E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Vol. 145 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1999 No. 22 Senate The Senate met at 1:06 p.m. and was cles of impeachment. Pursuant to S. grave constitutional responsibility to called to order by the Chief Justice of Res. 30, the Senate will proceed to final determine whether the actions of the United States. arguments for not to exceed 6 hours, President Clinton merit his conviction f equally divided between the House and removal from office. The Senate managers and the White House counsel. has been patient, attentive and en- TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON At the conclusion of those arguments gaged throughout this unwelcome task, CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE today, I expect the Senate to adjourn and for this the House managers are UNITED STATES the impeachment trial until tomorrow. grateful. The managers would also like The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate We expect tonight, when we go out of to thank the distinguished Chief Jus- will convene as a Court of Impeach- the impeachment trial, to have a pe- tice for his patience and impartial de- ment. The Chaplain will offer a prayer. riod for legislative business so we can meanor throughout this trial. pass a resolution or consider a resolu- At the outset of the managers’ clos- PRAYER tion with regard to King Hussein. ing arguments, it is important to dis- The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John ORDER FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999 tinguish what has caused only the sec- Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: Mr. LOTT. I now ask unanimous con- ond Presidential impeachment in his- Almighty God, guide the Senators sent that when the Senate completes tory from extraneous matters that today as they move closer to the com- its business today, it stand in adjourn- bear no relation to the verdict the Sen- pletion of this impeachment trial and ment, to reconvene as a Court of Im- ate will shortly reach. When this trial confront some of the most difficult de- peachment at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb- began 4 long weeks ago, we said that cisions of their lives. Give them phys- ruary 9, 1999. what was on trial was the truth and ical strength and mental fortitude for The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- the rule of law. That has not changed, this day. In anticipation of Your bur- tion, it is so ordered. despite the lengthy legal arguments den-lifting blessing, we place our trust UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST you have heard. The truth is still the in You. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask truth and a lie is still a lie. And the We renew our prayers for peace in the rule of law should apply to everyone no Middle East. Thank You for the life unanimous consent that the February 5, 1999, affidavit of Mr. Christopher matter what excuses are made by the and leadership of King Hussein of Jor- President’s defenders. dan, that persistent peacemaker and Hitchens and the February 7, 1999, affi- davit of Ms. Carol Blue be admitted The news media characterizes the emissary of light in the often dim ne- managers as 13 angry men. They are gotiations for just peace. Now at this into evidence in this proceeding. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there objec- right in that we are angry, but they are time of his untimely death, we pray for dead wrong about what we are angry the people of Jordan and for his son, tion? Mr. DASCHLE. At this juncture in about. We have not spent long hours King Abdullah, as he assumes the im- the trial, I am compelled to object. poring through the evidence, sacrificed mense challenges of leadership. In Your The CHIEF JUSTICE. Objection is time with our families and subjected holy Name. Amen. ourselves to intense political criticism The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant heard. Mr. LOTT. I believe we are ready to to further a political vendetta. We have at Arms will make the proclamation. done so because of our love for this The Sergeant at Arms, James W. proceed, Mr. Chief Justice. country and respect for the Office of Ziglar, made proclamation as follows: The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- ognizes Mr. Manager SENSENBRENNER. the Presidency, regardless of who may Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of impris- Mr. Manager SENSENBRENNER. Mr. hold it. We have done so because of our onment, while the Senate of the United Chief Justice, distinguished counsel for devotion to the rule of law and our fear States is sitting for the trial of the articles the President, and Senators, I am Con- that if the President does not suffer of impeachment exhibited by the House of gressman JIM SENSENBRENNER. I rep- the legal and constitutional con- Representatives against William Jefferson resent 580,000 people in southeastern sequences of his actions, the impact of Clinton, President of the United States. Wisconsin in the U.S. House of Rep- allowing the President to stand above The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- resentatives. During my entire service the law will be felt for generations to ognizes the majority leader. in Congress, I have served as a member come. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Jus- of the Committee on the Judiciary of The Almanac of American Politics tice. the House of Representatives. has called me ‘‘a stickler for ethics.’’ ORDER OF PROCEDURE We are nearing the end of a long and To that, I plead guilty as charged be- Mr. LOTT. This afternoon the Senate difficult process. The Senate has con- cause laws not enforced are open invi- will resume consideration of the arti- sidered for the past several weeks the tations for more serious and criminal

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

S1337

. S1338 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 behavior. This trial was not caused by for his perjury, just like any citizen us here today. To keep a President in Kenneth Starr, who only did his duty must. The President’s defenders and office whose gross misconduct and under a law which President Clinton spin doctors would have you believe criminal actions are a well-established himself signed. It was not caused by that the President told all of these lies fact will weaken the authority of the the House Judiciary Committee’s re- under oath to protect himself and his Presidency, undermine the rule of law, view of the independent counsel’s family from personal embarrassment, and cheapen those words which have mountain of evidence. Nor was it and even if he did tell a lie, it was not made America different from most caused by the House of Representatives that bad a lie. other nations on the Earth: Equal jus- approving two articles of impeach- Senators, please remember that the tice under law. ment, nor by the Senate conducting a President’s grand jury appearance was For the sake of our country and for trial mandated by the Constitution. over 6 months after the news media future generations, please find the Regardless of what some may say, broke the story about the President’s President guilty of perjury and ob- this constitutional crisis was caused by affair with Ms. Lewinsky. By August struction of justice when you cast your William Jefferson Clinton and by no 17, few people doubted that he had an votes. one else. President Clinton’s actions, affair with her. There was little left to Mr. CANNON. and his actions alone, have caused the hide. And he lied after practically ev- THE JOURNAL national agenda for the past year to be eryone who was asked—including many The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- almost exclusively concentrated on of you—advised the President to tell ognizes Mr. Manager CANNON. If you those actions and what consequences the truth to the grand jury. And still will wait a moment, Mr. Manager CAN- the President, and the President alone, he lied. NON. If there is no objection, the Jour- must suffer for them. We have heard a litany of excuses, in- nal of the proceedings of the trial are This trial is not about the Presi- cluding the President saying he was approved to date. Please go ahead. dent’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. It not paying a great deal of attention Mr. Manager CANNON. Mr. Chief is about the perjury and obstruction of and that he was trying to figure out Justice, counsel to the President, justice he committed during the course what the facts were, and that he need- Members of the Senate, my name is of the civil rights lawsuit filed against ed to know whether his recollection CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, and I rep- him, and the subsequent independent was right, and that he had not done resent over 600,000 people in the Third counsel investigation authorized by At- anything wrong. And on and on. The District of Utah. torney General Janet Reno. President knew what had happened. If I want to begin with a couple of The President has repeatedly apolo- Monica Lewinsky came on to him and thank-you’s. First, I thank you Sen- gized for his affair, but he has never, made a sexual demand upon him and he ators for your attention during this se- never apologized for the consequences rebuffed her, as he told Sidney ries of presentations. I know that you of the perjury and obstruction of jus- Blumenthal, he would have nothing to all have deep conflicts over the matter tice he has committed. Perhaps those apologize for. before you. Some of you have made decisions were based upon a Dick Mor- Senators, don’t be fooled by the strong and public statements about it. ris public opinion poll which told the President’s excuses and spin control. But you have all paid extraordinary at- President that the American people The facts and the evidence clearly tention, and for that I thank you. I also thank the other members of would forgive his adultery but not his show that he knew what he was doing the management team. It has been a perjury. Perhaps it was for another was to deceive everyone, including the remarkable experience to have been as- reason. Whatever the White House’s grand jury. He and his defenders are sociated with them during the last 5 motivations were, the fact remains still in denial. They will not accept the months—almost as good, I might say, consequences of his repeated and crimi- that the President’s apologies and the as it would have been to have been nal attempts to defeat the judicial statements of his surrogate home with my wife, children, and our process. His lies to the grand jury were contritionists have been carefully new baby. crafted for the President to continue to not to protect his family or the dignity If I might, I want to share with you evade and, yes, avoid responsibility for of his office but to protect himself a recent family experience. I have been his deceiving the courts to prevent from criminal liability for his perjury home just about a little over a day out them from for administering justice. and obstruction of justice in the Jones of the last 3 weeks. It took my 10- Because the President’s actions to case. month-old baby a little while to warm obstruct justice are so egregious and Over 9 years ago, the Senate removed up to me when I was home last. Later, repeated, many have ignored his grand Judge Walter Nixon from office for as I started packing, she realized I was jury perjury, charges before you in ar- about the same offense—lying under leaving again and she insisted that I ticle I. I wish to point out four glaring oath to the grand jury. The vote in the hold her. I think she felt that if she examples of William Jefferson Clin- Senate was 89–8 in favor of Judge Nix- held on, I wouldn’t disappear. Unfortu- ton’s perjurious, false and misleading on’s removal, with 48 current Senators nately, she fell asleep during the trip statements to the grand jury and not and Vice President GORE voting guilty. to the airport. I know that the other at the civil deposition in the Paula To boot a Federal judge from office managers have had similar disruptions Jones case. while keeping a President in power in their families. For instance, First, the President lied under oath after the President committed the CHARLES CANADY’s wife had a baby dur- to the grand jury when he falsely testi- same offense sets a double standard ing the trial. fied about his attorneys’ use of a false and lowers the standard of what the I, therefore, thank my wife and chil- affidavit at his deposition. Second, he American people should expect from dren, and the wives and children of all lied under oath to the grand jury about the leader of their country. To con- of the managers for their forbearance his conversations with Betty Currie. clude that the standard of Presidential and support during this process. Like Third, he lied under oath to the grand truthfulness is lower than that of a us, they believe in the obligation we jury about what he told his aides about Federal judge is absurd. To conclude have to assure good government. I his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, that perjury and obstruction of justice might say that, like us, they are grate- knowing that those aides would be are acceptable if committed by a popu- ful that the managers’ role is ending. called to testify to the grand jury. lar President during times of peace and For the managers, this process is al- Fourth, he lied under oath to the grand prosperity sets a dangerous precedent most done. I hope that history will jury when he testified about the nature which sets America on the road back to judge that we have done our duty well. of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. an imperial Presidency above the law. We have been congratulated and con- An ordinary citizen who lies under To justify the President’s criminal demned. But we are done. oath four times to a grand jury is sub- behavior by demonizing those who seek And while our difficult role is ending, ject to substantial time in a Federal to hold him accountable ignores the yours is just beginning. While I’m cer- prison. The decision each Senator must fact that President Clinton’s actions, tain that sitting here silently has been make with respect to article I is and those actions alone, precipitated difficult, the truly daunting task be- whether the President is to pay a price the investigations which have brought fore you now is to conclude this trial February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1339 with some sense of legitimacy. For We had a limited number of witnesses, 1. That the President committed per- America is deeply divided, and the end limited to video taped appearances, jury when he lied under oath. result of an impeachment trial was de- limited to fit an arbitrary three hour 2. The Senate has historically im- signed by the founding fathers to salve rule. That time was lessened because peached judges for perjury—even re- those wounds. Traditionally, after an we had to reserve time for rebuttal. cently by some of you assembled here. airing of the facts and a vote by the According to judicial traditions, de- 3. Any American watching these pro- Senate, either a President is removed fendants have to challenge each wit- ceedings who commits perjury would or he is vindicated. In this case, it ness as they appear, not wrap the also be punished by the law. seems, neither of those results may be credibility of all in one wide ranging 4. If the Senate follows our Nation’s realized. While the facts are clear that response. In these proceedings, the precedents of punishing perjurers, and the President committed perjury and Senate has not had the opportunity to if the Senate follows its own prece- obstruction of justice, it is equally assess the credibility of witnesses as dents of convicting perjurers, then clear that this body may not remove the case developed. The White House there is only one clear conclusion in him from office. And from this percep- then used its time with long video por- this matter: conviction. tion, you face the challenge of legiti- tions and small cutting accusations. Senators, we as Americans and legis- mizing the end result. Your vote will Who knows what the White House lators have never supported a legal sys- end this matter. It is nonjusticiable. might have done if it had been able, or tem which has one set of laws for the found it necessary, to challenge wit- Whatever your decision is, it cannot be ruler, and another for the ruled. After nesses as they testified? undone. The outcome will be right by all, our very own pledge of allegiance Another diversion from judicial and binds us together with the language of definition. But how well you do the Senate trial precedent was that the ‘‘liberty and justice for all.’’ If that is work of divining that outcome will af- only rebuttal for the managers was the case, if we intend to live up to the fect the way we as a nation deal with what we reserved after our video pres- oaths and pledges we take, then our the divisions among us. entation and, awkwardly, in the ques- very own President must be subject to To proceed in a manner that will be tioning period where important, com- trusted, and viewed as legitimate by plicated issues were cut off by artifi- the precedents our Nation’s judicial the American people, you must deal cial time limits, while peripheral system and this Senate body have here- with the differences between this pro- issues got more time than they de- tofore set. ceeding and prior impeachment trials. served. This questioning period had the Because I love this country and its You must do this with an obvious com- unfortunate side effect of focusing the institutions, I pray for inspiration for mitment to your oath to do justice im- public on the partisanship of the Sen- each of you as you seek the proper, le- partially according to the Constitution ate. gitimate outcome. May God bless you and the law. The law includes the rules The problem of the newness of the in the process. and precedents of the Senate. presentation format was exacerbated Thank you. Senate resolution 16 made this proc- by our new media environment. The The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- ess different from all of the preceding Internet with its immediate and often ognizes Mr. Manager Gekas. 13 Senate trials on impeachment, prin- unvetted content, and cable television Mr. Manager GEKAS. Mr. Chief Jus- cipally by removing from the managers with its perpetual talking heads, gave tice, colleagues on each side of the po- the right to present our case as we see equal time and equivalency of weight dium, Members of the Senate, if I were fit. I suspect that the lewd subject to the managers and the White House, to take some time to thank the Chief matter and the partisan fight in the with no witness testimony to constrain Justice for his patience in all this, House may have influenced your deci- them. The process gave rise to the per- would that be counted against my sion. ception that the ‘‘fix was in,’’ leaving time? But there is an integrity to the his- some to gloat at having scammed the The CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes. toric rules and reasons for them. For situation, and others angry at being Mr. Manager GEKAS. Then I will instance, the Senate by nature will be unheard. send you a note. (Laughter.) divided in the impeachment proceed- And that is the context within which We do offer our thanks to the Chief ings while the managers are united. It the Senate must now find a legitimate Justice. is therefore easier for the managers to outcome. Given the wide-ranging dis- I come from Pennsylvania, and the decide on how to present their case cussions of options, it is clear this is no people in my district, in the entire than for the Senate. easy task. Will it be: State, and the people in their 49 breth- There are other differences in this Adjournment with condemnation? ren States across the Nation recognize proceeding from historic impeachment Findings of fact about the Presi- that there is really only one issue, with practice before the Senate. May I list dent’s behavior? all the fury and the tumult and the the changes for you with the intent to A bifurcated vote to show agreement shouting and the invective, the lan- help you focus on the goal of a conclu- with the articles of impeachment but guage, and just the plain shouting that sion that we, the people, will feel is le- not removing the President? has occurred across the Halls of Con- A simple up or down on the articles gitimate. gress and every place else in the coun- of impeachment? Senate resolution 16 called for a 24 try. Or a vote for acquittal followed by hour presentation or ‘‘trial,’’ that It all swoops down the telescope to censure? mainly consisted of what the public I don’t know which, if any, of these one issue: Did the President utter saw as the yammering of lawyers. Time options really makes sense. And I don’t falsehoods under oath? Everyone un- was equally divided rather than know of any other options. I do know derstands that. Everyone comes to the sequenced as it is in a trial where open- that the issue is grave, and that your conclusion that that is a serious alle- ing statements are made and then evi- responsibility is great. gation that has been made through the dence is put on through witnesses. In a So I am here today to ask you to set impeachment, and one which you must trial, each side typically takes the aside some natural inclinations for the judge in the final vote that you will be time necessary to establish its case or good of the country. casting. undermine the witness through cross I would implore you, Senators, both But why is it important about wheth- examination. After the moving party Republican and Democrat, to set aside er or not the President uttered the has made its case, the responding party partisanship, politics, polls, and per- falsehoods under oath? It is important makes it case. Time is dictated only by sonalities and exchange them for not just to constitute the basis of per- what each side feels it needs. Each wit- loftier inclinations—those of ‘‘proce- jury, as is alleged, and/or obstruction ness is subject to whatever cross exam- dure,’’ ‘‘policy,’’ and ‘‘precedents.’’ of justice, which is alleged, but even if ination is appropriate. The case devel- These are the only guidelines this body those two were not proved in all their ops tested piece by tested piece, and ul- should have. elements as crimes, you would still timately one side prevails. As the Senate deliberates this case I have to consider a falsehood under oath Here, the managers had to cut very would ask that a few key facts never be as constituting an impeachable offense. important portions of our limited case. forgotten: I say that advisedly. S1340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 It starts—my contention does—with Lewinsky—and the President under porters of the President as showing the assertions of our esteemed col- oath said ‘‘No’’ or ‘‘None.’’ The record why you should vote to acquit. The leagues who represent the President. will show for sure exactly what he said. polls, the polls, the polls. Time after time, and in their briefs and But he denied that any gifts were I now call the American people’s poll in their statements on and off the transferred from, or any documents, or on whether or not they believe that the floor, they have stated you need not any items of personalty, from President committed falsehoods under have a criminal offense for it to con- Lewinsky to the President. oath—80 percent of the American peo- stitute an impeachable offense. They I submit to you that if you are con- ple—I call them to my side here at the provided examples of that. They said fused about that, because of the great podium to verify to you that the Presi- that all you have to demonstrate is presentation made by the counsel for dent committed falsehoods under oath. that an impeachable offense is one that the President about the murkiness and The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- rocks against the integrity of the sys- cloudiness of the Jones deposition, the ognizes Mr. Manager CHABOT. tem of government. I am paraphrasing, maddening consequences of the Presi- Mr. Manager CHABOT. Thank you. I of course. dent’s testimony— ‘‘maddening,’’ they am STEVE CHABOT. I represent the First I submit—and I feel this so strongly said—then you can refer back to Janu- District of Ohio, which is Cincinnati. that it bothers me that I can’t make it ary 15 before the deposition, and De- This week we will likely finally con- clude this trial. Has it been difficult? clear—that to violate the oath as a cember 23, and find proof positive in Yes. Would we all have preferred that witness in a civil case, or a criminal the documents already a part of the none of this ever happened? Of course. case, in the Jones matter, or in the case that you have to decide that, in- But the President has put our Nation grand jury, smashes against the integ- deed, a pattern of falsehoods under through a terrible ordeal, and it has rity of our system of government. oath was initiated and conducted by been our duty to pursue this case to its There are sundry reasons for that. the President of the United States. In this case, if you follow the logic conclusion. That is very important. Those allega- Despite the dire warnings, scare tac- and the extreme intellectual presen- tions, by the way, have gone com- tics and heavy-handed threats by those tation made by White House counsel pletely uncontradicted by the Presi- who would circumvent the solemn con- that refutes every item that—or at- dent of the United States. stitutional process that we are all en- tempts to refute, not refutes—attempts I think they took great delight— gaged in, our great country has sur- to refute every item asserted by the these colleagues of mine on behalf of vived. We have finished this trial in managers, if you believe all of that and the President—great delight in say- just a few weeks. The economy contin- are confused or in doubt about the ing—at one point they put the marquee ues to be strong, and the Nation’s busi- Jones case and whether lies under oath in the sky, that in so many different ness is getting done. were committed, or at the grand jury, ways when Monica Lewinsky said, ‘‘No- But, Senators, before you turn out you must think about this. This is, to body told me to lie,’’ that was the case the lights and head home, you must me, proof positive that the President for them. What a case they made. ‘‘No- make one final decision. It is a decision uttered falsehoods under oath in all of body told me to lie.’’ They won the that should not be influenced by party his public stances. case right then and there in their affiliation or by politics or by personal On December 23, the President, under minds, because that was exculpatory ties. It is a decision that should be oath, answered interrogatories that and that was brandishing in this case guided by our Constitution, by our were sent to him by the court in the once and for all, Monica said, ‘‘Nobody laws, and by your own moral compass. Jones case in which he said, in answer told me to lie.’’ A few months ago I stood here in to the question, Have you ever had sex- I am going to take some liberties your shoes, as did all the colleagues ual relations with anyone in a subordi- with the Latin that I learned in school, here, and the colleagues in the House, nate role while you were Governor of and we all learned in college and law preparing to make what would likely Arkansas, or President of the United school, ‘‘falsum in unum is falsum in be the most important vote of our ca- States?—this is important. At that toto,’’ meaning if you say something reers. Throughout the process, I did my time—and the record will disclose all false in one phase of your testimony, best to be fair, to keep an open mind. of this—at that time, there was no defi- more than likely the triors of fact can I listened carefully to the views of my nition in front of him, no gaggle of at- find that you were false in all of them. constituents, the people who sent me torneys trying to dispute what word Well, I am going to change that. I to Congress. I reviewed the evidence in meant what, no judge there to inter- think I am right when I say that ‘‘veri- excruciating detail. Ultimately, for pose the legal standard that should be tas in unum is veritas in toto.’’ So me, the choice was clear. I came to the employed, but rather the boldfaced, when Monica Lewinsky says, ‘‘Nobody conclusion that it was my duty to sup- naked phrase of ‘‘sexual relations’’ told me to lie,’’ and that is the indomi- port impeachment. Now it is your turn that everyone in the whole world un- table, indestructible truth that the to cast what could be the most impor- derstands to be what it is—and the White House counsel say, that is the tant vote of your political careers. The President answered under oath case, then it also must be ‘‘veritas in question is, Will moral fortitude or po- ‘‘None.’’ toto,’’ because when she said that she litical expediency rule the day? I submit to the Members of the Sen- gave gifts to the President, then you This past weekend, I had the oppor- ate, if the answer then, December 23, must accept that ‘‘veritas in unum is tunity to spend a couple hours at my before ever stepping foot in the deposi- veritas in toto.’’ college alma mater, William and Mary, tion of the Paula Jones case, if he That goes on and on and on. not too far from here, down in Wil- never appeared there, or whatever he Somebody is waving, ‘‘Cut this liamsburg, VA. As I walked around the said there was so clouded you can’t short.’’ (Laughter.) campus, I could not help but think draw a conclusion, certainly you can It is very tough for me to do that, back to my college days and what mo- refer back to December 23 and see a but I will comply. tivated me to seek public office in the starting point of a pattern of conduct I have a witness. I call a witness to first place. on the part of the President that bolster my part of this summation. The Back in 1972, I was a 19-year-old col- proves beyond all doubt that he com- witness is the American people. lege student casting my first ballot in mitted a pattern and actual falsehoods Mr. Craig, in his last appearance on a Presidential election. Like a major- under oath time and time again. this podium, was delighted to be able ity of Americans that year, I voted for If that is not enough, on January 15, to quote a poll that showed that 75 per- a Republican, Richard Nixon, for Presi- as the record will disclose, he answered cent of the people of our country felt dent. Four years later, however, I under oath requests for documents in that there was no need to present vid- voted for a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. which the question is asked under eotapes to the Senate in the trial—75 This decision stemmed from my pro- oath, to which the President re- percent, he said with great gusto, of found disappointment over Watergate sponded, Have you ever received any the American people. and a strong conviction that President gifts or documents from—and it men- Of course the polls of all types were Nixon should not have received immu- tioned among others Monica quoted time and time again by the sup- nity for his actions. February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1341 Now, just as in college, I find myself cency matter greatly is very important, es- to treat the office with respect. In the extremely troubled by the actions of a pecially in the highest office of the land. past, when those kids asked me that President. In fact, as I started to think Like most of you, I have spent count- question, they asked me that question about what I would say to you today, I less hours at grocery stores, shopping out of pride and respect. They looked wasn’t sure how to begin. How exactly malls, in schools, in my church talking up to the office. They looked up to ev- do you wrap up in 10 minutes or less ev- to my constituents. I have also read erything the office represents. Bill erything we have witnessed in the last thousands of letters that have been Clinton has let our children down, and year? We have seen Bill Clinton’s fin- sent to my office, just as we all have. that is one of the greatest things that ger-waving denial to the American peo- What I have heard and read doesn’t bothers me. It is the effect this will ple. We have seen the President lie be- surprise me. People in Cincinnati, OH, have on the children of this Nation. fore a Federal grand jury. We have seen have a variety of views on what the ul- Let me conclude with a statement the President obstruct justice. We have timate verdict should be by this body. that I received from a student, Juliette seen the President hold a public cele- Many want the President removed Asuncion, who is a student at Mother bration immediately following the from office. Others want a censure. Mercy High School, who wrote to me House impeachment vote. We all know Still others would just like to see the recently: the President’s behavior has been rep- process end. But regardless of their I am writing to express my feelings on the rehensible. views, they are honorable people who scandalous situation that has taken over the President Clinton, however, refuses care about our country and our future. White House for the past couple of months. to admit what all of us know is true. Now, I know that throughout the First, I would like to state the qualities that To this day, he continues to deny and should be found in the President of the process some of the President’s more United States. Since the President is the of- distort; he continues to dispute the un- partisan defenders have harshly criti- ficial representative of the United States, he deniable facts that are before the Sen- cized the managers, the House of Rep- should uphold the values and ideals held by ate and before the American people. resentatives, and anyone who would the people of this country. The President The President’s attorneys have done dare believe the President committed should be honest and a trustworthy person. their best to disguise the truth as well. any crimes. These partisan attacks He should be a good decision maker, have At the beginning of this trial, I pre- have been unfortunate because I think good morals and have his priorities straight. He should devote his time to the country and dicted in my presentation that they we all know that these issues are seri- would use legal smokescreens to mask set a good example for the people of this Na- ous and that they deserve serious con- tion. I feel that President Clinton does not the law and the facts. To their credit, sideration. I know it, the American measure up to these standards. He’s lied to they produced smoke so thick that it people know it, and I think you all the American people; he’s committed per- continues to cloud this debate. But if know it, too. But despite the partisan jury. For someone in his position, this is an you look through the smoke and the rhetoric of the attacks, I believe that unforgivable act, and he should not be al- mirrors employed by these very able once this trial ends, we must work to- lowed to just walk away without a punish- ment. He has shown that he feels he can go lawyers, you will see the truth. The gether. truth is that President Clinton lied to above the law, and I strongly believe the So I would ask everyone here today President should be impeached. a Federal grand jury. He lied about to make a commitment, a commitment whether or not he had committed per- I conclude by telling you, when you to every American, that regardless of cast your vote, you remember that by jury in a civil deposition, about the ex- the trial’s outcome, we will join to- your vote you are determining the les- tent of his relationship with a subordi- gether to turn the page on this unfor- son that Julia, your children and nate Federal employee, about his tunate chapter that President Clinton grandchildren will learn. So how will coaching of his secretary, Betty Currie, has written into our Nation’s history. this chapter end? The decision is yours. and about the countless other matters. The question before you now is: How I now yield to the gentleman from In my opening statement before this will this chapter end? Will the final Georgia, ROBERT BARR. body, I outlined the four elements of chapter say that the U.S. Senate The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- perjury: An oath, intent, falsity, mate- turned its back on perjury and obstruc- ognizes Mr. Manager BARR. riality. In this case, all those elements tion of justice by a President of the Mr. Manager BARR. Thank you, Mr. have been met. United States, or will it say that the Chief Justice. President Clinton also obstructed Senate took a principled stand and told Distinguished and worthy adversarial justice and encouraged others to lie in the world that no person, not even the counsel for the President, including my judicial proceedings. He sought to in- President, stands above the law; that good friend and former Georgetown law fluence the testimony of a potentially all Americans, no matter how rich, professor, Charles Ruff, gentlemen and adverse witness with job assistance, how powerful, or how well connected, ladies of the Senate, my name is BOB and he attempted to conceal evidence are accountable for their actions, even BARR. I represent the Seventh District that was under subpoena. the President. of Georgia, but in a broader sense I rep- These truths cannot be ignored, dis- As the father of two children and a resent the country because I have been torted, or swept under the rug. Some of former schoolteacher myself at an directed, as every one of the other 12 the President’s partisan defenders want inner-city school in Cincinnati, I be- managers of the House has been di- you to do just that. But it would be lieve it is very important that we teach rected by the American people, by a wrong. It would be wrong for you to our children that honesty, integrity, majority vote of the House of Rep- send the message to every American and the rule of law do matter. resentatives, to urge you to review the that it is acceptable to lie under oath While I am in Cincinnati, I spend a evidence and issue a verdict of convic- and obstruct justice. It would be wrong lot of time visiting schools throughout tion on the two articles of impeach- for you to tell America’s children that my community. I taught the seventh ment passed by the House of Rep- some lies are all right. It would be and eighth grades back in Cincinnati. resentatives. wrong to show the rest of the world When I go there, I go to elementary Two days ago, all of us celebrated the that some of our laws don’t really mat- schools, I go to junior highs, I go to birthday of former President Ronald ter. high schools; and I have been doing Reagan. During his first year in office, I must agree with Phyllis and Jack this for a number of years. Do you on May 17th, 1981, this president, Stanley, constituents of mine who live know what is inevitably one of the known for giving voice to America’s in my district, who wrote me a letter questions that the kids will ask me al- best and most decent instincts, spoke saying, and I quote: most every time? It is, ‘‘Have you ever to the American people from Notre We believe that President Bill Clinton met the President of the United Dame University. Though spoken near- should definitely be impeached for the sake States?’’ ly 18 years ago, and clearly not in con- of the country. If he is not impeached, will Now, why do kids ask that question? not the rule of law in this country be weak- templation of an impeachment, the ened? We do not feel glee over the prospect of Because our kids understand how im- former President’s words provide guid- President Clinton’s impeachment, however. portant the Office of the Presidency is. ance for you here today. For the sake of coming generations, ac- The person who occupies that office It was that date that President knowledging that integrity, honor and de- owes it to the children of this Nation Reagan spoke of a certain principle; S1342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 and in so doing, he quoted another What stands today, as it has through- add to that list of statesmen my fellow giant of the 20th century, Winston out these proceedings, are facts—a Georgians and your former colleague, Churchill. Specifically, President false affidavit that benefits the Presi- Sam Nunn, whose concern for duty and Reagan spoke of those who derided dent, the coaching of witnesses by the our Nation’s security caused him re- simple, straight-forward answers to the President, the secreting of subpoenaed cently on CNN to raise grave concerns problems confronting our country; evidence that would have harmed the over our Nation’s security because of those who decried clarity and certainty President, lies under oath by the Presi- the reckless conduct of this President. of principle, in favor of vagueness and dent. These reflect President Clinton’s Will the principles embodied in our relativism. He said: behavior; President Clinton’s inten- Constitution and our laws be re- They say the world has become too com- tions; President Clinton’s actions; and affirmed; wrested from the pallid hands plex for simple answers. They are wrong. President Clinton’s benefit. Not of pollsters and pundits, and from the There are no easy answers, but there are through the eyes of false theories; but swarm of theorists surrounding these simple answers. We must have the courage to by the evidence through the lens of proceedings? Will they be taken up by do what is morally right. Winston Churchill common sense. you, and placed squarely and firmly said that, ‘‘the destiny of man is not meas- You’ve heard tapes, and read volumes ured by material computation. When great back in the hands of Thomas Jefferson, forces are on the move in the world, we learn of evidence. Not pursuant to the proc- Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, we are spirits—not animals.’’ And he said, ess we as House Managers would have George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, ‘‘there is something going on in time and preferred, but much evidence nonethe- Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many space, and beyond time and space, which, less, has been presented. other true statesmen of America’s her- whether we like it or not, spells duty.’’ Many are saying, with a degree of itage? Principles that have stricken Duty. A clear, simple concept. A certainty that usually comes only from down bigotry, tyrants, and dema- foundational principle. ignorance, that there’s nothing I or gogues; principles that, through open Your duty is clearly set forth in your any of us can say to you today, on the and fair trials, have saved the innocent oath; your oath to do impartial justice eve of your deliberations, to sway your from the hangman’s noose; and like- according to the Constitution and the minds. I beg to differ with them. More- wise have sent the guilty, clothed in law. over, we have been directed by the peo- due process, to then ether regions. In the past month, you have heard ple of this country, by a majority vote It is principle, found and nurtured in much about the Constitution; and of the House of Representatives, to ful- our Constitution and our laws, that about the law. Probably more than fill and reaffirm a constitutional proc- you are now called on to both use and you’d prefer; in a dizzying recitation of ess, and to present evidence to you, and reaffirm. the U.S. Criminal Code: 18 U.S.C. 1503. argue to you. Not only America is watching, the 18 U.S.C. 1505. 18 U.S.C. 1512. 18 U.S.C. There is much, in urging a vote for world is, too. And, for those who say 1621. 18 U.S.C. 1623. Tampering. Per- conviction, that can be gained by turn- people from foreign lands look down on jury. Obstruction. That is a lot to di- ing to, and keeping in mind, President this process and deride this process, I gest, but these are real laws and they Reagan’s words to America, to do duty: say, ‘‘not so.’’ are applicable to these proceedings and Duty unclouded by relativism, Let me speak briefly of a man not to this President. Evidence and law, unmarred by artificiality. Duty that born in this country, but a man who you have seen it and you have heard it. lives on after your vote—just as Amer- has made this his country. A man born You’ve also seen and heard about ica will live on and prosper after a vote not in Atlanta, Georgia, though At- straw men raised up by the White to convict. Duty untainted by polls. lanta is now his home. A man born House lawyers, and then stricken down The country’s fascination with polls many thousands of miles away, in Eri- mightily. You’ve heard them essen- has wormed its way even into these trea. A man to who President Reagan tially describe the President alter- proceedings when, just a few days ago, surely was in a sense speaking, both in nately as victim or saint. You’ve heard we heard one of the White House law- 1981 when he spoke of America’s eter- even his staunchest allies describe his yers cite polls as a reason not to re- nal sense of duty, and in January 1985, conduct as ‘‘reprehensible.’’ Even some lease the videotapes. when he spoke of the ‘‘American of you, on the President’s side of the Polls played no role in the great deci- sound’’ that echoes still through the aisle, have concluded, ‘‘there’s no ques- sions, decisive decisions that make ages and the continents. tion about his having given false testi- America a nation and kept it a free and The man whose words I quote is a mony under oath and he did that more strong nation. Polls likewise played no man who watches this process through than once.’’ role in the great trials of our nation’s the eyes of an immigrant, Mr. Seyoum There has also been much smoke history that opened schools equally to Tesfaye. I have never met Mr. Tesfaye, churned up by the defense. all of America’s children, or that pro- but I have read his works. He wrote, in Men and women of the Senate, vided due process and equal protection the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Monica Lewinsky is not on trial. Her of the laws for all Americans, regard- just 3 days ago, on February 5th, that conduct and her intentions are not at less of economic might or political this impeachment process ‘‘is an exam- issue here. Vernon Jordan is not on power. ple of America at its best . . . a core trial and his conduct and his intentions Yet, it is in many respects polls that constitutional principle that pro- are not at issue here. William Jefferson threaten to become the currency of po- foundly distinguishes America from al- Clinton is on trial here. His behavior, litical discourse and even of judicial most all other nations.’’ He noted with- his intentions, his actions—these and process as we near to enter the 21st out hyperbole, that this process, far only these are the issues here. When century. from being the sorry spectacle that the White House lawyers raise up as a Your duty, which I know you recog- many of the President’s defenders have straw man that Vernon Jordan may nize today, is and must be based not on tried to make it, truly ‘‘is a hallmark have had no improper motive in seek- polls or politics, but on law and the of representative democracy,’’ re- ing a job for Ms. Lewinsky; or that Constitution. In other words, principle. affirming the principle that ‘‘no man is there was no formal ‘‘conspiracy’’ What you decide in this case, the above the law—not even the Presi- proved between the President and Ver- case now before you, will tell America dent.’’ non Jordan; or that Ms. Lewinsky says and the world what it is we have, as a These are not the words of the House she did not draw a direct link between foundation for our Nation, not just Managers; though they echo ours. the President’s raising the issue of a today, but for ages to come. It will tell These are not the words of a partisan. false affidavit and the cover stories, us and this Nation weather these seats These are the words of an immigrant. keep in mind, these are irrelevant here today will continue to be filled by A man who came to America to study, issues. When the White House lawyers true statesmen. Whether these seats and has stayed to work and pay taxes strike these theories down, even if you will continue to echo with the booming just as millions of us do every day. were to conclude they did, they are principles, eloquence and sense of duty Men and women of the United States striking down nothing more than irrel- of Daniel Webster, John Calhound, Senate, you must, by affirming your evant straw men. Everett Dirksen, ROBERT BYRD. I would duty to render impartial justice based February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1343 on the Constitution and the law, reaf- give reverence to the Senate prece- So long as William Jefferson Clinton firm those same laws and that very dents while defending the Constitution. is President, the only mechanism to same Constitution, which drew Mr. But I submit, it is the integrity of your hold him accountable for his high Tesfaye and countless millions of other oath in which you must regulate to up- crimes and misdemeanors is the power immigrants to our shores over the hold the principle of equal justice of impeachment and removal. The Con- ages. This is not a comfortable task for under the law. stitution is very clear. You cannot vin- any of us. But, as Martin Luther King, During the question-and-answer dicate the rule of law by stating high Jr., correctly noted, in words that phase with the Chief Justice on Satur- crimes and misdemeanors have oc- hangs on my office wall, and perhaps day, January 23, I stood in the well of curred, but leave the President in of- on some of yours, it is not in ‘‘times of the Senate and recommended that you fice subject to future prosecution after comfort and convenience’’ that we find vote on findings of fact. I want to clear his term is expired. the measure of a man’s character, but the record of my intent of the rec- Without respect for the law, the in times of ‘‘conflict and controversy.’’ ommendation. It has been grossly dis- foundation of our Constitution is not This is such a defining time. torted. secure. Without respect for the law, Obstruction of justice and perjury It is not to establish the guilt, as our freedom is at risk. must not be allowed to stand. Perjury some have alleged. A finding of fact is The President is answerable for his and obstruction cannot stand alongside not a finding of fiction. On the con- alleged crimes to the Senate here and the law and the Constitution. trary, it is to prevent decisions by now. By your oath, you must, like it or triers of fact from basing their judg- Moreover, if criminal prosecution not, choose one over the other, up or ment on fiction or chance or politics. and not impeachment is the way to down, guilt or acquittal. I respectfully The Chief Justice ruled that you are vindicate the rule of law, then the Sen- submit on behalf of the House of Rep- triers of fact, and since this constitu- ate would never have removed other resentatives and on behalf of my con- tional proceeding of impeachment is civil officers such as Federal judges, stituents in the Seventh District of more like a civil proceeding than a who are not insulated from criminal Georgia that the evidence clearly es- criminal trial, I bring to your atten- prosecution while holding office. tablishes guilt and that the Constitu- tion rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Thus, in providing for criminal pun- tion and laws of this land demand it. Civil Procedure that provides, in perti- ishment after conviction and removal I thank the Members of the Senate nent part, that when a judge sits alone from office, it was the framers who in- and yield to Mr. Manager BUYER. as a trier of fact, he or she is required sured that the rule of law would be vin- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- to set down in precise words the facts dicated both in cleansing the office and ognizes Mr. Manager BUYER. as he or she finds them. This require- in punishing the individual for the Mr. Manager BUYER. Thank you, ment is mandatory and cannot be criminal act. Mr. Chief Justice. waived by the parties of Federal prac- I have asked myself many times how Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished tice. allowing a President to remain in of- counsel and Senators, my name is A memorandum of findings of fact is fice while having committed perjury not a radical concept to American ju- STEVE BUYER, House manager, from and obstruction of justice is fair to Monticello, IN. I represent 20 counties risprudence. It is customary and habit- those across the country who are sit- between South Bend and Indianapolis. I ually used in State and Federal courts ting in jail for having committed the all across this land. Since you sit col- will not try to claim the cornerstone of same crimes. I have had the fairness lectively as a Court of Impeachment, Hoosier common sense. Mr. Kendall argument thrown into my face consist- as the triers of fact, I recommended the would wrestle me for that cornerstone. ently. findings of fact to guarantee that you But as a former criminal defense attor- Fairness is important. Fairness is have carefully reviewed the evidence ney, I want to take a moment and com- something that is simple in its nature and have a rational basis for your final pliment the White House counsel and and is powerful in the statement that judgment. Mr. Kendall for doing your best to de- To claim that findings of fact is un- it makes. A statement which you send fend your client in the face of over- constitutional is false. The Supreme carries us into tomorrow and becomes whelming facts and compelling evi- Court has consistently permitted the our future legacy. dence. (Laughter.) Senate to shape the contours and the If you vote to acquit, think for a mo- Your role here—a side comment due process of an impeachment trial. ment about what you would say to here—your role here is much easier, The Senate owes the American peo- those who have been convicted of the though, in a Court of Impeachment as ple and history an accounting of the same crimes as the President. opposed to a criminal court of law. stubborn facts. What would you say to the 182 Ameri- As a former Federal prosecutor, I I would like to comment on some cans who were sentenced in Federal compliment Chairman HENRY HYDE and statements. court in 1997 for committing perjury? my colleagues, the House managers, I have heard some Senators state What would you say to the 144 Ameri- who have embraced and given life publicly that they are using the stand- cans who were sentenced in Federal meaning of the rule of law and pre- ard of beyond a reasonable doubt. But court in 1997 for obstruction of justice sented this case to the Senate in a pro- the Senate has held consistently that and witness tampering? fessional, thorough, and dignified man- the criminal standard of proof is inap- Would you attempt to trivialize the ner. propriate for impeachment trials. The evidence and say, ‘‘This case was only I assure you, the House managers result of conviction in an impeachment about lying about sex’’? would not have prosecuted the articles trial is removal from office; it is not I want to cite the testimony before of impeachment before the bar of the meant to punish. You are to be guided the House Judiciary Committee of one Senate had we not had the highest de- by your own conscience, not by the woman who experienced the judicial gree of faith, belief and confidence criminal standard of proof of beyond a system in the most personal sense, and that, based on the evidence, the Presi- reasonable doubt. that is the testimony of Dr. Barbara dent committed high crimes and mis- I have also heard some Senators from Battalino. I think it is compelling. demeanors which warrant his removal both sides of the aisle state publicly, ‘‘I She held degrees in medicine and law, from office. think these offenses rise to the level of and Manager ROGAN showed some of As you come to judgment, I rec- high crimes and misdemeanors.’’ To the testimony just the other day. You ommend you square yourself with your state publicly that you believe that see, she was prosecuted by the Clinton duty first. high crimes and misdemeanors have Justice Department and convicted for On January 7, I witnessed as the occurred, but for some reason you have obstruction of justice because of her lie Chief Justice administered your oath this desire not to remove the Presi- under oath about one act of consensual to do impartial justice according to the dent, that desire, though, does not oral sex with a patient on VA premises. Constitution and the laws. You should square with the law, the Constitution, Her untruthful response was made in a follow this prescription: Find the and the Senate’s precedents for remov- civil suit which was later dismissed. In truth, define the facts, apply the law, ing Federal judges for similar offenses. a legal proceeding, Dr. Battalino was S1344 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 asked under oath: ‘‘Did anything of a So in light of the historic principles over again and all over again. I sexual nature take place in your office regarding impeachment, the over- thought long and hard as I thought on June 27, 1991?’’ whelming evidence to the offenses al- about what I was going to say today, Her one word reply, ‘‘No,’’ convicted leged, and the application of the Sen- and how I could be of most help to you her and forever changed her life. ate precedents, I believe it makes it as you make this momentous decision Her punishment? She was convicted very clear that our President—who has that will soon be entrusted to you. I of a felony, forced to wear an elec- shown such contempt for the law, the momentarily considered whether the tronic monitoring device, and is pres- dignity and the integrity of the office answer to that question was simply to ently on probation. She lost her license of the Presidency that was untrusted yield back my time, but I weighed that to practice medicine and her ability to to him—must be held to account; and against the special pleasure of stretch- practice law. it can only be by his removal from of- ing out our last hours with you. Our prisons hold many who are truly fice. (Laughter.) contrite, they are sorry, they feel pain The House managers reserve the re- Or as Ernie Banks would have said, for their criminal offenses, and some mainder of our time. ‘‘It’s such a nice day, let’s play two.’’ whose victims have even forgiven The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. (Laughter.) them, others who were very popular The Chair recognizes the White But cursed as I am with lawyerly in- citizens and had many friends and House counsel. stincts, I decided to compromise. I apologized profusely, but they were Mr. Counsel RUFF. Mr. Chief Justice, promise you as much brevity as I can still held accountable under the law. thank you. manage, even if not much wit, while Just like the President is acclaimed I wonder, Mr. Majority Leader, making a few final points that I think to be doing a good job, many in prison whether we might take a brief break you need to carry with you as you go today were doing a good job in their because there is going to need to be into your deliberations. chosen professions. None of our laws some rearrangement of furniture here. Now, you have heard the managers’ provides for good job performance, con- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- vision—or at least some part of it—of trition, forgiveness, or popularity polls ognizes the majority leader. the process we have been engaged in as a remedy for criminal conduct. Mr. LOTT. I was hesitant to suggest and the lessons we have learned and These were the closing lines of Dr. it too early today, Mr. Chief Justice. what it will look like at the end of our Battalino’s opening statement before (Laughter.) journey. I respect them as elected Rep- the House Judiciary Committee: RECESS resentatives of their people and as wor- We all make mistakes in life. But, common Mr. LOTT. But on the request of thy adversaries. But I believe their vi- frailty does not relieve us from our respon- sibility to uphold the Rule of Law. Regard- counsel, I ask unanimous consent we sion could be too dark, a vision too lit- less, this nation must never let any person take a 10-minute recess. And please re- tle attuned to the needs of the people, or people undermine the Rule of Law. .. . If turn quickly to the Chamber so we can too little sensitive to the needs of our liberty and justice for all does not reign, get back to business. democracy. I believe it to be a vision we—like great civilizations before us—will There being no objection, at 2:12 p.m. more focused on retribution, more de- surely perish from the face of the earth. the Senate recessed until 2:35 p.m.; signed to achieve partisan ends, more What you would say to Dr. Battalino whereupon, the Senate reassembled uncaring about the future we face to- and others similarly situated is very when called to order by the Chief Jus- gether. important because fairness is impor- tice. Our vision, I think, is quite different, tant. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- but it is not naive. We know the pain Alexander Hamilton, writing not ognizes Mr. White House Counsel Ruff. the President has caused our society long after the Constitution was adopt- Mr. Counsel RUFF. Thank you, Mr. and his family and his friends. But we ed, well expressed the harm that would Chief Justice. Mr. Chief Justice, man- know, too, how much the President has come to our Republic from those who, agers of the House, ladies and gentle- done for this country. And more impor- by example, undermine respect for the men of the Senate, I can’t resist begin- tantly, we know that our primary obli- law. In a statement that bears repeat- ning, following the lead of my col- gation, the duty we all have, is to pre- ing, Hamilton wrote: leagues across the well here, by telling serve that which the founders gave us, If it were to be asked, What is the most sa- you that my name is Charles Ruff and and we can best fulfill that duty by cred duty and the greatest source of security I am from the District of Columbia, carefully traveling the path that they in a Republic? The answer would be, an invi- and we don’t have a vote in the Con- laid out for us. olable respect for the Constitution and gress of the United States. (Laughter.) Now, you have heard many speeches Laws—the first growing out of the last. . . . Those, therefore, who . . . set examples, I truly did not intend to begin quite over the past few weeks about high which undermine or subvert the authority of this way, but I must. I don’t think crimes and misdemeanors. As I look the laws, lead us from freedom to slavery; there is a court in the land where a back on the arguments and the they incapacitate us from a government of prosecutor would be able to stand up counterarguments, it seems to me that laws. . . . for one-third of his allotted time, speak really very little can be gained by re- President Clinton, by his persistent in general terms about what the people peating them; for when all is said and and calculated misconduct and illegal are entitled to and what the rule of law done, what they mean is this: The acts, has set a pernicious example of stands for—as important as all of that framers chose stability. They made im- lawlessness, an example which, by its may be—and sit down and turn to the peachment and removal constitutional very nature, subverts respect for the defense counsel and ask that defense recourses of last resort. The question law. His perverse example inevitably counsel go forward, reserving 2 hours that the managers appear to have undermines the integrity of both the for rebuttal. I recognize that proce- asked—and I am unable to tell you office of the President and the judicial dural niceties have not necessarily what they will ask today—is whether process. characterized the way this trial has perjury or obstruction of justice in the You see, ladies and gentlemen, with- gone forward. But I do believe—and abstract are impeachable offenses. out choice we were all born free, and this is the only time today I will say That is not the question you must an- we inherited a legacy of liberty at this, I promise—that kind of prosecu- swer. great sacrifice by many who have come torial gambit is symptomatic of what Nor must you assume, as the man- before us. We cannot collectively as a we have seen before in these last agers appear to, that because judges free people enjoy the liberties without weeks—wanting to win too much. are removed for having committed per- measured personal restraint. And that Now, that said, let me begin where I jury, a President must be removed as is the purpose of the rule of law. It is intended to begin. We are taking the well. That is not what the rule of law the function of the courts to uphold last steps along a path that, for most requires. The rule of law and even- the dignity of that prescription and the of us, has seemed to be unending. In- handed justice is something more than God-given liberties of all of us. That is deed, some of us may have a sense that a simple syllogism. You must decide how we are able to carry this Nation we have gone well beyond ‘‘Yogi Berra whether on these facts arising out of forward in the future generations. land’’ to deja vu all over again and all these circumstances this President has February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1345 so endangered the state that we can no case for removal they must bring these this. I do agree with the managers. We longer countenance his remaining in articles within the very small circle of cannot lose sight of the constitutional office. offenses that the framers believed were forest for some of the analytical trees. I think in their hearts the managers truly dangerous to the state. There is only one question before do not truly disagree. Whatever they First, Blackstone: It is true that the you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a have been able to glean from the his- commentaries rate perjury as among 21 question of fact, and of law and con- torical record or more modern scholar- offenses against public justice. Nota- stitutional theory. Would it put at risk ship, they cannot in the end avoid the bly, however, Blackstone ranks the 21 the liberty of the people to retain the conclusion that removal of the Presi- in order of seriousness, or, as he puts President in office? Putting aside par- dent is not something that the framers it, ‘‘malignity.’’ No. 1 on the list, a tisan animus, if you can honestly say took lightly. Indeed, two of their own most malignant offense, is a felony that it would not, that those liberties witnesses in the Judiciary Committee, that I have to admit is unknown to are safely in his hands, then you must Professor Van Alstyne and Judge me—that of vacating records. No. 6 is vote to acquit. Wiggins, tried to make it clear to them returning from transportation, also an Each of you has a sense of this in that even if they were to find that the offense rarely seen in our modern soci- your mind and your heart better than offenses described in the independent ety. Nos. 10 and 12 are barratry, main- anything I can convey, or I suspect counsel’s referral as being committed, tenance and champerty, especially dear anything better than my colleagues another decision had to be made. That to me because they involve my profes- could convey to you. And I will not un- decision was whether in the interest of sion, but rarely viewed these days, I dertake to instruct you further on this society the President should be im- think you will agree. And, at No. 15 is issue. peached. As Professor Van Alstyne put perjury. Just as we ultimately leave that it, in words, that I admit are unflatter- If, as Madison told us, Blackstone question in your hands, we leave to the ing to my client but nonetheless makes was in the hands of every man, what conscience of each Member the ques- the point: ‘‘In my own opinion,’’ he does that tell us about why the framers tion of what standard of proof you said, ‘‘I regard what the President did, chose treason and bribery and other apply. Despite Congressman BUYER’s that which the Special Counsel report high crimes and misdemeanors as the exhortation to the contrary, this body declared, are crimes of such a low order grounds of impeachment? It tells us has never decided for any of you what standard is appropriate or what stand- that it would unduly flatter the Presi- that they fully understood that com- ard is inappropriate. Each Senator is dent by submitting him to trial in the parative gravity of offenses against public justice, and, nonetheless, chose left to his or her own best judgment. Senate, I would not bother to do it.’’ I suggested to you when I last spoke I read that statement to you, not ob- only those that truly pose that danger to you that I believe you must apply a viously because the professor and I are to the state—treason, for obvious rea- standard sufficiently stringent to en- on the same side of the political divide sons, and bribery because to them the able you to make this most important or have the same view of the Presi- risk that the executive would sell him- decision with certainty and in a man- dent’s conduct, but because it is impor- self to a foreign country, for example, was much more than mere speculation. ner that will ensure that the American tant, I think, to understand, as I fear And then other high crimes of similar people understand that it has been the managers do not, that the framers severity. made with that certainty. full well understood what they were As to the lesson to be learned from This is not an issue as to which we as doing when they drafted the impeach- the more modern day, the sentencing a people and we as a Republic can be in ment provision of the Constitution. guidelines, Manager MCCOLLUM argued doubt. They consciously chose not to make all to you a few weeks ago that those to Let me move to the articles. Just as misconduct by the President a basis for whom you have given the responsibil- you have listened patiently to our de- removal; they chose instead only that ity to assess the comparative severity bate about the meaning of ‘‘high conduct that they viewed as most seri- of crimes have concluded that perjury crimes and misdemeanors,’’ you have, ous, as most dangerous, to our system is at least as serious a crime as brib- as well, heard seemingly endless dis- of government. ery. That decision, he told you, is evi- course about the specific details of the As I said, I think in their hearts the denced by the commission’s decision to various matters that the managers al- managers recognize the force of it. But assign perjury an offense level of 12, or lege constitute grounds for removal. I they have argued to you that perjury approximately 1 year in prison, and to will strive, therefore, not to be unduly and obstruction really should be treat- bribery an offense level slightly below repetitive more than is at least abso- ed as the equivalent of treason and that. But even to the extent that such lutely necessary. bribery and the danger that they pose an argument were to be weighed in the My colleagues, last Saturday and in to our society. They have offered on constitutional balance, Manager their earlier presentations, have done this much rhetoric and a few sub- MCCOLLUM was simply not being candid my work for me, but I want to focus for stantive arguments. And I want to look with you, for he failed to explain that just a little while on those aspects of at just a few of these arguments as under these same guidelines a bribe of, the managers’ presentation that merit they were advanced in the managers’ let’s say, $75,000 taken by an elected of- your special attention or those that opening and not really addressed in- ficial, or a judge for that matter, auto- have been particularly elucidated or, stead. matically carries an offense level of 24, for that matter, beclouded by the testi- First, a historical item, that Black- or twice that of perjury, and a prison mony you heard and watched on Satur- stone in his commentary listed bribery sentence four to five times longer. day. and perjury and obstruction of justice The drafters of our guidelines, to the As we start this discussion, let me under the same heading of ‘‘offenses extent that Mr. MCCOLLUM asked you offer you a phrase that I hope you will against public justice’’; second, a mod- to look at them, full well understand remember as I move through the arti- ern statutory equivalent of that argu- the special gravity of bribes taken by cles with you. That phrase is ‘‘moving ment that under the sentencing guide- the country’s leaders, and to distin- targets and empty pots.’’ ‘‘Moving tar- lines we actually treat perjury more guish that offense from the offenses, gets,’’ ever-shifting theories, each one severely than we do bribery; and, even at best, that are before you now. advanced to replace the last as it has third—this is a theme you have heard Lastly is this system of justice argu- fallen, fallen victim to the facts. throughout these proceedings, what I ment—the notion that somehow Presi- ‘‘Empty pots,’’ attractive containers, will call the ‘‘system of justice argu- dent Clinton has undermined our civil but when you take the lid off you find ment’’—that the President’s conduct, if rights laws. Well, whatever I might say nothing to sustain them. he is not removed, will somehow sub- could not match the eloquence of my Now, I used the term, ‘‘empty ves- vert enforcement of our civil rights colleague, Ms. Mills, and, therefore, I sels,’’ in my opening presentation, but laws. will not attempt fate by venturing fur- it since struck me that that was much But all of these arguments are mere ther into that territory. too flattering and might even suggest subterfuge, offered because the man- I really do not want to become fur- that they had the capacity to float, agers knew that to make any plausible ther immersed in the minutia here. On which they don’t. S1346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 Article I, the first moving target. MATTHEWS. Well, another time he used a grounds that you disbelieve his testi- Now, as we have said repeatedly, we phrase with regard to this ridiculous thing mony about his own subjective belief in have been more than a little puzzled as called phone sex, he referred to it as occa- the definition of a term used in a civil to the exact nature of the charges ad- sionally or on occasion. Why do you add deposition. them in as part of the perjury indictment? vanced by the managers under the ru- Rep. ROGAN. That’s not added in as part Nothing in the evidentiary record has bric of article I, and our puzzlement of the perjury indictment in Article I. I sim- changed since the OIC referred this has only increased, I must tell you, ply raised that issue when I was addressing matter to the House 6 months ago. In- since this trial began. the Senate. deed, it is impossible to conceive what We have argued, I think with indis- * * * * * could change in the evidentiary record. putable force, that both articles are so MATTHEWS. You better get to those sen- And the managers have offered this deficient that they would not survive a ators because I think they made the mistake charge and persist in it for reasons not motion to dismiss in any court in the I did of thinking that was one of the ele- entirely clear to me, but some blind land. Now, we are not insensitive to ments in the perjury charge. faith that they must go forward, facts the claim that we are advancing some And similarly over here, although I or no. lawyer’s argument, and we are seeking have reversed the order a bit: Now, there are three other elements some technical escape, but I urge you MATTHEWS. . . . Go through what you of article I. First, the allegation that not to treat this issue so lightly. As think are the main elements in your perjury the President lied when he claimed he you look to article I, for example, ask indictment of the president, impeach- did not perjure himself in the Jones yourselves whether you can at this late ment. . . . deposition. The President, of course, moment in the trial identify for your- Rep. ROGAN. One of the things they were made no such representation in the selves with any remote sense of cer- focusing on is a point, I think, I made last grand jury. tainty the statements that the man- week when I was presenting the case for per- And the managers cannot, no matter agers claim were perjurious. jury dealing with that preliminary state- how they try, resurrect the charges of ment that the president read that just really I suspect you will hear a lot about the article, then, article II, that was so that in the 2 hours following my pres- gave the grand jury a misperception of what the president’s relationship was with Monica clearly rejected by the House of Rep- entation, but I will try to look ahead Lewinsky. Now I never said that was the resentatives. Yet, if you listen to their just a bit. basis for the perjury charge. In fact, that’s presentations over the past weeks, it Ask yourselves whether you are com- not even one of the four areas that’s alleged, becomes evident that, whether inten- fortable in this gravest of proceedings but they’re trying to pick these little dots tionally or unintentionally, they them- that when you retire to your delibera- out of the matrix and try to hang their hat selves have come to the point where tions you could ever know that the on that. . . . the President’s testimony on January constitutionally required two-thirds I have to tell you, as did Mr. Mat- 17 in the Jones deposition and August vote is present on any one charge. thews, I made the same mistake. I 17 in the grand jury are treated as Now, we have been making this argu- heard Manager ROGAN say: though they were one and the same. ment for some time and with some fre- This prepared statement he read to the Now, just a few minutes ago you quency, and so you would think that at grand jury on August 17th, 1998, was the heard Manager GEKAS talk to you least once the trial began the managers linchpin in his plan to ‘‘win.’’ about perjury, and probably 90 percent would have fixed on some definable set I heard him say: of what he talked to you about was of charges. But, no. Indeed, it struck It is obvious that the reference in the perjury in the Jones case—in the Jones me even earlier this afternoon that President’s prepared statement to the grand case. It doesn’t exist anymore. The when Manager SENSENBRENNER rose to jury that this relationship began in 1996 was House of Representatives determined speak to you, he was prepared to give intentionally false. that that was not an impeachable of- you four examples of perjury. We have I heard him say: fense. It appears to make no difference, heard a lot of examples. We haven’t The President’s statement was inten- though, that the House rejected this heard much certainty. tionally misleading when he described being charge, for the managers do continue Now, just to give you an example of alone with Ms. Lewinsky only on certain oc- to dwell on it as though somehow they how rapidly the target can move, you casions. could show the House from which they will recall that in describing the inci- And I heard him say: came that they made a mistake. dents of perjury allegedly committed Only last Saturday, Manager GRAHAM by the President, the managers made The President’s statement was inten- tionally misleading when he described his could be heard decrying the President’s much of the preliminary statement he telephone conversations with Monica claim that he had never been alone read to the grand jury, including the Lewinsky as occasional. with Monica Lewinsky, something that use of the words ‘‘occasionally,’’ and That is what I heard when Manager comes not out of the grand jury but out ‘‘on certain occasions’’ to describe the ROGAN spoke to you a few weeks ago. of the Jones deposition, at the same frequency of certain conduct and made Now, I know it is unusual to be given time he was taking him to task for his the general allegation that the state- a bill of particulars on television, but disquisition on the word ‘‘is,’’ some- ment was itself part of a scheme to de- maybe that is part of the modern liti- thing that is in the grand jury but is ceive the grand jury. gation age. entirely irrelevant to these perjury Yet, strangely, when Mr. Manager And so as to article I’s charge, now charges. You could even see it in their ROGAN was asked about these very that this is off the books, that the videotape presentation last Saturday charges as late as January 20, he quite President perjured himself concerning when snippets from January 17, then clearly abandoned them. I direct your attention to the exhib- his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, we August 17, were played without any its before you and to the charts. Ap- are once again left with the claim that definition and without any sense that pearing on television on January 20, he lied about touching, about his de- there was any distinction between the with Chris Matthews, this is what tran- nial that he engaged in conduct that two events. spired: fell within his subjective understand- There is literally nothing in the MATTHEWS. . . . now defend these—these ing of the definition used in the Jones President’s grand jury testimony that elements—one, that the president lied when deposition—this in the course of testi- purports to adopt wholesale his testi- he said he had had these relationships with mony, Members of the Senate, in which mony in the Jones deposition. If any- her on certain occasions. Is that the lan- the President had already made the thing, it is evident that he is explain- guage? single most devastating admission that ing at length and clarifying and adding Rep. ROGAN. That is the . . . MATTHEWS. And—and why is that per- any of us can conceive of. It defies to his deposition testimony. Indeed, jurious—perjurious? common sense. And as any experienced even if the original article II had sur- Rep. ROGAN. In fact, I’m not—I don’t prosecutor—and five experienced pros- vived, the President’s belief that he think it’s necessarily perjurious. That is— ecutors said this to the Judiciary Com- had ‘‘worked through the minefield of that’s one little piece of this answer that he mittee—will tell you, it defies real the Jones deposition without violating gave at the grand jury. . . . world experience to charge anyone, the law’’—which is a quote from his * * * * * President or not, with perjury on the grand jury testimony—could not allow February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1347 the managers, somehow, to establish brother, and in the same call that he affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky made clear, be- that that statement was independently told her that she was now listed on the yond any doubt, first, that the Presi- perjurious, and they surely cannot do Jones witness list. The managers have dent had never discussed the contents so now that the original article II has from the beginning relied on one fact of the affidavit with her; second, that disappeared. and on one baseless hypothesis stem- there was no connection between the Now, as to the second and third re- ming from this call which, in the man- suggestion that she might file an affi- maining elements of article I, that the agers’ minds, was the beginning and davit and the reference to any cover President lied about Mr. Bennett’s the middle and the end of the scheme story; third, that she believed it pos- statement to Judge Wright at the time to encourage the filing of a false affida- sible to file a truthful affidavit. of the Jones deposition, and that he vit. There is literally no other event or You saw much of this portion of Ms. lied about his own statements to his statement on which they can rely. Lewinsky’s deposition on Saturday, staff, I will deal with them in my dis- The one fact to which the managers and I am not going to impose too much cussion of the obstruction charges in point is Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony that on your patience, but I do want to play article II. Suffice it to say that nothing the President said that if she were ac- just a very few segments of that video- in the record as it came to you in Jan- tually subpoenaed, she possibly could tape. uary could support conviction on arti- file an affidavit to avoid having to tes- First, two segments dealing with the cle I, and nothing added to the record tify, and at some point in the call men- content of the affidavit. since then has changed that result. tioned one of the so-called cover sto- (Text of videotape presentation:) Let me move to article II. Manager ries that they had used when she was Q Are you, uh—strike that. Did he make HUTCHINSON told you in his original still working at the White House—that any representation to you about what you presentation that article II rested on— is, bringing papers to him. And it is on could say in that affidavit or— his words —‘‘seven pillars of obstruc- this shaky foundation, a very slim pil- A No. tion.’’ I had suggested in my opening lar indeed, that the managers build the Q What did you understand you would be statement of a few weeks ago that it hypothesis. saying in that affidavit to avoid testifying? would be more accurate to call them In the face of the seemingly insur- A Uh, I believe I’ve testified to this in the seven shifting sand castles of specula- mountable hurdle of Ms. Lewinsky’s re- grand jury. To the best of my recollection, it was, uh—to my mind came—it was a range of tion, but Manager HUTCHINSON has not peated denials that anyone ever asked things. I mean, it could either be, uh, some- proved willing to accept my descrip- or encouraged her to lie, the managers thing innocuous or could go as far as having tion and so I will accept his. Let’s re- have persisted in arguing, and continue to deny the relationship. Not being a lawyer move one pillar right at the start. to do so, that the President did some- nor having gone to law school, I thought it Article II charges that the President how encourage her to lie, even if she could be anything. engaged in a scheme to obstruct the didn’t know it. Now you have heard Q Did he at that point suggest one version Jones case—the Jones case—and al- that theme sounded really for the first or the other version? leges as one element of this scheme time on Saturday, and then a little bit A No. I didn’t even mention that, so there, that in the days following January 21 there wasn’t a further discussion—there was today—even if she didn’t know it, be- no discussion of what would be in an affida- the President lied to his staff about his cause both really understood that any vit. relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, con- affidavit Ms. Lewinsky would file duct that could not possibly have had would have to be false if it were to re- * * * * * anything to do with the Jones litiga- sult in her avoiding her deposition. But Q In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has indicated that he thought he tion. neither the fact on which they rely nor had—might have had a way that he could I will get to the merits of that charge their hypothesis was of much help to have you—get you to file a—basically a true standing alone in a little while, but I the managers before Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues bring up the more—forgive me—tech- deposition and neither, surely, has any enough that you wouldn’t be called as a wit- nical argument here, to highlight once force after her deposition. ness. more the extent to which the House After you saw Ms. Lewinsky’s testi- Did he offer you any of these suggestions simply ignored the most basic legal mony, there can be nothing left of at this time? principles in bringing these charges to what was, at best, only conjecture. A He didn’t discuss the content of my affi- davit with me at all, ever. you. I have yet to hear from the man- Even before her deposition, Ms. agers a single plausible explanation for Lewinsky had testified, as had the Next, a couple of brief segments on the inclusion of this charge as part of President in the grand jury, that given the issue of the cover stories. a scheme to obstruct the Jones litiga- the claims being made in the Jones (Text of videotape presentation:) tion, and I can think of none. I am sure case, a truthful albeit limited affidavit Q Well, based on prior relations with the that in the 120 minutes remaining to might—might—establish that Ms. President, the concocted stories and those them, some portion of that time will be Lewinsky had nothing relevant to offer things like that, did this come to mind? Was spent explaining just this point. And, in the way of testimony in the Jones there some discussion about that, or did it come to your mind about these stories—the so, one pillar gone; a slight list ob- case. cover stories? served. Faced with this record, the managers A Not in connection with the—not in con- Next: Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit and asked you to authorize Ms. Lewinsky’s nection with the affidavit. the first of the empty pots. The man- deposition, representing that she * * * * * agers charge that the President cor- would—and I quote, and this is from Q Did you discuss anything else that night ruptly encouraged a witness to execute the managers’ proffer—‘‘rebut the fol- in terms of—I would draw your attention to a sworn affidavit that he knew to be lowing inferences drawn by White the cover stories. I have alluded to that ear- perjurious, false, and misleading, and House counsel on key issues, among lier, but, uh, did you talk about cover story similarly encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to others that President Clinton did not that night? lie if she were ever called as a witness. encourage Ms. Lewinsky to file a false A Yes, sir. In my opening statement, and in Mr. affidavit and that President Clinton Q And what was said? Kendall’s more detailed discussion, we did not have an understanding with Ms. A Uh, I believe that, uh, the President said made two points: First, that Ms. Lewinsky that the two would lie under something—you can always say you were Lewinsky had repeatedly denied that coming to see Betty or bringing me papers. oath.’’ Q I think you’ve testified that you’re sure she had ever been asked or encouraged Unhappily for the managers—and he said that that night. You are sure he said to lie; and, second, that there was sim- perhaps their unhappiness was best re- that that night? ply no direct or circumstantial evi- flected in the tone of Manager BRY- A Yes. dence that the President had ever done ANT’s discussion on this subject—Ms. Q Now, was that in connection with the af- such a thing. Lewinsky’s testimony, as you saw fidavit? Now, it is not in dispute that the yourself on Saturday, did just the op- A I don’t believe so, no. President called Ms. Lewinsky in the posite. * * * * * early morning of December 17 to tell In an extended colloquy with Mr. Now, you have testified in the grand jury. her about the death of Betty Currie’s Manager BRYANT on the subject of the I think your closing comments was that no S1348 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 one ever asked you to lie, but yet in that That same day, January 5, she called must, that the President and Ms. very conversation of December the 17th, 1997 President Clinton to ask if the President Lewinsky did not even discuss her dep- when the President told you that you were would like to review her affidavit before it osition on the 17th, logically, I sup- was signed. He declined, saying he had al- on the witness list, he also suggested that pose, since she wasn’t actually subpoe- you could sign an affidavit and use mislead- ready seen about 15 others. She understood ing cover stories. Isn’t that correct? that to mean that he had seen 15 other affi- naed until 2 days later. A Uh—well, I—I guess in my mind, I sepa- davits rather than 15 prior drafts of her affi- Now, one might think that this rate necessarily signing affidavit and using davit (which did not exist). would dispose of the matter, since they misleading cover stories. So, does— In sum, one, the only reference to an do not identify a single other moment Q Well, those two— affidavit in the December 17 call was in time when there was any discussion A Those three events occurred, but they of Ms. Lewinsky’s potential testimony. don’t—they weren’t linked for me. the suggestion of the President that filing one might possibly enable Ms. But once again, having lifted the lid And third, a brief segment on the Lewinsky to avoid being deposed, itself and seen that their pot was empty, supposed falsity of any affidavit that an entirely legitimate and proper sug- they would ask you to find that the might be filed. gestion. same signal that we now know did not (Text of videotape presentation:) Two, the President and Ms. Lewinsky encourage the filing of an affidavit was Q The night of the phone call, he’s suggest- never discussed the content of her affi- a signal to Ms. Lewinsky to lie if she ing you could file an affidavit. Did you ap- davit on or after December 17. was ever called to testify. But of course preciate the implications of filing a false af- fidavit with the court? Three, the President never saw or we have long known that there was no A I don’t think I necessarily thought at read any draft of the affidavit before it such signal. And the grand jury—as that point it would have to be false, so, no, was signed. was so often the case, one of the jurors probably not. I don’t—I don’t remember hav- Four, the President believed that she took it upon him or herself to ask that ing any thoughts like that, so I imagine I could file a true affidavit. which the independent counsel chose would remember something like that, and I Five, Ms. Lewinsky believed that she not to. And you have this before you. don’t, but— could file a true affidavit. And you have seen it before. Six, there is not one single document And last, if we might, a brief segment A JUROR: It is possible that you also had on the question of whose best interests or piece of testimony that suggests these discussions [about denying the rela- were being served. that the President encouraged her to tionship] after you learned that you were a (Text of videotape presentation:) file a false affidavit. witness in the Paula Jones case? Q But you didn’t file the affidavit for your If there is no proof the President en- [MS. LEWINSKY]: I don’t believe so. No. best interest, did you? couraged Ms. Lewinsky to file a false A JUROR: Can you exclude that possibil- A Uh, actually, I did. affidavit, surely there must be some ity? Q To avoid testifying. proof on the other charge that encour- [MS. LEWINSKY]: I pretty much can. I A Yes. aged her to give perjurious testimony really don’t remember it. I mean, it would be Brief, put pointed, I think, and I am very surprising for me to be confronted with if she were ever called to testify. Well, something that would show me different, but sure you remember them from Satur- there isn’t. I—it was 2:30 in the—I mean, the conversa- day, and I am sure you will take those Let’s begin by noting something that tion I’m thinking of mainly would have been excerpts with you as you move into should help you assess the President’s December 17th, which was— your deliberations. actions during this period—both the A JUROR: The telephone call. There was another issue that sur- charge that he encouraged the filing of [MS. LEWINSKY]: Right. And it was—you faced early on, although perhaps it has a false affidavit and the charge that he know, 2:00, 2:30 in the morning. I remember dissipated, and that is whether the the gist of it and I—I really don’t think so. encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to testify A JUROR: Thank you. President ever saw a draft of Ms. falsely. Lewinsky’s affidavit, something that The conversation that the managers But all of this is not enough to dis- the managers alleged early on but, in- allege gave rise to both offenses is that suade the managers. deed, as we now know from that testi- call of the early morning of December Now that they know that the only mony, not only did nobody ever see a 17. The managers suggest that the two participants in the relevant con- draft of the affidavit, the President and President, in essence, used the subter- versation denied that there was any Ms. Lewinsky never even discussed the fuge of a call to inform Ms. Lewinsky discussion of either the affidavit or the content of her affidavit. ‘‘Not ever,’’ as about the death of Ms. Currie’s brother testimony, they have created still an- she put it, either on December 17 or on to discuss her status as a witness in the other theory. As Manager BRYANT told January 5 or on any other date. Ac- Jones case. Subterfuge? Come on. A you last week—and in essence it was cording to Ms. Lewinsky, the President tragedy had befallen a woman who was repeated today—‘‘I don’t care what was told her he didn’t need to see a draft Ms. Lewinsky’s friend and the Presi- in Ms. Lewinsky’s mind.’’ because he had seen other affidavits. dent’s secretary. Well, that is quite extraordinary. The Early on, Manager MCCOLLUM specu- But let’s put this in the managers’ only witness, the supposed victim of lated for you—speculated for you—that own context. On December 6, the Presi- the obstruction, the person whose tes- when the President told Ms. Lewinsky dent learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on timony is being influenced, says that it that he didn’t need to see her affidavit the Jones witness list. According to didn’t happen. And the managers none- because he had seen other affidavits, he the managers, that was a source of theless want you to conclude, I assume, really must have meant that he had grave concern and spurred intensified that some subliminal message was seen previous drafts of hers, and this is efforts to find her a job—efforts that being conveyed that resulted in the fil- what he said: were still further intensified when, on ing of a false affidavit without the affi- I doubt seriously the President was talking December 11, Judge Wright issued her ant knowing that she was being con- about 15 other affidavits of somebody else order allowing lawyers to inquire into trolled by some unseen and unheard and didn’t like looking at affidavits any- the President’s relationships with force. I won’t comment further. Two more. I suspect, and I would suggest to you, other women. Yet, I have not heard any more pillars lie in the dust. that he was talking about 15 other drafts of explanation as to why the President, Next, the gifts. On this charge, the this proposed affidavit, since it had been now theoretically so distraught that he record is largely, but in critical re- around the horn a lot of rounds. was urging Mr. Jordan to keep Ms. spects not entirely, as the record has That is what Manager MCCOLLUM Lewinsky happy by finding her a job, been from the beginning. Here is what told you. Now we know that those as Manager HUTCHINSON would have it, it shows. drafts didn’t exist. They never existed. waited until December 17—11 days after On the morning of December 28, the How do we know? Somewhat belatedly, he learned Ms. Lewinsky was on the President gave Ms. Lewinsky Christ- the managers got around to telling us witness list and 6 days after the sup- mas presents in token of her impending that. In describing the testimony they posedly critical events of December departure for New York. Ms. Lewinsky would expect to receive from Ms. 11—to call and launch his scheme to testified that she raised the subject of Lewinsky when they moved for the suborn perjury. her subpoena and said something about right to take her deposition, they Now, as to the charge of subornation, getting the gifts out of her apartment, wrote in their motion: the managers do concede, as they to which she herself has now told you February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1349 the President either made no response He’s testified that he’s not concerned ence her testimony. Remember my two or said something like, ‘‘Let me think about gifts, that he gives them all the themes: Moving targets, empty pots. about it.’’ time to all sorts of people, and he They come together here. What the Betty Currie testified consistently wasn’t worried about it. managers have presented to you in a that Ms. Lewinsky called her to ask Now, we know that from Ms. series of different speculative theories, her to pick up a box and hold them for Lewinsky’s perspective, as she ex- as each one is shown to be what it is, her. Ms. Lewinsky has testified equally plained in her deposition, it also made they move on to the next in the hope consistently, and testified again in her no difference that the President was they will find one, someday, that actu- deposition, that it was her recollection giving her additional gifts, because she ally has a connection to reality. But that Ms. Currie called her and said that had already decided, having had the they cannot find that elusive theory; she understood she ‘‘had something for subpoena in hand for 9 days, that she for the stubborn facts will not budge, her’’ or perhaps even the President would not turn them over. nor will the stubborn denials by every said, ‘‘You have something for me.’’ Now, a second ray of light also shines participant in their mythical plot. The President denies that he ever on two aspects of the managers’ case Now we know that Monica spoke to Betty Currie about picking up from Ms. Lewinsky’s deposition. Lewinsky’s job search began in the gifts from Monica Lewinsky. Betty You may remember that as part of summer of 1997, well in advance of her Currie denies that the President ever article I in their trial brief, the man- being involved in the Jones case. In Oc- asked her to pick up gifts from Monica agers allege that the President lied to tober, she interviewed with U.N. Am- Lewinsky. the grand jury—this is one of the bassador Richardson, was offered a job. Now, Ms. Lewinsky has stated on never-ending list of possible perjuries— She had her first meeting with Mr. Jor- three occasions before her most recent that he recalled saying to Ms. dan early in November, well before she deposition that Ms. Currie picked up Lewinsky on December 28 that she appeared in the Jones case. The next the gifts at 2 o’clock in the afternoon would have to ‘‘turn over whatever she contact was actually before Thanks- on the 28th. Having been shown the in- had’’ when she raised the gift issue giving when she made an effort to set famous 3:32 cell phone call, which had with him. up another meeting with Mr. Jordan previously been trumpeted by the man- Well, the managers sought to obtain and was told to call back after the holi- agers as absolute proof that it was Ms. from Ms. Lewinsky testimony that day. She did, on December 8, and set up Currie who called Ms. Lewinsky, who would support that charge of perjury as a meeting on December 11—again, be- initiated the process, Ms. Lewinsky well as the concealment charge under fore either she or Mr. Jordan knew testified on Monday that Ms. Currie article II, but she turned that world that she was involved in the Jones came to pick up the gifts sometime upside down on both the perjury charge case. during the afternoon and that there and the obstruction charge. Now, on that date of December 11 had been other calls earlier in the day. When asked whether the President which we have heard so much about, But we learned at least a couple of had ever said to her, ‘‘You will have to Mr. Jordan did open doors for Ms. interesting new things from Ms. give them whatever you have,’’ or Lewinsky in New York, but there was Lewinsky on this subject. something like that, Ms. Lewinsky tes- no inappropriate pressure. At Amer- First, when she received her sub- tified that FBI Agent Fallon of the OIC ican Express and Young and Rubicam poena on December 19, 9 days —9 days— had interviewed her after the Presi- she failed on her own, and at Revlon before she spoke to the President about dent’s grand jury testimony, after they she succeeded on her own. As Mr. Jor- them, Ms. Lewinsky was frightened at already knew what the President had dan told the grand jury when asked the prospect that the Jones lawyers said under oath, and asked her whether whether there was any connection be- would search her apartment, and she she recalled the President saying any- tween his assistance to her and the began to think about concealing the thing like that to her. I am sure some- Jones case, his answer was ‘‘unequivo- gifts that she cared most about that what to the surprise of Manager cally, indubitably no.’’ would suggest some special relation- BRYANt, she testified that she told In search of some evidence that Mr. ship with the President. And as she Agent Fallon, ‘‘That sounds familiar.’’ Jordan’s efforts were, indeed, trigger- told you, she herself decided then that Now aside from the not so minor ing Ms. Lewinsky’s status as a witness she would turn over only what she de- point that Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony and therefore inappropriate, the man- scribed as the most innocuous gifts, corroborates the President’s recollec- agers focused on his January 8 call to and it was those gifts that she took tion of his response and undermines Mr. Perelman, the CEO of MacAndrews with her to see her lawyer, Mr. Carter, the charge in both article I and article & Forbes, admittedly a date known to on December 22. II, a couple of other things are worth Ms. Lewinsky, to Mr. Jordan, and to Thus, when she arrived to pick up her noting. As my colleague, Ms. Seligman, the President. Ms. Lewinsky had re- Christmas gifts from the President on pointed out to you on Saturday, this ported that her original interview had December 28, she had already decided was the first time after all Ms. not gone well, although we know it ac- that she would not turn over all the Lewinsky’s recorded versions of the tually had, and that her resume had al- gifts called for by the subpoena and events of December 28, that we had ready been sent over from MacAndrews had already segregated out the ones ever heard that the President’s version & Forbes to Revlon where she ulti- she intended to withhold. But she sounded familiar to her. And second, mately was offered a job. didn’t tell the President about that. In- there is not a single piece of paper—at Mr. Jordan was candid stating he stead, as she testified, she broached the least that we are aware of—in the en- went to the top because he wanted to question of what to do with the gifts tire universe turned over by the inde- get action if action could be had, but and the possibility of giving them to pendent counsel, by the House, and the record is clear that the woman in- Betty Currie, again without describing thence to us that reflects the FBI’s volved at Revlon who interviewed Ms. what had already occurred, to which interview of Ms. Lewinsky. If she Lewinsky had already made a decision the President either made no reply or hadn’t been honest enough to tell Man- to hire her. No one put any pressure on said something like, ‘‘I’ll think about ager BRYANT about it, we and you her. There was no special urgency. it.’’ would never have known. There was no fix. In fact, if you want it This testimony sheds light on one of Senators, what else is there in the known what happens when Mr. Jordan the issues that has troubled everyone vaults of the independent counsel or in calls the CEO of a company to get ac- who has tried to make sense out of the memory of his agents that we don’t tion, look at his call to the CEO of what happened on that day. Why would know about? Young and Rubicam: No job; no job. the President, if he were really worried Another pillar down. They made an independent decision about Ms. Lewinsky’s turning over The job search. It may have become whether or not to hire Ms. Lewinsky. gifts pursuant to the subpoena, give tiresome to hear it, but any discussion Now, other than the managers, there her more gifts? From our perspective, of the job search must begin with Ms. are only two people, as far as I can tell, the answer has always been an easy Lewinsky’s testimony oft repeated who ever tried to create a link between one. He wouldn’t have been concerned. that no one promised her a job to influ- the job search and the affidavit: Linda S1350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 Tripp and Kenneth Starr. No one—not The problem the managers have had, a theory that will link them all to- Ms. Lewinsky, not Mr. Jordan, not the however, is that they have not been gether, you have made some progress. President, no one—ever said anything able to figure out when this occurred, There is only one problem: Other than to so much as suggest the existence of why it occurred, or how it occurred. what we know to be true on this list, such a linkage, and the managers can Think back on how many versions of there is nothing other than surmise find no proof; which is not to say they their theory you have heard just in the that links them together in any fash- didn’t try. last few weeks. First, it all started on ion that one could consider improper or Manager HUTCHINSON, you will recall, December 11 when Judge Wright issued certainly illegal. But that is, in es- originally asked you to look at the her order permitting Jones lawyers to sence, where the managers have events of January 5 when he said Ms. take depositions to prove that the brought us in their theorizing, for their Lewinsky had met with her attorney, President had relations with other fourth theory is that the pressure did Mr. Carter, and then, according to the women. That was what galvanized the not really begin to build until Ms. managers’ account, Mr. Carter began President and Mr. Jordan to make real Lewinsky was actually subpoenaed and drafting the affidavit and Ms. efforts to find Ms. Lewinsky a job. began to prepare an affidavit. Lewinsky was so concerned that she Woops, didn’t quite fit the facts. On this theory, a call to Mr. called the President and he returned Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky Perelman was the final step—going her call. The problem with that ver- and made calls to prospective employ- right to the top of MacAndrews & sion, as my colleague, Mr. Kendall, ers before the order was issued. Let’s Forbes to make absolutely sure that showed you, was the affidavit wasn’t try this. Second, well, it wasn’t really Ms. Lewinsky stayed on the team. But drafted until January 6. Mr. Carter has the 11th, it was the 5th when the wit- here there are other facts to deal with. so testified. ness list came out. But they had al- For example, look what happened—or Now, the managers would also have ready told you in a trial brief quite ex- more importantly, didn’t happen—on you believe that Mr. Jordan was in- plicitly, and in the majority report of December 19. On that day, Monica volved in drafting the affidavit and the committee to the Congress, that Lewinsky came, weeping, to Mr. Jor- that he was involved in the deletion of there was ‘‘no urgency.’’ Those were dan’s office carrying with her the language from the draft that suggested dreaded subpoena. Mr. Jordan called their words; there was ‘‘no urgency’’ that she had been alone with the Presi- the President and visited with him after December 5. I am a city boy, but dent. Ms. Lewinsky’s and Mr. Jordan’s that evening. And you will recall that that dog went back to sleep. testimony is essentially the same. they talked in very candid terms to the Third, as Manager HUTCHINSON told They talked, Mr. Jordan listened—you you on Saturday, what really happened President about their relationship. recall him saying, ‘‘Yes, she was talk- Wouldn’t one think that if the Presi- ing, I was doodling,’’—he called Mr. was that by December 17 the President had ‘‘got the job search moving’’ and dent was, in fact, engaged in some Carter, he transmitted to Mr. Carter scheme to use a job in New York to in- some of her concerns, but he made it thought ‘‘maybe she is now more recep- tive,’’ and that is why he called Ms. fluence Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, this very clear to Ms. Lewinsky he wasn’t would be the critical moment, that her lawyer. And in words that will res- Lewinsky on the 17th and told her she was on the witness list. some immediate steps would be taken onate forever, at least among the legal to be absolutely sure that there was a community, Mr. Jordan said, ‘‘I don’t Nice try. No facts. Now, I don’t know whether this job for her? But what do we find? Mr. do affidavits.’’ And, of course, Mr. chart, which Manager HUTCHINSON Jordan takes no further action on the Carter himself testified it was his idea used, was intended to speak for itself job front until January 8. to delete the language about being or to be elucidated by his own com- Now, there was never so much as a alone. ments, but let’s look at it. ‘‘December passing reference concerning any con- Now, the very best that the managers nection between the job search and the can do on this issue is to establish that 5th, witness list—Lewinsky,’’ excla- mation point. Her name is on it. ‘‘De- affidavit among any of the three par- Ms. Lewinsky talked to Mr. Jordan in ticipants—any of them—because there cember 6: President meets with attor- the same conversation about the job was not one conversation that anyone neys on witness list.’’ search and about her affidavit. But as could conclude was designed to imple- Mr. Jordan told you, Ms. Lewinsky was True. ‘‘December 7th: President and Jordan ment this nefarious scheme that the always talking about the job search, meet.’’ managers would have you find. So now and he made it very clear to you that Well, that is also true, but we know we have an entirely new theory—the there was no linkage between the two. ‘‘one-man conspiracy,’’ a beast un- If we can play just a very brief sec- they didn’t talk about Monica Lewinsky. I am not quite sure why it is known, I think, to Anglo-American ju- tion of Mr. Jordan’s deposition. risprudence. (Text of videotape presentation:) there. ‘‘December 8th: Lewinsky sets up a Now, the fact that Ms. Lewinsky— Q In your conversation with Ms. Lewinsky this is on the managers’ theory—didn’t prior to the affidavit being signed, did you in meeting with Jordan for the 11th.’’ True. At that point, she doesn’t know know she was on the witness list until fact talk to her about both the job and her December 17, and Mr. Jordan didn’t concerns about parts of the affidavit? she is on the list and Mr. Jordan A I have never in any conversation with doesn’t know she is on the list. know about it until she was subpoe- Ms. Lewinsky talked to her about the job, on ‘‘December 11th: Lewinsky job meet- naed on the 19th, and Mr. Perelman one hand, or job being interrelated with the ing with Jordan.’’ never knew it, all are ‘‘proof positive’’ conversation about the affidavit. The affida- Yes, true. But as we know, well be- that the President himself was the vit was over here. The job was over here. fore Judge Wright’s order came out, ‘‘mastermind’’ pulling on unseen And of course we have already dis- the two of them still don’t know that strings and influencing the partici- pensed with the notion to the extent her name is on the witness list. pants in this drama, without their even that the managers continue to assert December 17th was the calls. knowing that they were being influ- that the President never discussed the True. They are on the list. enced. Under this theory—the latest in contents of the affidavit with Ms. On December 19, the subpoena was a long line—Ms. Lewinsky’s denial that Lewinsky or even ever saw a draft. served. she ever discussed the contents of her Now, recognizing that they would True. affidavit with the President, her denial never be able to show that the incep- ‘‘December 28: President and that there was any connection between tion of the job search was linked in any Lewinsky meet; evidence (gifts) con- the job and her testimony, Mr. Jor- way to the affidavit, the managers de- cealed.’’ dan’s denial that there was ever a con- veloped a theory which they have ad- Now, true, but I am not sure what nection between his efforts to find her vanced to you that the President com- that means in this context. a job and the affidavit, and the fact mitted obstruction of justice when the Last, interestingly, was breakfast at that Mr. Jordan never discussed any job search assistance became, in their the Park Hyatt. ‘‘More evidence at such connection with the President, words, ‘‘totally interconnected, inter- risk.’’ are simply evidence of the fact that twined, interrelated,’’ with the filing of Now, it is clear that if you string all there must have been such a connec- Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit. of these events together and you have tion; that unbeknownst to Ms. February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1351 Lewinsky, she was being corruptly en- any moment: ‘‘From my position at doubt that you need to do that to un- couraged to file a false affidavit. With the conference table, I observed Presi- derstand what might color Mr. Holmes’ all due respect, somebody has been dent Clinton looking directly at Mr. view of the world. Let’s look at what watching too many reruns of ‘‘The X- Bennett while this statement was he had to say. You have in the exhibits Files.’’ being made.’’ before you an unredacted witness list Confronted with this problem, the Search if you will for any evidence attached to Mr. Holmes’ affidavit. I managers now offer you one last the- relating to whether the President was have put up on the easels the redacted ory. With ever-increasing directness, looking attentively or not. There is not list as it was originally used by the they now accuse Mr. Jordan himself of one iota of evidence added by the vid- managers a few weeks ago because I obstructing justice by urging Ms. eotape. You were misled. Indeed, Mr. really see no purpose in unduly expos- Lewinsky to destroy her notes. Seem- Ward said to the Legal Times on Feb- ing the names of the people who are on ingly, they ask you to find—even in the ruary 1, 1999, ‘‘I have no idea if he was that witness list. But let me direct you face of Mr. Jordan’s forceful denials— paying attention. He could have been to these words just to highlight it: that one who would forget a breakfast thinking about policy initiatives, for ‘‘Under Seal.’’ at the Park Hyatt until reminded of it all I know.’’ You were misled. You will remember that the Presi- by being shown the receipt, and who The record before the affidavit is the dent has been criticized for violating a then admitted his recollection was re- record after the affidavit. The man- gag order when he spoke to his own freshed and would admit that he re- agers ask that you remove the Presi- secretary about his deposition. What membered a discussion of the notes, dent of the United States on the basis then do we say when the managers must have obstructed justice himself. of the videotape showing that he was produce a document from a lawyer for And, of course, he must have been en- looking in the direction of his lawyer. one of the parties that is still under gaged all along with an effort to influ- Well, it was not much of a pillar to seal, not yet released by the court, and ence Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony on be- start with. reveals the names of individuals who half of the President. There is no dispute of the conversa- are no part of these proceedings? Sure- Nonsense. Nonsense. And so this pil- tion of January 18 between the Presi- ly the managers could have made their lar returns to the dust from which it dent and Ms. Currie. There is no dis- point just as well without such a rev- came. pute that President Clinton called Ms. elation. Next, the events surrounding Mr. Currie into the White House on Sun- Mr. Holmes states that the Jones Bennett’s statement to Judge Wright day, January 18, the day after his depo- lawyers had two reasons for putting during the Jones deposition formed the sition, and asked her certain questions Ms. Currie’s name on the witness list: basis for two charges: First, that the and made certain statements about his One, because of President Clinton’s President obstructed justice in the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The deposition testimony; and, two, be- Jones case; second, that he committed only dispute is whether, in doing so, cause they had ‘‘received what they perjury by telling the grand jury that the President intended to tamper with considered to be reliable information he really wasn’t paying attention at a witness. The managers contend that that Ms. Currie was instrumental in fa- the critical moment. he was corruptly attempting to influ- cilitating Monica Lewinsky’s meetings Both charges depend on the man- ence Ms. Currie’s testimony. The Presi- with Mr. Clinton and that Ms. Currie agers’ ability to prove that, indeed, the dent denies it. was central to the cover story Mr. Clin- President had been paying attention. Since we know that Ms. Currie was ton and Ms. Lewinsky had developed to To do that, they always rely on the not on the Jones witness list at the use in the event their affair was discov- videotape of the deposition in which it time of the President’s deposition, or ered.’’ They don’t tell us where he got can be seen that the President was at the time of either of the conversa- this reliable information. But of course looking in the direction of his lawyer tions with Ms. Currie, and we know we know. while Mr. Bennett was talking. that discovery was about to end, the Let’s figure out whether in fact But 2 weeks ago, they came to you managers have argued that the Presi- Betty Currie really made it on the list and they produced, with a modest dent’s own references to her in the because of the President’s testimony. If flourish, a new bit of evidence—an affi- Jones deposition constituted an invita- you look at the number of times she is davit from Mr. Barry Ward, clerk to tion to the Jones lawyers to subpoena mentioned in the deposition, it be- Judge Wright, trumpeted, in their her. They argue that proof of that invi- comes conventional wisdom that the words, as ‘‘lending even greater cre- tation can be found in the witness list President inserted her name into his dence to their crime.’’ Now, in their signed by the Jones lawyers on Janu- testimony so frequently and so gratu- memorandum in support of their re- ary 22, which listed Ms. Currie and itously that he did in fact invite the quest to expand the record by including other potential witnesses. Jones lawyers to call her and, thus, Mr. Ward’s affidavit, the managers told When I spoke to you on January 19, I must have known that she was going to you the following, and this is the man- told you that Ms. Currie had never be a witness when he spoke to her on agers’ own language: been placed on the witness list. I was January 18. But if you look at the dep- From his seat at the conference table next wrong. Manager HUTCHINSON has quite osition, you will find that the first to the judge, he saw President Clinton listen- properly taken me to task for it. But I time her name is mentioned, the Presi- ing attentively to Mr. Bennett’s remarks, fear that he became so caught up in dent is simply responding to a question while the exchange between Mr. Bennett and this information that he has lost sight about his earlier meetings with Ms. the judge occurred. of its true significance, or rather a lack Lewinsky and stated that Betty was Then they said: thereof. present. Mr. Ward’s declaration would lend even In order to convince you that Betty The lawyers for the plaintiff then greater credence to the argument that Presi- Currie was going to be called by the asked 13 questions, give or take a few, dent Clinton lied on this point during his Jones lawyer when the President spoke about Ms. Currie. And we know there is grand jury testimony and obstructed justice to her on January 18, the managers, no secret here. They got their informa- by allowing his attorney to utilize a false af- somewhat like Diogenes, lit their lan- tion from Linda Tripp. And Linda fidavit in order to cut off a legitimate line of tern and sought out the most reliable Tripp surely told them about Ms. questioning. Mr. Ward’s declaration proves that Mr. Ward saw President Clinton listen- witness they could find, a witness Lewinsky’s relationship with Ms. ing attentively while the exchange between whose credibility was beyond question, Currie. It was only in response to a Mr. Bennett and the presiding judge con- who had no ulterior motive, no bias— couple of their questions about wheth- curred. Paula Jones’ lawyer. They brought it er letters had ever been delivered to But this is what Mr. Ward’s affidavit to you in a form that they hoped would Ms. Currie and whether she stated at actually says. The affidavit was at- allow his motive and bias to go untest- some extraordinarily late hour that tached to the very motion the language ed. the President said, ‘‘You’ll have to ask of which I just read to you. I direct Remember how the managers told her.’’ He didn’t invite. He did not sug- your attention only to the last sen- you that it is important to look a wit- gest to them that they call Ms. Currie. tence, because this is the only one of ness in the eye to test his demeanor. I They knew whatever they needed to S1352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 know about Ms. Currie to put her on known. Of course, that’s late at night. Only one pillar left. The managers their witness list. January 21, Post story was on the ask the Senate to find that the Presi- To judge further whether Ms. Currie Internet. The President calls Betty for dent’s conversations with Mr. made it on the list because of the 20 minutes. And then sort of sneaking Blumenthal and other aides was an ef- President’s invitation, or because they it in down here, January 20 or 21, Presi- fort to influence their testimony before already knew about witnesses from Ms. dent coaches Currie for the second the grand jury. Their theory, much as Tripp, let me direct your attention—if time. was true of some of their other theo- you look at the exhibit in front of you But the record shows this: Ms. Currie ries, flounders on shoals that they rather than the redacted version here, has said that the conversation occurred don’t account for. As they would have the first listed on the witness list is ‘‘whenever the President was next in it, in the days immediately following No. 165. Her name does not come up at the White House.’’ That is after the the Lewinsky story, the President all in the deposition. But we know that Sunday conversation. And that was spoke with a few members of his senior she was in fact the subject of conversa- Tuesday, the 20th, the day after the staff, as they would allege, knowing tion surreptitiously recorded between Martin Luther King holiday. Thus, the that they would probably be grand jury Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky. And note second conversation is of no greater witnesses and misled them about his that the name of Vernon Jordan is not legal significance than the first since relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, so on the list. They are the ones, the the President knew no more about Ms. that they would convey that misin- Jones lawyers are the ones, who first Currie’s status as a witness on Tuesday formation to the grand jury when they bring them up. And we know, of course, than he did on Sunday. were called. that they knew from Ms. Tripp that he In sum, the managers have tried to Now, just so that you can see for was already involved in this scenario. convince you that the President knew yourself what the President testified to Thus, neither the January 22 witness or must have known that Betty Currie in the grand jury on the subject, I want list nor Mr. Holmes’ affidavit sup- would be a witness in the Jones case. If to play about 3 or 4 minutes of that ported the managers’ theory. The anything, we now know that the reason testimony for you. President did not know that Ms. Currie she was put on the January 22 list, (Text of videotape presentation:) along with many others, had more to would be a witness when he spoke to Q. If they testified that you denied sexual her after her deposition, and he could do with Linda Tripp than anything relations or relationship with Monica not, therefore, have tampered with the else. Lewinsky, or if they told us that you denied witness. But putting this aside for the mo- that, do you have any reason to doubt them, Well beyond their statement about ment; that is, putting aside the ques- in the days after the story broke; do you how they got this information, Mr. tion whether the President could have have any reason to doubt them? Holmes volunteers that they didn’t get had any reason to believe that Ms. PRESIDENT CLINTON. No. The—let me it from the Washington Post, or per- Currie would be a witness, look at say this. It’s no secret to anybody that I hoped that this relationship would never be- haps not. But it is clear that in the whether Ms. Currie herself believed that she was being corruptly influenced come public. It’s a matter of fact that it had days after the Post article, we know been many, many months since there had that some of the names on the list on January 18. In response to continu- been anything improper about it, in terms of came from the press reports, we know ing efforts by the prosecutors to get improper contact. I— that Jones lawyers began tracking the her to admit that she felt some unto- Q. Did you deny it to them or not, Mr. newly public activities of the independ- ward pressure from the President, she President? ent counsel, which was issuing its own testified—and you have seen this before PRESIDENT CLINTON. Let me finish. So, subpoenas in the hours and days fol- as well: what—I did not want to misled my friends, but I wanted find language where I could say lowing the lawyers’ release. And for . . . did you feel pressured when he told you those statements? that. I also, frankly, did not want to turn some insight into what they believe A. None whatsoever. any of them into witnesses, because I—and, the independent counsel thought was Q. What did you think, or what was going sure enough, they all became witnesses. going on, look at the pleading they through your mind about what he was doing? Q. Well, you knew they might be—— filed with Judge Wright on Wednesday, A. At the time I felt that he was—I want to PRESIDENT CLINTON. And so—— January 28, to prevent the Jones law- use the word shocked or surprised that this Q.—witnesses, didn’t you? yers from continuing to use their in- was an issue, and he was just talking. PRESIDENT CLINTON. And so I said to them things that were true about this rela- vestigation as an aid—that is, the inde- * * * * * Q. That was your impression, that he want- tionship. That I used—in the language I pendent counsel’s investigation—as an used, I said, there’s nothing going on be- aid to civil discovery. ed you to say—because he would end each of the statements with ‘‘Rights?,’’ with a ques- tween us. That was true. I said, I have not The pleading said, ‘‘As recently as tion. had sex with her as I defined it. That was this afternoon, plaintiff’s counsel A. I do not remember that he wanted me to true. And did I hope that I would never have caused process to be served on Betty say ‘‘Right.’’ He would say, ‘‘Right?’’ and I to be here on this day giving this testimony? Currie who appeared before the grand could have said, ‘‘Wrong.’’ Of course, But I also didn’t want to do any- jury in Washington yesterday. Such de- Q. But he would end each of those ques- thing to complicate this matter further. So, liberate and calculated shadowing of tions with a ‘‘Right?’’ and you could either I said things that were true. They may have say whether it was true or not true. been misleading, and if they were I have to the grand jury’s investigation will nec- A. Correct. take responsibility for it and I’m sorry. essarily pierce the veil of grand jury Q. Did you feel any pressure to agree with Q. It may have been misleading, sir, and secrecy.’’ your boss? you knew though, after January 21st when The managers have criticized us for A. None. the Post article broke and said that Judge ignoring the second conversation be- And so on a human level, a human Starr was looking into this, you knew that tween the President and Ms. Currie, level, we have the President, who has they might be witnesses. You knew that they suggesting that I suppose it takes on just seen his worst nightmare come might be called into a grand jury, didn’t an even more sinister cast than the true, and who knows that he is about you? first. But there is simply nothing of to face a press tidal wave that will PRESIDENT CLINTON. That’s right. I think I was quite careful what I said after any substance to take from this second wash over him and his family and the that. I may have said something to all these conversation that adds to the events of country, and we have his secretary who people to that effect, but I’ll also—whenever January 18. It is clear that the con- knows of, indeed, has been a part of, anybody asked me any details, I said, look, I versation occurred on Tuesday, Janu- his relationship with Monica Lewinsky don’t want you to be a witness or I turn you ary 20, before the Starr investigation but knows nothing about the long- into a witness or give you information that became public. The managers disingen- since ended improper aspects of that could get you in trouble. I just wouldn’t uously have suggested in their exhibit, relationship—we have a conversation talk. I, by and large, didn’t talk to people the one they distributed on Saturday, that was the product of the emotions about this. Q. If all of these people—let’s leave out that this conversation occurred after that were churning through the Presi- Mrs. Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid the Post story appeared. If you look at dent’s very soul on that day. What we Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Er- the exhibit that was used on Saturday, do not have is an attempt to corruptly skine Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the you will see: January 20, Post story is influence the testimony of the witness. story broke, after Judge Starr’s involvement February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1353 was known on January 21st, have said that I have heard Marlene Dietrich’s name handed down to us as the standard for you denied a sexual relationship with them. used as a pejorative—what was Man- removing a President. Ask what im- Are you denying that? ager BRYANT saying about Ms. peachment and removal would mean to PRESIDENT CLINTON. No. Q. And you’ve told us that you—— Lewinsky? That she was lying? That our system of government in years to PRESIDENT CLINTON. I’m just telling she misled the managers? That because come. Ask what you always ask in this you what I meant by it. I told you what I her testimony helped the President, Chamber: What is best for the country? meant by it when they started this deposi- they were now going to attack her No, the President wouldn’t allow any tion. character and her integrity? I don’t of us to say ‘‘so what,’’ to so much as Q. You’ve told us now that you were being careful, but that it might have been mislead- know how many of you have seen ‘‘Wit- suggest that what he has done can sim- ing. Is that correct? ness For The Prosecution,’’ either be- ply be forgotten. He has asked for for- PRESIDENT CLINTON. It might have fore or after Mr. BRYANT used that ex- giveness from his family and from the been. Since we have seen this four-year, $40- ample, but ask yourselves: What was American people, and he has asked for million-investigation come own to parsing he saying? What was he doing? the opportunity to earn back their the definition of sex, I think it might have Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, trust. been. I don’t think at the time that I I don’t know whether there is a market In his opening remarks, Manager thought that’s what this was going to be for used pillars, but they are all lying HYDE questioned whether this Presi- about. In fact, if you remember the headlines at the time, even you mentioned the Post in the dust. dent can represent the interests of our story. All the headlines were—and all the It is difficult for me as a lawyer, as country in the world. Go to Ireland and talking, people who talked about this, in- an advocate for my client, to speak to ask that question. Go to Israel and cluding a lot who have been quite sympa- this body about lofty constitutional Gaza and ask that question. If you thetic to your operation, said, well, this is principles without seeming merely to doubt whether he should, here at home, not really a story about sex, or this is a engage in empty rhetoric. But I would continue in office, ask the parent story about subornation of perjury and these like to think, I guess, that if there whose child walks safer streets or the talking points, and all this other stuff. So, were ever a forum in which I could ven- men and women who go off to work in what I was trying to do was to give them ture into that realm, be excused for something they could—that would be true, the morning to good jobs. even if misleading in the context of this dep- doing so, could be heard without the We are together, I think, weavers of osition, and keep them out of trouble, and intervening filter of skepticism that I a constitutional fabric in which all of let’s deal—and deal with what I thought was fear too often lies between lawyer and us now are clothed and generations will the almost ludicrous suggestion that I had listener, this is the time and this is the be clothed for millennia to come. We urged someone to lie or tried to suborn per- moment. Only once before in our Na- cannot leave even the smallest flaw in jury, in other words. tion’s history has any lawyer had the that fabric, for if we do, one day some- Now, it is clear from that excerpt, I opportunity to make a closing argu- one will come along and pull a thread think, that in the hours and days im- ment on behalf of the President of the and the flaw will grow and it will eat mediately following the release of the United States and only once before has away at the fabric around it and soon Post story, the President was strug- the Senate ever had to sit in judgment the entire cloth will begin to unravel. gling with two competing concerns: on the head of the executive branch. We must be as close to perfect in what How to give some explanation to the We all must cast an eye to the past, we do here today as women and men men and women he worked with every looking over our shoulders to be sure are capable of being. If there is doubt day, and worked with most closely, that we have learned the right lessons about our course, surely we must take without putting them in a position of from those who have sat in this Cham- special care, as we hold the fabric of being grand jury witnesses. But he was ber before us. But we also must look to democracy in our hands, to leave it as not in any sense seeking to tamper the future, to be sure that we leave the we found it, tightly woven and strong. with them or to obstruct the grand right lessons to those who come after Now, before today I wrote down the jury’s investigation. us. We hope that no one will ever have following: ‘‘The rules say that the Putting aside for the moment our need of them, but if they should, we managers will have the last word.’’ strenuous disagreement both with the owe them not only the proper judg- Well, the rules today say the managers factual underpinning of and the legal ment for today but the proper judg- will have the last paragraphs. But that conclusions that flow from the man- ment for all time. truly isn’t so, because even when they agers’ analysis of these events, I find it Now, you have heard the managers are finished, theirs will not be the last difficult to figure out how it is that tell you very early on in these meet- voices you hear. Yes, one or more of they believe the President intended ings that we have advanced a, quote, them will now rise and come to the po- that his statement to Mr. Blumenthal ‘‘so what’’ defense; that we are saying dium and tell you that they have the or his statement to Mr. Podesta would that the President’s conduct is really right of it and we the wrong, that our involve their conveying false informa- nothing to be concerned about; that we sense of what the Constitution de- tion to the grand jury, or that he should all simply go home and ignore mands is not theirs and should not be sought in some fashion to send that what he has done. And that, of course, yours. That is their privilege. message to the grand jury when, at the to choose a word that would have been But as each of them does come before very moment that those aides were familiar to the framers themselves, is you for the final time, and as you lis- first subpoenaed, he asserted executive balderdash. ten to them, I know that you will hear privilege to prevent them from testify- If you want to see ‘‘so what’’ in ac- not their eloquence, as grand as it may ing before the grand jury. For someone tion, look elsewhere. ‘‘So what’’ if the be; not the pointed jibes of Manager who wanted Mr. Blumenthal to serve, framers reserved impeachment and re- HUTCHINSON nor the stentorian tones of as the managers would have it, as his moval for only those offenses that Manager ROGAN nor the homespun messenger of lies, that is strange be- threaten the state? ‘‘So what’’ if the homilies of Manager GRAHAM nor the havior indeed. House Judiciary Committee didn’t grave exhortations of Manager HYDE, Now, there is an issue here that I quite do their constitutional job, if but voices of greater eloquence than don’t really want to get into at length, they took the independent counsel’s re- any of us can muster, the voices of and I, not having heard the last 2 hours ferral and added a few frills and then Madison and Hamilton and the others of the managers’ presentation, don’t washed their hands of it? ‘‘So what’’ if who met in Philadelphia 212 years ago, know whether they are going to get the House approved articles that and the voices of the generations since, into, and that is Manager GRAHAM’s fa- wouldn’t pass muster in any court in and the voices of the American people vorite issue, the question of whether the land? ‘‘So what’’ if the managers now, and the voices of generations to there was some scheme to smear have been creating their own theories come. These, not the voices of mere ad- Monica Lewinsky—early, middle, or of impeachment as they go long? And vocates, must be your guide. late. Other than to say that no such ‘‘so what,’’ and ‘‘so what,’’ and ‘‘so It has been an honor for all of us to plan ever existed, I just want to ask what?’’ appear before you in these last weeks the managers this. Although I must By contrast, what we offer is not ‘‘so on behalf of the President. And now admit that for the first time in my life what,’’ but this: Ask what the framers our last words to you, which are the S1354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 words I began with: William Jefferson commit most, if not all, of the crimes witness list, this is going to be really hard Clinton is not guilty of the charges he is charged with under these articles for us, we’re going to have to tell the truth that have been brought against him. of impeachment. I suspect that a great and be humiliated in front of the entire He did not commit perjury. He did not many of you share my view that these world about what we’ve done,’’ which I would have fought him on probably. That was dif- commit obstruction of justice. He must are high crimes and misdemeanors. ferent. And by him not calling me and saying not be removed from office. But nonetheless, it is my understand- that, you know, I knew what that meant. Thank you very much. ing that some of you who share these ... Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair. views are not prepared to vote to con- ‘‘I knew what that meant.’’ The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- vict the President and remove him She lied in that affidavit. The Presi- ognizes the majority leader. from office. That instead, you are of dent, clearly, intended to influence her RECESS the mind at the moment—subject to by suggesting the affidavit and all the Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan- our persuading you otherwise —in your other things that went on in that con- imous consent we take a 15-minute re- own debate, to acquit him. versation, and all of the circumstances Ultimately, the choice is yours, not cess. that were there. There being no objection, at 4:19 p.m. ours. But a few moments I would like Monica Lewinsky was equally clear the Senate recessed until 4:41 p.m.; to spend with you reviewing just a few in her testimony to you Saturday that whereupon, the Senate reassembled of the facts—not many—and suggesting Betty Currie called her about the gifts, when called to order by the Chief Jus- to you what I believe we managers not the other way around. And surely tice. would believe would be some very sig- nobody believes that Betty Currie The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate nificant negative consequences of fail- would have called Monica Lewinsky will be in order. The Chair recognizes ing to remove this President. about the gifts on December 28 unless Having heard all of the evidence over the majority leader. the President had asked her to do so. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I be- the past few days and weeks, there And then the day after the Presi- lieve now we are ready to proceed with should be little doubt that beginning in dent’s deposition in the Jones case, the the managers from the House. I under- December 1997 William Jefferson Clin- President clearly committed the stand that they do have a 2-hour pres- ton set out on a course of conduct de- crimes of witness tampering and ob- entation. I will look for guidance from signed to keep from the Jones court struction of justice when, in logical an- the Chief Justice about whether we the true nature of his relationship with ticipation of Betty Currie being called should take a break for the last 45 Monica Lewinsky. Once he knew he as a witness, he said to Betty Currie, minutes— that would be after Mr. Man- would have to testify, he knew he was ‘‘You were always there when she was ager Rogan—if at all. going to lie in his deposition. And he there, right? We were never really The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. knew he was going to have to lie, not alone. You could see and hear every- The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager only himself but get Monica Lewinsky thing. Monica came on to me and I MCCOLLUM. to lie—if he was going to be success- never touched her, right? She wanted Mr. Manager MCCOLLUM. Thank ful—and he was going to have to get to have sex with me and I can’t do you, Mr. Chief Justice and Members of his personal secretary to lie about his that.’’ the Senate. relationship, and have his aides and I am not going to rehash all of the At the outset of my closing remarks, others help cover them up if he would evidence in this case again, but it is I would like to lay the record straight be successful in lying in the Jones my understanding that some of you on a couple of matters. With all due court deposition. may be prepared to vote to convict the He did all of these things. And then deference to White House counsel, the President on obstruction of justice and he chose to lie to the grand jury again, suggestion that Mr. Ruff made at the not on perjury. I don’t know how you because if he did not, he would have beginning of his closing, that we were can do that. I honestly don’t know how not been able to protect himself from somehow being unfair to him on the anybody can do that. If you believe the crimes he had already committed. timing today of the rebuttal, seems to Sidney Blumenthal’s testimony that No amount of arguments by White me to be a little strained. ‘‘Methinks the President told him that Monica House counsel can erase one simple thou doth protest too much,’’ was a re- Lewinsky came at him and made a sex- fact: If you believe Monica Lewinsky, mark I used earlier, a quote from ual demand and that he rebuffed her you cannot believe the President. If Shakespeare, and I think it is appro- and that she threatened him and said you believe Monica Lewinsky, the priate here, too, because if you recall, she would tell people they had had an President committed most of the we had no rebuttal at all as you nor- affair, and that she was known as a crimes with which he is charged in mally would have in the end of our stalker among her peers, surely you these arguments today. case, to begin with. Secondly, we must conclude that the President com- thought we ought to have live wit- For example, while the President did not directly tell her to lie, he never ad- mitted perjury when he told the grand nesses here. We haven’t had those. The jury that he told his aides, including list could go on. I really don’t think we vised her what to put in her affidavit, she knew from the December 17 tele- Blumenthal, nothing but the truth, are being unfair. even if misleading. Secondly, I would like to make one phone conversation with the President that he meant for her to lie about the The exact quotes, people are worried correction and make a clear point. I about the exact quotes. What are the am sure it was not intended, but in relationship and file a false affidavit, and he would lie as well. words? your remarks, I believe, Mr. Ruff, you And so I said to them things that were true indicated there was no history with re- I want to refresh your recollection. These charts we put up some time be- about this relationship . . . so, I said things gard to ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt’’ that were true. They may have been mislead- standard. Maybe I misunderstood that, fore—you have them in front of you. ing . . . so, what I was trying to do was to but I want the record to be clear that This is a direct quote from her. We give them something that could—that would in the Claiborne case there was, in fact, showed this on television Saturday, be true, even if misleading. . .. a vote that took place here in the case where she was reading from her grand That was played on television in the of Judge Claiborne, 75–17, saying that jury deposition and confirming, this is, White House presentation a few min- that standard did not apply to im- indeed, what she said and what she— utes ago. That was perjury. What he peachment cases. her interpretation of that affidavit, told Sidney Blumenthal was not true. Now, having said that, I would like phone conversation, despite everything It wasn’t just misleading, it was not to move on to my own thoughts. Not- else you heard. true. And he knew it was not true and withstanding the clever and resource- She said: it was perjury in front of the grand ful arguments that White House coun- For me, the best way to explain how I feel jury. sel have made to you today, and in the what happened was, you know, no one asked If you believe the President commit- me or encouraged me to lie, but no one dis- past few weeks, I suspect that most of couraged me either. . . . ted the crimes of witness tampering you—probably more than two-thirds— . . . It wasn’t as if the President called me and obstruction of justice when he believe that the President did, indeed, and said, ‘‘You know, Monica you’re on the called Betty Currie to his office the February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1355 day after his deposition and told her, amount of sentencing than simple, ular will to do so, by voting to acquit ‘‘You were always there when she was, plain ‘‘vanilla’’ bribery does. That is you will be setting a precedent for fu- right’’—the ones I just read to you, and where they start. He is right, you can ture impeachment trials. the other statements to coach her— get enhancements for aggravating cir- Can you imagine how damaging that surely you must also conclude that the cumstances for bribery in certain could be to our constitutional form of President committed perjury before cases, and you can get a greater sen- government, to set the precedent that the grand jury when he told the grand tence. But so can you get a greater sen- no President will be removed from of- jurors his purpose in making these tence for perjury if there was a signifi- fice for high crimes and misdemeanors statements. cant effort to wrongfully influence the unless the polls show that the public These are his exact words to the administration of justice, for example; wants that to happen? Would our grand jurors: and you can get a significantly en- Founding Fathers have ever envisioned I was trying to figure out what the facts hanced sentence for perjury if you com- that? Of course not. Our Constitution were. I was trying to remember. I was trying mitted perjury, and so on. was structured to avoid this very situa- to remember every time I had seen Ms. We didn’t choose to bring up a litany tion. Lewinsky. and show all the enhancements. Of Fourth: Then there is what happens That is not true. He knew that was course, you can do that. But for the to the rule of law if you vote to acquit. not true. That is not what he was pure base, there is no question about What damage is done for future genera- doing. No one can rationally reason it. tions by a vote to acquit? Will more that that is what he was trying to do The other significant thing that you witnesses be inclined to commit per- when he made the coaching statements will recall I brought up—some of us jury in trials? Will more jurors decide to Ms. Currie. That was perjury in did—a couple of weeks ago is witness that perjury and obstruction of justice front of the grand jury. bribery. Bribing a witness is treated should not be crimes for which they And then we have heard a lot of talk more severely under sentencing guide- convict? No military officer, no Cabi- about the civil deposition. Nobody is lines for base sentencing than ordinary net official, no judge, no CEO of a trying to prove up that deposition or is bribery is. Clearly, all three are high major corporation, no president of a lying in here today. Nobody is trying crimes and misdemeanors. university, no principal of a public to use that as a duplication or any- What are the consequences of failing school in this Nation would remain in office, no matter how popular they thing else of the sort. But the Presi- to remove this President from office if were, if they committed perjury and dent said before the grand jurors: you believe he committed the crimes of obstruction of justice as charged here. My goal— perjury and obstruction of justice? What are the consequences of failing to To vote to acquit puts the President Talking about the Jones case do that? What is the downside? on a pedestal which says that, as long deposition— First, at the very least, you will as he is popular, we are going to treat in this deposition was to be truthful .... leave a precedent of doubt as to wheth- him differently with regard to keeping That is the lie. That is the perjury. er perjury and obstruction of justice his job than any other person in any That is as simple as the second count are high crimes and misdemeanors in other position of public trust in the of the perjury article is. Does anybody impeaching the President. In fact, your United States of America. The Presi- believe, after hearing all of this, that vote to acquit under these cir- dent is the Commander in Chief; he is the goal of the President in the Jones cumstances may well mean that no the chief law enforcement officer; he is deposition was to be truthful? He lied President in the future will ever be im- the man who appoints the Cabinet; he appoints the judges. to the grand jury and committed per- peached or removed for perjury or ob- Are you going to put on the record jury. struction of justice. Is that the record Last but not least, if you believe books the precedent that all who serve that you want? under the President and whom he has Monica Lewinsky about the acts of a Second, you will be establishing the appointed will be held to a higher sexual nature that they engaged in, precedent that the standard for im- standard than the President? What leg- how can you not conclude the Presi- peachment and removal of a President acy to history is this? What mischief dent committed perjury when he spe- is different from that of impeaching or have you wrought to our Constitution, cifically denied those acts? Those were removing a judge or any other official to our system of government, to the very explicit. Mr. Ruff suggested that while, arguably—although it never values and principles cherished by fu- maybe this is a subjective question. happened—a Federal judge could be re- ture generations of Americans? All this Maybe about the interpretation of the moved for the lesser standard under because—I guess this is the argument— definition you might call it subjective. the good behavior clause of the Con- Clinton was elected and is popular with We are not going to go over it again stitution. Such a removal would have the people? All this, when it is clear today, but he used specific words that to be by a separate tribunal, by a pro- that a vote to convict would amount to he confirmed were in that definition cedure set by statute, because under nothing more than the peaceful, or- and said, ‘‘I did not do those things. I the impeachment provisions of the derly, and immediate transition of gov- did not touch those parts.’’ Monica Constitution which all judges have ernment of the Presidency to the Vice Lewinsky, if you believe her, testified been removed under previously, the that he did do those things—many President? same single standard exists for remov- William Jefferson Clinton is not a times. ing the President as for removing a king; he is our President. You have the He committed perjury when he said judge. That standard is that you have power and the duty to remove him he didn’t do those things, if you believe to have treason, bribery, or other high from office for high crimes and mis- Monica Lewinsky. If you are going to crimes and misdemeanors. demeanors. I implore you to muster vote to convict the President on the ar- So while the Constitution on its face the courage of your convictions, to ticles of impeachment regarding ob- does not make a distinction for remov- muster the courage the Founding Fa- struction of justice, I urge you in the ing a President or removing a judge, if thers believed that the Senate would strongest way to also vote to convict you vote to acquit, believing that the always have in times like these. Wil- him on the perjury article as well. I President committed perjury and ob- liam Jefferson Clinton has committed think you would be doing a disservice struction of justice, for all times you high crimes and misdemeanors. Con- not to do that, and it would be sending are going to set a precedent that there vict him and remove him. a terrible message about perjury and is such a distinction. I yield to Mr. CANADY. the seriousness of it for history and to Third, if you believe the President The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- the American people. committed the crimes of perjury and ognizes Mr. Manager CANADY. As you have seen in the Federal Sen- obstruction of justice and that they are Mr. Manager CANADY. Thank you, tencing Guidelines, which Mr. Ruff high crimes and misdemeanors, but Mr. Chief Justice. talked about a while ago, perjury and you do not believe a President should Members of the Senate, during the obstruction of justice do have, under be removed when economic times are next few minutes I would like to ad- the baseline guidelines, a higher good and it is strongly against the pop- dress the constitutional issue you are S1356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 called on to decide in this case: Are the issue by the President’s lawyers in the oath are incompatible with the proper crimes charged against the President course of their various presentations to performance of the constitutional du- offenses for which he may be removed the Senate. Could it be that the Presi- ties of the Presidential office. A Presi- from office? Are these crimes high dent’s lawyers have come to under- dent who has lied under oath and ob- crimes and misdemeanors? Are these stand that the argument that tax fraud structed justice has by definition crimes that proceed, as Alexander is not an impeachable offense does not breached his constitutional duty to Hamilton said, ‘‘from the abuse or vio- strengthen their case, but on the con- take care that the laws be faithfully lation of some public trust’’? trary highlights the weakness of their executed. The President’s lawyers have argued case? Tax fraud by a President, like Such conduct is directly and unam- vigorously that even if all the charges lying under oath and obstruction of biguously at odds with the duties of against the President are true, the justice by a President in this case, this office. So far so good. But here is Constitution forbids the removal of would of course be wrong. It would be the real question. Is that conduct seri- this President. They contend that this shameful, indefensible, unforgivable, ously incompatible with the Presi- isn’t even a close case, that the crimes but—this is the big ‘‘but’’—it would not dent’s constitutional duties? charged against the President are far be impeachable, they say; not even a That is the question you all must an- removed from the constitutional cat- close case. Bad? Yes. But clearly not swer. If you say yes, it is seriously in- egory of high crimes and misdemean- impeachable. And why that? Why compatible, you must vote to convict ors—a category of offenses they have would it not be impeachable? Why is it and remove the President. If you say sought to restrict narrowly to mis- clearly, unquestionably unimpeach- no, you must vote to acquit. conduct causing ruinous harm to the able? This is the answer. This is the The President’s defenders have not system of government. heart and soul of the President’s de- offered a clear guide to determining While the President’s lawyers have fense. Tax fraud and a host of unde- what is serious enough to justify re- been consistent in urging a narrow and fined other crimes, like lying under moval. Instead, they have simply restricted understanding of the im- oath and obstruction of justice in this sought to minimize the significance of peachment and removal power, they case, are just not serious enough for the particular offenses charged against have not been—and I repeat—they have impeachment and removal. That is the the President. not been consistent in describing the answer. That is the defense. It is just Today we heard and attempt to mini- standard used to determine if high not serious enough. All the grand legal mize the significance of perjury. I was crimes and misdemeanors have been argument, all the fine legal distinc- somewhat amazed to hear that. There committed. tions come down to the simple, this was no mention made of what the first In their submission to the House of marvelously simple proposition. It is Chief Justice of the United States, Jus- Representatives they stated unequivo- just not serious enough. tice Jay, had to say about perjury, cally that ‘‘the Constitution requires Let me refer you once again to a being of all crimes the most pernicious proof of official misconduct for im- statement from the 1974 Report on Con- to society. That was omitted from the peachment.’’ Those are their words. I stitutional Grounds for Presidential President’s analysis. quote them again. ‘‘The Constitution Impeachment prepared by the staff of But let me say this: I believe that we requires proof of official misconduct the Nixon impeachment inquiry. I want should focus on any mitigating cir- for impeachment.’’ Indeed, that state- to cite a portion of that report that I cumstances. We should also focus on ment was the primary heading for their have previously cited to you. The the aggravating circumstances that re- whole argument on constitutional President’s lawyers have also cited this late to the particular facts of a given standards. And likewise, in their trial very same statement in both their trial case. I would like to briefly review the memorandum submitted to the Senate, memorandum and their argument dur- factors advanced at mitigating the se- they argue that impeachment should ing these proceedings. riousness of the President’s crimes. not be used to punish private mis- This is what the report says: We all know what the leading miti- conduct. Because impeachment of a President is a Subsequently they have apparently grave step for the Nation it is to be predi- gating factor is. We have all heard this abandoned this position, recognizing cated only upon conduct seriously incompat- 1,000 times. It goes like this: The of- that it would lead to the absurd result ible with either constitutional form and fenses are not sufficiently serious be- principles of our government or the proper cause it is all about sex. This is di- of maintaining in office Presidents who performance of constitutional duties of the were undoubtedly unfit to serve. They rectly linked to the claim that the Presidential office. For our purposes now, President was simply trying to avoid now begrudgingly concede that a Presi- impeachment is to be predicated only upon dent is not necessarily impeached and conduct seriously incompatible, or the prop- personal embarrassment in committing removed simply because these crimes er performance of constitutional duties of these crimes. The problem with this ar- did not involve the abuse of powers of the Presidential office. gument is that it proves too much. his office. They have been driven to That is a standard the managers ac- It is very common for people to lie concede there are at least some cir- cept. That is a standard the President’s under oath and obstruct justice to do cumstances in which a President may lawyers apparently also accept, and so at least in part to avoid personal be removed for crimes not involving that is a standard I hope all 100 Mem- embarrassment. People engage in such what they call ‘‘official misconduct.’’ bers of the U.S. Senate could accept. I conduct in their efforts to extricate But, of course, they contend that the believe we can reach agreement on this themselves from difficulty and embar- circumstances in this case don’t even standard. The problem comes, of rassing situations. To a large extent, justify consideration of removal. course, in applying the standard. There the offenses of President Nixon could In the proceedings in the House and is the rub. A wide gulf separates us on be attributed to his desire to avoid em- in their trial memorandum submitted how this standard should be applied. barrassing revelations. Did that reduce to the Senate, the President’s lawyers The President’s lawyers say that under his culpability? Did that lessen the se- made much of the argument that tax this standard the case against the riousness of his misconduct? The an- fraud by a President of the United President isn’t even worth considering. swer is obvious. It did not. States would not be sufficiently serious The managers argue on the contrary, The desire to avoid embarrassment is to justify impeachment and removal. I that a conscientious application of the not a mitigating factor. Likewise, the had mentioned this before in these pro- standard leads to the firm conclusion nature of the precipitating misconduct ceedings. And I mention it again now that the President should be convicted of a sexual affair does not mitigate the because it vividly demonstrates the and removed. seriousness of the President’s crimes. If low standard of integrity, the patheti- Our fundamental difference goes to you accept the argument that it is just cally low standard of integrity that the issue of seriousness. It all goes about sex, you will render the law of would be established for the Presidency back to the claim of the President’s sexual harassment virtually meaning- if the arguments of the President’s lawyers that his offenses just are not less. Any defendant guilty of sexual lawyers are accepted by the Senate. serious enough to justify removal. harassment would obviously have an Perhaps I missed something. But I do I think we have agreement that ob- incentive to lie about any sexual mis- not recall any mention of the tax fraud struction of justice and lying under conduct that may have occurred. But February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1357 no one—no one—has the license to lie prosecutors went down to the White guilty of something here. But I think under oath about sex in a sexual har- House, and William Jefferson Clinton that moots our entire debate. I don’t assment case or a divorce case or any sat there as President of the United think there is any need to even talk other case. States in the White House and he lied about the facts any longer because of I would suggest to you that an objec- to a Federal grand jury. He sat there in the poll. tive review of all the circumstances of the White House and he put on his I use that tongue in cheek because this case—and you need to look at all most sincere face. He swore to God to that seems to beg the question that we of the circumstances, all of the facts in tell the truth, and then he lied. He are also going to talk about today, and context—if you do that, you will be planned to lie, and he executed his plan that is whether the President ought to pointed not to mitigating factors, but because he believed it was in his per- be removed for his conduct. And one of to aggravating factors. sonal and political interests to lie. the arguments I have heard put for- The conduct of the President was cal- Never mind the oath of office. Never ward since we have been here is the culated and sustained. His subtle and mind the constitutional duty. Never fact that the polls support this Presi- determined purpose was corrupt. It was mind that he solemnly swore to God to dent and that the stability issue would corrupt from start to finish. He knew tell the truth. be in play. And that is simply not the exactly what he was doing. He knew Now, ask yourself this simple ques- case because we all clearly understand that it was in violation of the criminal tion: Was this course of conduct seri- that it is this body’s function to deter- law. He knew that people could go to ously incompatible with the Presi- mine not only the facts of this case, prison for doing such things. He knew dent’s duty as President? If this but also apply to it the law, as well as that it was contrary to his oath of of- doesn’t fall within the meaning of the the constitutional law as to the re- fice. He knew that it was incompatible offenses Alexander Hamilton described moval and conviction process. with his constitutional duty as Presi- as ‘‘proceeding from the abuse or viola- I still remain concerned with oppos- dent. And he most certainly knew that tion of some public trust,’’ tell me ing counsels’ continued reference that it was a very serious matter. I am sure what would. I would respectfully sug- the House managers want to win too he believed he could get away with it, gest to you that this is exactly the sort much. I know I am not that eloquent, but I am equally sure that he knew of conduct that the framers had in but I did try to make that point the just how serious it would be if the mind when they provided a remedy for other day, and I will make it again. If truth were known and understood. the removal of the Chief Executive who I have to take an oath to tell the truth, He knew all these things. In the is guilty of misconduct. I believe that the whole truth, and nothing but the midst of it all, he showed not the they would have rejected the argument truth, I will do that and tell you we are slightest concern for the honor, the that this deliberate, willful, stubborn, not trying to win at all costs. This has dignity, and the integrity of his high corrupt course of criminal conduct just been a process that I think has been office. When he called Ms. Lewinsky at isn’t serious enough for the constitu- healthy for this country, and regard- 2:30 in the morning, he was up to no tional remedy the framers established, less of the outcome—it is going to be in good, just as my colleague, Mr. a remedy that they designed to protect your hands very shortly. Regardless of GRAHAM, noted. He knew exactly what the health and integrity of our institu- the outcome, this country will benefit he was doing. When he called Ms. tions. not only in the short term but in the Currie into his office twice and told her Those who established our Constitu- long term from this debate. lies about his relationship with Ms. tion would have understood the seri- There are many, many other issues Lewinsky, he knew exactly what he ousness of the misconduct of William at stake here, and I tried to tell you a was doing. Jefferson Clinton. They would have un- few the other day, without this concept When he sent Ms. Currie to retrieve derstood that it was the President who that all we want to do is win, as if it is the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky—and that has shown contempt for the Constitu- a simple game. We have been over the is the only way it happened—he knew tion, not the managers from the House last 4 weeks, as men and women, as or- exactly what he was doing. He was of Representatives. They would have dinary men and women I might say, in- tampering with witnesses and obstruct- understood the seriousness of the ex- volved in an extraordinary process. It ing justice. He was doing everything he ample of lawlessness he has set. They is uniquely thorough. And we have could to make sure that Paula Jones would have understood the seriousness tried to blend the facts of this case did not get the evidence that a Federal of the contempt for the law the Presi- with the law of the charges, together district judge had determined and or- dent’s conduct has caused. They would with the politics and the polls and the dered that she was entitled to receive. have understood the seriousness of the media, and we have had to make some He was doing everything he could to damage the President has done to the tough decisions. We have had to make avoid adverse legal consequences in the integrity of his high office. Those wise some difficult decisions—I know we Jones case. That is what he planned to statesmen who established our form of have on our side—as to what witnesses do, and that is what he did. And to cap government would have understood the to call, how to treat these witnesses in it all off, he went before the Federal seriousness of the harm President Clin- depositions. I know on this side they grand jury and lied. ton has done to the cause of justice and have had to make difficult calls, I am Whatever you may think about the constitutional government. They sure. There has been some talk about President’s testimony to the grand would have understood that a Presi- having the President come down or not jury, one thing is clear. He didn’t lie to dent who does such things should not coming down. And what has in large the grand jury to avoid personal em- remain in office with his crimes. part made this process distinct from barrassment. The DNA on the dress had Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, past impeachments—and I am talking ensured his personal embarrassment. for the sake of justice and for the sake about the one last century of the Presi- There was no avoiding that. There was of the Constitution, this President dent—and the subsequent judicial im- no way to explain away the DNA. The should be convicted and removed. peachments has been just, it seems, the stakes were higher before the Federal The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- media and the daily grind on all of us, grand jury. This wasn’t about avoiding ognizes Mr. Manager BRYANT. the critiques. It is almost as if we are personal embarrassment. This wasn’t Mr. Manager BRYANT. Thank you, performing, we are in a play, and every about avoiding liability in a sexual Mr. Chief Justice. day we get a review. We have been harassment case. This was a Federal Members of the Senate, the distin- good, bad or indifferent. criminal investigation concerning guished colleagues of the bar represent- What concerns me most about that is crimes against the system of justice. ing the President, I want to commend that as you move to the very serious This was about lying under oath and them for an outstanding effort that issue of deciding whether or not this obstructing justice in the Jones case. they have made throughout these pro- President should be convicted based on And what did he do when he testified ceedings and tell them that I just read the facts, and whether this President to the grand jury? He said anything he a poll from a couple days ago, that should be removed, I am concerned thought he needed to say to avoid re- something over 80 percent of the Amer- that people are stretching the trees. sponsibility for his prior crimes. The ican people believe the President is And if that is what you see on TV and S1358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 that is what you read in the paper, you this was a critical affidavit at that dress just a couple of points on the con- are going to see the trees and not the time which was going to cut off critical stitutional issue of the conviction and forest here and miss the big picture. testimony in that case, and you can the removal, because White House That is so important. It is not about just about guarantee, I would say 100 counsel very, very well argued the the personalities of these people or the percent, that the President was indeed issue of proportionality. And, again, personalities here or the politics in- listening very carefully, knew that his proportionality simply means that the volved or the polls, but it is about the lawyer was submitting a false affidavit, legacy of this Senate and this Congress facts. And ladies and gentlemen of the and did nothing to stop it. That is an- will be that we have destroyed sexual Senate, there are conclusive facts here other count of obstruction of justice. harassment laws because what we are that support a conviction. The Presi- Tampering with Betty Currie—two going to say—when you argue that pro- dent and his attorneys, as I said the occasions. And they say, well, nothing portionality, think about what it is. other day, have made a good defense happened between the first time and We have heard this issue about, and have tried to paint a picture to the the second time. I am not so sure le- ‘‘Well, back in my hometown, 80 per- facts I think that simply does not gally that matters. It was 2 or 3 days cent of the people who get divorces lie match with logic or common sense. after it happened, 2 or 3—the day fol- about this issue.’’ Certainly we don’t Take, for instance, the affidavit. lowing his deposition and 2 or 3 days want that to be the legacy of this Con- Now, we continue to see Ms. Lewinsky after that. Initially, remember his de- gress, that we legitimate lying in di- testifying on video that she never fense was: I was simply trying to recall vorce cases; nor would we want to have talked with the President that night or what happened. And then we brought the legitimacy of this Congress being never made—about linking the false up the fact: Why did you go the second that we did not support the sexual har- story, the concocted story with the af- time? Did you have a short memory? assment laws, because you know and I fidavit. And Mr. Ruff, I think, chal- Didn’t you get it right the first time? know that this is an important part. lenged people to say, well, what do you And now we hear the defense today Going back and getting accurate, think the President meant to do that that nothing really changed and it is truthful testimony is absolutely essen- night when he called her at 2:30 in the really one issue there, one big tamper- tial in these types of cases. And if we morning? ing rather than two attempts to tam- send a message out on the proportion- Well, what do you think he intended per—still obstruction of justice. ality theory that it is just about sex to do in that call at 2:30 in the morn- The job situation Mr. HUTCHINSON and you can lie about it, it will be the ing? Do you think he called her to tell will talk about later. Mr. Blumenthal, wrong thing to do. her he had a Christmas present for her, the same thing; I am sure Mr. ROGAN The laws, like the facts, are a very or do you think his intent was to tell will talk about him in a minute. stubborn thing. And the fact that the her, which he did, that you have been But if you will look carefully, you economy is good and people are doing listed on the witness list and you could will see that the President is the only well—if the law has been broken, if per- be subpoenaed. And, you know, you thread that goes from each one of jury has been committed, if obstruc- might give an affidavit to avoid testi- these, from the very beginning, from tion of justice has been committed by fying. He suggested the affidavit, and the point when he met Monica this President, it is my belief that the then he said in that same conversation, Lewinsky and from that point when he fact that the economy is good should well, you know, you can always use looked at that pink pass and said: You not prevent this Senate from acting that cover story. know, that’s going to be a problem. and removing the President. Just as if Why would he suggest using a cover And you know why that was going to the economy were bad, you wouldn’t story that night? Were they even see- be a problem. Because that limited her want to be able to go in there and im- ing each other then? It belittles all rea- access to this President and what he peach the President because it is bad, sonable judgment to accept this type of was going to do. But from that point you don’t want to not impeach him defense of this conduct, that it was an until they terminated the relationship, simply because the economy is good. innocent phone conversation, the this President is involved in each one It is a difficult task. We have had a President really meant nothing by it, of these issues of the obstruction of difficult task bringing this case over to and the fact that Ms. Lewinsky said, justice. you. And I thank you. You have been well, I didn’t connect the two. But look It is always him, by himself, testify- here the 4 weeks in attendance. You at what she did. She went to her lawyer ing falsely, sitting there letting his paid attention. When it was your turn and used that concocted story in an af- lawyers submit a false affidavit, or it is to ask questions, you asked very good fidavit that she filed in the case. him and one other person—he and questions. You have been ready to lis- Now, it was in the draft affidavit. Monica Lewinsky talking about filing ten and I thank you for that. They took that out later for other rea- a false affidavit; he and Monica You have a difficult task ahead of sons. But she did tell her lawyer that, Lewinsky talking about a concocted you. I know when I voted on this I and they attempted to use it. But, story to testify. He and Betty Currie on thought, ‘‘If this were a Republican again, it is the President’s state of two occasions: Betty, you remember President, what would I do?’’ It is a mind that matters and what his intent the testimony was like this. tough choice. And I said, ‘‘But I really was on the false affidavit. He and John Podesta, Sidney think I would have voted the same way And then that same false affidavit Blumenthal, the many aides—talking I voted even if it were a Republican was later used in the court, and the to them individually, giving them a President.’’ I know. Like Mr. CHABOT, I President knew it was false. He knew it false story. As Mr. HUTCHINSON pointed voted for Mr. Carter in 1976. I voted for was false—used in the deposition. And out so well in his argument the other Mr. Reagan in 1980, I might add, but I we have seen the deposition testimony, day, it is always a private issue in voted for Mr. Carter in 1976 after the with the President sitting, listening to terms of no one else knows what is 1974 incident. his lawyer talk about that affidavit going on. Vernon Jordan didn’t know It is tough. And what has made it aw- when he submitted it. And he ob- what was happening with the affidavit, fully hard is that you all have also structed justice by not objecting at necessarily. Betty Currie didn’t under- taken an oath to do impartial justice. that point, not instructing his own stand what was happening with the af- I simply ask you, as you consider these lawyer: Don’t put that false evidence fidavit, or the job search, to the point facts and do impartial justice, that you into this testimony. that they knew what was going on. set a standard that, if you believe the People stand up and laugh and say, Look at and analyze each one of these President indeed did commit either you know, he was not paying any at- and you will see that there is a perjury or obstruction of justice or tention, and they got this silly affida- compartmentalization going on with both of those, that you set that stand- vit from this guy who was there and this President. And he is at the center ard high for the President, for the next said he was looking at his lawyer but of it each time. President, for the next generations; he couldn’t tell what he was thinking. Now, what do we do with it? What do you set that standard high for our Of course he couldn’t tell what he was you do with it? It is going to be in your courts that have to deal with perjury thinking. Nobody is a mind reader. But hands very shortly, and I want to ad- and obstruction every day, with people February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1359 who are less than the President but yet the ambit of high crimes and mis- Some of the other arguments have who are watching, watching very close- demeanors. been handled by my colleagues, but Mr. ly what we do up here. But set that If there is any question of this pri- Ruff also said, Why have the managers standard high for the President. Don’t vate conduct versus personal conduct, never, never explained, if this is such lower our expectation in what we ex- that view is out there. Given the right an urgent matter for the President, pect of the President. And I think if type of personal misconduct, it is why did he wait until December 17 to you do that, if you look high, if you set clearly an impeachable offense. With tell Ms. Lewinsky that she was on the the standard high, that the right thing that, I call Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON to list? will be done. follow me. I am afraid Mr. Ruff failed to listen I have confidence and have trust, and The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- to my opening presentation when I have just been so pleased with the way ognizes Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. went through that timeframe. In that we have been received here. I know you Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Thank timeframe, the witness list came out will do the right thing. you, Mr. Chief Justice. on December 5, it continued to acceler- I apologize to you, as I will be talk- Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, ate, December 11 was Judge Wright’s ing to you probably for my last time, if when I was appointed as a manager, I order. Then it was December 17 that I have come across being up here hoped to present the case before the the call was made at 2 a.m. in the preaching to you. It is not my intent to Senate with my colleagues in a manner morning to let Ms. Lewinsky know she lecture you. You do not need any lec- that was consistent with the dignity of was on the list. Why was it December tures from me or anyone else to preach this great body and also respectful of 17? This is in the President’s mind. No to you. I hope I have had that oppor- the constitutional independence of the one knows why he picked that particu- tunity to rebut some of the area—the Senate. I hope that you agree and be- lar date, but perhaps it was that the proof in the area that I am in charge lieve that we have done that as we job search was well underway then. He of. But I will just simply sit down by have come over here. felt like she could handle this distress- telling you there is conclusive proof During the months of this trial proc- ing information and, in fact, on the day here, particularly in terms of the ob- ess, I have grown to appreciate the in- after that call, she already had two struction of justice charges, of the hid- stitution of the Senate to a greater de- interviews lined up on that same day, ing of the evidence, of the filing of gree than ever before, but I think of December 18, set up by Mr. Jordan. So false affidavit. even more importance to me, I have perhaps it was an appropriate time to I think I did skip over the hiding of grown to respect the individuals that let her know she was on the witness the evidence. Let me just quickly say, comprise this body more than ever. Let list. I am not sure a lot new can be added to me say, it has been a privilege to ap- They raised the question about the what was said in the past. But if pear before you. Christmas gifts. You have the testi- Monica is telling the truth, as her law- As we come to the close of this case, mony of Betty Currie, you have the yers or as the President’s lawyers seem let’s go to the key questions that testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, and the to tell you, that is a no-brainer there, should be on your mind. First of all, issue is simply: Do you believe Monica because she says, ‘‘I know for a fact has the obstruction of justice and per- Lewinsky? If you accept her reluctant testimony, yet forceful and clear testi- that Ms. Currie called me, that she ini- jury cases been proven? Have the alle- mony, that the call came from Betty tiated the call.’’ And as I told you the gations been proven? My colleagues Currie, then you have no choice but to other day, from that point forward it have touched upon the perjury. Let me conclude that the retention of the seems to me a moot issue, because the talk about article II on the obstruction of justice. gifts, the retrieval of the gifts was ini- initiation of the phone call by Betty tiated by the President of the United Currie began a process to hide that evi- The White House defense team, com- posed of extraordinarily distinguished States. dence. And the only way that Betty When you go to the job search, and and talented attorneys, has tried to di- Currie would have known to make that they point to the testimony, they minish the significance of the over- call, to begin that process of hiding played the video of Mr. Jordan who evidence, would be to have had a con- whelming facts on obstruction by using said that there was never a conversa- versation with the President, to have certain phrases such as, ‘‘It’s all cir- tion in which both the job and the false been instructed that way. cumstantial,’’ or ‘‘The managers ignore affidavit were discussed together, they For the President, whose intent was those stubborn facts,’’ or ‘‘They want cut it off at that point. You remember to conceal the relationship, it would to win too badly,’’ or ‘‘It’s a shell with I had a ‘‘but’’ in there. If you had heard have been totally inconsistent for him no shell.’’ And today the latest catch further beyond that, you would have to suggest that she turn the evidence phrase, ‘‘moving targets, empty pots.’’ heard me cross-examining Mr. Jordan, over. It would have been totally con- Those are certainly quotable phrases as I did, and reminding him of his pre- sistent for him to ask Betty Currie to designed to diminish the factual pres- vious testimony in which he acknowl- go out and hide the evidence, get it entation with dripping sarcasm, but I edged that in every conversation with from Ms. Lewinsky and hide the evi- believe that they ignore the underlying Ms. Lewinsky, they talked about the dence. facts, testimony, and evidence that has job. So he acknowledged that they As I close, let me just tell you, too— been presented. talked about the job and the affidavit on the heels of Mr. CANADY—that there Let me just address a couple of argu- all in the same conversation together. are law professors who testified in our ments that Mr. Ruff has presented dur- Mr. Ruff makes the point that the hearing who have the contrary view to ing his presentation. managers got close enough to accuse the view that was expressed by other The first argument that he presented Mr. Jordan of telling Ms. Lewinsky to law professors that Mr. Ruff referred as he described it was a technical argu- destroy the notes, implying that we are to, that it is constitutional to impeach ment, that the article II obstruction of making up this. But is this evidence a President for conduct that is not justice charge in the articles of im- that is coming from the managers? It clearly official, that might be de- peachment on the lying to the aides is my recollection that it is testimony scribed as personal, particularly con- was not really in reference to the Fed- coming from Ms. Monica Lewinsky. We duct of perjury or obstruction of jus- eral civil rights case, and that is a true are not concocting this. It is testimony tice. statement. But if you read article II, from witnesses that have been brought Professor Turley says: paragraph 7, it refers to this and says: before this body, whose sworn testi- In my view, serious crimes in office, such . . .The false and misleading statements mony you have received, whose sworn as lying under oath before a federal grand made by William Jefferson Clinton were re- testimony they defended and rely upon, jury, have always been ‘‘malum in se’’ con- peated by the witnesses to the grand jury, but when it comes to this, they say, duct for a president and sufficient for im- causing the grand jury to receive false and ‘‘No, it’s the managers.’’ peachment. misleading information. Then they come to another pillar of Professor John McGinnis of Ben- The article is appropriately drafted, obstruction, the one that they avoid at jamin Cardozo Law School says that is well stated, and gives them total no- every opportunity, but finally ad- obstruction of justice is clearly within tice as to what that charge is about. dressed today, and that is the coaching S1360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 of Betty Currie. I was interested that stories, the suggestion that she could implication of this censure resolution they finally talked about this, the first use an affidavit. being discussed. coaching incident and then the second Direct testimony, was it direct proof I would emphasize that it is this body one. Mr. Ruff tried to go into that it is about the President’s tampering with that the founding fathers entrusted clear that it occurred on January 20 the testimony of Betty Currie? It was with the responsibility to determine rather than 21. In fact, it is her testi- Betty Currie herself who acknowledged whether a President’s conduct has mony that it occurred on one of those this and testified to it. No, this is not breached the public trust. And your de- days. But they miss the point. circumstantial evidence, it is direct cision in this body should conclude this The legal significance of the second testimony. matter. It should not be the initiation coaching episode is that it totally goes The same with Sidney Blumenthal. of another national drama that will be against the defense of the President— Direct testimony after direct testi- carried over the next 3 years. that it was there, he was doing this to mony painting a picture, setting up the And finally, there are some who con- acquire information, to get facts, to pillars of obstruction. sider the politics of this matter. We help in media inquiries. They want you to believe Monica have proven our case. I entered this If that is the case, there is absolutely Lewinsky sometimes, but they don’t body thinking that this was a legal, ju- no reason for it to be done on the sec- want you to believe her other times, dicial proceeding and not political. And ond occasion and, clearly, she was and you have to weigh her testimony. I have been reminded there are politi- known to be a witness at that time, I could go on with the facts, but the cal aspects under the Constitution to a and that is the legal significance. truth is that our case on obstruction of Senate trial. So I concede the point. It goes to his intent, his motive, justice has been established. Some of We are all familiar with ‘‘Profiles in what he is trying to do to a subordi- you might conclude, ‘‘Well, I accept Courage’’ written by John F. Kennedy. nate employee. The fact of this matter five or six of those pillars of obstruc- He reminds us of the courageous act of is that this is not a case that is based tion, but there is one I have a reserva- Senator Edmund G. Ross in voting for upon circumstantial evidence. On each tion about.’’ If you look at the article, the acquittal of President Andrew element of obstruction, there is direct if there is one element of obstruction Johnson in his impeachment trial. Sen- testimony linking the President to a that you accept and believe and you ator Ross was a profile in courage be- consistent pattern of conduct designed agree upon, then that is sufficient for cause he knew the case against Presi- to withhold information, conceal evi- conviction and, surely, it is sufficient dent Johnson was not legally suffi- dence and tamper with witnesses to to convict the President, if there was cient, even though the politically expe- avoid obedience and directives of a even one element of obstruction. dient vote was to vote for conviction. Federal court. I remind you that a typical jury in- Senator Ross followed the facts and he Let’s look at the direct proof, not struction on conspiracy for obstruction followed the law, and he voted his con- circumstantial evidence, but direct tes- would be that it takes only one overt science. It was to his political det- timony. act to satisfy the requirements for con- riment, but it reflected his political What did Vernon Jordan testify as to viction. The Government doesn’t have courage. the President’s involvement in the job to prove all the overt acts, just one Today we have a different cir- search? that was carried out. cumstance. The question is, Will the Question to Mr. Jordan: Another question some of you might Senators of this body have the political be thinking about is, Is this serious You’re acting in behalf of the President courage to follow the facts and the law when you’re trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a enough to warrant conviction and re- as did Senator Ross, despite enormous job and you were in control of the job moval? One of the foundations of our political pressure to ignore the facts search? judicial system is that any citizen, re- and the law and the Constitution? You His answer: gardless of position or power, has ac- will make that decision. cess to the court. Can you imagine the Yes. I appear before this body as an advo- shock and outrage of this body if a cor- cate. I am not paid for this special re- He was acting at the direction of the poration, in an effort to protect itself sponsibility. But I am here because I President and he was in control. from liability, concealed evidence and believe the Constitution requires me to What did Vernon Jordan testify he provided benefits to those witnesses make this case. The facts prove over- told the President when a job was se- who are cooperative? Outrage; injus- whelmingly that the President com- cured for a key witness and the false tice. And those are the allegations mitted obstruction of justice and per- affidavit was signed? against the tobacco companies. Those jury. Despite this belief, whatever con- Mr. President, she signed the affidavit, she are the allegations last night on CBS, clusion you reach will not be criticized signed the affidavit. ‘‘60 Minutes,’’ about a major corpora- by me. And I will respect this institu- Then the next day, the job is secured tion. And there should be outrage by tion regardless of the outcome. and the report to Betty Currie, the re- this body. We would rightfully be out- As the late Federal Judge Orin Harris port to the President, ‘‘Mission accom- raged about that. And we should also of Arkansas always said from the plished.’’ be outraged if it happened by the Presi- bench to the jury when I was trying Is this circumstantial evidence? This dent. It should be no less when it is cases—and I hated his instruction be- is direct testimony by a friend and con- conducted by the President. cause I was the prosecutor—but he fidante of the President, Vernon Jor- The next argument is: ‘‘Well, yes, the would tell the jury, ‘‘Remember, the dan. President should be held accountable, government never wins or loses a case. Who is the one person who clearly but he can always be prosecuted later. The government always wins when jus- knew all of the ingredients to make the In fact, I understand a censure resolu- tice is done.’’ Well, this is the Congress job search an obstruction of justice? It tion is being circulated emphasizing and this is the Senate. And it is your was the President who knew he had a that the President can be held crimi- responsibility to determine the facts dangerous relationship with Ms. nally responsible for his actions when and to let justice roll down like mighty Lewinsky. He knew his friend was se- he leaves office. This is not too subtle waters. curing a job at his direction, and he of a suggestion that the independent The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- knew that a false affidavit was being counsel go ahead and file criminal ognizes Mr. Manager ROGAN. procured at his suggestion. He was the charges against the President.’’ Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Jus- one person who knew all the facts. I appreciate Judge Starr, but I do not tice, distinguished counsel for the Fourthly, Ms. Lewinsky, is this cir- believe that is what the country has in President, Members of the U.S. Senate, cumstantial evidence or direct testi- mind when they say they want to get for me the most poignant part of this mony when she talked about what the this matter over. I do not believe your entire proceeding was the day, a few President told her on December 17? She vote on the articles of impeachment weeks ago, when we were addressed by was a witness, and immediately follow- should be a signal to the independent the distinguished former Senator from ing the fact she was a witness, the sug- counsel to initiate criminal proceed- Arkansas, Dale Bumpers. And probably gestion that she could use the cover ings. It appears to me that that is the the thing that touched me most about February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1361 his presentation is when he talked This has been a very difficult pro- right to become President, no matter about the human element of what this ceeding for me and for my colleagues, how overwhelming his vote margin. impeachment proceeding has meant the House managers. But our presence Votes alone do not make a person and how difficult that has been. here isn’t out of personal animosity to- President of the United States. There It touched me because it made me re- ward our President. It is because we be- is a requirement that precedes obtain- member that that difficulty is not lim- lieve that, after reviewing all the evi- ing the power and authority of obtain- ited solely for Democrats in this Cham- dence, the President of the United ing the Presidency. It is the oath of of- ber. I am one of the House managers. I States had committed obstruction of fice. It is swearing to preserve, protect, am a Republican today. But that was justice and perjury, he had violated his and defend the Constitution. It is ac- not always the case. I used to be a oath of office; and in so doing he had cepting the obligation that the laws Democrat. And being a House manager sacrificed the principle that no person are to be faithfully executed. in the impeachment of President Clin- is above the law. And friendship and No oath, no Presidency. It is the oath ton has been especially difficult for me. personal affection could not control of office, and not public opinion polls, And I would like to tell you why. under those circumstances. that gives life and legitimacy to a Twenty years ago, in December 1978, Up until now, the idea that no person Presidency. This is true no matter how I was finishing my last semester of col- is above the law has been unques- popular an elected President may be, lege and had just applied to law school. tioned. And yet this standard is not our or how broad his margin of victory. I was waiting for my application to be inheritance automatically. Each gen- The founders did not intend the oath accepted someplace. And in December eration of Americans ultimately has to to be an afterthought or a technicality. of 1978, I was a delegate in Memphis, make that choice for themselves. Once They viewed it as an absolute require- TN, to the Democratic Midterm Con- again, it is a time for choosing. How ment before the highest office in the vention. will we respond? By impeaching the land was entrusted to any person. The Now, at that time President Carter President, the U.S. House of Represent- evidence shows the President repeat- was halfway through his term of office. atives made that choice. It went on edly violated his oath of office. Now He was not particularly popular among record as saying that our body would the focus shifts to your oath of office. the party faithful. There was a great not tolerate the most powerful man in The President hopes that in this Cham- deal of sentiment that a Member of the world trampling the constitutional ber the polls will govern. On behalf of this body today should challenge him rights of a lone woman, no matter how the House of Representatives, we en- for the nomination. That decision had obscure or humble she might be. treat you to require the Constitution We refused to ignore Presidential not yet been made, but among the dele- reign supreme. For if polls matter misconduct despite its minimization gates to that convention there was an more than the oath to uphold the law, by spin doctors, pundits, and, yes, even overwhelming desire to see Senator then yet another chip out of the mar- the polls. The personal popularity of TED KENNEDY appear. ble has been struck. any President pales when weighed The Carter White House froze Sen- The cry has also been raised that to against the fundamental concept that ator KENNEDY out of the proceedings. remove the President is to create a forever distinguishes us from every na- He was not invited to address the con- constitutional crisis by undoing an tion on the planet: No person is above vention. His name appeared nowhere in election. There is no constitutional cri- the program. So the delegates did the law. The House of Representatives jetti- sis when the simple process of the Con- something on their own. There were soned the spin and the propaganda. We stitution comes into play. Listen to workshops being held during the day, sought, and we have now presented, the the words of Dr. Larry Arnn of the and a workshop on health care was unvarnished truth. Now it is your un- Claremont Institute: called. And Senator KENNEDY was in- happy task to make the final deter- [E]lections have no higher standing under vited to fly out that day and address mination, face the truth, and polish our Constitution than the impeachment that workshop. He did that in the process. Both stem from provisions of the the Constitution, or allow this Presi- afternoon, and he left after he ad- Constitution. The people elect a president to dency, in the words of Chairman Henry dressed it. I had gone to a workshop do a constitutional job. They act under the Hyde, to take one more chip out of the that morning where President Carter Constitution when they do it. At the same marble. personally appeared, and my recollec- time they elect a Congress to do a different The Constitution solemnly required constitutional job. The president swears an tion is about 200 or 300 people came to President Clinton, as a condition of his oath to uphold the Constitution, both in that. Senator KENNEDY’s workshop had becoming President, to swear an oath elections and in the impeachment process. to be transferred to a large auditorium to preserve, protect and defend the If the president is guilty of acts justifying because about 2,000 people appeared to Constitution, and to take care that the impeachment, then he, not the Congress, will have ‘‘overturned the election.’’ He will have hear him. laws be faithfully executed. The Senator came, he spoke, and he acted in ways that betray the purpose of his That oath of obligation required the election. He will have acted not as a con- left. I stayed even though most people President to defend our laws that pro- left with him, because I was fascinated stitutional representative, but as a monarch, tect women in the workplace, just as it subversive of, or above, the law. by the young fellow who was moderat- also required him to protect the legal If the great powers given the president are ing the program that day. He was system from perjury, abuse of power, abused, then to impeach him defends not bright, he was in control, he was ar- and obstruction of justice. Fidelity to only the results of elections, but that higher ticulate. He didn’t look that much the Presidential oath is not dependent thing which elections are in service, namely, older than me. And I was stunned that upon any President’s personal thresh- the preeminence of the Constitution[.] this young man was not only the attor- old of comfort or embarrassment. Nei- The evidence clearly shows that the ney general of his State, but he was the ther must it be a slave to the latest President engaged in a repeated and Governor-elect of the State. poll. lengthy pattern of felonious conduct— Sometime after that workshop I How important was this oath to our conduct for which ordinary citizens can walked up to him and introduced my- founders? Did they intend the oath to be and have been jailed and lost their self. I told him who I was, and he spent have primacy over the shifting winds of liberty. This simply cannot be wished about 15 minutes encouraging me to go political opinion? Or did they bequeath or censured away. to law school, to stay active in politics. to us an ambiguous Constitution that With his conduct aggravated by a His name was Bill Clinton. I have never was meant to roll with the punches of motivation of personal and monetary forgotten that day 20 years ago when the latest polling data and focus leverage in the Paula Jones lawsuit, then-Attorney General Clinton took groups? The Constitution gives us that the solemnity of our sacred oath the time for a young fellow who had an answer in article II, section 1. It says: obliges us to do what the President re- interest in the law and politics. And I Before he enters on the execution of his of- gretfully has failed to do: defend the have never forgotten in recent days the fice, he shall take . . . [an] oath. rule of law, defend the concept that no graciousness he has shown to me, to And the oath is then prescribed. person is above the law. my wife, and to my children when we The mere fact that a person is elect- On the day the House impeached have encountered him. ed President does not give him the President Clinton, I said that when S1362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 they are old enough to appreciate the the law, I would be willing to consider but we will have to walk out the door solemnity of that action, I wanted my something less than impeachment. I backward; we will not walk out boldly. little girls to know that when the roll can assure you that did not go over What happens when the next Federal was called, their father served with col- well with some people in my district. judge is acquitted by a jury of his leagues who counted it a privilege to But I thought that would be good for peers, and you know the result would risk political fortunes in defense of the the country. be just to remove that judge? You did Constitution. The elections come and go and we the right thing by not being bound by Today, I am more resolute in that can get through just about anything the acquittal in the case of Judge opinion. From the time I was a little and everything in this country, but it Hastings. You did the right thing to boy, it was my dream to one day serve does take leadership, and character get to the truth and act accordingly, in the Congress of the United States. does still count. Having said that, I am because for people who sit in judgment My dream was fulfilled 2 years ago. a sinner like the rest of us, and part of of others there needs to be no reason- Today, I am a Republican in a district the problem with this case is we have able doubt about who they are and that is heavily Democratic. The pun- to confront our own sins, because who what they are able to do in that role. dits keep telling me that my stand on are we to judge others when the things The President of the United States is this issue puts my political fortunes in get to be private and personal? I am at the top of the legal pyramid. If there jeopardy. So be it. That revelation pro- not asking you to use that standard. I is reasonable doubt about his ability to duces from me no flinching. There is a am standing before you as a sinner, and faithfully execute the laws of the land, simple reason why: I know that in life I would never want my President or our future will be better off if that in- dreams come and dreams go. But con- your President removed because of pri- dividual is removed. science is forever. I can live with the vate sins. Only when it gets to be con- Let me tell you what it all comes concept of not serving in Congress. I stitutionally out of bounds. Only when down to for me. If you can go back and cannot live with the idea of remaining it gets to be so egregious that you explain to your children and your con- in Congress at the expense of doing can’t look your children in the eye and stituents how you can be truthful and what I believe to be right. explain what happened here in terms of misleading at the same time, good I was about 12 years old when a dis- the law. We can all explain human luck. That is the legacy that Bill Clin- tinguished Member of this body, the failings, but we have a real mixed mes- ton has left all of us if we keep him in late Senator Ralph Yarborough of sage going on, and it needs to be office—the idea that ‘‘I was truthful Texas, gave me this sage advice about straightened out for them. but misleading.’’ That scenario focuses elective office: If you could bring the Founding Fa- around whether or not one type of sex Always put principle above politics; put thers back, as everybody has sug- occurred versus the other type of sex. honor above incumbency. gested, the first debate would be, could He is wanting you to buy into this defi- I now return that sentiment to the we call them as a witness? There would nition that was allowed to exist be- body from which it came. Hold fast to be some people objecting to that. Live cause the wording wasn’t quite right. it, Senators, and in doing so, you will or dead, it’s been hard to get a witness. That is the essence of it—‘‘I was truth- be faithful both to our founders and to [Laughter.] ful, but I was misleading.’’ I guarantee you, I think they would our heirs. Mr. Podesta asked a little more ques- say to us: ‘‘What’s a poll?’’ They would The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- tions than the other people did and the be instructive, but we can’t summon ognizes Mr. Manager GRAHAM. The President denied any type of sexual re- them back. Do you know what I really managers have 45 minutes remaining. lationship to him. Was he truthful think they would tell us? They would Mr. Manager GRAHAM. I promise there? Was he truthful in his grand tell us that we started this thing, and not to take the whole 45 minutes. I jury testimony? How can you be both? it’s up to you all to carry it on. And it have been told that my voice fades, and It is just absolutely impossible. I will try not to let that happen here. is. They would be right. It is not their As we bring the trial to a conclusion, job to tell us what to do. It’s our job to I want to play two clips for you now. I think it needs to be said from our side take the spirit of what they did and (Text of videotape presentation:) of the aisle that our staff has been ter- build on it. Q. Now, you’ve stated, I think, very hon- rific. You don’t know how many hours If you have kept an open mind, you estly, and I appreciate, that you were lied to of sleep have been lost by the young have fulfilled your job. If you have lis- by the President. Is it a fair statement, men and women working to put this tened to the facts and you vote your given your previous testimony concerning case together under the procedures conscience, you will have fulfilled your your 30-minute conversation, that the Presi- job. I will not trample on your con- dent was trying to portray himself as a vic- that the Senate developed. They have tim of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky? science; I have said that before. I start- done an absolutely magnificent job. If A. I think that’s the import of his whole there is anybody to blame on our side, ed this process with great concern and story. blame us, because our staff has done a I leave with a lot of contentment be- Before you put the other tape in, terrific job. That just needs to be said. cause I believe the facts have with- every Member of this body should need Now, let’s talk about Mr. ROGAN’s stood the test of every type of scrutiny district. True, if there is anybody on and demagoguery that have been to answer this question: Is that a our side of the aisle that has been at thrown at them. They stand firm. Do truthful statement? If you believe that the President of the United States is a risk it has been JIM. I have made some you know what they are going to lifelong friends in this situation, really stand? They’re going to stand the test victim of Ms. Lewinsky, we all owe him on both sides of the aisle. This has been of history. Some people suggest that an apology. He is not. He is not. tough, tough, tough for our country, history may judge you badly if you You ask me why I want this Presi- but sometimes some good comes from vote to convict this President. I sug- dent removed? Not only are they high tough situations, and I think some gest that that will be the least of your crimes, not only do they rise to the good will come from this before it is all problems. level of constitutional out-of-bounds said and done, ladies and gentlemen of Our past and this present moment be- behavior, not only are they worse than the Senate. I know it doesn’t look to be comes our Nation’s future. What are we what you remove judges for, they show so, but it will be so later on. going to leave to the future genera- a tremendous willingness of a national I come from a district where I am the tions? What do we do when the next leader to put himself above anything first Republican in 120 years. They told Federal judge is brought before this decent and good. I hope that still mat- me they hung the other guy, so I know body having been impeached by the ters in America. I am doing better. I am 4 years into House for cheating on their taxes? Are The next clip: this thing. This is my third term. we going to self-righteously throw that (Text of videotape presentation:) You can take the national polls and Federal judge out after having listened Q. Would it be fair to say that you were turn them upside down in my district, to this massive case of obstruction of sitting there during this conversation and but I have on occasion said that if the justice and perjury before a grand jury? that you had previously been told by the President would reconcile himself to We may throw that Federal judge out, President that he was in essence a victim of February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1363 Ms. Lewinsky’s sexual demands, and you to leave this with you for the very last you are begged not to? Is it too much said nothing to anyone? time. The affidavit was an attempt to to say to a President, If you are ever MR. McDANIEL: Is the question, ‘‘You have a cover story where both of them sued, play it straight; don’t hide the said’’—— could lie and go on about their lives. gifts under the bed, don’t give people THE WITNESS: I don’t—— The job search was to take somebody false testimony, don’t try to trash peo- MR. McDANIEL: Is the question, ‘‘You said who had been friendly and get them a nothing to anyone about what the President ple who are witnesses against you? If told you?’’—— job so they could go on about their that is too much of a burden to put on MR. GRAHAM: Right. lives someplace else, and get this mat- the White House, this Nation is in THE WITNESS: I never told any of my col- ter behind them and conceal from a hopeless decline. It is not too much of leagues about what the President told me. court the truth. Those things are a burden, ladies and gentlemen. It is BY MR. GRAHAM: crimes. only common decency being applied to Q. And this is after the President recants These gifts being under the bed of the occupant of the White House. his story—recounts his story—to you, where Betty Currie, the President’s secretary, To acquit under these facts will place he’s visibly upset, feels like he’s a victim, is no accident. They didn’t walk over that he associates himself with a character the burden on the constitutional proc- there by themselves. They got con- who’s being lied about, and you at no time ess of impeachment and how we deal veyed by a secretary after she picked suggested to your colleagues that there is with others, Federal judges and other them up from his consensual lover. something going on here with the President high public officials. That, I suggest to and Ms. Lewinsky you need to know about. People have figured that part out. It is Is that your testimony? no accident that happened. That is a you, will be almost irreconcilable. A. I never mentioned my conversation. I crime—when you are subpoenaed to I want my country to go boldly into regarded that conversation as a private con- give those gifts. the next century. I don’t want us to versation in confidence, and I didn’t mention But it is still about getting her a job limp into the next century. I don’t it to my colleagues, I didn’t mention it to and having a cover story so she could my friends, I didn’t mention it to my family, want us to crawl into the next century bedsides my wife. go on with her life. But when the arti- regardless of rule of law. No matter Q. Did you mention it to any White House cle came out on January 21, the whole what you do, we will make it. But the lawyers? flavor of this case changed. And I don’t difference between how you vote here, I A. I mentioned it many months later to know how you are going to explain it think, determines whether we go bold- Lanny Breuer in preparation for one of my to yourself or others. But I want to lay ly with the rule of law intact, or grand jury appearances, when I knew I would out to you what I think happened based be questioned about it. And I certainly never whether we have to explain it for gen- on the evidence. erations to come. mentioned it to any reporter. That January 21 when the story Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, broke that she may have been telling I leave with you an example that I I have asked you several times to vote what went on, and the President was think says much. General MacArthur your conscience, and I will not step on faced with the idea that the knowledge was removed by President Truman, a it if you disagree with me; but I have of their relationship was out in the very popular fellow at the time. The re- always said let us tell the story about public forum, what did he do then? action to the MacArthur dismissal was what happened here. I am saying it There were no more nice jobs using a even more violent than Truman had ex- again. Ladies and gentlemen, we need good friend. There was no more ‘‘Let’s pected. And for an entire year the ma- to get to the truth, nothing but the see if we can hide the gifts and play jority of public opinion ranked itself truth, the whole truth, and let the hide the ball.’’ Do you know what hap- ferociously against him. He said char- chips fall where they may. pened then? He turned on her. Not my acteristically, as he felt that hostile Let me say this about being truthful favorite part of the case—it is the most poll, ‘‘I wonder where Moses would but misleading. Can you sit back as the disgusting part of the case. It is part of have gone if they had taken a poll in President, after you told a lie to a key the case that history will judge. The Egypt. And what would Jesus Christ aide, where you portrayed yourself as a crimes change. They become more omi- have preached if they had taken a poll victim, and watch the press stories role nous, because the character traits be- in the land of Israel? It isn’t polls that out along the lines that ‘‘she wears her came more ominous. The young lady count. It is right and wrong and leader- dresses too tight’’; ‘‘she comes from a who was the stalker, who was sex-ob- ship of men with fortitude, honesty, broken home’’; ‘‘she’s a stalker’’; sessed, who wore her skirts too tight, and the belief in the right that make ‘‘she’s sex obsessed’’; can you sit back that young lady was being talked epics in the history of the world.’’ and watch all that happen and still be about openly in the public. That young Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, truthful but misleading? lady was being lied about to the Fed- thank you for listening. If you have We have laws against that in this eral grand jury. And the truth is that any doubts about whether this Presi- country. We have laws in this country young lady fell in love with him. And dent has committed high crimes, we that even high Government officials probably to this day a 24- or 25-year-old need to make sure the Senate itself has cannot tell a lie to somebody knowing young girl doesn’t want to believe what that lie will be repeated to a grand was going to come her way. But you all told the truth. Don’t leave any doubts jury. That is exactly what happened are adults. You all are leaders of this lingering, because the evidence is over- here. He portrayed himself as a victim, Nation. For you to look at these facts whelming that these offenses occurred. which is not a misleading statement; it and conclude anything else would be an The crime of perjury and obstruction of is a lie because if you knew the truth, injustice, because without that threat, justice have traditionally been high you wouldn’t consider him a victim. ladies and gentlemen, the stories were crimes under our Constitution. For And that lie went to the Federal grand going to grow in number, and we would God’s sake, let it remain so. And let it jury. And those citizens were trying have no admissions of ‘‘misleading’’ be said that no President can take the very hard to get it right, and he was and ‘‘truthful.’’ Presidency and the bully pulpit of the trying very hard to mislead them. At The White House is the bully pulpit. Presidency and hurt average citizens every turn when they tried to get to But it should never be occupied by a from it. the truth, he ran the other way, and he bully. The White House will always be Thank you very much. I yield now to took the aura of the White House with occupied by sinners, including our our chairman. him. Founding Fathers, and future occu- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- If you believe he is a victim, then pants. you ought to acquit him. If you believe What we do today will put a burden ognizes Mr. Manager HYDE. he has lied, then he ought not to be our on the White House and the burden on Mr. Manager HYDE. Mr. Chief Jus- President. our future, one way or the other. Is it tice, learned counsel, and the Senate, There are two things in this case that too much of a burden to say to future we are blessedly coming to the end of are crimes, two aspects of it—before Presidents, Don’t fabricate stories in this melancholy procedure. But before the Paula Jones deposition and after front of a grand jury, don’t parse we gather up our papers and return to the Paula Jones deposition. I am going words, don’t mislead, don’t lie when the obscurity from whence we came— S1364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 8, 1999 (Laughter.) your high office. But our most formida- but he was summarily dismissed and Permit, please, a few final remarks. ble opponent has not been opposing his family, of very modest means, First of all, I thank the Chief Justice counsel nor any political party; it has could not afford legal counsel, and it not only for his patience and his perse- been the cynicism, the widespread con- was a very desperate situation. Sir Ed- verance but for the aura of dignity that viction that all politics and all politi- ward Carson, the best lawyer of his he has lent to these proceedings. And it cians are, by definition, corrupt and time—barrister, I suppose—got inter- has been a great thrill for me to be venal. ested in the case and took it on pro here in his company, as well as in the That cynicism is an acid eating away bono and lost all the way through the company of you, distinguished Sen- at the vital organs of American public courts. ators. life. It is a clear and present danger, Finally, he had no other place to go, Secondly, I want to compliment the because it blinds us to the nobility and but he dug up an ancient remedy in President’s counsel. They have con- the fragility of being a self-governing England called ‘‘petition of right.’’ You ducted themselves in the most profes- people. ask the King for relief. And so Carson sional way. They have made the most One of the several questions that wrote out five pages of reasons why a of a poor case, in my opinion. There is needs answered is whether your vote on petition of right should be granted and, an old Italian saying—and it has noth- conviction lessens or enlarges that lo and behold, it got past the Attorney ing to do with the lawyers, but to your cynicism. Nothing begets cynicism like General, it got to the King. The King case—that ‘‘you may dress the shep- the double standard—one rule for the read it, agreed with it, and wrote herd in the silk, he will still smell of popular and the powerful and another across the front of the petition, ‘‘Let the goat.’’ (Laughter.) for the rest of us. right be done. Edward VII.’’ But all of you are great lawyers. And One of the most interesting things in I have always been moved by that it has been an adventure being with this trial was the testimony of the phrase. I saw the movie; I saw the play; you. President’s good friend, the former and I have the book. And I am still You know, the legal profession, like Senator from Arkansas. He did his per- moved by that phrase, ‘‘Let right be politics, is ridiculed pretty much. And suasive best to maintain the confusion done.’’ I hope when you finally vote every lawyer feels that and under- that this is all about sex. Of course, it that will move you, too. stands the importance of the rule of is useful for the defense to misdirect There are some interesting parallels law, to establish justice, to maintain our focus to what everyone concedes to our cause here today. This Senate the rights of mankind, to defend the are private acts and none of our busi- Chamber is our version of the House of helpless and the oppressed, to protect ness. But if you care to read the arti- Lords, and while we managers cannot innocents, to punish guilt. These are cles of impeachment, you won’t find claim to represent that 13-year-old duties which challenge the best powers any complaints about private sexual Winslow boy, we speak for a lot of of man’s intellect and the noblest misconduct. You will find charges of young people who look to us to set an qualities of the human heart. We are perjury and obstruction of justice example. here to defend the bulwark of our lib- which are public acts and Federal Ms. Seligman last Saturday said we erty, the rule of law. crimes, especially when committed by want to win too badly. This surprised As to the House managers, I want to the one person duty bound to faithfully me because none of the managers has tell you and our extraordinary staff execute the laws. Infidelity is private committed perjury nor obstructed jus- how proud I am of your service. For and noncriminal. Perjury and obstruc- tice and claimed false privileges, none myself, I cannot find the words to ade- tion are public and criminal. The delib- has hidden evidence under anyone’s bed quately express how I feel. I must use erate focus on what is not at issue here nor encouraged false testimony before the inaudible language of the heart. I is a defense lawyer’s tactic and nothing the grand jury. That is what you do if have gone through it all by your side— more. This entire saga has been a thea- you want to win too badly. the media condemnation, the patroniz- ter of distraction and misdirection, I believe it was Saul Bellow who once ing editorials, the hate mail, the in- time-honored defense tactics when the said, ‘‘A great deal of intelligence can sults hurled in public, the attempts at law and the facts get in the way. be invested in ignorance when the need intimidation, the death threats, and One phrase you have not heard the for illusion is great.’’ And those words even the disapproval of our colleagues, defense pronounce is the ‘‘sanctity of characterize the defense in this case. which cuts the worst. the oath.’’ But this case deeply in- ‘‘The need for illusion’’ is very great. You know, all a Congressman ever volves the efficacy, the meaning, and I doubt there are many people on the gets to take with him when he leaves the enforceability of the oath. The planet who doubt the President has re- this building is the esteem of his col- President’s defenders stay away from peatedly lied under oath and has ob- leagues and his constituents—and we the word ‘‘lie,’’ preferring ‘‘mislead’’ or structed justice. The defense spent a have risked even that for a principle, ‘‘deceive.’’ But they shrink from the lot of time picking lint. There is a say- for our duty, as we have seen it. phrase ‘‘sanctity of the oath,’’ fearing ing in the courts, I believe, that equity In speaking to my managers, of it as one might a rattlesnake. will not stoop to pick up pins. But that whom I am interminably proud, I can There is a visibility factor in the was their case. So the real issue borrow the words of Shakespeare, President’s public acts and those which doesn’t concern the facts, the stubborn ‘‘Henry V,’’ as he addressed his little betray a trust or reveal contempt for facts, as the defense is fond of saying, army of longbowmen before the Battle the law are hard to sweep under the but what to do about them. of Agincourt. And he said: rug, or under the bed, for that matter. I am still dumbfounded about the We few, we happy few, we band of brothers They reverberate, they ricochet all drafts of the censures that are circulat- For he that sheds his blood with me over the land, and provide the worst ing. We aren’t half as tough on the Shall be my brother possible example for our young people. President in our impeachment articles And gentlemen in England, now abed As that third-grader from Chicago as this draft is that was printed in the shall think themselves accursed they wrote to me, ‘‘If you can’t believe the New York Times: were not here ″ And hold their manhood cheap President, who can you believe? An inappropriate relationship with a sub- while any speaks Speaking of young people, in 1946 a ordinate employee in the White House which That fought with us upon St. Chrispen’s British playwright, Terrance Rattigan, was shameless, reckless and indefensible. day wrote a play based on a true experience I have a problem with that. It seems As for the juror judges, you distin- that happened in England in 1910. The they are talking about private acts of guished Senators, it is always a victory play was called ‘‘The Winslow Boy.’’ consensual sexual misconduct which for democracy when its elected rep- And the story—as I say, a true story— are really none of our business. But resentatives do their duty, no matter involved a young 13-year-old lad who that is the leadoff. how difficult and unpleasant, and we was kicked out of the Royal Naval Col- Then they say: thank you for it. Please don’t mis- lege for having forged somebody else’s The President deliberately misled and de- construe our fervor for our cause to signature on a postal money order. Of ceived the American people and officials in any lack of respect or appreciation for course, he claimed he was innocent, all branches of the U.S. Government. February 8, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S1365 This is not a Republican document. mortal enemy of equal justice is the convene as the Court of Impeachment This is coming from here. double standard, and if we permit a at 1 p.m. on Tuesday to resume consid- The President gave false or misleading tes- double standard, even for the Presi- eration of the articles of impeachment. timony and impeded discovery of evidence in dent, we do no favor to the cause of NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND THE RULES OF judicial proceedings. human rights. It has been said that THE SENATE BY SENATORS DASCHLE, LOTT, Isn’t that another way of saying ob- America has nothing to fear from this HUTCHISON, HARKIN, WELLSTONE, COLLINS, struction of justice and perjury? President on the subject of civil rights. SPECTER, AND LEAHY The President’s conduct demeans the Of- I doubt Paula Jones would subscribe to In accordance to Rule V of the Standing fice of the President as well as the President that endorsement. Rules of the Senate, I (for myself, Mr. LOTT, himself and creates disrespect for the laws of If you agree that perjury and ob- Ms. HUTCHISON, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. WELLSTONE, the land. Future generations of Americans struction of justice have been commit- Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SPECTER, and Mr. LEAHY) must know that such behavior is not only hereby give notice in writing that it is my ted, and yet you vote down the convic- intention to move to suspend the following unacceptable but bears grave consequences tion, you are extending and expanding including loss of integrity, trust and respect. portions of the Rules of Procedure and Prac- the boundaries of permissible Presi- tice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeach- But not loss of job. dential conduct. You are saying a per- ment Trials in regard to any deliberations by Whereas, William Jefferson Clinton’s con- jurer and obstructer of justice can be Senators on the articles of impeachment duct has brought shame and dishonor to President, in the face of no less than during the trial of President William Jeffer- himself and to the Office of the President; three precedents for conviction of Fed- son Clinton: whereas, he has violated the trust of the eral judges for perjury. You shred those (1) The phrase ‘‘without debate’’ in Rule American people— VII; precedents and you raise the most seri- See Hamilton Federalist No. 65— (2) the following portion of Rule XX: ‘‘, un- ous questions of whether the President less the Senate shall direct the doors to be he should be condemned in the strongest is in fact subject to the law or whether closed while deliberating upon its decisions. terms. we are beginning a restoration of the A motion to close the doors may be acted Well, the next to the strongest terms. divine right of kings. The issues we are upon without objection, or, if objection is The strongest terms would remove him concerned with have consequences far heard, the motion shall be voted on without from office. into the future because the real dam- debate by the yeas and nays, which shall be Well, do you really cleanse the office age is not to the individuals involved, entered on the record’’; and (3) In Rule XXIV, the phrases ‘‘without de- as provided in the Constitution or do but to the American system of justice you use the Airwick of a censure reso- bate’’, ‘‘except when the doors shall be closed and especially the principle that no one for deliberation, and in that case’’ and ‘‘, to lution? Because any censure resolu- is above the law. be had without debate’’. tion, to be meaningful, has to punish Edward Gibbon wrote his magisterial ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 1 P.M. TOMORROW the President, if only his reputation. ‘‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- Mr. LOTT. I ask the Court of Im- And how do you deal with the laws of pire’’ in the late 18th century—in fact bill of attainder? How do you deal with peachment stand in adjournment until the first volume was issued in 1776. In 1 p.m. tomorrow, and I ask further con- the separation of powers? What kind of his work, he discusses an emperor a precedent are you setting? sent the Senate now resume legislative named Septimius Severus, who died in session. I remind all Senators to stand We all claim to revere the Constitu- 211 A.D. after ruling 18 years. And here tion, but a censure is something that is as the Chief Justice departs the Cham- is what Gibbon wrote about the em- ber. a device, a way of avoiding the harsh peror: constitutional option, and it is the There being no objection, at 6:34 p.m. Severus promised, only to betray; he flat- the Senate, sitting as a Court of Im- only one we have up or down on im- tered only to ruin; and however he might oc- peachment. That, of course, is your casionally bind himself by oaths and trea- peachment, adjourned until Tuesday, judgment, and I am offering my views, ties, his conscience, obsequious to his inter- February 9, 1999, at 1 p.m. for what they are worth. est, always released him from the inconven- f Once in a while I do worry about the ient obligation. LEGISLATIVE SESSION future. I wonder if, after this culture I guess those who believe history re- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. war is over, this one we are engaged in, peats itself are really onto something. ENZI). The Senate will come to order. an America will survive that is worth Horace Mann said: fighting for to defend. You should be ashamed to die unless you f People won’t risk their lives for the have achieved some victory for humanity. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT U.N., or over the Dow Jones averages. To the House managers, I say your Messages from the President of the But I wonder, in future generations, devotion to duty and the Constitution United States were communicated to whether there will be enough vitality has set an example that is a victory for the Senate by Mr. Williams, one of his left in duty, honor and country to ex- humanity. Charles de Gaulle once said secretaries. cite our children and grandchildren to that France would not be true to her- defend America. self unless she was engaged in some EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED There is no denying the fact that great enterprise. That is true of us all. As in executive session the Presiding what you decide will have a profound Do we spend our short lives as consum- Officer laid before the Senate messages effect on our culture, as well as on our ers, space occupiers, clock watchers, as from the President of the United politics. A failure to convict will make spectators, or in the service of some States submitting sundry nominations a statement that lying under oath, great enterprise? which were referred to the appropriate while unpleasant and to be avoided, is I believe, being a Senator, being a committees. not all that serious. Perhaps we can ex- Congressman, and struggling with all (The nominations received today are plain this to those currently in prison our might for equal justice for all, is a printed at the end of the Senate pro- for perjury. We have reduced lying great enterprise. It is our great enter- ceedings.) under oath to a breach of etiquette, but prise. And to my House managers, your f only if you are the President. great enterprise was not to speak truth REPORT ON THE 1999 NATIONAL Wherever and whenever you avert to power, but to shout it. And now let DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY— your eyes from a wrong, from an injus- us all take our place in history on the MESSAGE FROM THE PRESI- tice, you become a part of the problem. side of honor and, oh, yes: Let right be DENT—PM 6 On the subject of civil rights, it is my done. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be- belief this issue doesn’t belong to any- I yield back my time. fore the Senate the following message one; it belongs to everyone. It cer- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- from the President of the United tainly belongs to those who have suf- ognizes the majority leader. States, together with an accompanying fered invidious discrimination, and one ORDER OF PROCEDURE report; which was referred to the Com- would have to be catatonic not to know Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I be- mittee on the Judiciary. that the struggle to keep alive equal lieve that concludes the closing argu- protection of the law never ends. The ments. Therefore, the Senate will re- To the Congress of the United States: