HYDE: Will the members take their seats, please?

The committee will now receive a presentation from Mr. David Schippers and Mr. Abbe Lowell for up to one hour each. The chair does not intend to recognize members to direct questions to the staff during the briefing.

The chair now recognizes for up to an hour Mr. Shippers.

SCHIPPERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Before you start, Mr. Schippers, Mr. Schumer can make the unanimous consent...

SCHUMER: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this letter, which I guess was of September 25th from Kenneth Starr to you and Mr. Conyers be able to be used in this hearing.

He considered us open...

HYDE: In open session...

SCHUMER: In open session.

HYDE: ... although it is appropriately executive session material.

SCHUMER: Although it is...

HYDE: Without objection, so ordered.

(LAUGHTER)

You bet.

Mr. Schippers.

SCHUMER: I'll not let you put any other words in my mouth, Mr. Chairman.

(LAUGHTER)

Not today anyway.

SCHIPPERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Pull the microphone a little closer to you so we can hear you.

SCHIPPERS: Members of the committee, as the chief investigative counsel for the majority, I've been called upon to advise the Judiciary Committee of the results of our analysis and review of the September 9, 1998, referral from the Office of the Independent Counsel in which there was a conclusion that there is substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

HYDE: Mr. Schippers, would you pull the mike a little closer to you. It's not coming through.

SCHIPPERS: How's that? A little better.

HYDE: That's fine.

SCHIPPERS: All right.

HYDE: Much better.

SCHIPPERS: In executing the task assigned to us, my staff and I have made a deliberate effort to discount the political aspects of our examination and to ignore any partisan tactics or strategy.

The standard of review was set by me in our very first meeting after the delivery of the materials. I reminded the staff that we are not advocates, that we are professionals asked to perform a professional, albeit distasteful, duty.

Therefore, I asked them to review the referral and supporting data in the light most favorable to the president.

Throughout this effort, we have been determined to avoid even the suggestion of preference because we view our responsibility as requiring an unbiased, full and expeditious review, untrammeled by any preconceived notions or opinions. Our approach has been solely in keeping with constitutional and legal standards of fairness and impartiality.

Before moving on to the substantive areas of the report, I would like to address two elementary but basic concepts of our constitutional government. These will serve to put our conclusions in the proper perspective.

First, the president of the United States enjoys a singular and appropriately lofty position in our system of government. But that position, by its very nature, involves equally unique and onerous responsibilities among which are included affirmative obligations that apply to no other citizen.

Specifically, the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the president the explicit and affirmative duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Moreover, before entering upon the duties of his office, the president is constitutionally commanded to take the following oath: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The president, then, is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Although he is neither above nor below the law, he is, by virtue of his office, held to a higher standard than any other American. Furthermore, as chief executive officer and commander in chief, he is the repository of a special trust.

Second, many defendants who face legal action, whether it be civil or criminal, can honestly believe that the case against them is unwarranted and factually deficient. It is not, however, in the discretion of the litigant to decide that any tactics are justified to defeat the lawsuit in that situation; rather, it is incumbent upon that individual to testify fully and truthfully during the truth- seeking phase.

It is then the function of our system of law to expose the frivolous cases. The litigant may not with impunity mislead, deceive, or lie under oath in order to prevail in the lawsuit or for other personal gain. Any other result would be subversive of the American rule of law. The principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is the foundation of the American system of justice, which is the envy of every civilized nation.

The sanctity of the oath taken by a witness is the most essential bulwark of the truth-seeking function of a trial, which is the American method of ascertaining the facts. If lying under oath is tolerated, and when exposed is not visited with immediate and substantial adverse consequences, the integrity of this country's entire judicial process is fatally compromised and that process will inevitably collapse.

The subject matter of the underlying case, whether civil or criminal, and the circumstances under which the testimony is given, are of no significance whatever. It is the oath itself that is sacred and must be enforced.

The independent counsel act provides in relevant part that an independent counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. In compliance with the statutory mandate, the Office of the Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, informed the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998, that it was prepared to submit a referral under that statute.

