.

    The WITNESS: Yes, I see that. Thank you.

    By Mr. ROGAN:

    Q. You recall that now?

    A. Yes.

    Following this conversation where Mr. Blumenthal told the President about his conversation with the First Lady that day, the President told Mr. Blumenthal about the President's own conversation he had earlier that day with his pollster, Dick Morris.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q. Mr. Blumenthal, did the President then relate a conversation he had with Dick Morris to you?

    A. He did.

    Q. What was the substance of that conversation, as the President related it to you?

    A. He said that he had spoken to Dick Morris earlier that day, and that Dick Morris had told him that if Nixon, Richard Nixon, had given a nationally televised speech at the beginning of the Watergate affair, acknowledging everything he had done wrong, he may well have survived it, and that was the conversation that Dick Morris--that's what Dick Morris said to the President.

    Q. Did it sound to you like the President was suggesting perhaps he would go on television and give a national speech?

    A. Well, I don't know. I didn't know.

    Q. When the President related the substance of his conversation with Dick Morris to you, how did you respond to that?

    A I said to the President, `Well, what have you done wrong?'

    Q Did he reply?

    A He did.

    Q What did he say?

    A He said, `I haven't done anything wrong.'

    Q And what did you say to that response?

    A Well, I said, as I recall, `That's one of the stupidest ideas I ever heard. If you haven't done anything wrong, why would you do that?'

    After denying to Mr. Blumenthal any wrongdoing with Monica Lewinsky, the President then struck the harshest of blows against her. He launched a preemptive strike against her name and her character to an aide who he expected would be, and very shortly became, a witness before a Federal grand jury investigation.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q Did the President then give you his account of what happened between him and Monica Lewinsky?

    A As I recall, he did.

    Q What did the President tell you?

    A He, uh--he spoke, uh, fairly rapidly, as I recall, at that point and said that she had come on to him and made a demand for sex, that he had rebuffed her, turned her down, and that she, uh, threatened him. And, uh, he said that she said to him, uh, that she was called `the stalker' by her peers and that she hated the term, and that she would claim that they had had an affair whether they had or they hadn't, and that she would tell people.

    Q Do you remember him also saying that the reason Monica Lewinsky would tell people that is because then she wouldn't be known by her peers as `the stalker' anymore?

    A Yes, that's right.

    Q Do you remember the President also saying that--and I'm quoting--`I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again'?

    A Yes. He told me that.

    Q And that was in the same conversation that you had with the President?

    A Right, in--in that sequence.

    Q Can you describe for us the President's demeanor when he shared this information with you?

    A Yes. He was, uh, very upset. I thought he was, a man in anguish.

    Q And at that point, did you repeat your earlier admonition to him as far as not trying to help troubled people?

    A I did. I--I think that's when I told him that you can't get near crazy people, uh, or troubled people. Uh, you're President; you just have to separate yourself from this.

    Q And I'm not sure, based on your testimony, if you gave that admonition to him once or twice. Let me--let me clarify for you why my questioning suggested it was twice. In your grand jury testimony on June the 4th, at page 49, beginning at line 25, you began the sentence by saying, and I quote, `And I repeated to the President'--

    A Right.

    Q --`that he really needed never to be near people who were'--

    A Right.

    Q --`troubled like this,' and so forth. Do you remember now if you--if that was correct? Did you find yourself in that conversation having to repeat the admonition to him that you'd given earlier?

    A I'm sure I did. Uh, I felt--I felt that pretty strongly. He shouldn't be involved with troubled people.

    Q Do you remember the President also saying something about being like a character in a novel?

    A I do.

    Q What did he say?

    A Uh, he said to me, uh, that, uh, he felt like a character in a novel. Uh, he felt like somebody, uh, surrounded by, uh, an oppressive environment that was creating a lie about him. He said he felt like, uh, the character in the novel Darkness at Noon.

    Q Did he also say he felt like he can't get the truth out?

    A Yes, I--I believe he said that.

    Q Politicians are always loathe to confess their ignorance, particularly on videotape. I will do so. I'm unfamiliar with the novel Darkness at Noon. Did you--do you have any familiarity with that, or did you understand what the President meant by that?

