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, FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1999 No. 6 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, at 2 p.m. Senate FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1999

The Senate met at 1:02 p.m., and was The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority trol of the minority leader or his des- called to order by the Chief Justice of leader is recognized. ignee. the United States. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, there I ask unanimous consent that on f have been a number of inquiries from Tuesday the Senate recess then from Senators and others about some clari- the hours of 11:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. for TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON fication with regard to the approxi- the weekly policy conferences. And I CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE mate times or the times we would be further ask consent that at 1 p.m., on UNITED STATES meeting on Saturday and Tuesday, and Tuesday, the Senate resume consider- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate also how the afternoon will proceed, so ation of the articles of impeachment. will convene as a Court of Impeach- I will make some unanimous consent The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- ment. The Chaplain will offer a prayer. requests to clarify that and give you a tion, it is so ordered. brief rundown on what I think the Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask PRAYER schedule will be this afternoon. unanimous consent that on Tuesday, The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John ORDERS FOR SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1999 AND following the conclusion of the presen- Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999 tation during the Court of Impeach- Holy God, with awe and wonder we Mr. Chief Justice, as in legislative ment, the Senate recess until the hour accept our responsibilities and our ac- session, I ask unanimous consent that of 8:35 p.m., on Tuesday evening. And I countability to You. You are Sovereign when the Senate completes its business ask consent that upon reconvening of this land. When we commit our com- today it stand in adjournment until 10 Tuesday evening the Senate proceed to plexities to You, really seek Your guid- a.m., on Saturday, January 16. I fur- the Hall of the House of Representa- ance, You direct us. Make us attentive ther ask that when the Senate recon- tives in order to hear an address by the listeners, dedicated to the search for venes on Saturday, immediately fol- President regarding the State of the absolute truth. In the cacophony of lowing the prayer, the Senate resume Union. voices, help us to hear Your voice. consideration of the articles of im- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- Dear Father, Your faithfulness never peachment. tion, it is so ordered. fails. You are consistent, reliable, and The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- ORDER OF PROCEDURE true. You expect nothing less from us tion, it is so ordered. Mr. LOTT. For the information of all for Your glory and for the good of Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous my colleagues, then, I understand to- America. To that end, fill this Chamber consent that when the Senate com- day’s presentation is expected to con- with Your presence and the minds of pletes its business on Saturday, it then tinue until approximately 6 p.m., and the Senators with Your gift of discern- adjourn over until Tuesday, January there will be periodic breaks during the ment. You are our Lord and Savior. 19, at 9:30 a.m. I ask unanimous con- day to allow all Members to stand and Amen. sent that on Tuesday, immediately fol- stretch. I want to remind Senators to The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant lowing the prayer, the Journal of pro- promptly return to their desks at the at Arms will make the proclamation. ceedings be approved to date, the expiration of those 15-minute breaks in The Sergeant at Arms, James W. morning hour be deemed to have ex- order that we can continue and com- Ziglar, made proclamation as follows: pired, and the time for the two leaders plete at the earliest possible hour. I Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are be reserved for their use. I further ask thank all Members for their coopera- commanded to keep silent, on pain of impris- consent that there then be a period for onment, while the Senate of the United tion. States is sitting for the trial of the articles morning business until the hour of This afternoon we will hear from of impeachment exhibited by the House of 11:30 a.m., with 60 minutes under the Congressman MCCOLLUM, take a 15- Representatives against William Jefferson control of the majority leader or his minute break, then hear from Con- Clinton, President of the United States. designee, and 60 minutes under the con- gressmen GEKAS, CHABOT, and CANNON,

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

S259

. S260 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 and then take a break, and then Con- you that the President should be re- sion that ‘‘like every other citizen’’— gressman BARR would complete the moved from office unless you conclude and that is a quote—‘‘like every other afternoon’s presentations. he committed the crimes that he is al- citizen, Paula Jones has a right to an Mr. Chief Justice, I yield the floor. leged to have committed—not every orderly disposition of her claims.’’ THE JOURNAL one of them necessarily, but certainly Then on December 11 of 1997, Judge The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there is no a good quantity, and there are a whole Susan Webber Wright issued an order objection, the Journal of proceedings of bunch of them that have been charged. that said Paula Jones was entitled to the trial are approved to date. I would like to call your attention to information regarding any State or Pursuant to the provisions of Senate a couple of things. First of all, I don’t Federal employee with whom the Resolution 16, the managers for the want to be a schoolteacher; I just want President had sexual relations, pro- House of Representatives have 18 hours to relate my own experience to you so posed sexual relations, or sought to 56 minutes remaining to make the you can understand it. I have been in- have sexual relations. presentation of their case. The Senate volved with this a lot longer than most The record shows that President will now hear you. of you have probably been dealing with Clinton was determined to hide his re- The Presiding Officer recognizes Mr. the details. I constantly have to refer lationship with Monica Lewinsky from Manager MCCOLLUM to resume the back to things. Every time I read the Jones court. His lawyers will argue presentation of the case for the House something, there is so much detail to you next week, I am sure, that he of Representatives. here, I learn something new. did everything to keep the relationship Mr. Manager MCCOLLUM. Thank While I go over the evidence with hidden and he did it in a legal way. you, Mr. Chief Justice. you, we will summarize the evidence They will say that he may have split a Mr. Chief Justice, and my colleagues one more time. As you are deliberat- few hairs and evaded answers and given in the Senate, I drove in this morning ing, as you are thinking about it, I misleading answers but that it was all to this Capitol. I drove up the George want to call a couple of places to your within the framework of responses and Washington Parkway, and I looked at attention that are the easiest places to actions that any good lawyer would ad- the magnificent display of ice that was refer back to, to find the facts and evi- vise his client to do. all over the trees, all over the grass, all dence. First of all, there is the official They will also say if he crossed the over the foliage—a beautiful panorama. report that is in the record of the line technically somewhere, he didn’t And just before I got to the 14th House’s consideration of this, the Judi- do it knowingly or intentionally. Oh, Street Bridge, I saw this incredible ciary Committee report. In that report, how I wish that were true. We wouldn’t number of geese—I guess in the hun- right in the first couple of pages, there be here today. But, alas, that is not so. dreds—that were lined up together be- is a table of contents. While a couple of If you believe the sworn testimony of tween the highway and the Potomac the articles did not come over to you Monica Lewinsky, if you believe her River. It looked like they were an in- that are listed in here, there are de- testimony that is in the record—and vading army. I thought of the awe of tailed discussions you can get from she is very credible—the President this, the awe of the beauty of it, the this table of contents as to every single knowingly, intentionally, and willfully awe of Mother Nature, the awe of God. count and every single part of these ar- set out on a course of conduct in De- And I thought, also, of the awe of the ticles so you can figure out what we cember 1997 to lie to the Jones court, responsibility we have to our children are talking about today. to hide his relationship, and to encour- and our grandchildren about what we Secondly, I would like to bring to age others to lie and hide evidence and are commencing today. This is an awe- your attention that there is a Starr Re- to conceal the relationship with some undertaking for all of us. port, and I know that has been ma- Monica Lewinsky from the court. He I am here today to summarize for ligned by some people. This thing is so engaged in a pattern of obstruction of you what you heard yesterday. I do not dogeared—I have underlined it, torn it justice, perjury, and witness tampering want to bore you. I do not intend to do apart, done all kind of things with it. designed to deny the court what Susan that. I am going to be as brief as I can. It is a good reference source. You can Webber Wright, the judge in that court, I am also here to help you digest the find from the footnotes where else to had determined Paula Jones had the voluminous quantities of material that check it out. There are two parts. right to discover in order to prove her you have before you. There is a huge These are the appendices. In the first claim. If you believe the testimony of record out there. And I am also here to part, you can find the transcript of all Monica Lewinsky, you cannot believe prepare you for the law discussion that the key depositions, all the key testi- the President or accept the argument is going to come after me about the mony, all of the evidence that we are of his lawyers. You simply can’t. law of the crimes of perjury and ob- talking about, and read it for your- The record is so clear on this that if struction of justice and witness tam- selves. you have any significant doubt about pering. I don’t want to leave here today hav- Monica Lewinsky’s credibility or testi- First of all, I want you to know I ing summarized this evidence, as long mony, you should bring her in here and bear no personal animosity toward our as I may take—and I don’t want to let us examine her face to face so you President. But I happen to believe that take a long time, but I will take a lit- can judge her credibility for yourself. if the President—if any President— tle while—and have you go away and As you will hear explained later this commits the crimes of perjury, ob- think, gosh, what all did MCCOLLUM or afternoon, the same acts can con- struction of justice, and witness tam- HUTCHINSON or ROGAN or BRYANT say stitute both the crimes of obstruction pering, he should not be allowed to re- yesterday. You can find and refresh of justice and perjury, and the same main in office, for if he is allowed to do yourself through that and through acts can constitute the crimes of ob- so, it would undermine our courts and whatever information you have—trial struction of justice and witness tam- our system of justice. briefs and all that you have. pering. They are all cut from the same But that is for you to determine in Let’s look at what the record shows. cloth. They are all crimes that ob- the end, really, not me. That is my President Clinton was sued by Paula struct the administration of justice opinion. But you will have to weigh the Jones in a sexual harassment civil and keep our courts from being able to evidence, you are going to have to hear rights lawsuit. To bolster her case, she get the evidence that they need to de- the arguments, and ultimately make was trying to show that the President cide cases. Such obstruction is so det- that decision. In fact, the first thing engaged in a pattern of illicit relations rimental to our system of justice that you have to determine is whether or with women in his employment, where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines pro- not the President committed crimes. It he rewarded those who became in- vide for a greater punishment for per- is only if you determine he committed volved with him and disadvantaged jury and obstruction of justice than the crimes of perjury, obstruction of those who rejected him, as Paula Jones they do for bribery. justice, and witness tampering that did. I want to show that to you. I know you will move on to the question of Whatever the merits of that ap- everybody can’t see the chart. I think whether he is removed from office. In proach, on May 27, 1997, the U.S. Su- you have a handout of them. I will not fact, no one, none of us, would argue to preme Court ruled in a unanimous deci- show many charts today, but this is January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S261 one about the sentencing guidelines. To put the essence of all of this in a the evidence shows she and the Presi- The guidelines rate these, in fact, in se- nutshell for you, think back on the evi- dent had concocted cover stories. They quence. The most serious sentencing is dence presented yesterday. I would sug- had an understanding that she would a higher number; the lower number is gest that President Clinton thought his lie about the relationship, and so would the lower sentencing: Plain old vanilla scheme out well. He resented the Jones he, if anybody asked about it. bribery rights at a 10; other things are lawsuit. He was alarmed when Monica During a telephone conversation on 8, 7, 4. Murder is way up there, much Lewinsky’s name appeared on the wit- the 17th of December, the President higher in the numbers. You will see ness list, and he was more alarmed told Monica she might be called as a that witness tampering is a 12, not a 10. when Judge Wright issued her orders witness, and he at that time suggested Obstruction of justice is a 12, not a 10. signaling that the court would hear the that she might file an affidavit to Perjury is a 12, not a 10. All of them are evidence of other relationships. To avoid being called as a witness to tes- the same. Interestingly enough, al- keep his relationship with Monica tify in person in that case. In the same though I didn’t put it on this chart, Lewinsky from the court, once Judge conversation, they reviewed these bribing a witness is different from Wright issued her ruling, he knew he cover stories that they had concocted plain vanilla bribery. If you try to would have to lie to the court. To suc- to conceal their relationship. He bribe somebody in a business deal, that ceed at this, he decided that he had to brought them up. They went over them is one kind; if you go out and bribe a get Monica Lewinsky to file a false af- again. witness, that is another. Bribing a wit- fidavit, to try to avoid having her tes- Why do you think they did that? In ness is also a 12. tify. And he needed to get her a job to her grand jury testimony, Monica said Now, I want to point that out right make her happy, to make sure she exe- the President didn’t tell her to lie, but up front because the most important cuted that false affidavit, and then because of their previous understand- point that makes is that when you read stick with her lies when she was ques- ing she assumed that they both ex- the phrase in the Constitution that tioned about it. pected that she would lie in that affida- what is impeachable is treason, brib- Then the gifts were subpoenaed and vit. In this context, the evidence is ery, and other high crimes and mis- he had to have her hide the gifts—the compelling that the President commit- demeanors, bribery is not considered only tangible evidence of his relation- ted both the crimes of obstruction of by our court system. Pure bribery, ship with her that would trigger ques- justice and witness tampering right plain old bribery, is not considered as tions. She came up with the idea of giv- then and there on December 17. serious in sentencing as perjury, wit- ing them to Betty Currie, and the Now, Monica Lewinsky’s testimony ness tampering, obstruction of justice, President seized on it. Who would is so clear about this that the Presi- and of course bribing a witness. They think Betty Currie should be called to dent’s lawyers probably won’t spend a are all of the same cloth. Why? Because produce the gifts? Nobody would. Then lot of time with you on this; they that interferes with the administration he would be free to lie in his deposi- didn’t in the Judiciary Committee. I of justice. Because we can’t have jus- tion, and that is, of course, what he could be wrong, and they probably will tice if people block the courts from did. But after he did this, he realized just to show me I am wrong. getting at the truth. And if you go that he had to make sure that Betty I want us to look at this and specifi- about doing it intentionally, you have would lie and cover for him. cally look at her testimony together committed these crimes. He got his aides convinced to repeat because it is so compelling. On pages It should be pointed out that lies the lies to the grand jury and to the 123 and 124 of her testimony—you can under oath in a court proceeding, public, and all of this worked—until find it in Part 1 of the Starr Report. I whether or not they rise to the level of the dress showed up. Then he lied to know you can’t see all of this that well crimes of perjury, can be obstruction of the grand jury to try to cover up and back there, but you should have the justice. So when the President lied in explain away his prior crimes. charts. I point out in red on this chart the Jones deposition, this was part of That is the case in a nutshell. That is the most important part of it. This is the obstruction of justice charged why we are here today. That is what where she described the December 17 under article II that is before you this evidence in the record shows, I be- telephone conversation. I am going to today, even though there is no separate lieve, in an exceptionally compelling read you part of it. count. And he lied a lot in that deposi- way. She said here in red: tion. We will talk about that a little Now, let’s review what happened and, At some point in the conversation, and I later. The fact that the House did not as we do, I ask you to think back to don’t know if it was before or after the sub- send you the article of impeachment what Mr. BRYANT said to you yester- ject of the affidavit came up, he sort of said, for perjury in the Jones deposition does day. Always ask yourself what are the ‘‘You know, you can always say you were not keep you from considering the lies results of the act, and who benefited. I coming to see Betty or that you were bring- in that deposition as an obstruction of think you will find each time that it is ing me letters,’’ which I understood was real- justice crime under article II that is the President who benefited. Now we ly a reminder of things that we had discussed before. before you. And you know that it is are going to go over the facts. Question: So when you say things you had also incorporated in article I, because On December 5, 1997, a year ago, discussed, sort of ruses that you developed? it is one of the four items specifically about a week before Judge Wright Answer: Right. I mean, this was—this was listed as the perjury that he lied about issued her order making it clear that something that—that was instantly familiar lying in the deposition. the President’s relationship with to me. Now, having said that, think about Monica Lewinsky was relevant to the Question: Right. all of this as one big obstruction, be- Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky’s name ap- Answer: And I knew exactly what he cause perjury can be obstruction. Just peared on the Jones witness list. The meant. Question: Had you talked with him earlier plain lying can be obstruction. Witness President learned this fact the next about these false explanations about what tampering, by the way, is a separate day, December 6. The President tele- you were doing visiting him on several occa- crime because it is titled that way, but phoned Monica Lewinsky at about 2 sions? it is one of two separate obstruction of a.m. on December 17 and informed her Answer: Several occasions throughout the justice sections in the United States about her name being on the witness entire relationship. Yes. It was the pattern Criminal Code. It is just another ver- list. That was about 10 days after he of the relationship, to sort of conceal it. sion of obstruction of justice. So don’t learned about it and about 5 days after Now, let’s look at another chart. be confused. Witness tampering is ob- Judge Wright’s order. It was the order Monica Lewinsky’s August 6 grand jury struction of justice—literally, figu- that made it clear that his relationship testimony, on pages 233 and 234. Both ratively, and in every other way. But with Monica was discoverable by the are from the August 6 grand jury testi- people think about it separately be- Jones attorneys in that case. mony, where in the context of the affi- cause it has a separate element, a less- Long before this, though, long before davit she makes the now famous state- er element of proof actually than ob- the President was called to give a depo- ment, ‘‘No one asked or encouraged me struction of justice. But it is all part of sition or Monica Lewinsky was named to lie.’’ She did say that, but let’s look the same fabric, again. on the witness list in the Jones case, at how she said that: S262 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 For me, the best way to explain how I feel the President was kept abreast of the Defense, where I was working at the what happened was, you know, no one asked participation by Vernon Jordan and all time. There were other people present or encouraged me to lie, but no one discour- of its contents, and Jordan advised the on those occasions.’’ aged me either. President when Monica signed the affi- I just want to point out to you that ‘‘. . . but no one discouraged me ei- davit on January 7. He advised the paragraph 8, which was the subject of a ther.’’ I don’t know how many times President of that fact. Two days before lot of discussions, which the President anybody said that to you when they Monica says in a conversation she certainly was fully aware of—which made their arguments, but that is what asked the President if he wanted to see you watched where he was intensely re- she said and the context. the draft affidavit, he replied—you re- sponding, with regard to Mr. Bennett Later on, she says in her testimony call from yesterday—he replied that he yesterday in that deposition—didn’t on the same pages: didn’t need to see it because he had al- just contain a lie about a sexual rela- . . . it wasn’t as if the President called me ready seen ‘‘15 others.’’ tionship where you quibble over a and said, ‘‘You know, Monica, you’re on the I doubt seriously he was talking word. It is a full-fledged lie and a cover witness list, this is going to be really hard about 15 other affidavits of somebody story about this. None of that is true. for us, we’re going to have to tell the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire else and didn’t like looking at affida- Monica Lewinsky saw him a lot of world about what we’ve done,’’ which I would vits anymore. I suspect and I would other times, and the President cer- have fought him on probably. That was dif- suggest to you that he was talking tainly knew that. They weren’t all offi- ferent. And by him not calling me and saying about 15 other drafts of this proposed cial events or anything else. This is a that, you know, I knew what that affidavit since it had been around the complete falsehood, paragraph 8, and meant. . . . horn a lot of rounds. the President knew it. Question: Did you understand all along The circumstantial evidence makes At that point in time when he al- that he would deny the relationship, also? it clear the President knew the context lowed his attorney on the day of the Answer: Mm-hmm. Yes. Question: And when you say you under- of the Lewinsky affidavit and he knew deposition to make a false and mislead- stood what it meant when he didn’t say, ‘‘Oh, it was false. ing statement to the judge—and the at- you know, you must tell the truth,’’ what During the President’s deposition in torney didn’t know that—but it was a did you understand that to mean? the Jones case on January 17, his attor- false and misleading statement to the Answer: That—that—as we had on every ney, Robert Bennett, at one point tried judge characterizing this affidavit, he other occasion and every other instance of to stop the Jones lawyers from asking knew better. And the President at that this relationship, we would deny it. the President about his relationship point in time committed the crime of After reading this, if you believe with Monica Lewinsky by pointing out obstruction of justice. And that is Monica Lewinsky, can there be any the affidavit she had signed. count 5 of article II. doubt that the President was suggest- I think we all remember that because Now the President’s lawyers are ing that she file an affidavit that con- there was a lot of that on TV up here going to argue that he sat silent be- tains lies and falsehoods that might yesterday. Mr. Bennett asserted at the cause he wasn’t paying attention, and keep her from ever having to testify in time that the affidavit indicated he didn’t hear or appreciate what Mr. the Jones case and give the President ‘‘there is no sex of any kind, manner, Bennett was saying. We have already the kind of protection he needed when shape or form.’’ That is what he said. seen the video. And you know that he he testified? After a warning from Judge Wright, was looking so intently. Remember he And, of course, in that same Decem- Mr. Bennett stated, ‘‘I’m not coaching was intensely following the conversa- ber 17 conversation, the President en- the witness. In preparation of the wit- tion with his eyes. I don’t know if you couraged Monica to use cover stories ness for this deposition, the witness is watched it on TV yesterday and ob- and tell the same lies as he expected fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit, served that. It was played twice. I her to do in the affidavit if and when so I have not told him a single thing he don’t know how anybody can say this she was called to testify live and in doesn’t know.’’ The President did not man wasn’t paying attention. He cer- person. Both of those would be obstruc- say anything to correct Mr. Bennett, tainly wasn’t thinking about anything tion of justice and witness tampering. even though he knew the affidavit was else. That was very obvious from look- Taken together—encouraging her to false. The judge allowed the question- ing at the video. file this false affidavit that she clearly ing to proceed and later Mr. Bennett The President’s other defense also describes here, and the encouraging of read to the President a portion of para- falls apart on its face. During his grand her to lie if she is ever called as a wit- graph 8 of Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit jury testimony, the President argued ness—both of these are counts 1 and 2 in which she denied having a ‘‘sexual that when Mr. Bennett characterized of the obstruction of justice charge. relationship’’ with the President and the Lewinsky affidavit as indicating If I don’t leave you with any other asked him if Ms. Lewinsky’s statement ‘‘there is no sex of any kind, in any impression walking away from here was true and accurate, to which the manner, shape or form’’ that it was a today, I want you to think about this. President responded, ‘‘That is abso- completely true statement because at This is the clearest, boldest, most sig- lutely true.’’ that particular time, at that moment, nificant obstruction of justice charge. I I am not going back over and put when the statement was being made on don’t see how anybody can walk away that on the screen again. But I do want January 17, 1998, there was no sex going from it and explain it away. It is a pat- to put up here before you what you on. That was when the President made tern. It should not be looked at in iso- have in front of you, paragraph 8 of his famous utterings to the jury, ‘‘It lation. Think about it. It is the kickoff Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit. depends on what the meaning of the to what really happened. It is why we Paragraph 8 of her affidavit was abso- word ‘is’ is.’’ That is when he said that. got involved in this in the first place. lutely false and the President knew it. Of course the President knew perfectly The President had a scheme and he I want to go over that a little bit. well that the context of Mr. Bennett’s went through this process. And it all What it says up here at the beginning discussions with the judge and charac- ties together with the rest of it. of it is, ‘‘I have never had a sexual rela- terization of the Lewinsky affidavit Two days later, Monica Lewinsky tionship with the President. He did not was referring to the denial in para- was subpoenaed and contacted Vernon propose that we have a sexual relation- graph 8 of the affidavit that there had Jordan who put her in touch with At- ship,’’ and so on. And we have a lot never been any sexual relationship at torney Frank Carter. That is the attor- about that. But look at what it says any time, not that there was no sex or ney he picked out. As we all know, this down at the end of this. What is down sexual relationship going on on Janu- very false affidavit that Frank Carter at the end of this—you have it in front ary 17, the day of the deposition. prepared—and, of course, knowing it of you. It says down here, ‘‘The occa- I implore you not to get hung up on was false when he prepared it, but sions that I saw the President after I some of the details. It is absurd, some Monica knew it and the President left my employment at the White of the arguments that are being made knew it—was filed just before the House in April 1996 were official recep- and have been made by the President President’s deposition in the Jones tions, formal functions, or events relat- and his attorneys to try to explain case January 17. The record shows that ed to the United States Department of this. January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S263 This is a perfect example of that. and Betty to hide these gifts on Decem- tant. Did he intensify his efforts and When we start looking around at this, ber 28? How can they? The sequence is really go after it? Was it part of that you can’t see the forest sometimes for there. pattern I described to you earlier the trees. The big picture is what you The President’s lawyers may spend a which Mr. HUTCHINSON described yes- need to keep in mind, not the compart- lot of time attacking this particular terday? That is what is important. mentalized portion. There will be a lot obstruction of justice charge. They In other words, as count 34 of article of effort, I am sure, to try to go and may question why the President would II alleges, did she make sure she was pick at one thing or another. But this have given Monica Lewinsky more rewarded with sticking with him in a is an extraordinarily good example of gifts on December 28 if he was expect- scheme of concealment in anticipation how the argument failed when put in ing her to hide the gifts. Monica’s ex- that this reward would keep her happy that situation. And we shouldn’t play planation and her testimony is ‘‘from and keep her from turning on him? Did word games. everything he said to me,’’ he expected the President make sure Monica When Monica Lewinsky was subpoe- her to conceal the gifts, including the Lewinsky signed a false affidavit by naed to testify, she was also subpoe- ones being given that day. When Ms. getting her a job? naed to produce any gifts that the Currie’s call came, wasn’t it the logical The record shows that while she did President had given her. When she met thing for Monica to conclude that this give some interviews from earlier con- with Vernon Jordan the day she re- was the result of the President’s hav- tacts, including one involving the job ceived the subpoena, she told him of ing thought about what to do with the with the U.S. Ambassador to the her concerns about the gifts and she gifts, which he said he was going to do United Nations, no one of real influ- asked him to tell the President about according to her, and deciding to have ence around the President put on a full the subpoena. Ms. Currie hide them? court press to get her a job and she had Early in the morning on December That is the logical thing. not had any success as of December 6. 28, near the end of the year, they met, The President’s attorney’s will no She had not been able to get in touch the President and Monica, in his office, doubt also question the veracity of Ms. with Vernon Jordan in her recent ef- and they exchanged gifts and discussed Lewinsky with regard to who made the forts. He had met with her once in No- the gifts being subpoenaed. According phone call, since Mrs. Currie’s recollec- vember, but as you recall from yester- to Mrs. Lewinsky, she suggested that tion isn’t very good. And at first she day’s discussions, something he didn’t maybe she should put the gifts away says she recalls Monica made it. Of even have a good memory of. He cer- outside of her house somewhere or give course, the phone records indicate that tainly wasn’t very focused on it, and them to somebody like Betty Currie. Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky. That she wasn’t getting where she wanted to She says he responded—the President is the much more logical sequence. get. responded—with an ‘‘I don’t know,’’ or Also it doesn’t make sense that the And so on December 6th she men- ‘‘let me think about that.’’ She was President’s secretary, who is so close tioned that fact to the President. Re- very clear that at no point did he ever to him—think about it—that she would member, that is one day after she was give her the impression that she should have taken the gifts and would have named on a witness list. In fact, that is turn the gifts over to the Jones attor- hidden them under her bed and never the day that he learned or may have neys. talked with the President about doing learned—we know he learned of her That is consistent with their cover so before or after she did so. That being on that witness list. The Presi- stories—the one later and later in the doesn’t make sense. dent met with Vernon Jordan the next perjury where the count discusses his It is also noteworthy that the Presi- day, but he apparently didn’t mention lying to the grand jury. Consistent dent did everything he could in his Ms. Lewinsky, according to Jordan’s with their cover stories and all the January 17 deposition to conceal the testimony. The record shows that not plans for denying the relationship, her true nature of his relationship with only on December 11th did Mr. Jordan testimony in this regard is very believ- Monica Lewinsky. This is consistent act to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job able. with the arguments that he never in- when he met with her and gave her a On the other hand, the President’s tended the gifts be kept from the Jones list of contact names on December testimony in front of the grand jury attorneys. He never intended them to 11th, Mr. Jordan that same day made that encouraged her to turn all of the be given to the Jones attorneys. If he calls to contacts at MacAndrews & gifts over to the Jones attorneys is not had intended to give these gifts to the Forbes, the parent corporation of believable. How can nobody believe Jones attorneys, or have them given, Revlon, and two other New York com- that. When he said that to the grand why would he have gone through this panies. He also telephoned the Presi- jury, he committed perjury. When a elaborate series of lies in that deposi- dent to keep him informed of his ef- few hours later, according to Monica tion? Common sense tells us if he knew forts. Lewinsky, Betty Currie called her on these gifts were revealed, questions Keep in mind that on this day, this the telephone and said, ‘‘I understand would be raised and his relationship re- very same day, December 11th, Judge you have something to give me,’’ or vealed. Wright issued her order in the Jones maybe she said, ‘‘the President said So all the logic is there. I don’t know case entitling Jones’ lawyers to dis- you have something to give me,’’ and how you refute it. cover the President’s sexual relations. Betty Currie came over and got the Another obstruction count the Presi- Is that a mere coincidence? gifts and took them back and hid them dent’s attorneys are likely to spend Later in December, Monica Lewinsky under her bed. At that moment, the time on is one concerning the job interviewed with New York-based com- President’s crime of obstruction of jus- search. There is no question that panies that had been contacted by Mr. tice as described in count 3 of article II Monica Lewinsky was looking for a job Jordan. She discussed her move to New was complete. in New York a long time before we get York with the President during that Remember by its nature obstruction to December of 1997 and when the affi- meeting on December 28th. On January of justice charges in crimes are most davit and all of this took place, long 5th, she declined a United Nations frequently proven by circumstantial before the President had reason to be offer. On January 7th, Ms. Lewinsky evidence. As somebody said here the concerned that she would have to tes- signed the false affidavit. The next day, other day, we don’t tell people we are tify or he would have to testify in the on January the 8th, she interviewed in going to go out under the elm tree and case. There is no question about that. New York with MacAndrews & Forbes, lie and obstruct things. Usually it is a That is not the issue. The question is but the interview went very poorly. lot more circuitous than that. In the whether or not the President intensi- Learning of this, Vernon Jordan, that context of all that was going on at the fied his efforts to get her a job and very day, called Ronald Perelman, the time and the general truthfulness of make sure she got one after it became chairman of the board of MacAndrews Monica Lewinsky’s testimony, and clear to him that he would need her to & Forbes. She was interviewed the next other respects, how can anyone come lie, sign a false affidavit, and stick morning again, and a few hours later to any other conclusion than that the with her lies in any questioning. That she received an informal offer. She told President collaborated with Monica is what counts. That is what is impor- Jordan about it. He immediately told S264 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 Betty Currie about it, and he person- any number of occasions, so they were tionship with Monica Lewinsky to key ally told the President about it later. alone. And she could not say what they White House aides, he also embellished On January 13th, her job offer at might have been doing or saying. the story when he talked with Sidney Revlon was formalized, and within a On January 20th or 21st, the Presi- Blumenthal. To Sidney Blumenthal, he day or so President Clinton told Er- dent again met with Ms. Currie and, portrayed Monica Lewinsky as the ag- skine Bowles that Ms. Lewinsky had according to her, recapitulated what he gressor, attacked her reputation by found a job in the private sector. It was said on Sunday, a day or two before, portraying her as a stalker and pre- a big relief to him. right after the deposition. In the con- sented himself as the innocent victim Then her false affidavit was filed, and text of everything, it seems abundantly being attacked by the forces of evil. on January 17th the President gave a clear that the President was trying to Certainly he wanted his denial and his deposition relying on the false affidavit make sure that Betty Currie corrobo- assertions to be spread to the public by and using their cover stories to conceal rated his lies and cover stories from these aides, but at the same time he their relationship. the deposition if she was ever called to knew that the Office of Independent Was this full court press in December testify in the Jones case or grand jury Counsel had recently been appointed to and early January to assure Monica or any other court proceeding. That is investigate the Monica Lewinsky mat- Lewinsky had a job just a coincidence? what he was doing. In doing so, the ter. He knew that at the time. Logical common sense says no; the President committed the crimes of wit- In the context of everything else that President needed her to continue to co- ness tampering and obstruction of jus- he was doing to hide his relationship, it operate in his scheme to hide their re- tice. seems readily apparent that his false lationship, keeping her happy so he Later, the President testified, rather and misleading statements to his staff could control her and she would be—he disingenuously, in my judgment, that members, whom he knew were poten- would be assured that she had filed this he was simply trying to refresh his tial witnesses before any grand jury false affidavit and testifying untruth- memory when he was talking to Ms. proceeding, were designed in part to fully if she was called. It is the only Currie. Ms. Currie’s confirmation of corruptly influence their testimony as plausible rationale for this stepped up false statements that the President witnesses. In fact, the President actu- job assistance effort at this particular made in his deposition could not in any ally acknowledged this in his grand time. In doing so, the President com- way remind him of the facts. They jury testimony, that he knew his aides mitted the crimes of obstruction of jus- were patently untrue. The idea that he might be called before the grand jury. tice and witness tampering as set forth was trying to refresh his recollection is And one of the aides testified he ex- in count 4 of article II. implausible. pected to be called. Sure enough, they Well, we have gone through quite a Recognizing the weakness of their were, and they repeated the false and few of these, and I am trying to be brief client’s case on this, the President’s at- misleading information he had given with you, but I think each one of them torneys have suggested that he was them. In this, the President committed is important. Each one of them entan- worried about what Ms. Currie might the crimes of witness tampering and gles the President further in a web that say if the press really got after her. obstruction of justice as set forth in fits together, and it is kind of sticky That is what we heard, at least over in count 7 of article II. just like the spider weaves. the Judiciary Committee. Of course, it Now, that is the obstruction of jus- During his deposition in the Jones is possible the President was worried tice. Let’s briefly review the grand jury case, the President referred to Betty about the press. I would suspect so. But perjury for a minute. Currie several times and suggested common sense says he was much more If you believe Monica Lewinsky, the that she might have answers to some of worried about what Betty Currie might President lied to the grand jury and the questions. He used the cover story, say to a court, after he had just named committed perjury. If you believe her— the same ones he and Monica talked her several times and talked about her, and I think this one is very important, about, and he talked about Betty if she were called as a witness. not that they all aren’t. There was the Currie a good deal because she was a As those who follow me will tell you, web of the