On that day, the independent counsel's office delivered to the House the following material: A, a referral consisting of an introduction, a narrative of relevant events, and an a identification and analysis of the substantial and credible information that may support grounds for impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; B, an appendix in six three-ring binders totaling in excess of 2,500 pages of the most relevant testimony and other material cited in the referral; and, C, 17 transmittal boxes containing grand jury transcripts, deposition transcripts, FBI reports, reports of interviews and thousands of pages of incidental backup documents.

Pursuant to House Resolution 525, all of this material was turned over to the Committee on the Judiciary to be held in executive session until September 28, 1998, and at that time, the House ordered that all materials be released to the public except those which were withheld by action of the committee.

My staff and the minority staff were then instructed by the committee to review the referral together with all the other evidence and testimony that had been submitted for the purposes of determining whether there actually existed substantial and credible evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton may have committed acts that may constitute grounds to proceed to a resolution for an impeachment inquiry.

Because of the narrow scope of our directive, the investigation and analysis was necessarily circumscribed by the information delivered with the referral. We also considered some information and analysis that was furnished by the counsel for the president. For that reason, we did not seek to procure any additional evidence or testimony from any other source; particularly, we did not seek to obtain or review the material that remained in the possession of the Office of the Independent Counsel.

In two telephone conversations with Mr. Bittman, Mr. Lowell and I were assured that the retained material was deemed unnecessary to comply with the statutory requirement under section 595(c). Though Mr. Bittman offered to make available to both counsel all the material, my staff and I did not deem it necessary or, for that matter, even proper to go beyond the submission itself.

At the suggestion of the minority counsel, the retained material was later reviewed by members of both staffs. The material was, as anticipated, irrelevant.

To support the referral, the House has been furnished with grand jury transcripts, FBI interview memoranda, transcripts of depositions, other interview memoranda, statements, audio recordings, and where available, video recordings of all persons named in the referral. In addition, the House was provided with a copy of every document cited and a mass of documentary and other evidence produced by witnesses, the White House, the president, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense.

This report is confined solely to that referral and supporting evidence and the testimonies supplied to the House and then to this committee, supplemented only by the information provided by the president's counsel.

Although the original submission contained a transcript of the president's deposition testimony, no videotape was included. Pursuant to a request by Chairman Hyde, a videotape of the entire deposition was later provided to the committee by the district judge. Both that video and the video of the president's testimony before the grand jury have been thoroughly reviewed by all members of my staff and by me, personally.

Apart from the thorough review of President Clinton's deposition and grand jury testimony, the following functions were also performed in preparation for this report: All grand jury transcripts and memoranda of interview of Ms. Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, the Secret Service agents, and Ms. Tripp were independently reviewed, compared and analyzed by at least three members of my staff, and those of Ms. Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Tripp, and both appearances of the president by me personally. All of the remaining grand jury transcripts, deposition transcripts, and memoranda of the others interviewed were likewise reviewed, compared, and analyzed.

This involved more than 250 separate documents, some consisting of hundreds of pages. In this regard, my staff was instructed to seek any information that might cast doubt upon the legal or factual conclusions of the independent counsel. The entire appendix consisting of in excess of 2,000 pages was systematically reviewed and analyzed against the statements contained in the referral.

I personally read the entire evidence reference and legal reference that accompanied the referral. I analyzed the legal precepts and the theories and read at least the relevant portions of every case cited. In addition to other members of the staff, I personally read and analyzed the 11 specific allegations made by the independent counsel, and I also reviewed the evidentiary basis for those allegations.

Each footnote supporting the charges was checked to ensure that it did, in fact, support the underlying evidentiary proposition. In cases where inferences were drawn in the body of the referral, the validity of those inferences was tested under acceptable principles of federal trial practice. Each of the literally thousands of backup documents was reviewed in order to ensure that no relevant evidence had been overlooked. Meetings of the entire staff were held virtually on a daily basis for the purpose of coordinating our efforts and to synthesize the divergent material into a coherent report.