    A I--I understood what he meant. I--I was familiar with the book.

    Q What--what did he mean by that, per your understanding?

    A Uh, the book is by Arthur Koestler, who was somebody who had been a communist and had become disillusioned with communism. And it's an anti-communist novel. It's about, uh, uh, the Stalinist purge trials and somebody who was a loyal communist who then is put in one of Stalin's prisons and held on trial and executed, uh, and it's about his trial.

    Q Did you understand what the President was trying to communicate when he related his situation to the character in that novel?

    A I think he felt that the world was against him.

    Q I thought only Members of Congress felt that way.

    The President continued to pass along false information to Mr. Blumenthal with regard to the substance of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Mr. Blumenthal, did you ever ask the President if he was ever alone with Monica Lewinsky?

    A I did.

    Q What was his response?

    A I asked him a number of questions that appeared in the press that day. I asked him, uh, if he were alone, and he said that, uh, he was within eyesight or earshot of someone when he was with her.

    Q What other questions do you remember asking him?

    A Uh, there was a story in the paper that, uh, there were recorded messages, uh, left by him on her voice-mail and I asked him if that were true.

    Q What did he say?

    A He said, uh, that it was, that, uh, he had called her.

    Q You had asked him about a press account that said there were potentially a number of telephone messages left by the President for Monica Lewinsky. And he relayed to you that he called her. Did he tell you how many times he called her?

    A He--he did. He said he called once. He said he called when, uh, Betty Currie's brother had died, to tell her that.

    Q And other than that one time that he shared that information with you, he shared no other information respecting additional calls?

    A No.

    Q He never indicated to you that there were over 50 telephone conversations between himself and Monica Lewinsky?

    A No.

    Q Based on your conversation with the President at that time, would it have surprised you to know that there were over 50--there were records of over 50 telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky and the President?

    A Would I have been surprised at that time?

    Q Yes.

    A Uh, I--to see those records and if he--I don't fully grasp the question here. Could you--would I have been surprised?

    Q Based on the President's response to your question at that time, would it have surprised you to have been told or to have later learned that there were over 50 recorded--50 conversations between the President and Ms. Lewinsky?

    A I did later learn that, uh, as the whole country did, uh, and I was surprised.

    Q When the President told you that Monica Lewinsky threatened him, did you ever feel compelled to report that information to the Secret Service?

    A No.

    Q The FBI or any other law enforcement organization?

    A No.

    Q I'm assuming that a threat to the President from somebody in the White House would normally send off alarm bells among staff.

    A It wouldn't--

    MR. McDANIEL: Well, I'd like to object to the question, Senator. There's no testimony that Mr. Blumenthal learned of a threat contemporaneously with it being made by someone in the White House. This is a threat that was relayed to him sometime afterwards by someone who was no longer employed in the White House. So I think the question doesn't relate to the testimony of this witness.

    MR. ROGAN: Respectfully, I'm not sure what the legal basis of the objection is. The evidence before us is that the President told the witness that Monica Lewinsky threatened him.

    [Senators Specter and Edwards conferring.]

    SENATOR SPECTER: We've conferred and overrule the objection on the ground that it calls for an answer; that, however the witness chooses to answer it, was not a contemporaneous threat, or he thought it was stale, or whatever he thinks. But the objection is overruled.

    MR. ROGAN: Thank you.

    BY MR. ROGAN:

    Q Let me--let me restate the question, if I may. Mr. Blumenthal, would a threat--

    SENATOR SPECTER: We withdraw the ruling.

    [Laughter.]

    MR. McDANIEL: I withdraw my objection, then.

    [Laughter.]

    MR. ROGAN: Senator Specter, the ruling is just fine by my light. I'm just going to try to simplify the question for the witness' benefit.

    SENATOR SPECTER: We'll hold in abeyance a decision on whether to reinstate the ruling.

    MR. ROGAN: Thank you. Maybe I should just quit while I'm ahead and have the question read back.

    BY MR. ROGAN:

    Q Basically, Mr. Blumenthal, what I'm asking is, I mean, normally, would a threat from somebody against the President in the White House typically require some sort of report being made to a law enforcement agency?