obstruction that I just de- part of those cover stories. When he the arguments by the President’s law- scribed and then there is the grand finished the deposition, he telephoned yers that Betty Currie wasn’t on the jury perjury on top of it. I told you ear- Ms. Currie, and he asked her to come Jones witness list at the time and the lier, perjury and just plain lying can be to his office the next day and talk with window of opportunity to call her as a all obstruction of justice as well. But him. Betty Currie told the grand jury witness in that case closed shortly the grand jury part is much later. It is when she came in the next day the thereafter is irrelevant. They are going after the President had time to really President raised his deposition with to argue—they argued to us that Betty reflect on all of this, a long time later. her and said there were several things Currie’s name wasn’t on the witness If you believe Monica Lewinsky, the he wanted to know, then rattled off list. That is a big deal, they say. They President lied to the grand jury and what you heard yesterday in succes- say. But it is irrelevant. It doesn’t committed perjury in denying he had sion: You were always there when she matter; witness tampering law doesn’t sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was there, right? We never were really even require that a pending judicial even if you accept his interpretation of alone. You can see and hear every- proceeding be going on for it to be a the Jones court’s definition of sexual thing. Monica came on to me, and I crime. So whether her name was on the relations. That is really important. never touched her, right? She wanted witness list or not makes no difference. There isn’t anything clearer in the to have sex with me, and I can’t do There are two types of obstruction of whole darned matter than that. Just that. justice. One does require a pending pro- look at the President’s grand jury tes- All of those weren’t true. They were ceeding. I submit—and you will hear timony. And I am not going to go over all falsehoods. They were all declara- more about this later in the law—that all of that, but it is on pages 93 and 96 tory statements. They weren’t ques- in this instance the President commit- of his grand jury testimony. It is laid tions. It is clear from the record that ted both of them. He certainly should out in this chart which you have in Ms. Currie always tried her best to be have anticipated that she would be front of you, and I encourage you to loyal to the President, her boss. That called in the pending proceeding that read every page of it carefully. Specifi- is normal. That is natural. was going on in the Jones case, but cally, I call your attention to the In answering the questions in her tes- even if there was no pending proceed- fact—again, I am not going to read all timony, she tried to portray the events ing—and you will, again, hear more of this—but they asked him about and the President’s assertions in the about this later—for the witness tam- touching certain parts of the body that light most favorable to him, even pering part of the obstruction of jus- are defined in the definition that you though she acknowledges that she tice, it doesn’t require there to have have had repeated many times, pub- could not hear and see everything that been an ongoing judicial proceeding. licly and otherwise. And two of those went on between Monica and the Presi- Within 4 or 5 days of his Jones depo- body parts he acknowledges, the breast dent and that she wasn’t actually sition, the President not only explic- and genitalia, were in fact part of the present in the same room with them on itly denied the true nature of his rela- definition. And at the end of this, and January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S265 I think this is very important and I am little bit more than friendship. He lied cuted by Monica Lewinsky in the Jones going to read it because it is part of his when he said that to the grand jury. case, in which she denied they had a testimony, he answers the question Before the grand jury, the President sexual relationship, were ‘‘absolutely that is the compelling bottom line swore that he testified truthfully at his true.’’ The evidence indicates that he crime. This is where he perjured him- deposition. Remember, I told you I was lied. self above all else. going to come back to this. It is impor- In other words, when the President You are free to infer that my testimony is tant because the grand jury—I mean swore in the grand jury testimony that that I did not have sexual relations, as I un- the Paula Jones deposition testimony his goal in the Jones deposition was to derstood this term to be defined. is relevant to obstruction of justice but be truthful but not particularly help- Question: Including touching her breasts, it is also relevant to the perjury here, ful, the evidence is clear that he lied kissing her breasts, or touching her genita- because one of the portions of the per- and committed the crime of perjury, lia? jury article that you have before us in- inasmuch as he had quite intentionally Answer: That’s correct. cludes this issue of lying in the deposi- lied on numerous occasions in his depo- In her sworn testimony, Monica tion. The perjury in this case is not the sition testimony in the Jones case. His Lewinsky described nine incidents of lying in the deposition, it is the lying intention in that deposition was to be which the President touched and kissed to the grand jury about whether he lied untruthful. That is what it was all her breasts and four incidents involv- in the deposition. He didn’t have to about, to be untruthful. So he commit- ing contact with her genitalia. On have committed perjury. We didn’t ted the crime of perjury in front of the these matters, Lewinsky’s testimony is send you the perjury count over from grand jury—big time. The third part of article I concerning corroborated by the sworn testimony the deposition. But if he lied—lying grand jury perjury relates to his not of at least six friends and counselors to can be less than perjury. If he lied in telling the truth about false and mis- whom she related these incidents con- the deposition and then he told the temporaneously. leading statements his attorney, Rob- grand jury that he didn’t lie, he com- ert Bennett—unintentionally, Mr. Ben- Again, if you believe the testimony mitted perjury in front of the grand of Monica Lewinsky, and it certainly is nett, by the way, but nonetheless false jury. and misleading statements—Robert credible here—I think it is credible The evidence indicates that he did throughout but it is certainly credible, Bennett made to Judge Wright during lie. He testified before the grand jury the President’s Jones case deposition. with all the corroboration you have got that ‘‘my goal in this deposition was to in the record—there is nothing clearer We have been on that a lot. I don’t be truthful, but not particularly help- want to bore you with going over all in all of this, in all of this you have be- ful . . . I was determined to walk fore you, than that the President com- those details again, but this is the through the minefield of this deposi- third part of the perjury count as well mitted the crime of perjury in testify- tion without violating the law and I be- ing before the grand jury regarding the as an obstruction of justice count. lieve I did.’’ During the President’s deposition in nature and details of his relationship Contrary to this testimony, the the Jones case, Mr. Bennett, however with Monica Lewinsky. President was alone with Ms. Lewinsky unintentional on his part, misled the On the other hand, there is plenty when she was not delivering papers, court when he said, ‘‘Counsel [counsel here to indicate the President cleverly which he even conceded in his grand for Ms. Jones] is fully aware that Ms. created his own narrow definition of jury statement. So he lied in the depo- Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit sexual relations to include only sexual sition then when he said he wasn’t which they are in possession of saying intercourse, absent the explicit defini- alone with her. that there is no sex of any kind, of any tion of the court, after he had already In the deposition the President swore manner shape or form, with President lied in responding to the interrog- he could never recall being in the Oval Clinton . . .’’ Judge Wright, as you re- atories and other pleadings and per- Office hallway with Ms. Lewinsky ex- call again, interrupted Mr. Bennett and haps even in the depositions them- cept when she was perhaps delivering expressed her concern that he might be selves in the Jones case. In other pizza. The evidence indicates that he coaching the President to which Mr. words, you are free to deduce that he lied. Bennett responded, ‘‘in preparation of knew full well what most people would The President swore in the Jones the witness for this deposition, the wit- include as sexual relations, oral sex deposition that he could not recall ness is fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky’s and the other intimate activities that gifts exchanged between Monica affidavit, so I have not told him a sin- he was engaged in with Ms. Lewinsky, Lewinsky and himself. The evidence in- gle thing he doesn’t know . . .’’ before he contrived his own definition. dicates that he lied. In his grand jury testimony about In that case, you don’t even have to He swore in the deposition that he these statements by Mr. Bennett to the rely on Monica Lewinsky’s testimony did not know whether Monica judge in the Jones case, the President to conclude that he committed the Lewinsky had been served a subpoena testified: crime of perjury in testifying before to testify in the Jones case at the last I’m not even sure I paid attention to what the grand jury on the nature of his re- time that he saw her in December 1997. he was saying. . . . I didn’t pay much atten- lationship with her. The evidence indicates that he lied. tion to this conversation which is why, when There are other perjurious lies the In his deposition, the President swore you started asking me about this, I asked to President’s grand jury testimony con- that the last time he spoke to Monica see the deposition . . . I don’t believe I ever tains regarding the nature and details even focused on what Mr. Bennett said in the Lewinsky was when she stopped by be- exact words he did until I started reading of his relationship with her. I am not fore Christmas 1997 to see Betty Currie this transcript carefully for this hearing. going to outline all of those. I want to at a Christmas party. The evidence in- That moment, the whole argument just call your attention to one. The Presi- dicates that he lied. passed me by. dent’s prepared statement, given under In his deposition in the Jones case, In so testifying before the grand jury, oath, said, ‘‘I regret that what began as the President swore that he didn’t the President lied and committed the a friendship came to include this con- know that his personal friend, Vernon crime of perjury. As you saw yesterday duct.’’ You may remember that from Jordan, had met with Monica in the video, during this portion of that Mr. ROGAN, I think, yesterday. ‘‘I re- Lewinsky and talked about the case. deposition when Mr. Bennett was dis- gret that what began as a friendship The evidence indicates that he lied. cussing this matter with Judge Wright, came to include this conduct.’’ That is The President in his Paula Jones dep- the President directly looked at Mr. what he said in the grand jury. The evi- osition indicated that he was ‘‘not Bennett, paying close attention to his dence indicates that he lied. As Ms. sure’’ whether he had ever talked to argument to Judge Wright. He lied Lewinsky testified, her relationship Monica Lewinsky about the possibility about that to the grand jury. He com- with the President began with flirting, that she might be asked to testify in mitted perjury when he said that he including Ms. Lewinsky showing the the Jones case. Can anybody doubt the wasn’t paying attention and he didn’t President her underwear, and just a evidence indicates that he lied? know what Mr. Bennett was saying. couple of hours later they were kissing The President in his deposition swore Several of the most blatant examples and engaging in intimacies. That is a that the contents of the affidavit exe- of grand jury perjury are found in that S266 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 portion of his testimony cited in the ments doesn’t make sense. It just White House aides, such as John Pode- fourth part, the last part of article I doesn’t make sense. If you read the sta who testified the President told which goes to his efforts, the Presi- statements and think about them on him he had not had oral sex with dent’s efforts, to influence the testi- their face, they are inherently incon- Lewinsky, and to Sidney Blumenthal mony of witnesses and to impede the sistent with refreshing his recollection. who testified he told him very exagger- discovery of evidence in the Jones case. Also, the President told the grand ated and highly untrue characteriza- The President swore during the grand jury that the things he told his top tions of Monica Lewinsky’s role in all jury testimony that he told Ms. aides about his relationship with of this. Lewinsky that if the Jones lawyers re- Monica Lewinsky may have been mis- These impeachment proceedings quested the gifts exchanged between leading but they were true. If you be- aren’t before you because of one or two them, she should provide them. If you lieve the aides testified truthfully to lies about a sexual relationship. This is believe Monica Lewinsky’s testimony, the grand jury about what the Presi- not about sex. This is about obstruc- the President lied and committed per- dent told them about his relationship, tion of justice. This is about a pattern. jury. the President told them many false- This is about a scheme. This is about a In her grand jury testimony, Ms. hoods, absolute falsehoods. So when lot of lies. This is about a lot of per- Lewinsky discussed in detail the De- the President described them under jury. They are before you because the cember 28 meeting where gifts were dis- oath to the grand jury as truths, he President lied again and again in a per- cussed which preceded by a couple of lied and committed the crime of per- jurious fashion to a grand jury and hours Ms. Currie coming to her apart- jury. tried to get a number of people, other ment and taking the gifts and hiding One example of this comes from Dep- people, to lie under oath in the Jones them under a bed. As you recall, she uty Chief John Podesta in his testi- lawsuit and to the grand jury and en- said she raised with the President the mony before the grand jury on January couraged the concealment of evidence. idea of removing her gifts from her 23 that the President explicitly told In a couple of days the President’s house and giving them to somebody him that he and Monica Lewinsky had lawyers are going to have their chance like Betty Currie and that his response not had oral sex. Another is Sidney to talk to you, and I suspect they will was something to the effect of, ‘‘Let Blumenthal. His testimony was that on try to get you to focus on 10, 15, or 20 me think about that.’’ January 23 the President told him that or 30, maybe even 100 specific little de- She went on to say that from every- Monica Lewinsky ‘‘came at me and tails. They are going to argue that thing he said to her, they were not made a sexual demand on me’’ and that these details don’t square with some of going to do anything but keep these he rebuffed her. And also Blumenthal’s the facts about this presentation. But I gifts private. In a separate sworn state- testimony that the President told him would encourage you never to lose ment, she testified she was never under that Lewinsky threatened him and said sight of the totality of this scheme to the impression from anything the that she would tell people that they lie and obstruct justice; never lose President said that she should turn had had an affair and that she was sight of the big picture. Don’t lose over the gifts to the Jones attorneys, known as a stalker among her peers. sight of the forest for the trees. It is and obviously she didn’t have the idea In short, the President lied numerous easy to do because there are a lot of that she should do that because she times before the grand jury, my col- facts in this case. gave them all to Betty Currie to hide leagues; he lied numerous times under I suggest you avoid considering any under the bed. oath last August 17. He committed per- of this stuff in isolation and treating it When the President told the grand jury numerous times under oath. He separately. The evidence and the testi- jurors that he was simply trying to certainly wasn’t caught by surprise by mony needs to be viewed as a whole. ‘‘refresh’’ his recollection when he any of this, by any of the questions The weight, we call it in law—and you made a series of statements to Betty that were asked him during the grand are going to hear that in a few min- Currie the day after his deposition, he jury appearance, and he was given a lot utes—the weight of the evidence in this lied and committed perjury. As I have of latitude. He was given latitude nor- case is very great, it is huge in its vol- already pointed out to you today, the mally that grand jury witnesses don’t ume, that the President engaged in a evidence is compelling that those have—to give a prepared statement, to scheme starting in December 1997 to statements, such as ‘‘I was never really have his counsel present, to refuse to conceal from the court in the Jones alone with Monica, right?’’ were made answer questions without taking the case his true relationship with Monica to try to influence Betty Currie’s pos- fifth amendment. Lewinsky and then cover up his acts of sible testimony, so that she would cor- It is hard to imagine a case where it concealment which he had to know by roborate his cover stories and other is clear that the lies meet the thresh- that time were serious crimes. false statements and lies that he had old of the crime of perjury. But I will The case against the President rests given the previous day in the Jones leave the discussion of the elements to a great extent on whether or not you deposition, if she was called as a wit- and the law to the next group that is believe Monica Lewinsky. But it is also ness. going to come up here. based on the sworn testimony of Ver- If you conclude that these series of The facts are clear that the President non Jordan, Betty Currie, Sidney statements constitute witness tamper- lied about having sexual relations with Blumenthal, John Podesta, and cor- ing and obstruction of justice, then you Monica Lewinsky even under his un- roborating witnesses. Time and again, must also conclude that the President derstanding of the definition of the the President says one thing and they committed perjury when he asserted Jones case if you believe Monica. say something entirely different. Time that the sole purpose of these state- He lied when he said he gave truthful and again, somebody is not telling the ments to Betty Currie was to ‘‘refresh’’ testimony in his Jones deposition. truth. And time and again, an analysis his recollection. You have to. Even if He lied when he said he wasn’t pay- of the context, the motivation, and all you were to buy the President’s coun- ing attention to his attorney’s discus- of the testimony taken together with sel’s suggestion these statements sion of Monica Lewinsky’s false affida- common sense says it is the President might have been made to influence her vit during his deposition in the Jones who is not telling the truth. But if you in order for her to corroborate him, not case. have serious doubts about the truthful- in actual testimony in a court case but He lied when he said he told Monica ness of any of these witnesses, I, again, with the press, which they have said Lewinsky she should turn over the as all my colleagues do, encourage you again to us—I don’t know if they will gifts to the Jones lawyers if they asked to bring them in here. Let’s examine say it to you—you would still conclude for them. Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, he was lying when he said that this was He lied when he told the grand jury Betty Currie and the other key wit- simply only to refresh his own recollec- that he made the declaratory state- nesses, let you examine the testimony, tion. ments to Betty Currie to refresh his invite the President to come, judge for In the context of all of this, the idea recollection. yourself their credibility. that he was refreshing his recollection And he lied when he told the grand But on the record, the weight of the by firing off these declarative state- jury that he only told the truth to his evidence, taken from what we have January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S267 given you today, what you can read in House, we now have the dawning of the most succeeded in—it doesn’t matter all of these books back here, every- final chapters of this particular inci- which of these results finally thing taken together is huge that the dent involving the President, in which emerges—and attempted to destroy the President lied. It is refutable, but it is you will have the final word. But that rights of a fellow American citizen. not refutable if somebody doesn’t come is what the importance is of what you That is what the gravamen of all that in here besides just making an argu- have heard up until now—the complete has occurred up to now really is. ment. record woven together, step by step, so In attempting to obstruct justice, we I don’t know what the witnesses will that no one in this Chamber at this mean by that obstructing the justice of say, but I assume if they are consist- juncture does not know all the facts whom? It was an attempt, a bold at- ent, they’ll say the same that’s in here. that are pertinent to this case. That is tempt, one that succeeded in some re- But you have a chance to determine a magnificent accomplishment on the spects, to obstruct the justice sought whether they are telling the truth. The part of the managers. by a fellow American citizen. That is only way you will ever know that, But the record is not yet complete, heavy. That is soul searching in its other than just accepting it if you and that is where I and Representative quality. That goes beyond those who think the evidence and the weight is CHABOT, Representative CANNON, and would say, ‘‘He committed perjury that huge—and it may be—is by look- Representative BARR come in, so that about sex. So what?’’ That goes beyond ing them in the eye and determining now we can take the next step in ful- saying that, ‘‘This is just about sex. So their credibility. fillment of the record, and that is, to what? Everybody lies about sex.’’ But I believe that when you finish hear- try to apply the statutory laws, the when you combine all the features of ing and weighing all of the evidence, laws of our Nation as they obtain to the actions of the President of the you will conclude, as I have, that Wil- the facts that you now have well in- United States and you see that they liam Jefferson Clinton committed the grained into your consciences. To do are funneled and tunneled and aimed crimes of obstruction of justice, wit- that, we have to repeat some of the and targeted toward obliterating from ness tampering, and perjury, that these facts. Some of these matters overlap, the landscape the rights of Paula in this case are high crimes and mis- and just as you have given your atten- Jones, a fellow American citizen, then demeanors, that he has done grave tion to the matters at hand up until you must take a second look at your damage to our system of justice, and now, your undivided attention is need- own assertion that, ‘‘So what? It’s just leaving him in office would do more, ed continuously. a question of fact about sex.’’ and that he should be removed from of- For instance, we cannot discuss even Many of the Members of this Cham- fice as President of the United States. the application of these statutes to the ber and others have already acknowl- Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. facts unless we repeat the series of edged that the President has lied under The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- events that catapulted us to this mo- oath. But then they are quick to add, ognizes the majority leader. ment in history. And we must begin, as ‘‘So what?’’ which is so disturbing in RECESS you have heard countless times now on view of the results of what has hap- Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask and off this floor, in my judgment, pened in this case. unanimous consent that there now be a with the Supreme Court of the United Before the House of Representatives, recess in the proceedings for 15 min- States, with all due deference to the as part of our record, we had a group of utes. Please return to your positions Chief Justice, because the Supreme academicians, professors, testifying. within 15 minutes. Court at one point in this saga deter- Professor Higgenbotham—who, sadly I There being no objection, at 2:11 mined in a suit brought by Paula Jones must relate, has passed away since his p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:30 that indeed an average, day-to-day, or- appearance—was trying to show how p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassem- dinary citizen of our Nation would futile it was for us to even attempt to bled when called to order by the Chief have the right to have a day in court, append perjury to an indictable, pros- Justice. as it were, even against the President ecutable offense, and that nowhere in The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- of the United States. It is there that the country is it prosecuted regularly, ognizes the majority leader. all of this began. and that it is so trivial because it is Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, as all That fellow American, Paula Jones— based on sex. He went on to give an ex- Senators return to the Chamber, I be- no matter how she may have been de- ample of how trivial it is. I am para- lieve now we are going to go to a seg- scribed by commentators and pundits phrasing it, but he said: Would you ex- ment where we will hear from three of and talking heads, et cetera—did have pect to indict the President of the the managers, including Congressmen a bundle of rights at her command. United States for perjury if he lied GEKAS, CHABOT, and CANNON, and then Those rights went into the core of our about a 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, we will take another break shortly system of justice to bring the Presi- even though he was going 56? If he after 3:30. dent into the case as a defendant. That would say, ‘‘I was only going 51,’’ would The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- is an awesome and grand result of the you indict him on that? ognizes Mr. Manager GEKAS. Supreme Court decision at that junc- In the repertoire that I had with him Mr. Manager GEKAS. Mr. Chief Jus- ture. This is what is being overlooked, at that juncture, I asked him would he tice, counsel for the President, my col- in my judgment, as we pursue what we feel the same if as a result of that per- leagues from the House, and Members believe. If perjury indeed was commit- jurious testimony about only going 51 of the Senate, up to now you have been ted—and the record is replete that it in miles an hour if there was a victim in fully informed of the state of the fact was—and if indeed obstruction of the case, that this might be a tort case, record in this case in many different justice was finally committed by the an involuntarily case, a negligence ways, in very many different tonalities President of the United States—as the case in which someone died as a result uttered by the managers, who so mag- evidence abundantly demonstrates— of an automobile accident case, and the nificently, in my judgment, wove the then we must apply the rights of Paula issue at hand would be the speed limit, story that began in 1997 and has not Jones to what has transpired. would he feel the same way if as a re- ended yet. We are not saying that the Presi- sult of the perjury committed as to the But the narrative that the managers dent—even though the weight of the rate of speed, that someone’s rights were able to produce for you and put on evidence demonstrates it amply— were erased in the case by virtue of the record has met, even as we speak, should be convicted of the impeach- that perjury, the gentleman acknowl- with commentary in the public that ment which has brought us to this floor edged that that made a difference. ‘‘we have all known all of this before.’’ just because he committed perjury or That is what the difference is here. The big difference is that now it is part obstructed justice, but because as a re- The perjury per se, that being a phrase of the history of the country. It is sult of his actions both in rendering that we lawyers can adopt, the perjury lodged in the records of the Senate of falsehoods under oath, as the evidence per se is almost a given pursuant to the the United States. And together with demonstrates amply, or in obstructing commentaries that we have heard from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the pro- justice, that because of his conduct, he the people in and out of that Chamber. ceedings that preceded these in the attempted to, or succeeded in, or al- But when you add to it the terrible S268 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 consequences of seeing a fellow citizen What does that mean to you? What sequence is of the attempt to obliterate pursuing justice thwarted, stopped in does that not mean to you, that when the Paula Jones civil suit? her tracks as it were by reason of the confronted right at the outset with the That is what it is, not that he com- actions of the President, that is what phrase ‘‘sexual relations’’ that the mitted perjury. So what? It is what the the core issue here is. President adopted and determined the end result of that perjury might be To take it, then, from the status of common usage, well-understood defini- that you should weigh. Skip over the what consequence it had to that fellow tion of sexual relations that everybody fact that he committed perjury. We all American citizen to the next step is, in in America recognizes as being the true acknowledge that it is said. But now my judgment, an issue—to go to the meaning of sexual relations, meaning tell me what that does to Paula Jones, determination of whether or not there sex of any kind. Did not the President or potentially could do to Paula Jones, was an impeachable offense—my col- answer that under the common under- or to one of you, or to one of your leagues will show you how the law of standing that all of us entertain when spouses, or to one of the members of perjury and the law of obstruction of we discuss, more so in the last year your community who wants to have justice relates to this pattern of fac- than ever before in our lives, the justice done in the courts. tual circumstance that we bring to phrase ‘‘sexual relations’’? To me that Obstruction of justice is obstruction you. But in the meantime we must re- is a telling feature of this case because of justice to an individual, to a family. count, even at the risk of overlapping when you leap over that and get to the You can take it from Paula Jones and some of the testimony, that following depositions and everything that the telescope it upward to every commu- the initial recognition by the President President might have said in those nity, in every courthouse, and every that there was going to be a witness depositions, as his counsel have repeat- State and every community in our list and that Monica Lewinsky would edly asserted to us was true, that he land, and there is a Paula Jones eager eventually appear as she did on that did not lie, that he did not commit per- to assert certain rights and then con- witness list. This occurred, which is jury, that he did not evade the truth, fronted with someone who would tear little examined thus far in the world of that some of it, puzzling to them even, it down by false testimony, by lies the scandal in which we are all partici- but it did not amount to perjury, can under oath. pants, and that is this: The first item they say about that the statement one That is what the gravamen of all this of business on the part of the Jones month before on December 23rd in in- really is. lawyers in pursuing the rights of Paula terrogatories? One more thing. The counsel for the Jones was to issue a set of interrog- That is extremely important. That is President have repeatedly and very au- atories, a discovery procedure that is my recollection. Yours is the one that thoritatively, professionally, have as- well recognized in our courts all over will have to predominate, of course. serted, as many of you have, that this the land, that a set of interrogatories But the weight that I put on it, I is not an impeachable offense, for after arrived at the President’s desk. urge you to at least evaluate as you all, they say, an impeachable offense is At this juncture—this is way before begin to level your weight on the evi- one in which there is a direct attack on the President appeared at the deposi- dence that has been presented. the system of government; not perjury, If that were not enough, on January tion about which you know everything not obstruction of justice. 15th, again before the deposition, an- now. The facts have been related to So what, on those, they imply. They other interrogatory—this one a request you in a hundred different ways and say it does not—perjury, especially for documents—was submitted to the you know that pretty well. I know you about sex—attack the system of Gov- President, and again the question there do. But did you know, can you fasten ernment. I must tell you that as an 8- was—you will see it in the record; it is your attention for a moment knowing or 9- or 10-year-old, I would accompany in the record—the request of docu- that this happened at the deposition on my mother to naturalization school ments says to submit anything that a month before, on December 23rd, 1997, three or four nights a week where my pertained to Monica Lewinsky, the in- when the President had in front of him tern or employee, Monica Lewinsky, of mother was intent on learning the interrogatories that asked did he ever whatever description—notes, gifts, English language and learning about have sexual relations with anyone whatever, and the President in that the history of the United States, as the other than his spouse during the time particular instance again said none. I teachers for naturalization were pre- that he was Governor of Arkansas or am willing to give the President a rea- paring these prospective citizens, and President of the United States, and sonable doubt on that and even ask you she was so proud that she learned that there the President answered—or I if you do not place as much weight on the first President of the United States think that the interrogatory stated, it as I do to forget all about that. But was George Washington, was prepared Name any persons with whom you have the point is that these assertions under to answer that question if it was posed had sexual relations other than your oath were made before the Jones depo- to her in naturalization court, and she wife. And the answer that the Presi- sition was ever even conceived, let was so proud when I was testing her, dent rendered in those interrogatories alone undertaken on January 17th. preparing. Each time I would say, under oath was none. So he cannot, the President cannot ‘‘Mom, what are the three branches of I say to the ladies and gentleman of use the lawyer talk and judge banter Government?’’ And she would say, the Senate that this was the first false- and the descriptions and definitions of ‘‘The ‘Exec’ and the ‘legislate’ and the hood stated under oath which became a sexual relations to cloud the answers ‘judish,’ ’’ in her wonderful, lovable ac- chain reaction of falsehoods under that he gave at that time, and all of cent. She knew the system of Govern- oath, and even without the oath, all this in the continuous effort to destroy ment. And she did have to answer that the way to the nuclear explosion of the rights of Paula Jones, a fellow in naturalization court. And she knew falsehoods that were uttered in the American citizen. that one wall of the creed that protects grand jury in August of 1998. That brings up the question. If some- our rights is the ‘‘judish.’’ She knew This little innocuous piece of paper one, a member of your family, or some- that the courthouse and the rights of called interrogatories was placed be- one who is a witness to these proceed- citizens which are advanced in that fore the President presumably with or ings has a serious case in which one’s courthouse are the system of Govern- without counsel. Let’s even presume self, one’s property, one’s family has ment. Can anyone say that purposely with counsel. And it was a straight been severely damaged, would you suf- attempting to destroy someone’s case question, not with any definitions, no fer without a whimper perjurious testi- in the courthouse is not an attack on confusing colloquy between a judge and mony given against you? Would you, the system of Government of our coun- a gaggle of lawyers, no interpretation knowing down deep that at the end of try? being put on any particular word in the the day it had caused you to lose your Mr. CHABOT will elucidate on perjury. interrogatories, but whether or not chance at retribution and a chance to The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- sexual relations had been urged or par- be compensated for damages, to restore ognizes Mr. Manager CHABOT. ticipated in by the President of the your family life? Mr. Manager CHABOT. Mr. Chief Jus- United States, and the answer was Isn’t that what our system is all tice, Senators, distinguished counsel none in naming those persons. about? Isn’t that what the adverse con- for the President, I am STEVE CHABOT. January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S269 I represent the First District of Ohio. The intent element requires that the This is not the conduct of someone Prior to my election to Congress, I false testimony was knowingly stated who believed he had testified truth- practiced law in Cincinnati for about 15 and described. This requirement is gen- fully. It is not the conduct of someone years. As I stand before you today, I erally satisfied by proof that the de- who acted through ignorance, mistake must admit that I feel a long way away fendant knew his testimony was false or accident. Rather, it is the conduct of from that small neighborhood law at the time it was provided. As with al- someone who lied, knew he had lied, practice that I had. Though, while this most all perjury cases, you will have to and needed others to modify their sto- arena may be somewhat foreign to me, make a decision regarding the Presi- ries accordingly. the law remains the same. As one of dent’s knowledge of his own false state- Finally, it is painstakingly clear dur- the managers who represents the ments based on the surrounding facts ing the President’s grand jury testi- House, I am here to summarize the law and, yes, by circumstantial evidence. mony that he, again, knows exactly of perjury. While today’s discussion of This does not in any way weaken the what he is doing. Let’s again watch the the law may not be as captivating as case against the President. In the ab- following excerpt from that testimony. yesterday’s discussion of the facts, it is sence of an admission by the defendant, (Text of videotape presentation:) nevertheless essential that we thor- relying on circumstantial evidence is .. . was an utterly false statement. Is that correct? oughly review the law as we move for- virtually the only way to prove the A It depends on what the meaning of the ward in this historic process. I will try crime of perjury. word ‘‘is’’ is. The Federal jury instructions which to lay out the law of perjury as suc- In this instance, and in many others cinctly as I can without using an ex- Federal courts use in perjury cases can that have been presented to you over traordinary amount of the Senate’s provide helpful guidance in under- the last 2 days, the facts and the law time but beg you to indulge me. standing what is meant by the require- speak plainly. In the United States Criminal Code, ment that the false statement must be The President’s actions and de- there are two perjury offenses. The of- made knowingly. Let me quote from meanor make the case that President fenses are found in sections 1621 and the Federal jury instructions: Clinton knowingly and willfully lied 1623 of title 18 of the United States When the word ‘‘knowingly’’ is used, it under oath in a grand jury proceeding Criminal Code. Section 1621 is the means that the defendant realized what he and in a civil deposition. The compel- broad perjury statute which makes it a was doing and was aware of the nature of his ling evidence in this case satisfies the Federal offense to knowingly and will- conduct, and did not act through ignorance, mistake or accident. intent element required under both fully make a false statement about a sections 1621 and 1623 of the Federal material matter while under oath. Sec- So as you reflect on the President’s Criminal Code. tion 1623 is the more specific perjury carefully calculated statements, re- The next element, falsity. The next statute which makes it a Federal of- member the Federal jury instructions element of perjury is falsity. In order fense to knowingly make a false state- and ask a few simple questions: Did the for perjury to occur in this case, the ment about a material matter while President realize what he was doing, President must have made one or more under oath before a Federal court or what he was saying? Was he aware of false statements. Yesterday my col- before a Federal grand jury. the nature of his conduct or did the leagues went through the evidence on It is a well-settled rule that when President simply act through igno- this matter in great detail and clearly two criminal statutes overlap, the Gov- rance, mistake or accident? demonstrated that the President did, ernment may charge a defendant under The answers to these questions are in fact, make false statements while either one. As you know, the Presi- undeniably clear even to the Presi- under oath. Because of the evidence dent’s false statements covered in the dent’s own attorneys. In fact, Mr. Ruff that was presented to date, without first impeachment article were made and Mr. Craig testified before the Judi- question the President’s falsity and his before a Federal grand jury. Therefore, ciary Committee that the President false statements have been shown, so I section 1623 is the most relevant stat- willfully misled the court. Let’s listen am going to move forward to the final ute. However, section 1621 is applicable to Mr. Ruff. element of perjury, which is material- as well. (Text of videotape presentation:) ity. The elements of perjury. There are Mr. RUFF. I’m going to respond to your The test for whether a statement is four general elements of perjury. They question. I have no doubt that he walked up material, as stated by the Supreme are an oath, an intent, falsity, and ma- to a line that he thought he understood rea- Court in Kungys v. United States, is teriality. I would like to walk you sonable people—and you maybe have reached simply whether it had a ‘‘natural tend- this conclusion—could determine that he through each of those elements at this crossed over that line and that what for him ency to influence’’ or was ‘‘capable of time. was truthful but misleading or nonrespon- influencing’’ the official proceeding. First, the oath. sive and misleading or evasive was in fact The law also makes clear that the false The oath need not be administered in false. statement does not have to actually a particular form, but it must be ad- In an extraordinary admission, the impede the grand jury’s investigation ministered by a person or body legally President’s own attorney has acknowl- for the statement to be material. authorized to do so. In this case, there edged the care, the intention, the will The law regarding the materiality of has been no serious challenge made of the President to