Having completed all of those tasks assigned to us, we are now prepared to report our findings to you, the members of this committee. We are fully aware that the purpose of this hearing is solely for the committee to decide whether there is sufficient, credible and substantial evidence to proceed to an impeachment inquiry -- this and nothing more.

Of course, as members of this committee, you and only you are authorized and encouraged, eventually, to make your own independent judgment on what constitutes impeachable offenses and the standards of proof that might be applicable. My report, then, represents only a distillation and consensus of the staff's efforts and conclusions for your guidance and consideration.

At the outset, one point needs to be made. The witness, Monica Lewinsky's, credibility may be subject to some skepticism. At an appropriate stage of the proceedings, that credibility will, of necessity, be assessed together with the credibility of all other witnesses in the light of all the other evidence.

Ms. Lewinsky admitted to having lied on occasion to Miss Tripp, and she also admitted to having executed and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case.

On the other hand, Miss Lewinsky obtained a grant of immunity for her testimony before the grand jury and therefore has no reason to lie thereafter.

Furthermore, the witness's account of the relevant events could well have been much more damaging. For the most part, though, the record reflects that she was an embarrassed and reluctant witness who actually downplayed her White House encounters. In testifying, Miss Lewinsky demonstrated a remarkable memory supported by her personal diary concerning dates and events.

Finally, the record includes ample corroboration of her testimony by independent and disinterested witnesses, by documentary evidence, and in part, by the grand jury testimony of the president himself.

Consequently, for the limited purpose of this report, we suggest that Monica Lewinsky's testimony is both substantial and credible.

It has been the considered judgment of my staff and myself that our main focus should be on those alleged acts and omissions by the president which affect the rule of law and the structure and the integrity of our court system. Deplorable as the numerous sexual encounters related in the evidence may be, we chose to emphasize the consequences of those acts as they affect the administration of justice and the unique role the president occupies in carrying out his oath faithfully to execute the laws of the nation. The prurient aspect of the referral is, at best, merely peripheral to the central issues.

The assertions of presidential misconduct cited in the referral, though arising initially out of sexual indiscretions, are completely distinct and involve allegations of an ongoing series of deliberate and direct assaults by Mr. Clinton upon the justice system of the United States and upon the judicial branch of our government which holds a place in the constitutional framework of checks and balances equal to that of the executive and the legislative branches.

As a result of our research and review of the referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of 15 separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could -- could -- constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.

I will now present the catalog of those charges together with a brief statement of the evidence supporting each. Please understand that nothing contained in this report is intended to constitute an accusation against the president or anyone else, and it should not be construed as such by anyone. What follows is nothing more than a litany of the crimes that might have been committed based upon the substantial and credible evidence provided by the independent counsel and reviewed, tested and analyzed by my staff.

With that caution in mind, I will proceed.

First, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have been part of a conspiracy with Monica Lewinsky and others to obstruct justice and the due administration of justice by -- A, providing false and misleading testimony under oath in a civil deposition and before the grand jury; B, withholding evidence and causing evidence to be withheld and concealed; and C tampering with prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a federal grand jury.

The president and Miss Lewinsky had developed a cover story to conceal their activities. On December 6, 1997, the president learned that Miss Lewinsky's name had appeared on the Jones versus Clinton witness list. He informed Miss Lewinsky of that fact on December 17th, 1997, and the two agreed that they would employ the same cover story in the Jones case. The president at that time suggested that an affidavit might be enough to prevent Miss Lewinsky from testifying.

On December 19th, 1997, Miss Lewinsky was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case. Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the following events took place. One, in the second week of December, 199, Miss Lewinsky told Miss Tripp that she would lie if called to testify and tried to convince Miss Tripp to do the same. Two, Miss Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to get Miss Tripp to contact the White House before giving testimony in the Jones case.

Three, Miss Lewinsky participating in preparing a false and intentionally misleading affidavit to be filed in the Jones case. Four, Miss Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft affidavit to a third party for approval and discussed changes calculated to mislead. Five, Miss Lewinsky and the president talked by phone on January 6th, 1998, and agreed she'd give false and misleading answers to questions about her job at the Pentagon.