    A Uh, in the abstract, yes.

    Q This conversation that you had with the President on January the 21st, 1998, how did that conversation conclude?

    A Uh, I believe we, uh--well, I believe after that, I said to the President that, uh--who was--seemed to me to be upset, that you needed to find some sure footing and to be confident. And, uh, we went on, I believe, to discuss the State of the Union.

    Q You went on to other business?

    A Yes, we went on to talk about public policy.

    Q When this conversation with the President concluded as it related to Monica Lewinsky, what were your feelings toward the President's statement?

    A Uh, well, they were complex. Uh, I believed him, uh, but I was also, uh--I thought he was very upset. That troubled me. And I also was troubled by his association with troubled people and thought this was not a good story and thought he shouldn't be doing this.

    Q Do you remember also testifying before the grand jury that you felt that the President's story was a very heartfelt story and that `he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him'?

    A Yes, that's what I told the grand jury, I believe; right.

    Q That was--that was how you interpreted the President's story?

    A Yes, I did. He was, uh--he seemed--he seemed emotional.

    Q When the President told you he was helping Monica Lewinsky, did he ever describe to you how he might be helping or ministering to her?

    A No.

    Q Did he ever describe how many times he may have tried to help or minister to her?

    A No.

    Q Did he tell you how many times he visited with Monica Lewinsky?

    A No.

    Q Did he tell you how many times Monica Lewinsky visited him in the Oval Office complex?

    A No.

    Q. Did he tell you how many times he was alone with Monica Lewinsky?

    A No.

    Q He never described to you any intimate physical activity he may have had with Monica Lewinsky?

    A Oh, no.

    Q Did the President ever tell you that he gave any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?

    A No.

    Q Did he tell you that Monica Lewinsky gave him any gifts?

    A No.

    Q Based on the President's story as he related on January 21st, would it have surprised you to know at that time that there was a repeated gift exchange between Monica Lewinsky and the President?

    A Well, I learned later about that, and I was surprised.

    Q The President never told you that he engaged in occasional sexual banter with her on the telephone?

    A No.

    Q He never told you about any cover stories that he and Monica Lewinsky may have developed to disguise a relationship?

    A No.

    Q He never suggested to you that there might be some physical evidence pointing to a physical relationship between he--between himself and Monica Lewinsky?

    A No.

    Q Did the President ever discuss his grand jury--or strike that.

    Did the President ever discuss his deposition testimony with you in the Paula Jones case on that date?

    A Oh, no.

    Q Did he ever tell you that he denied under oath in his Paula Jones deposition that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky?

    A No.

    Q Did the President ever tell you that he ministered to anyone else who then made a sexual advance toward him?

    A No.

    One of the things that the President's counsel has continuously urged upon this body, as they did over in the House of Representatives, is to look at the President's state of mind in determining whether, in fact, he committed the crime of perjury. We hope that you will do that. Because nowhere is the President's state of mind more evident than it is in the manner in which he dealt with Sidney Blumenthal at this point.

    Remember, the date of this conversation that Sidney Blumenthal just related to you was January 21, the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke. About a month later, Sidney Blumenthal was called to testify as a witness before the grand jury. That was the first time.

    Five months later or 4 months later Sidney Blumenthal was called back to testify to the grand jury--not once, but two more times. From January 21 until the end of June 1998, the President had almost 6 months in which to tell Sidney Blumenthal, after he was subpoenaed, but before he testified, not to tell the grand jury information that was false. The President had the opportunity to not use his aide as a conduit of false information. Listen to what Sidney Blumenthal said the President failed to tell him.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q After you were subpoenaed to testify but before you testified before the Federal grand jury, did the President ever recant his earlier statements to you about Monica Lewinsky?

    A No.

    Q After you were subpoenaed but before you testified before the federal grand jury, did the President ever say that he did not want you to mislead the grand jury with a false statement?

    A No. We didn't have any subsequent conversation about this matter.

    Q So it would be fair also to say that after you were subpoenaed but before you testified before the Federal grand jury, the President never told you that he was not being truthful with you in that January 21st conversation about Monica Lewinsky?

    A Uh, he never spoke to me about that at all.