say precisely what false statements before a grand jury is about the legitimacy of the oath ad- he said. very straightforward. Because a grand ministered to the President either in The President’s actions speak vol- jury’s authority to investigate is his civil deposition in the Jones v. umes about his intent to make false broad, the realm of declarations re- Clinton case or before the Federal statements under oath. For example, garded as material is broad. The Presi- grand jury. Let’s, once again, witness the President called his secretary, dent’s false statements to the grand President Clinton swearing to tell the Betty Currie, within hours of conclud- jury were material because the grand truth before a Federal grand jury. ing his civil deposition and asked her jury was investigating whether the (Videotape presentation.) to come to the White House the follow- President had obstructed justice and The oath element has clearly been ing day. President Clinton then recited committed perjury in a civil deposi- satisfied in this case. false characterizations to her about his tion. The next element is intent. To this relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. As Now let’s look at potential legal day, the President has refused to ac- you have already heard, Ms. Currie tes- smokescreens. The President’s attor- knowledge what the vast majority of tified that the President made the fol- neys will try to distract you from the Americans know to be true—that he lowing statements to her: relevant law and facts in this case. To knowingly lied under oath. The Presi- help you stay focused on the law, I dent’s continued inability to tell the You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone. You could would like to preview some of the argu- truth, the whole truth and nothing but see and hear everything. Monica came on to ments that may be made by the Presi- the truth has forced this body, this me, and I never touched her, right? She dent’s attorneys. jury, to determine the President’s true wanted to have sex with me, and I can’t do Legal smokescreen No. 1, the intent. that. Bronston case. You will probably hear S270 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 opposing counsel argue that the Presi- again in the case of the President be- as they are defined and used in various dent did not technically commit per- fore the grand jury. criminal statutes. jury, and appeal to the case of Legal smokescreen No. 2, the two- While the article of impeachment Bronston v. United States. This is a witness rule. In the coming days you does not draw a distinction between legal smokescreen. In the Bronston may hear opposing counsel argue that the standards, evidence has been pre- case, the Supreme Court held that the President did not commit perjury sented over the last 2 days that dem- statements that are literally truthful by appealing to the so-called two-wit- onstrates that the President did know- and nonresponsive cannot by them- ness rule. Again, this is nothing but a ingly and willfully lie under oath re- selves form the basis for a perjury con- legal smokescreen. This common law garding material matters before a viction. This is the cornerstone of the rule requires that there be either two grand jury, and that satisfies both 1623 President’s defense. However, the witnesses to a perjurious statement or, and 1621. Court also held that the unresponsive in the alternative, that there be one Again, in the context of perjury law, statements must be technically true in witness and corroborating evidence of the distinction between a knowing order to prevent a perjury conviction; the perjury. Opposing counsel may sug- falsehood and a willful falsehood is al- such statements must not be capable of gest that, because there were not two most a distinction without a dif- being conclusively proven false. witnesses present for some of the Presi- ference. In American Surety Company As we have seen, none of the Presi- dent’s false statements, he did not v. Sullivan, the Second Circuit stated dent’s perjurious statements before the technically commit perjury. Such an that ‘‘the word ‘willful,’ even in a grand jury, covered in the first im- appeal to the two-witness rule is wrong criminal statute, means no more than peachment article, are technically for several reasons. the person charged with the duty true. So, when the President’s counsel First, the two-witness rule is not ap- knows what he is doing.’’ cites the Bronston case, remember the plicable under section 1623, only under So that, in essence, is the law of per- facts. Ask yourselves, are the Presi- 1621. The language of 1623 expressly jury. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the dent’s answers literally true? And re- provides, ‘‘it shall not be necessary Senate, throughout this long and dif- member, to be literally true they must that such proof be made by any par- ficult process, apologists for the Presi- actually be true. ticular number of witnesses or by docu- dent have maintained that his actions It is also important to note that, mentary or other type of evidence.’’ might well have been reprehensible but consistent with the Bronston case, the Congress passed section 1623 back in are not necessarily worthy of impeach- response, ‘‘I don’t recall,’’ is not tech- 1970 to eliminate the two-witness re- ment and removal from office. I sub- nically true if the President actually quirement and to facilitate the pros- mit, however, that telling the truth could recall. The factual record in the ecution of perjury and enhance the re- under oath is critically important to case, consisting of multiple sworn liability of testimony before Federal our judicial system and that perjury, of statements contradicting the Presi- courts and Federal grand juries. The which I believe a compelling case is dent’s testimony and highly specific legislative history establishes this as being made, strikes a terrible blow corroborating evidence, demonstrates the fundamental purpose of the stat- against the machinery of justice in this that the President’s statements were ute. country. not literally true or legally accurate. Additionally, substantial evidence The President of the United States, On the contrary, the record establishes has been presented over the last 2 days the chief law enforcement officer of that the President repeatedly lied, he to satisfy the requirements of the two- this land, lied under oath. He raised his repeatedly deceived, he repeatedly witness rule under section 1621. Re- right hand and he swore to tell the feigned forgetfulness. member, when the two-witness rule ap- truth, the whole truth, and nothing but There are other clear and important plies, it does not actually require two the truth, and then he lied. Pure and limitations on the Bronston case’s witnesses. Indeed, it requires either simple. scope. In United States v. DeZarn, two witnesses or one witness and cor- Why is perjury such a serious of- handed down just 3 months ago by the roborating evidence. As you know, fense? Under the American system of 6th circuit court of appeals, the court there is a witness to each and every justice, our courts are charged with made an important ruling that is di- one of the President’s false statements seeking the truth. Every day, Amer- rectly on point in this case. The court and there is voluminous evidence ican citizens raise their right hands in of appeals stated: which corroborates the falsehood of his courtrooms across the country and Because we believe that the crime of per- statements. take an oath to tell the truth. Break- jury depends not only upon the clarity of the Finally, case law tells us that the questioning itself, but also upon the knowl- ing that oath cripples our justice sys- two-witness rule is not applicable tem. By lying under oath, the Presi- edge and reasonable understanding of the under certain circumstances, when the testifier [President Clinton] as to what is dent did not just commit perjury, an defendant falsely claims an inability to meant by the questioning, we hold that a de- offense punishable under our criminal fendant may be found guilty of perjury if a recall a material matter. code, but he chipped away at the very jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt Another possible legal smokescreen, cornerstone of our judicial system. from the evidence presented that the defend- the drafting of article I, article I being The first Chief Justice of the United ant knew what the question meant and gave the first article of impeachment. States of the Supreme Court, John knowingly untruthful and materially mis- As you know, impeachment article I Jay, eloquently stated why perjury is leading answers in response. says: so dangerous over 200 years ago. On The Bronston case has further limi- Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson June 25, 1792, in a charge to the grand tations. For example, in United States Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false jury of the Circuit Court for the Dis- v. Swindall, the court held that the and misleading testimony to the grand trict of Vermont, the Chief Justice jury can convict for perjury even if the jury . . . said: questions or statements involved are You may hear opposing counsel argue Independent of the abominable Insult capable of multiple interpretations that section 1621 is the only applicable which Perjury offers to the divine Being, where only one interpretation is rea- statute because the article of impeach- there is no Crime more extensively per- sonable under the circumstances sur- ment accuses the President of willfully nicious to Society. It discolours and poisons rounding their utterances. committing perjury. This is another Streams of Justice, and by substituting In United States v. Doherty, the legal smokescreen. Falsehood for Truth, saps the Foundations of court held that the prosecution for per- Following that reasoning, one could personal and public Rights—Controversies of jury is not barred under Bronston, just as easily make the argument that various kinds exist at all Times, and in all ‘‘whenever some ambiguity can be 1623 was contemplated here because the Communities. To decide them, Courts of Jus- found by an implausibly strained read- term ‘‘false’’ does not appear in 1621 tice are instituted—their Decisions must be regulated by Evidence, and the greater part ing of the question’’ posed. I would sub- but does appear in 1623. However, that of Evidence will always consist of the Testi- mit to this body that ‘‘implausibly is not the point. The point is that the mony of witnesses. This Testimony is given strained reading of the question’’ posed language of the impeachment article under those solemn obligations which an ap- is precisely what confronts us time and did not use these terms as terms of art peal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S271 should cease to be held sacred, our dearest vented, obstructed, and impeded the deavored to influence, obstruct or im- and most valuable Rights would become in- administration of justice, both person- pede the due administration of justice. secure. ally and through his subordinates and The statute is broadly applicable to all Why has the President been im- agents, and that he did so as part of a phases of judicial proceedings. peached by the U.S. House of Rep- pattern designed to delay, impede, Brenson described due administra- resentatives? Why is he on trial here cover up, and conceal the existence of tion of justice as ‘‘providing a protec- today in the U.S. Senate? Because he evidence and testimony related to a tive cloak over all judicial proceedings, lied under oath. Because he committed Federal civil rights action brought regardless of the stage in which the im- perjury. Because if the oaths cease to against him. proper activity occurs.’’ be held sacred, our dearest and most Article II specifies seven separate in- Section 1503 is also intended to pro- valuable rights will become insecure. stances in which the President acted to tect the discovery phase of a judicial During the course of this trial, Mem- obstruct justice. The House believes proceeding, stating that the phrase bers of this distinguished body, the ju- the evidence in this case proves that ‘‘due administration of justice’’ is in- rors in this case, will have to consider each of the seven separate acts which tended to provide a ‘‘free and fair op- the law and the facts very carefully. It comprise the President’s scheme con- portunity to every litigant in a pend- is a daunting task and an awesome re- stitutes obstruction of justice. ing case in Federal court to learn what sponsibility, one that cannot be taken I would like to draw your attention he may learn . . . concerning the mate- lightly. I humbly suggest to those sit- at this time to the chart on my right, rial facts and to exercise his option as ting in judgment of the President that and the first page in your packet, to introducing testimony of such we must all weigh the impact of our ac- which depicts elements of section 1503: facts.’’ tions, not only on our beloved Nation (a) Whoever . . . corruptly . . . influences The House believes that the facts of today, but on American history. It is obstructs or impedes; or endeavors to influ- this case make it very clear that the my belief that if the actions of the ence, obstruct or impede, the due adminis- President did, corruptly, impair the President are ultimately disregarded tration of justice, shall be punished as pro- ability of a litigant in Federal court to or minimized, we will be sending a vided in subsection (b). learn all of the facts that she was enti- (b) The punishment for an offense under sorry message to the American people this section is . . . tled to learn. In doing so, the President that the President of the United States (3) . . . imprisonment for not more than 10 committed obstruction of justice under is above the law. We will be sending a years, a fine under this title, or both. section 1503. message to our children, to my chil- Section 1503 is often referred to as The other Federal crime which the dren, that telling the truth doesn’t the general obstruction statute. It de- President committed was witness tam- really matter if you have a good lawyer scribes obstruction simply as an im- pering under section 1512 of title 18. or you are an exceptionally skilled pact on the due administration of jus- Again, I refer you to the chart on my liar. That would be tragic. tice. right, and to the second page in the Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, let us in- Section 1503 deems it criminal to use package, which depicts the elements of stead send a message to the American force or threats, or to otherwise act the section. people and to the boys and girls who corruptly, in order to influence, ob- (b) Whoever knowingly . . . corruptly per- will be studying American history in struct, or impede the due administra- suades another person, or attempts to do so, the years to come that no person is tion of justice. or engages in misleading conduct toward an- above the law and that this great Na- Federal court rulings clarify that it other person, with intent to— (1) influence, delay or prevent the testi- tion remains an entity governed by the is not necessary for a defendant to suc- rule of law. Let us do what is right. Let mony of any person in an official proceeding; ceed in obstructing justice. Again, I di- or us do what is just. Thank you. rect your attention to the chart, or the (2) cause or induce any person to— The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- accompanying chart, in your package. (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a . . . ognizes Mr. Manager CANNON. Russell and Aguilar each ruled that document . . . or an object . . . from an offi- Mr. Manager CANNON. Mr. Chief it is not necessary that a defendant’s cial proceeding; Justice, Senators, distinguished coun- endeavor succeed for him to have vio- . . . shall be fined under this title, or im- prisoned for not more than ten years or both. sel of the President, my name is CHRIS lated the law. Rather, simply attempt- CANNON. I represent Utah’s Third Con- ing to influence, obstruct, or impede Sections 1503 and 1512 differ in an im- gressional District. the due administration of justice vio- portant way. There does not need to be John Locke once said, ‘‘Wherever law lates the statute. a case pending at the time the defend- ends, tyranny begins.’’ And speaking to Maggitt clearly stated, ‘‘it is the en- ant acts to violate the law under sec- our American experience, Teddy Roo- deavor to bring about a forbidden re- tion 1512. The statute specifically sevelt added, ‘‘No man is above the law sult and not the success in actually states that ‘‘for the purpose of this sec- and no man is below it; nor do we ask achieving the result, that is forbid- tion, an official proceeding need not be any man’s permission when we require den.’’ pending or about to be instituted at him to obey it. Obedience to the law is For the Government to prove a sec- the time of the offense . . .’’ for the demanded as a right; not as a favor.’’ tion 1503 crime, it must demonstrate crime to be committed. This case is about the violation of that the defendant acted with intent. Putting it another way, a person may law. My task is to clarify what the law This can be shown through use of force, attempt to tamper with a witness and states pertaining to obstruction of jus- threats by the defendant, or by simply commit the crime of witness tampering tice and what legal precedent is appli- showing that the defendant acted ‘‘cor- before such a person is called as a wit- cable to the charges against William ruptly.’’ The following chart gives ness and even before there is a case un- Jefferson Clinton. three case histories regarding the term derway in which that person might be While both the laws and the viola- ‘‘acting corruptly.’’ called to testify. tions in this case are clear and direct, Haldeman and Sprecher held that a For the Government to prove the the presentation I am about to make defendant acts corruptly by having an crime of witness tampering, it must will not be simple. I ask your indul- evil or improper purpose or intent. prove that the defendant acted with gence and attention as I walk you Barfield defined ‘‘acting corruptly’’ the intent to cause one of several re- through case history and statutory ele- as knowingly and intentionally acting sults. The defendant can be convicted if ments. I promise to be brief—probably in order to encourage obstruction. he acted to influence, delay or prevent less than a half-hour—and direct. Sprecher also ruled the Government the testimony of any person in an offi- I will present the legal underpinnings need not prove the actual intent of the cial proceeding; or the defendant can of the law of obstruction of justice. defendant, but, rather, the intent to be convicted if he acted to cause an- You should have before you the full act corruptly can be inferred from that other person to withhold an object text of this speech, including full cita- proof that the defendant knew corrupt from an official proceeding. tions to cases and copies of the charts actions would obstruct the justice In the case before us, the evidence I will use in this presentation. being administered. proves that the President endeavored Article II of the articles of impeach- Under section 1503, the Government to cause both of these results on sev- ment alleges that the President pre- must also prove that the defendant en- eral occasions. And the Government S272 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 may show intent on the part of the de- engaged in obstruction toward her. The interfere with the due administration fendant in several ways. It may prove court of appeals rejected that asser- of justice in the Federal civil rights the use of intimidation, physical force tion. In affirming the conviction, the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. or threats; or it may prove intent by court held ‘‘neither must the target be President Clinton corruptly endeav- showing the use of corrupt persuasion scheduled to testify at the time of the ored to persuade witnesses to lie. In or misleading conduct. offense nor must he or she actually some cases, he succeeded. In every In this case, the evidence shows that give testimony at a later time. It is case, he violated the law. on several occasions the President only necessary that there is a possibil- President Clinton engaged in mis- acted corruptly to persuade some wit- ity that the target of the defendant’s leading conduct in order to influence nesses, and engaged in misleading con- activities be called on to testify in an the testimony of witnesses in judicial duct toward others, in order to influ- official proceeding.’’ proceedings. He succeeded. In each ence their testimony and cause them The witness tampering statute can be case, he violated the law. to withhold evidence or give wrongful violated even when no case is pending. President Clinton acted with an im- testimony. In each instance, the Presi- Therefore, it will not always be clear proper purpose to persuade a person to dent violated the witness tampering to whom the defendant intended the in- withhold objects from a judicial pro- statute. dividual to testify—and the statute ceeding in which that person was re- How does acting corruptly to per- does not require proof of this. quired to produce them. He succeeded suade a witness differ from engaging in In Morrison, the United States Court and in so doing he violated the law. President Clinton made misleading misleading conduct? Section 1515 in of Appeals for the District of Columbia statements for the purpose of deterring title 18 states: explained that section 1512 is violated if the defendant asks a person to lie a litigant from further discovery that (a) as used in section 1512 [the witness tam- ‘‘to anyone who asks.’’ The court held would lead to facts which the judge or- pering section] . . . of this title and this dered relevant in a Federal civil rights section— that it is not necessary that the de- (3) the term ‘‘misleading conduct’’ means— fendant even use the words ‘‘testify’’ or case. In so doing, he obstructed the due (A) knowingly making a false statement; ‘‘trial’’ when he tries to influence the administration of justice in that case or testimony of the other person. In such and violated the law. (B) intentionally omitting information a case, there are no subpoenas, there Whether attempting to persuade a from a statement and thereby causing a por- are no witness lists. person to testify falsely, or to ignore tion of such statement to be misleading, or The mere attempt to influence the court orders to produce objects; wheth- intentionally concealing a material fact, and person to lie, if asked, is the crime. er suggesting to an innocent person a thereby creating a false impression by such false story in hopes that he or she will statement; or So, under either section 1503 or 1512, (C) with intent to mislead, knowingly sub- the fact that the target of a defend- repeat it in a judicial proceedings; or mitting or inviting reliance on a writing or ant’s actions is not named as a witness, testifying falsely in the hopes of block- recording that is false, forged, altered or oth- or whether the person is not ever called ing another party’s pursuit of the erwise lacking in authenticity; to be a witness, is immaterial. truth—all these acts obstruct justice; The difference between corruptly per- The focus of both statutes is on what all these acts are Federal felony suading a witness and engaging in mis- the defendant believed. crimes; all these acts were committed leading conduct toward the witness de- If the defendant believes that it is by William Jefferson Clinton. pends on the witness’ level of knowl- possible that some person might some Thank you. edge about the truth of the defendant’s day be called to testify at some later The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- statement. proceeding and then acted to influence, ognizes the majority leader. Rodolitz held that misleading con- delay or prevent his or her testimony, RECESS duct involves a situation ‘‘where a de- the defendant commits the crime. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask fendant tells a potential witness a false Now, some have asserted that an ob- unanimous consent that there now be a story as if the story were true, intend- struction of justice charge cannot, or recess again of the proceedings for 15 ing that the witness believe the story should not, be made against the Presi- minutes. Please return promptly to the and testify to it before the grand jury.’’ dent because some of his acts occurred Chamber. There being no objection, at 3:29 Let me clarify this detail: If a de- in the context of a civil trial. There is p.m., the Senate recessed until 3:47 fendant simply asks a witness to lie simply no merit to this view. There is no question that the ob- p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassem- and the witness knows that he is being struction and witness tampering stat- bled when called to order by the Chief asked to lie, then the defendant is cor- utes can be violated by acts that occur Justice. ruptly persuading the witness. In con- in civil proceedings. And, case law is The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- trast, if a defendant lies to a witness, consistent in upholding that any at- ognizes the majority leader. hoping the witness will believe his tempt to influence, obstruct or impede Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I be- story, this is misleading conduct. They the due administration of justice in a lieve we are ready for the final subject are different, but they are both crimi- civil proceeding violates section 1503. today, from Manager BARR. nal. Lundwall, which I referred to earlier, The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- Some may ask if it is necessary that is a perfect example, as it began as a ognizes Mr. Manager BARR. the witness who is influenced or tam- civil case. Mr. Manager BARR. Thank you, Mr. pered with know that he or she might The actual language of the witness Chief Justice. be called to testify? The answer is no. tampering statute makes it clear that Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, learned And both sections 1503 and 1512 an- it also applies to civil cases. counsel for the President, and fellow swer this question: The statute provides for enhanced managers, on behalf of the House of The witness tampering statute can be penalties in criminal proceedings—a Representatives, I thank the Senate for violated even if the victim has not been provision that would be unnecessary if the opportunity to appear today and to subpoenaed or listed as a potential wit- the law were only to apply to criminal present this argument. The House—and ness in an ongoing proceeding. cases. I, especially—greatly appreciate the In Shannon, the U.S. Court of Ap- In short, the fact that some instances time and effort the Senate has taken peals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed of the President’s misconduct occurred on this most important and notable the conviction of a defendant under in the course of a civil proceeding does matter. section 1503 who had attempted to in- not absolve him of criminal liability. You have heard the facts summarized fluence the testimony of a person who As Mr. BARR will demonstrate, the by my colleagues. They have described had not yet been subpoenaed or placed President of the United States endeav- for you the law of perjury and the law on a witness list. On appeal, the de- ored and did obstruct justice and tam- of obstruction. I will discuss several of fendant argued that because the target per with witnesses in violation of the the specific instances in which William of the obstruction had not yet become law of the United States. Jefferson Clinton violated these laws an official witness in the case, it was On numerous occasions he acted with as set forth in the articles of impeach- impossible for the defendant to have an improper purpose with the intent to ment presented to you. January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S273 The process facing you as jurors, of jurors themselves is not presented also, as here, a very clear distinction fitting the Federal law of obstruction through a long array, a repetitive between the body that charges the of justice and of witness tampering and array of witnesses themselves—wit- crime, the grand jury, and the body of perjury into the facts of the case nesses, that is, with firsthand knowl- that tries the crime—that is, the jury, against President William Jefferson edge of each and every fact, which and in this case it is the Senate of the Clinton, is not a case in which there is would later be proved at trial. Rather, United States of America. nor should be a great deal of difficulty. it is the more standard procedure—cer- A second point that may very well It is not a problem of fitting a round tainly in Federal courts, with which I come up, perhaps, in the presentation peg into a square hole. Quite the con- am more familiar—for the Government of the defense by the President’s trary. We have a case here, you have a to present its case to the grand jury by learned counsel, which although very case here, for consideration in which way of summary witnesses. Normally, familiar to those of us, as there are the fit between fact and law is as pre- that would mean case agents that have many in this Chamber with a legal cise as the finely tuned mechanism of a been working with the assistant U.S. background, but which I think also is Swiss watch or as seamless a process as attorneys, or with the U.S. attorney, in important to keep in mind as you re- the convergence and confluence of two gathering and evaluating the evidence flect on and later deliberate on the evi- great rivers such as flow through many that will eventually be brought to bear dence itself in this case; and that is of the cities which you represent. The in the trial of the case. that there are, indeed, two types of evi- evidence that President William Jeffer- If one were to be a fly on the wall of dence. In virtually every case, which- son Clinton committed perjury and ob- a Federal grand jury, one would nor- ever finds its way to a court of law and struction of justice is overwhelming. mally see witnesses for the Govern- results in a trial, both types of evi- These are pattern offenses. ment that would come in and discuss dence are found, used, considered, and I beg your attention to the following the general parameters and the specific form the basis, legitimately, for the exposition of facts and law, but before evidence of the case that they would eventual rendering of a decision by a commencing, I would like to address present in court, frequently summariz- jury. Those two types of evidence are three issues that have come up during ing the actual evidence that would be direct and circumstantial. the course of the proceedings, which I presented in court by the witnesses Frequently—and I know this from ac- believe might be helpful for all of us to themselves. That is the standard oper- tual experience—defense lawyers will keep in mind as we proceed not only ating procedure. That is not to say attack the Government’s case, and one through today’s final presentations, that there is also not presented volu- of the standard attacks that they level but tomorrow’s and those that will be minous written evidence, documentary against the Government’s case is that made by learned counsel for the Presi- evidence. That is frequently the case as it is based on circumstantial evidence. dent. well. Nor is that to say that there are You even hear that by the folks out First, by way of background on the not, from time to time, cases presented there today—not in this room—that process—that is, the process that to Federal grand juries in which there are saying, ‘‘Oh, all we are seeing is brings us, the House managers, to the are actual witnesses with firsthand circumstantial evidence and that is not well of this great body and the trial of knowledge. as good as direct evidence.’’ the President of the United States of I will simply make a point of which Now, to the lay person who is unfa- America—as has been indicated pre- we are all aware. I think as we begin, miliar with the ways of our laws, our viously by one of my colleague House or in anticipation of your process of courts, and the work of this great body, managers, and as everyone here knows sifting through all of this procedure, that may have some currency, it may full well, the responsibilities, the juris- this evidence, all of this law, we should have some surface appeal. They may diction, and the process between the keep in mind that our job in the House say, ‘‘Well, that commentator was House of Representatives and the Sen- was to approach it necessarily very dif- right, and that White House spokesman ate is very different in all three of ferent from the way you approach your was right. If all they are doing is talk- those respects. Therefore, while coming job as jurors, as triers of fact. We, in ing about circumstantial evidence, as no surprise to all of you, all of us in fact, presented to the House of Rep- they can’t have a very strong case, be- this room, but perhaps to some in resentatives, through the work on our cause if they had a strong case, they America, the steps that each body Judiciary Committee, a large volume would have direct evidence.’’ takes, and should take and must take, of evidence presented to us and Well, the fact of the matter is, it is a are very different. through us to the House of Representa- principle of long and consistent stand- Just as one example, one might ask, tives as the charging body, not the ing in every Federal court in our land, ‘‘Why were no witnesses called in the trier of fact body. That is, to essen- and I suspect every State court in our House of Representatives?’’ A valid tially summarize and discuss through land, and as directed by every Federal question. It deserves a valid answer. the words, through the opinions of the judge to every Federal jury taking evi- That valid answer can be found not independent counsel, as akin to the dence, circumstantial evidence is to be, simply in impeachment proceedings chief investigative officer in a grand and shall not be afforded any less and the history thereof, but also in the jury in Federal district court, through weight than direct evidence. And triers day-in/day-out proceedings in our Fed- the words of many expert witnesses, as of fact are directed by judges in every eral courts and in our State courts. It it were, who placed all of that in con- case not to accord less weight to one can be found in the difference between text. type of evidence as opposed to the the body which has responsibility and We did not want to usurp your duty, other. That is, in the words of one of jurisdiction for charging a crime and your responsibility given to you by the my fellow managers, a smokescreen, a the jurisdiction and responsibility of Constitution as the trier of fact. We red herring if somebody raises as a de- the body that has responsibility for are not that presumptuous. It is your fense in a case—this case or other trying a crime, or an alleged crime. responsibility, it is your solemn duty cases—that the case is weakened some- The House of Representatives, though to be the trier of fact. That is very dif- how because there is a reliance on cir- it is not in every respect like a grand ferent from our solemn duty, which I cumstantial evidence and it is not jury, operates much more like a grand believe the House performed admirably found solely on direct evidence. jury than a petite jury. As something in essentially reaching the conclusion That is a very important principle. I akin to a grand jury, we had in mind— that there is probable cause to convict would appreciate your indulgence in and I know you have in mind—being the President of perjury and obstruc- that small foray into some basic pre- very mindful and knowledgeable about tion of justice. And we did so in a way cepts that I think all of us, certainly the difference in procedure between the that is mindful and respectful of your most of you included, need to keep in House and Senate on matters of im- responsibilities, that carried out our mind. peachment, that frequently in court responsibilities, and that is familiar to Finally, there is one other sort of cases presented to Federal grand ju- citizens all across this land, because it process argument that one hears sort ries—and I suspect similarly to State is essentially the same process that op- of floating around in the ether out grand juries—the evidence to the grand erates in Federal courts where you see there that I think also is important for S274 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 all of us to keep in mind; that is, facts every historical standard, every histor- ity. The President has admitted Ms. and the law do bear repeating—not ical benchmark which this Chamber Lewinsky was the woman with whom endless, not pointless, but appropriate has used, there is more than sufficient he indeed had an improper intimate re- repetition. Even today, even yesterday grounds on which you might face a lationship while President. And he has in the first round of presentations to conviction as to both articles. admitted he was very concerned over this body, there was in fact repetition Beginning then in looking at how the the great personal embarrassment and of certain facts, certain aspects of the facts and the law, both of which you humiliation he feared would have oc- law. That is not presented to you sim- have heard through the words and ex- curred if that relationship had been re- ply to emphasize a point, simply to hibits of my colleagues and the evi- vealed in the Jones case. Yet, he would make it appear stronger because we dence that you already have, let us have you believe he cannot remember a say it five times instead of two. There look first at the submission of the false call he made to that woman about that is a very important reason for appro- affidavit in the Jones case. case which occurred at 2 o’clock in the priate repetition. We believe the evidence presented morning. His statement is not credible, For example, in a case such as this clearly establishes that on December and the reason it is not credible is be- where you have two sets of laws alleged 17, 1997, the President encouraged a cause it is not true. to have been violated—perjury laws witness in a Federal civil rights action As Mr. Jordan’s grand jury testimony and obstruction of justice laws—each brought against him, that witness corroborates, the President knew what one of those has several different ele- being Monica Lewinsky, to execute a Ms. Lewinsky planned to allege in her ments. And, in addition to that, it is sworn affidavit in that proceeding affidavit, yet the President took no ac- legitimate as presenters of facts in the which he knew to be perjurious, false, tion to stop her from filing it. As you law for managers, for prosecutors, or and misleading. As other managers have heard in earlier presentations, the plaintiff’s attorneys to take a particu- have outlined, Monica Lewinsky filed a President’s lawyer, Mr. Robert Ben- lar fact, a particular note, and use it to sworn affidavit in the Jones case that nett, stated in court directly to Judge illustrate several different points. For denied the relationship between her Wright when he presented the false af- example, one particular fact may pro- and the President. That affidavit was fidavit, ‘‘There is absolutely no sex of vide evidence of motive. It may also false. any kind in any manner, shape or provide one of the substantive ele- Ms. Lewinsky testified under oath form,’’ and that the President was ments of perjury or obstruction of jus- before the grand jury that the scheme ‘‘fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky’s affida- tice, or it may go to the state of mind to file this false affidavit was devised vit.’’ The President took no action to of a declarant, a witness. It may pro- or hatched during a telephone con- correct his lawyer’s misstatement. vide important evidence with regard to versation with the President on De- As you have also heard, the Presi- a course of conduct, prior knowledge, cember 17, 1997, a call the President dent, in his grand jury testimony, tried and the list goes on. initiated to Ms. Lewinsky at 2 or 2:30 to disingenuously dissect the words of That is why, Senators, frequently in a.m. ostensibly to give her the bad his attorney to remove his conduct the course of these particular presen- news that Betty Currie’s brother had from further examination, even though tations—and, again, no different from been killed in a car accident but appar- obviously, and by any reasonable inter- the course of presentation in Federal ently, since it consumed the vast ma- pretation or inference of the definition and, I suspect, State courts throughout jority of the time of that conversation, given the President, his conduct with the land—in trials there necessarily is more importantly, for the President to Ms. Lewinsky was covered. And he dis- and should be, in order to responsibly tell Ms. Lewinsky her name was on the avowed knowledge of his lawyer’s rep- present all of the evidence in all of its witness list filed in the Jones case and resentations by claiming he was not elements, certain repetition. Our job as to thereafter discuss during that con- paying attention. That canard has been managers is to make sure we do not versation the President’s suggestion to most ably disposed of in prior presen- abuse that necessity and that we do her that she could file an affidavit in tations both through the words of the not in fact offer repetitive notion, re- the Jones case in order for the purpose managers and the videotape presen- petitive references, without having a of avoiding having to testify in that tations. very clear and specific purpose such as case—not to cover up but in order to Later in the deposition, when Mr. I mentioned for that process. avoid having to testify in an ongoing Bennett read to the President the por- Finally, before turning to that merg- legal proceeding in U.S. district court. tion of the affidavit in which Ms. er of the law and the facts, which I be- She testified that both she and the Lewinsky denies their relationship and lieve will illustrate conclusively that President understood from their con- asked him ‘‘is that a true and accurate this President has committed and versation they would continue their statement as far as you know it,’’ the ought to be convicted on perjury and pattern of covering up. She testified President answered, ‘‘That is abso- obstruction of justice, I would respect- she knew that if she filed a truthful af- lutely true.’’ This statement is neither fully ask that you remember that, fidavit the Jones lawyers would cer- credible nor true. It is perjury. under the law of impeachment based on tainly have deposed her in that case. The inescapable conclusion from this our Constitution, proof beyond a rea- The testimony of Mr. Vernon Jordan evidence is that the President has lied, sonable doubt that the President com- confirms the President knew Ms. and continues to lie, about the affida- mitted each and every element of one Lewinsky planned to file a false affida- vit. His continued false statements and or more violations of provisions of the vit. He stated that, based on his con- denials about the affidavit bolster the Federal Criminal Code has never been versations with the President, that the conclusion of our managers that, in required to sustain a conviction in any President knew in advance that Ms. fact, he was part of the scheme to file prior impeachment trial in the Senate. Lewinsky planned to execute an affida- the false affidavit. The evidence sup- However—and I can say confidently vit denying their relationship and that ports Ms. Lewinsky’s account that that I speak for all House managers in he later informed the President Ms. such a scheme did in fact exist between relating to you our belief that the Lewinsky had signed in fact that false them. The evidence and all reasonable record and the law applicable to these affidavit. inferences drawn therefrom do not sup- two articles of impeachment clearly es- For his part, the President denies port the President’s denial—inferences, tablish that President William Jeffer- asking Ms. Lewinsky to execute a false I respectfully add, that in your delib- son Clinton did in fact violate several affidavit. Instead, as he asserted in his erations, as in the deliberations of any provisions of title 18 of the United response to the House Judiciary Com- jury, are to be and should be based on States Code—that is the criminal mittee’s request for admission, he common sense and deliberated in terms code—including perjury, obstruction, seeks to have you now believe he of the light of your experiences in judg- and tampering with witnesses. sought simply to have Ms. Lewinsky ing human behavior. At this point, a lawyer would face, a execute an affidavit that will ‘‘get her Moreover, in engaging in this course fortiori—I will not, but I will say at out of having to testify.’’ of conduct, referring here to the words this point that it therefore goes with- While being factually correct, this of the obstruction statute found at sec- out saying that indeed exists—under statement reflects a legal impossibil- tion 1503 of the Criminal Code, the January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S275 President’s actions constituted an en- facts and the law that constitute a a crime. It would be something we deavor to influence or impede the due basis on which you might properly find might even wink at, as long as it didn’t administration of justice in that he a conviction on perjury and obstruc- happen too often. However, we are not was attempting to prevent the plaintiff tion of justice. here dealing with two love-struck teen- in the Jones case from having a ‘‘free We, as managers, believe that the agers trying to circumvent their par- and fair opportunity to learn what she evidence presented to you also estab- ents’ watchful eyes. We are dealing may learn concerning the material lishes that on December 17 the Presi- here with the President of the United facts surrounding her claim.’’ These dent encouraged a witness in a Federal States of America and a subservient acts by the President also constituted civil rights action brought against him employee concocting and implement- an endeavor to ‘‘corruptly persuade an- to give perjurious, false and misleading ing a scheme that, while perhaps not il- other person with the intent to influ- testimony when called to testify per- legal in its inception—simply trying to ence the testimony they might give in sonally in that proceeding. This was, in keep the relationship private—did in an official proceeding.’’ Such are the essence, the conspiracy—18 USC 371—to fact deteriorate into illegality once it elements of tampering with witnesses commit both obstruction and perjury. left the realm of private life and en- found at section 1512 of the Federal Throughout their relationship, the tered that of public obstruction. Criminal Code. President and Ms. Lewinsky, under- However—and this is critical in Ms. Lewinsky knew full well her only standably, wished to keep it secret, and terms of establishing the illegality or hope of not having to testify was to file they took steps to do that, steps that convictability of the President’s ac- an affidavit that did not truthfully re- ultimately turned out to be and con- tions—the situation at the time of that flect her relationship with the Presi- stitute criminal acts. For some time, early morning phone call from the dent. The President also knew that if in fact until Ms. Lewinsky testified President to Ms. Lewinsky was very she had filed a true affidavit, without under oath and under a grant of immu- different from that facing the Presi- any doubt, it would have caused the nity, their efforts were remarkably dent during any earlier discussions of a Jones lawyers to seek her further testi- successful, all things considered —all cover story. mony—something both coconspirators circumstances considered. Associates Now, in early December 1997, Ms. desperately sought to avoid. and employees testified in support of Lewinsky had been officially named as In encouraging her to file an affidavit the President’s stories, and even sev- a witness in a pending judicial proceed- that would prevent her from having to eral Secret Service officers testified to ing. She was now under an obligation testify, President Clinton was, of ne- the grand jury that they understood to give complete and truthful testi- cessity, asking her to testify falsely in Ms. Lewinsky to be in the Oval Office mony and he, the President, was under an official proceeding. He was attempt- to ‘‘pick up papers.’’ Yet, as Ms. a legal obligation at that time not to ing to prevent, and in fact did prevent, Lewinsky testified, her White House tamper with her or her possible testi- the plaintiff in that case from discover- job never required her to deliver papers mony. This is precisely where private ing facts which may have had a bearing or obtain the President’s signature on lies become public obstruction. This is, on her claim against the President. His any documents. It was all a sham. It in fact, the bright line between child- motive was improper in the language of was all a cover story. It was all a con- like pranks and deadly serious obstruc- the law, that is, corrupt. And his ac- spiracy to obstruct. tion of our legal system. The President tions did influence the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky testified later, after and Ms. Lewinsky at that point en- Ms. Lewinsky as a witness in the pend- she left the White House job to work at tered the big leagues, and the Presi- ing official proceeding in U.S. district the Pentagon, that phase 2 of the dent, a highly skilled lawyer, knew it, court. coverup went into effect. The two co- which is why he went to such lengths Under both sections of the Federal conspirators began to use Ms. Currie as to continue the coverup for so many Criminal Code, that is, 1503, obstruc- a source of clearance into the White months. tion, and 1512, obstruction in the form House. This was so even though the The President knew that if Ms. of witness tampering, the President’s purpose of Ms. Lewinsky’s visits were Lewinsky were to testify that she only conduct constituted a Federal crime almost always to simply see the Presi- brought papers to the President or to and satisfies the elements of those dent. As my colleagues have told you, see the President’s secretary, her testi- statutes. on December 17, during that 2 a.m., or mony would have been neither com- With regard to the issue of perjury perhaps it was 2:30, telephone conversa- plete nor truthful. Yet, the President before the grand jury concerning the tion placed by the President to Ms. encouraged her to give that untruthful affidavit, we as managers would show Lewinsky, he told her her name ap- testimony and, in so doing, he broke that when asked before the grand jury peared on the witness list in the Jones the law of obstruction of justice. And, whether he had instructed Ms. case. She testified that at some point in lying about it, he compounded the Lewinsky to file a truthful affidavit, in the conversation the President told problem by breaking the law of per- President Clinton testified, ‘‘Did I hope her, ‘‘You know, you can always say jury. she would be able to get out of testify- you were coming to see Betty or that As Mr. CANNON made clear, with re- ing on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I you were bringing me letters.’’ Ms. gard to section 1503, the general Fed- want her to execute a false affidavit? Lewinsky testified that she understood eral obstruction statute of the criminal No, I did not.’’ this to be ‘‘really a reminder of things code, a person commits the crime of The evidence, however, clearly estab- that they had discussed before.’’ She obstruction of justice when he at- lishes that the President’s statement said it was instantly familiar to her. tempts to influence the due adminis- constitutes perjury, in violation of sec- He knew, or, ‘‘I knew,’’ she says—that tration of justice, which includes all tion 1623 of the U.S. Federal Criminal is, Ms. Lewinsky knew—‘‘exactly what aspects of any civil or criminal case, Code for the simple reason the only re- he meant.’’ And so, I respectfully sub- including pretrial discovery. alistic way Ms. Lewinsky could get out mit, do all of us here know exactly Mr. Clinton’s encouragement to Ms. of having to testify based on her affida- what the President meant. Lewinsky to tell something other than vit would be to execute a false affida- When the President, then, was ques- the truth certainly would have influ- vit. There was no other way it could tioned before the Federal grand jury if enced the discovery process in the have happened. The President knew he ever had said something like that to Jones case. Courts have consistently this. Ms. Lewinsky knew this. And the Ms. Lewinsky, he admitted that, well, held that civil discovery is every bit a President’s testimony on this point is ‘‘I might. . .have said that. Because I part of the due administration of jus- perjury within the clear meaning of the certainly didn’t want this to come out, tice, protected by the obstruction stat- Federal perjury statute. It was willful, if I could help it. And I was concerned utes, as any other aspect of any other it was knowing, it was material, and it about that.’’ civil or criminal case. And, as Mr. CAN- was false. A cover story—which this was—be- NON also made clear with regard to sec- Let us reflect and see also, members tween two teenagers trying to steal a tion 1512 of the Federal Criminal Code, of the jury, how the use of cover stories date without their parents’ knowledge a person commits witness tampering and the development thereof ties in the is one thing. Such would not constitute when he attempts to influence another S276 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 person to give false testimony in an of- recollection was accurate. As he put it, represent Ms. Currie as her attorney. ficial proceeding. ‘‘I was trying to get the facts down. I Yet, it is this sort of explanation, Mr. Clinton did encourage Ms. was trying to understand what the straining credulity, that illustrates the Lewinsky to give false testimony about facts were.’’ This fits the same pattern lengths to which the President’s de- her reasons for being in the White of a classic obstruction of prosecution, fenders have gone to try to explain House with the President. By encour- in which a defendant suggests a story away the obvious—that there was no aging her to lie, the President commit- to someone in the hopes that they will legitimate reason why the President ted the crime of obstruction of justice later testify consistent with that ear- made the statements to Ms. Currie under section 1503 and the crime of wit- lier suggestion. Indeed, when defend- after his grand jury testimony, other ness tampering under section 1512 of ants in Federal courts defend against than to ‘‘suggest’’ to her what her tes- the Federal Criminal Code. obstruction prosecutions in those type timony should be. In Federal criminal You have also, Members of the Sen- cases, they frequently rely on the very trials, defendants go to jail for such ob- ate, heard about the President’s state- same defense the President raises struction. In the case before you, we ments to Ms. Currie on January 18, and here—that he was merely and oh-so-in- submit this clearly forms a proper then again on the 20th or 21st. The nocently encouraging the other person basis on which to convict this Presi- President spoke with her in what was to tell the truth. dent of obstruction of justice for wit- clearly, demonstrably, unavoidably, You may want to see, as an example ness tampering and subsequent per- another potential witness to be influ- of an unsuccessful effort at such a de- jury. enced in the civil rights case. The fense, the case of United States v. Please keep in mind also, it is not re- President did this in this case by relat- O’Keefe, a Fifth Circuit case from 1983. quired that the target of the defend- ing to Ms. Currie false and misleading In that case, Mr. O’Keefe did not ask ant’s actions actually testify falsely. In fact, the witness tampering statute accounts of events about that case as someone to lie. He did not even say, ‘‘I can be violated even when there is no to which he was going to testify, had suggest you lie.’’ Rather, as is almost proceeding pending at the time the de- testified, and, again, with the intent always the case in white-collar ob- fendant acted in suggesting testimony. that his recitation of the so-called struction prosecutions, his words, As the cases discussed by Manager facts would in fact corruptly influence along with their setting and their con- CANNON demonstrate, for a conviction her testimony. text, suggested a certain story—in that As the managers have previously de- under either section 1503, obstruction, case as well as this, a false story. Just or 1512, obstruction by witness tamper- scribed to you, the evidence in this as Mr. O’Keefe did not expressly ask ing, it is necessary only to show it was case shows that on that Saturday, Jan- someone to lie, Mr. Clinton never possible the target of the defendant’s uary 17, only 21⁄2 hours after the Presi- asked someone to lie. He didn’t have actions might be called as a witness. dent had been deposed in the Jones to. He was too smart for that, and he That element has been more than met case, he called his secretary at home had witnesses who, at that time at under the facts of this case. and asked her to come to the White least, were willing, ready, and able to It was not only likely Ms. Currie House the next day, a Sunday. She tes- do his bidding. The President lied to would be called; the President’s own tified—Ms. Currie, that is—testified the grand jury when he made these testimony, deliberate testimony to the this was very unusual. It was rare for statements mischaracterizing his ear- grand jury, pretty much guaranteed the President to call and ask her to lier statements to Mrs. Currie, just as that she would be called. He wanted come in on a weekend, but of course he tampered with her as a likely wit- her called so she could then buttress she did—the next day, Sunday, January ness 9 months earlier, in January. his false testimony. His actions clear- 18, 1998, at about 5 p.m. The President’s assertion—that he ly, we believe, violated both the gen- She testified to the grand jury that simply was trying to understand what eral obstruction statute and the wit- during her meeting with the President the facts were—lacks even colorable ness tampering statute in these par- he said to her, ‘‘There are several credibility, when one considers that he ticulars in this regard. things you may want to know.’’ He had already testified. It was obviously With regard to the obstruction re- then proceeded to ask her a number of too late to try to recollect what the garding the subpoena for the Presi- questions in succession. You were pre- ‘‘facts″ were. If in fact one accepts dent’s gifts to Ms. Lewinsky, let us sented evidence of these five state- that, then he is admitting he didn’t look at the merger of the facts and the ments by other managers. I will only testify to what the facts were under law, as has been discussed. While the emphasize that it was at that time and oath at the deposition, because he witness tampering statute makes it a in that way, in that manner, that the didn’t say, ‘‘I don’t know; I have to ask crime to attempt to influence the tes- President led Ms. Currie through a se- Mrs. Currie.’’ He testified under oath timony of a person, it also makes it a ries of statements and determinate as to what the facts purportedly were. crime to influence a person to withhold questions to establish a set of facts de- Then he would have us believe that he an object from an official proceeding; scribing his relationship with Ms. had to, after the fact of the deposition, in other words, to tamper with evi- Lewinsky at the White House that sup- go back and find out what the facts dence. The facts of this case, we as ported his false testimony. were from somebody else. House managers believe, clearly show As you have heard, Ms. Currie stated That is an argument that cannot be the President corruptly engaged in, en- under oath she indicated her agree- made with a straight face. couraged, or supported a scheme with ment with each of the President’s In any event, Ms. Currie could not Monica Lewinsky and possibly others statements, even though she knew that have told him what the true facts were, to conceal evidence that had been sub- the President and Ms. Lewinsky had, in because he alone knew what they were. poenaed lawfully in the Jones case. fact, been alone in the Oval Office and The defenses and explanations the On December 19 of 1997, Ms. Lewinsky in the President’s study. Prosecutors President’s defenders raise to justify was served with a subpoena in the frequently see this pattern. It is not why the President would make factual Jones case requiring her to produce unknown to prosecutors, Federal or assertions to Ms. Currie about the cir- each and every gift given to her by the State. You frequently see this pattern cumstances of his relationship with President. Then, on December 28, Ms. of agreeing to things that the person Ms. Lewinsky, right after his testi- Lewinsky again met with the President knows are not true, where you have a mony, are many. For example, one ad- in the Oval Office, at which time they dominant person suggesting testimony ministration witness who appeared be- exchanged gifts. They also discussed to another person who is in a subordi- fore the House Judiciary Committee the fact that the lawyers in the Jones nate relationship. This, I submit, is yet actually suggested that such ‘‘coach- case had subpoenaed all the President’s another bright line between a private ing’’ is proper as a method whereby an gifts to Ms. Lewinsky and especially a lie and public obstruction. attorney ‘‘prepares’’ a client or witness hatpin. The hatpin apparently had sen- During the President’s grand jury for testimony. timental significance to both of them, testimony he was asked about his Of course, such a suggestion in this in that it was the very first gift the statements to Ms. Currie. He testified case would be ludicrous. President President gave to Ms. Lewinsky. Dur- he was trying to determine whether his Clinton obviously did not and could not ing that conversation, Ms. Lewinsky January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S277 asked the President whether she should President said, that she should turn demanded that she do so. All of this put the gifts away outside her house or over the gifts to the attorneys for Ms. had to have been done—reasonably, give them to someone, maybe Betty. Jones. Quite the opposite. plausibly, credibly was done—because At that time, according to Ms. While the President asserts he never of communication directed and an un- Lewinsky’s sworn testimony, the spoke about this matter with Betty derstanding between the President and President responded, ‘‘Let me think Currie, he would have us believe that his personal secretary. about that.’’ Apparently he did, be- his personal and confidential secretary There is one more point on this. Ms. cause later that day, that very same would, on a Sunday, drive to the home Lewinsky testified she met with the day, only a few hours after Ms. of the woman with whom he was hav- President for 45 minutes on December Lewinsky and the President had met to ing an inappropriate intimate relation- 28, at which time they discussed the discuss what to do with the gifts, Ms. ship, take possession of a sealed box fact that she had been subpoenaed, Currie called Ms. Lewinsky, setting in which she believed to contain gifts along with the need to conceal the motion the great gift exchange. given by the President, hide the box gifts. The President’s testimony di- According to Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. under the bed in her home, never ques- rectly conflicts with hers on this point. Currie said, ‘‘I understand that you tion the person giving her the box, and First, the evidence, however, estab- have something to give me,’’ or ‘‘[t]he never even mention to the President lishes that his professed inability to re- President said you have something to she had received the box of gifts. member whether she and the gifts had give me.’’ In her earlier proffer, or offer The President’s position, as he would been subpoenaed is unbelievable and of evidence, to the independent coun- have you believe, is not credible. It de- false. sel, prior to her testimony before the fies the evidence. It defies any reason- Please keep in mind when evaluating grand jury, Ms. Lewinsky said Ms. able interpretation or inference from the circumstantial evidence to deter- Currie had said the President had told the evidence. It defies common sense. mine whether a false statement was her—that is, Ms. Currie—that Ms. And it stands in defiance of Federal made intentionally, the most impor- Lewinsky wanted her to hold on to law. tant evidence to consider is the exist- something for her. The only reasonable interpretation of ence of a motive to lie. It is the cal- After their conversation at the Oval the facts is that, following the discus- culated falsehood, combined with a Office, Ms. Currie drove to Ms. sion between the President and Ms. clear motive to lie, that leads, day in Lewinsky’s apartment for only the sec- Lewinsky earlier in the day on Decem- and day out in Federal court proceed- ond time in her life. There she picked ber 28, the President decided Ms. ings, to the conclusion that a false up a box sealed with tape and on which Lewinsky has actually come up with a statement—false statements were in- was written ‘‘Please, do not throw pretty good suggestion: The gifts tentional. away.’’ Ms. Currie then took the box, should be put away outside of her Also, we urge you to bear in mind drove to her home, and placed the box home. that the law will not allow a person to under her bed. As jurors, you may reasonably pre- testify, ‘‘I don’t recall,’’ or, ‘‘I’m not In her grand jury testimony, Ms. sume, based on the evidence and all sure,’’ when such answers are unrea- Currie testified that she and Ms. reasonable inferences therefrom, along sonable under the circumstances. Lewinsky did not discuss the content with common sense, that it was the Former U.S. Representative Patrick of the box, nor did she open it when she President who directed Ms. Currie to Swindall attempted this course of ac- got it to her home, but she knew—she call Ms. Lewinsky to tell her she un- tion when he appeared before a Federal ‘‘understood’’ what was in the box— derstood she ‘‘had something for her.’’ grand jury in the Northern District of that it contained the gifts from the And that happened to be evidence Georgia in 1988. His evasive and false President to Ms. Lewinsky. In fact, Ms. under lawful subpoena in a civil pro- answers to the grand jury provided the Lewinsky testified Ms. Currie was not ceeding in a U.S. district court. basis for his subsequent conviction. at all confused, surprised, or even in- Ms. Currie would have no independ- Feigned forgetfulness or feigned as- terested when she handed the box over ent reason to even consider such a sertions that grand jury questions are to her. course of action on her own. She had ambiguous and therefore cannot be an- The legal impact, the legal import, of never, other than one time in her life, swered cannot, and in fact in Federal this is that there is no question that if ever driven to Ms. Lewinsky’s home. proceedings do not, shield defendants the gifts had actually been produced to She did so on this Sunday not because from criminal liability for perjury or the Jones lawyers, they would have es- she developed a sudden hankering to do impeding the conduct of a Federal tablished a significant relationship be- so or because she routinely visited in- grand jury; nor should such efforts be tween the President and Ms. Lewinsky. terns at their homes—she didn’t—or allowed to shield President Clinton Knowledge of the gifts, at a minimum, because she had a vision; she did it be- from conviction on these two articles would have caused the Jones lawyers cause the President would have asked of impeachment as to these facts. to inquire further as to the nature of her to do it. The President, a man of considerable the relationship between the President Now, the President further points out intelligence and gifted with an excep- and Ms. Lewinsky. that Ms. Currie has testified that Ms. tional memory—as somebody de- Her failure to turn over the gifts as Lewinsky called her to arrange to pick scribed, ‘‘a prodigious memory’’—can required by the lawful subpoena served up the gifts, rather than the other way and should be inferred to have clearly on her was, in the words of the witness around. In fact, although Ms. Currie understood what he was doing, as well tampering statute, the withholding of has testified inconsistently as to as the logical and reasonable con- an object from an official proceeding. whether Ms. Lewinsky called her or she sequences of his actions, as well as the We believe the evidence shows, clearly called Ms. Lewinsky, she actually de- questions put to him by the independ- establishes, that the President cor- ferred to Ms. Lewinsky’s superior ent counsel in the grand jury question- ruptly persuaded Ms. Lewinsky to knowledge of the facts. ing. withhold these objects from the lawful However, even if one were to accept, And he had a clear motive to falsely proceedings in the Jones case. for purposes of argument, that it was state to the grand jury that he could In his grand jury testimony, the Ms. Lewinsky who initiated the call, not recall that he knew on December 28 President asserted he encouraged Ms. the President’s avowal that he had no that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoe- Lewinsky to turn over the gifts. Ms. knowledge of or involvement with the naed and that the subpoena called for Lewinsky’s testimony directly con- hiding or the transfer of the gifts is her to produce the gifts, for to have ac- tradicts that. Importantly, all other still not plausible. It is totally unrea- knowledged such would have helped es- evidence of subsequent acts corrobo- sonable to presume that the private tablish a motive on his part for orches- rates her testimony, not the Presi- secretary to the President of the trating the concealment of the gifts. dent’s. For one thing, the gifts were United States would drop what she was And as we have also seen and under- never turned over. In fact, Ms. doing, travel to the home of a former stand, there is no doubt the President’s Lewinsky testified she was never under intern, pick up a box, and hide it in her statement of feigned forgetfulness was any impression, from anything the home simply because the former intern material not only to the matters before S278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 1999 the Jones case but to matters subse- trum at the White House northwest President substantially in two very im- quently before the grand jury. gate when she was unable to meet with portant ways. First, it would presum- Now, the President’s counsel may the President when she wanted. De- ably create a happy and probably com- very well argue the fact that the Presi- spite the President’s initial anger over pliant witness, one willing, if not dent gave Ms. Lewinsky additional Ms. Lewinsky’s behavior and over the eager, to support the President’s false gifts on that same day—that is, Decem- acts of some of the Secret Service offi- testimony. Second, it would make Ms. ber 28—as proof of the President’s as- cers a mere 5 days later, Ms. Lewinsky, Lewinsky much more difficult, if not sertions that he didn’t know there was in fact, secured a second meeting with impossible, to reach as a witness in the anything wrong going on here. Their Mr. Vernon Jordan. But this time, un- Jones case. In fact, this is precisely argument, if they make it, cannot be like previously, this powerful Washing- what the President himself suggested sustained in the face of so much evi- ton lawyer jumped for the former in- to Ms. Lewinsky during their Decem- dence to the contrary. The evidence in tern. He immediately placed calls to ber 28 meeting, according to her sworn fact points to a much more plausible three major corporations on her behalf. testimony. explanation. The additional gifts given On December 11, Judge Wright or- To put it plainly, but respectfully, if that day demonstrate the President’s dered the President to answer Paula that is not obstruction by witness tam- continued confidence that Ms. Jones’ interrogatories. On December pering, one would be hard pressed to Lewinsky would keep to their earlier 17, the President suggested to Ms. find a fact pattern that was. agreement to conceal their relation- Lewinsky she file the affidavit and This aspect of the case against the ship. continue to use their cover stories in President is extremely important. She It is also plausible that the addi- the event she was asked about her rela- gets the job. And what did the Presi- tional gifts were intended as a further tionship with the President. The next dent get? The key affidavit to throw gesture of affection by the President to day she had two interviews in New the Jones lawyers off the trail and pos- Ms. Lewinsky to help ensure she would York City arranged by Mr. Jordan. On sibly a witness outside the practical not testify against him. Such a fact December 22nd, Ms. Lewinsky met with reach of the attorneys, much like the pattern also finds its way to those of us an attorney at a meeting arranged by absent witnesses we have seen in large who have a prosecutorial background Mr. Jordan. The following day she had numbers in the campaign financing in- in Federal courts on a regular basis. another job interview arranged by Mr. vestigations. We have heard about the job search Jordan. The President’s efforts were designed and its relationship to perjury and ob- On January 7, Ms. Lewinsky signed to and did obstruct justice and tamper struction. Let me tie the facts related the false affidavit and proudly showed with a witness. And his actions, we to job search and the law applicable the executed copy to Mr. Jordan. The submit, were criminal under both sec- next day, Ms. Lewinsky had an inter- thereto together. We believe, as man- tions 1503 and 1512 of the Federal view arranged by Mr. Jordan with agers, that the evidence shows that, be- Criminal Code. MacAndrews & Forbes in New York ginning on or about December 7, 1997, The President’s false statements to City, an interview that apparently and continuing through and including his senior aides. Here, too, the facts went poorly. To remedy this, she called January 14 of last year, the President and the law come together and would Mr. Jordan and so informed him. Mr. intensified and succeeded in an effort form the basis, we respectfully submit, Jordan then called the CEO of to secure job assistance for a witness in for a conviction on articles of impeach- MacAndrews & Forbes, Mr. Ron a Federal civil rights case brought ment. All that needs to be shown to Perelman to, in Mr. Jordan’s words, against him in order to corruptly pre- prove a violation of the statute is that ‘‘make things happen, if they could the defendant engaged in misleading vent the truthful testimony of that happen.’’ After Mr. Jordan’s call to Mr. conduct with another person to influ- witness in that proceeding at a time Perelman, Ms. Lewinsky was called ence that testimony. Misleading con- when the truthful testimony of that and told that she would be interviewed duct is not a term of art for which witness would have been harmful to again the very next morning. That fol- there is no definition. It is specifically him. lowing day she was reinterviewed and Monica Lewinsky is, if nothing else, defined in the Federal Criminal Code as immediately offered a job. She then a persistent witness. After she was section 1515. When you, as jurors, prop- called Mr. Jordan to tell him and he erly apply these definitions to the transferred out of the White House, and passed the information on to Ms. terms of section 1512, the tampering after being rebuffed repeatedly by oth- Currie. ‘‘Tell the President, mission ac- statute, and then turn your attention ers to secure assistance from the Presi- complished.’’ dent in gaining a job that met her ex- Now, what are you as jurors entitled to the facts in this case wherein the pectations and wishes, she decided to to conclude from all of this as a matter President repeatedly and deliberately change tack. She wrote directly to the of law and of fact? Until it became gave false explanations to aides he President, asked for, and received a clear that Ms. Lewinsky would be a knew or should reasonably have known meeting in which she asked him to find witness in the Jones case, little was would be witnesses in Federal judicial her a job in New York. done to help her with her job search. proceedings, the conclusion he violated The day before the President filed his Once she was listed as a witness, things this statute is, we respectfully submit, answers to the interrogatories in the changed dramatically and rapidly. Just unavoidable. I point to one case pre- Jones case, as Manager Gekas dis- days after she is listed on the Jones viously mentioned, the O’Keefe case as cussed, the President asked Ms. Currie witness list, she gets a second meeting particularly, perhaps, applicable to de- to set up a meeting for Ms. Lewinsky with one of the most influential men in liberations on this matter. with Mr. Vernon Jordan. Two days Washington. But, unlike their first Finally, statements by the President after he filed his answers, in which he meeting, Mr. Jordan now makes three and his lawyer concerning the affidavit refused to answer whether he had ever calls on her behalf to get her a job during the Jones deposition. The ob- had any extramarital relationships in interview. A week later the President struction statute may also be violated, the context of his public jobs, that proposed the affidavit. The next day, as you know, by a person who gives meeting in fact occurred. But Mr. Jor- Ms. Lewinsky has two job interviews in false testimony. In the Jones case, the dan made no particular effort to assist New York. A few days later, Mr. Jordan President allowed his attorney to make Ms. Lewinsky at that time. In fact, as arranges for an attorney to represent false and misleading statements to a he later testified, he had no recollec- her. The next day she has another job Federal judge. This part of the obstruc- tion of the meeting. There was, of interview. Two weeks later she signed tion scheme was accomplished by char- course, at that early stage, no urgency. the affidavit. The next day she has an- acterizing as true the false affidavit The situation, however, changed dra- other interview. filed by Ms. Lewinsky in order to pre- matically in early December, 1997. On ‘‘Mission accomplished.’’ Obstruction vent questioning by the Jones lawyers, December 6, the President became accomplished. Another potentially em- testimony which had already been aware that Ms. Lewinsky had been barrassing witness in the bag. deemed relevant by the judge in that named as a witness in the Jones case. Were Ms. Lewinsky to get a job and case. The President’s lawyer, as you Early that day, she had thrown a tan- move to New York, this would help the have heard, objected to the innuendo of January 15, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S279 certain questions asked of the Presi- eralist Papers,’’ especially No. 65 by Al- Mr. Manager BARR. I thank the dent, and at that point during the dep- exander Hamilton, in which he is out- Court for his ruling. We urge the dis- osition pointed out that Ms. Lewinsky lining the reasons why the framers of tinguished Senators who are sitting as had signed an affidavit denying the re- the Constitution gave the Senate the triers of fact in this case not to be lationship with the President. He then sole power to try impeachments. I fooled. We urge you to use your com- made the famous statement about won’t read it all, but I will read this mon sense, your reasoning, your varied there being no relationship in any way, pertinent sentence: and successful career experiences, just shape or form or kind. There will be no jury to stand between the as any trier of fact and law anywhere Following this statement, Judge judges who are to pronounce the sentence of in America might do. Just as other Wright warned Mr. Bennett about mak- the law and the party who is to receive or triers of fact and law do, so, too, have ing an assertion of fact in front of the suffer it. each of you sworn to decide these mo- witness—that is, in front of the Presi- Next, Mr. Chief Justice, I base my ob- mentous matters impartially. Your dent—in which he replied, jection on the 26 rules of the Senate, oath to look to the law and to our Con- I am not coaching the witness. In prepara- adopted by the Senate, governing im- stitution demands this of you. As this tion of the witness for this deposition, the peachments. Nowhere in any of those great body has done on so many occa- witness is fully aware of [the] affidavit, so I 26 rules is the word ‘‘juror’’ or ‘‘jury’’ have not told him a single thing he doesn’t sions in the course of our Nation’s his- ever used. tory, I and all managers are confident know. Next, Mr. Chief Justice, I base my ob- The President’s lawyer did not know you will neither shrink from nor cast jection on the tremendous differences aside that duty. what an understatement that was. between regular jurors and Senators Later on September 30 of 1998, long Rather, I urge and fully anticipate sitting as triers of an impeachment. after the deposition and after the full that you will look to the volume of Regular jurors, of course, are chosen, evidence of Ms. Lewinsky’s relation- facts and to the clear and fully applica- to the maximum extent possible, with ship with the President became public, ble statutes and conclude that William no knowledge of the case. Not so when Mr. Bennett wrote to Judge Wright to Jefferson Clinton, in fact and under the we try impeachments. Regular jurors inform her that she should not rely law, violated his oath and violated the are not supposed to know each other. upon the statements he made during laws of this land and convict him on Not so here. Regular jurors cannot the President’s deposition because both articles of impeachment. Even overrule the judge. Not so here. Regu- parts of the affidavit were ‘‘misleading though such a high burden—that is, lar jurors do not decide what evidence and not true.’’ ‘‘Misleading and not proof of criminal violations—is not should be heard, the standards of evi- true.’’ Sounds like perjury. Sounds like strictly required of you under the law dence, nor do they decide what wit- obstruction. of impeachment, in fact, such evidence Which brings us full circle, full circle nesses shall be called. Not so here. Reg- is here. That higher burden is met. from a false affidavit confirming ear- ular jurors do not decide when a trial is Perjury is here; obstruction is here in lier concocted cover stories, through a to be ended. Not so here. the facts and the law which forms the web of obstruction, to a letter from a Now, Mr. Chief Justice, it may seem basis for the articles of impeachment distinguished lawyer forced to do what a small point, but I think a very impor- in the House which we believe properly no lawyer wants to do, but every hon- tant point. I think the framers of the would form the basis for conviction in orable lawyer must do when confronted Constitution meant us, the Senate, to the Senate. Perjury and obstruction, with clear evidence their client has be something other than a jury and not we respectfully ask you to strike down misled a court, and that is to correct a jurors. What we do here today does not these insidious cancers that eat at the record of falsity even to the detriment just decide the fate of one man. Since heart of our system of Government and of their client. the Senate sits on impeachment so laws. Strike them down with the Con- What we have before us, Senators and rarely, and even more rarely on the im- stitution so they might not fester as a Mr. Chief Justice, is really not com- peachment of a President of the United gaping wound poisoning future genera- plex. Critically important, yes, but not States, what we do here sets prece- tions of children, poisoning our court essentially complex. Virtually every dence. Future generations will look system, and perhaps even future gen- Federal or State prosecutor—and there back on this trial not just to find out erations of political leaders. are many such distinguished persons what happened, but to try to decide Just as Members of both Houses of on this jury—has prosecuted such cases what principles governed our actions. Congress have unfortunately over the of obstruction before in their careers— To leave the impression for future gen- years been convicted and removed from perhaps repeatedly—involving patterns erations that we somehow are jurors office for perjury and obstruction, and of obstruction, compounded by subse- and acting as a jury—— just as Federal judges have been re- Mr. GREGG. Mr. Chief Justice, I call moved from life tenure for perjury and quent coverup perjury. The President’s for the regular order and I ask, as a lawyers may very well try to weave a obstruction, so must a President; so parliamentary point, whether it is ap- sadly should this President. spell of complexity over the facts of propriate to argue what I understand is this case. They may nitpick over the Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and a statement as to the proper reference thank you, Members of the U.S. Senate time of a call or parse a specific word relative to Members of the Senate. or phrase of testimony, much as the sitting here as jurors of fact and law in This is not a motion, and if it is a mo- the trial of President William Jefferson President has done. We urge you, the tion, it is nondebatable, as I under- distinguished jurors in this case, not to Clinton. stand it. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- be fooled. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes. I think Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair. ognizes the majority leader. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator you may state your objection, cer- f from Iowa. tainly, but not argue. The Chair is of ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ob- the view that you may state the objec- TOMORROW ject to the use and the continued use of tion and some reason for it, but not Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I re- the word ‘‘jurors’’ when referring to argue it on ad infinitum. mind all who are participants in these the Senate sitting as triers in a trial of Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I was proceedings that we will begin at 10 the impeachment of the President of stating the reason because of the prece- a.m. on Saturday, January 16, and we the United States. dents that we set, and I do not believe Mr. Chief Justice, I base my objec- it would be a valid precedent to leave are expected to conclude sometime be- tion on the following: future generations that we would be tween 3 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. I had earlier First, article I, section 3, of the Con- looked upon merely as jurors, but indicated concluding as late as 5 p.m. I stitution says the Senate shall have something other than being a juror. understand that we will conclude be- the sole power to try all impeach- That is why I raise the objection. tween 3 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Therefore, ments—not the courts, but the Senate. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair is of pursuant to the previous consent Article III of the Constitution says the view that the objection of the Sen- agreement, I ask unanimous consent the trial of all crimes, except in the ator from Iowa is well taken, that the that the Senate stand in adjournment cases of impeachment, shall be by Senate is not simply a jury; it is a under the previous order. jury—a tremendous exculpatory clause court in this case. Therefore, counsel There being no objection at 5:10 p.m., when it comes to impeachments. should refrain from referring to the the Senate, sitting as a Court of Im- Next, Mr. Chief Justice, I base my ob- Senators as jurors. peachment, adjourned until Saturday, jection on the writings in ‘‘The Fed- Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair. January 16, 1999, at 10 a.m.