Six, on January 7, 1988 Miss Lewinsky signed false misleading affidavit. The conspirators intended to use the misleading affidavit to avoid Miss Lewinsky's giving testimony. Seven, after Miss Lewinsky's name surfaced the conspirators began to use code names in their contacts.

Eight, on December 8, 1997, Miss Lewinsky and the president met at the White House and discussed the subpoena she had received. Miss Lewinsky suggested that she conceal the gifts that she'd received from the president. Shortly thereafter, the president's personal secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of the gifts from Miss Lewinsky.

Ten, Betty Currie hid that box of gifts under her bed at her home.

Eleven, the president gave false and evasive answers to questions contained in interrogatories in the Jones case.

Twelve, on December 31, 1997, Miss Lewinsky, at the suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft notes that she'd made up to the president. She had already been subpoenaed to testify in the Jones case.

Thirteen, on January 17, 1998, the president's attorney produced Miss Lewinsky's false affidavit at the president's deposition and the president adopted it as true.

Fourteen, on January 17, 1998, in his deposition, the president gave false and misleading testimony under oath concerning his relationship with Miss Lewinsky about the gifts she had given him and several other matters.

Fifteen, the president, on January 18, 1998, and thereafter, coached his personal secretary Betty Currie to give a false and misleading account of the Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.

Sixteen, the president narrated elaborate, detailed, false accounts of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with the intention that those false accounts would be repeated in testimony.

Seventeen, on August 17, 1998, the president gave false and misleading testimony under oath to a federal grand jury on the following points: his relationship with Miss Lewinsky; his testimony in the January 17, 1998, deposition; his conversations with various individuals; and his knowledge of Miss Lewinsky's affidavit and its falsity.

At this point, I would like to illustrate some of the details concerning the events immediately before and after the president's deposition on January 17, 1998.

On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit and it was furnished to Mr. Clinton's civil lawyer. The president reviewed it so he knew that she had denied categorically their relationship when the deposition began. During the questioning, however, it became more and more apparent to the president that Ms. Jones' attorneys possessed a lot more specific details than the president had anticipated.

When the president returned to the White House late on the afternoon of January 17, the calls began. After completing his deposition testimony on January 17, 1998, the president and Vernon Jordan exchanged three telephone calls. The president also called Betty Currie and asked her to meet with him in the Oval Office on the following day.

On Sunday, January 18, at a little after 6 o'clock in the morning, the president learned of the existence of the Linda Tripp tapes through an article in the "Drudge Report." At 11:49 a.m., Vernon Jordan telephones the White House and, within 40 minutes, he meets White House counsel Bruce Lindsey for lunch.

At approximately 1 p.m., the president calls both Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie at their homes. Between 2:15 and 2:55, the records show that Vernon Jordan placed one call to the White House and one call to the president himself. And at 5 o'clock, the president meets with Betty Currie.

In that meeting, the president informs Ms. Currie that he had been questioned at his deposition about Monica Lewinsky. During the next three hours and 16 minutes, Betty Currie places four pages to Monica Lewinsky's pager. Requesting that Monica call Kay, a previously agreed-upon code name that was being used and Miss Lewinsky.

At 10:09 p.m., Monica Lewinsky finally phoned Betty Currie at home. She told Betty Currie she was not in a position to be able to talk, but that she would call back later.

At 11:02 p.m., the president telephoned Betty Currie at home as well. That evening Vernon Jordan called Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills.

Although the following day, April -- or January 19th, 1998 was a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the flurry of activity continued. Between 7:02 and 8:33 a.m., Betty Currie places three pages to Monica Lewinsky's, instructing to her to quote, "Please call Kay."

When Miss Currie receives no response, she places another page four minutes later stating, "Please call Kay at home. It's a social call. Thank you."

Four minutes after that page, Miss Currie pages Monica again with the message "Kay is at home. Please call."

Miss Currie received no response to either of those pages or any -- two minutes later Miss Currie telephones the president from her home.

Immediately following her phone call to the president, Miss Currie places another page to Miss Lewinsky telling her to, "Please call Kay re: family emergency."