    Q The President never instructed you before your testimony before the grand jury not to relay his false account of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

    A We--we didn't speak about anything.

    The President of the United States used a special assistant, one of his aides, as a conduit to go before a Federal grand jury and present false and misleading information and precluded the grand jury from being able to make an honest determination in their investigation. He obstructed justice when he did it, and when he denied that testimony he committed the offense of perjury.

    In response to a question from Mr. Manager Graham, Mr. Blumenthal candidly addressed the President's claim under oath that he was truthful with his aides that he knew would be future grand jury witnesses:

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Q . . . Knowing what you know now, do you believe the President lied to you about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky?

    A I do.

    Q I appreciate your honesty . . . .

    * * * * *

    Q . . . 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.

    In an earlier presentation, the President's attorney, Mr. Ruff, said that the very same denial the President made to his family and his friends was the same one he made to the American people.

    Mr. Ruff said:

    Having made the announcement to the whole country, it is simply absurd, I suggest to you, to believe that he was somehow attempting corruptly to influence his senior staff when he told them virtually the same thing at the same time.

    Members of the Senate, Mr. Ruff's conclusion is wrong because his premise is wrong. The President didn't tell the American public and his aides the same thing, nor did he make the very same denial. On the contrary, the President went out of his way with his aides to make explicit denials, coupled with character assassination against Monica Lewinsky. Why the distinction? Because the American public was not destined to be subpoenaed as a witness before the grand jury and the President's aides were.

    Members of the Senate, our time draws short. The record is replete with other examples which I have addressed and Mr. Manager Hutchinson has addressed dealing with the President's perjuries in other areas, for instance, in the Paula Jones deposition where he emphatically denied having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky that we now know to be true, a relationship that a Federal judge ordered him to discuss with Paula Jones' attorneys because it was relevant information in the sexual civil harassment lawsuit.

    The President's perjury is with respect to Betty Currie and using Betty Currie as somebody to be brought into the Oval Office so that he could coach her as a witness and doing

    everything he could in his own testimony to ensure that the Jones attorney would subpoena her as a witness, to once again use a White House aide as a conduit of false information before the grand jury.

    I don't feel the need to have to go over this ground with you any further. In my final couple of minutes, before I reserve time, I do want to raise one last point, because I think it is a valid one and it, perhaps, in the long run, is the most important point that this body should consider in coming to their verdict.

    We have heard an awful lot throughout this entire episode about the idea of proportionality of punishment. We have also heard that lying about sex somehow minimizes the perjury because everybody does it. Many people in everyday life under the stress of ordinary relations may well lie about personal matters when confronted with embarrassing situations. But, no, everybody doesn't commit perjury under oath in a court proceeding, having been ordered by a Federal judge to answer questions. And if they did so, they generally don't expect to keep their job or their liberty if they get caught.

    The dispensation this President wants for himself is not the same dispensation he grants as head of the executive branch to ordinary Americans when they lie about sex under oath. Bill Clinton wants it both ways. The question before this body is whether you are going to give it to him.

    During our committee hearings, we learned the Clinton administration had no shyness in prosecuting other people for lying under oath about consensual sex in civil cases, even when the underlying civil case was dismissed. For instance, Dr. Barbara Battalino was an attorney and a VA doctor when she began a relationship with one of her counseling patients at a VA hospital. On a single occasion, she performed an inappropriate sexual act with him in her office. The patient later sued the Veterans Administration for, among other things, sexual harassment.

    During a deposition in this civil lawsuit, Dr. Battalino was asked if anything of a sexual nature took place in her office with the patient. Fearing embarrassment, disgrace and the loss of her job, Dr. Battalino answered, `No.' Later, she learned the patient had tape recorded conversations which proved she lied about sex under oath.

    Even though the patient's harassment case was eventually dismissed, the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted Dr. Battalino. She lost her medical license. She lost her right to practice law. She was fired from her job. She later agreed to a plea bargain. She was fined $3,500 and sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment under electronic monitoring.

    Listen to the words of Dr. Battalino as she testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and then explain to her the theory of proportionality, if you can.

    (Text of videotape presentation:)

    Dr. Battalino, your case intrigues me.

    I want to make sure I understand the factual circumstances. You lied about a one-time act of consensual sex with someone on Federal property; is that correct?

    Ms. Battalino. Yes, absolutely, correct.

    Mr. Rogan. This act of perjury was in a civil lawsuit, not in a criminal case?

    Ms. Battalino. That's also correct.

    Mr. Rogan. And, in fact, the civil case eventually was dismissed?

    Ms. Battalino. Correct.

    Mr. Rogan. Yet despite the dismissal, you were prosecuted by the Clinton Justice Department for this act of perjury; is that correct?

    Ms. Battalino. That is correct.

    Mr. Rogan. I want to know, Dr. Battalino: During your ordeal, during your prosecution, did anybody from the White House, from the Clinton Justice Department, any Members of Congress, or academics from respected universities every show up at your trial and suggest that you should be treated with leniency because `everybody lies about sex'?

    Ms. Battalino. No, sir.

    Mr. Rogan. Did anybody ever come forward from the White House or from the Clinton Justice Department and urge leniency for you because your jerjury was only in a civil case?

    Ms. Battalino. No.

    Mr. Rogan. Did they argue for leniency because the civil case in which you committed perjury was ultimately dismissed?

    Ms. Battalino. No.

    Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from the White House ever say that leniency should be granted to you because you otherwise did your job very well?

    Ms. Battalino. No.

    Mr. Rogan. Did anybody ever come forward from Congress to suggest that you were the victim of an overzealous or sex-obsessed prosecutor?

    Ms. Battalino. No.

    Mr. Rogan. Now, according to the New York Times, they report that you lied when your lawyer asked you at a deposition whether `anything of a sexual nature' occurred; is that correct?

    Ms. Battalino. Yes, that is correct.

    Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from Congress or from the White House come forward to defend you, saying that that phrase was ambiguous or it all depended on what the word `anything' meant?

    Ms. Battalino. No, sir. May I just--I am not sure it was my lawyer that asked the question, but that is the exact question that I was asked.

    Mr. Rogan. The question that was asked that caused your prosecution for perjury.

    Ms. Battalino. That's correct.

    Mr. Rogan. No one ever argued that that phrase itself was ambiguous, did they?

    Ms. Battalino. No.

    Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?

    Mr. Rogan. Regrettably, my time is limited and I will not yield for that reason.

    Now, Doctor, you lost two licenses. You lost a law license.

    Ms. Battalino. Well, I have a law degree. I was not a member of any bar.

    Mr. Rogan. Your conviction precludes you from practicing law?

    Ms. Battalino. That is correct, sir.

    Mr. Rogan. You also had a medical degree and license.

    Ms. Battalino. That is correct.

    Mr. Rogan. You lost your medical license?

    Ms. Battalino. Yes. I am no longer permitted to practice medicine either.

    Mr. Rogan. Did anybody from either the White House or from Congress come forward during your prosecution, or during your sentencing, and suggest that rather than you suffer the severe punishment of no longer being able to practice your profession, perhaps you should simply just receive some sort of rebuke or censure?

    Ms. Battalino. No one came to my aid or defense, no.

    Mr. Rogan. Nobody from the Clinton Justice Department suggested that during your sentencing hearing?

    Ms. Battalino. No.

    Mr. Rogan. Has anybody come forward from the White House to suggest to you that in light of circumstances, as we now see them unfolding, you should be pardoned for your offense?

    Ms. Battalino. Nobody has come no. . . .

    That is how the Clinton administration defines proportionality in punishment.

    Mr. Chief Justice, we reserve the remainder of our time.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.

    Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe now we are prepared to hear from White House counsel for up to 3 hours. How much time is remaining for the House managers?

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thirty-one minutes.

    Mr. LOTT. Does the Chief Justice suggest we take a brief break here?

    The CHIEF JUSTICE. No, let's keep going.

    Mr. LOTT. All right, sir.

    (Laughter.)

    Mr. LOTT. I guess that settles that.

    (Laughter.)

       


    Copyright © 1999 The Washington Post Company

    Back to the top

    Navigation Bar
    Navigation Bar
     
    yellow pages