At 8:50 a.m., six minutes later, the president calls Miss Currie at home. Immediately after the phone call from the president, Miss Currie once again pages Monica and states, "Message from Kay, please call. Have good news."

Six minutes after the president calls Miss Currie at her home, he places a call to Vernon Jordan at his home.

During a 24-minute span from 10:29 to 10:53 a.m., Vernon Jordan places five calls. Three of those calls are placed to the White House, one of which is to Deputy Assistant to the President Nancy Hernreich and one to White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. Mr. Jordan also pages Monica Lewinsky instructing her to call him at his office.

Mr. Jordan's final call in this time period is to Miss Lewinsky's attorney Frank Carter. After Mr. Jordan concludes his call to Mr. Carter, he receives a phone call from the president.

Between 11:04 and 11:17 a.m., Vernon Jordan places two calls to Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey; Mr. Jordan again pages Monica Lewinsky with the message, "Please call Mr. Jordan."

At 12:31 p.m., Mr. Jordan uses his cellular phone to once again contact the White House. At 1:45 p.m., the president telephones Betty Currie at home. At 2:29 p.m., Vernon Jordan again telephones the White House from his cellular phone and then enters the White House 15 minutes later.

Once at the White House, Mr. Jordan meets with President Clinton, Erskine Bowles, Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills, White House Counsel Charles Ruff, Rahm Emanuel and others.

At 2:46 p.m., Frank Carter pages Monica Lewinsky and requests her to please call Frank Carter.

Beginning at 4:51 p.m., the next one hour and four minutes show Vernon Jordan placing 14 calls. Six of those calls are to Bruce Lindsey, three are to Frank Carter, two are to Cheryl Mills, one is to Charles Ruff and two are to Betty Currie.

At 5:56 p.m., the president telephones Vernon Jordan at his office. Eight minutes later, Mr. Jordan telephones Betty Currie at her home. Finally, at 6:26 p.m., Vernon Jordan telephones presidential aide Stephen Goodin.

Thank you.

Second, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have aided and abetted, counseled and procured Monica Lewinsky to file and cause to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones versus Clinton.

The record tends to establish the following.

In a telephone conversation with Miss Lewinsky on December 17th, 1997, the president told her that her name was on the witness list in the Jones case. The president then suggested that she might submit an affidavit to avoid testimony.

Both the president and Miss Lewinsky knew that that affidavit would need to be false in order to accomplish the result that they -- that they wanted.

In that conversation, the president also suggested, quote, "you know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters." Ms. Lewinsky knew exactly what he meant, because it was the same cover story that they had agreed upon earlier.

Thereafter, Ms. Lewinsky discussed the affidavit with and furnished a copy to a confidant of the president for approval. Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit, and caused her attorney to provide it to the president's lawyer for use in the Jones case.

Third, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have aided, abetted, counseled and procured Monica Lewinsky in obstruction of justice when she executed and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones versus Clinton with knowledge of the pending proceedings and with the intent to influence, obstruct or impede that proceeding in the due administration of justice.

The record tends to establish that the president not only aided and abetted Monica Lewinsky in preparing, signing and causing to be filed a false affidavit, he also aided and abetted her in using that false affidavit to obstruct justice.

Both Ms. Lewinsky and the president knew that her false affidavit would be used to mislead the plaintiff's attorneys and the court. Specifically, they intended that the affidavit would be sufficient to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's being required to give a deposition in the Jones case.

Moreover, it was the natural and probable effect of the false statement that it would interfere with the due administration of justice. If the court and the Jones attorneys were convinced by the affidavit, there would be no deposition, and Ms. Lewinsky and the plaintiff's attorneys -- I'm sorry there would be no deposition of Ms. Lewinsky, and the plaintiff's attorneys would be denied the ability to learn about material facts and to decide whether to introduce those facts at any subsequent trial.

Mr. Clinton caused his attorney to employ the knowingly false affidavit not only to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's deposition, but to preclude the attorneys from interrogating the president about the same subject.

Four: there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have engaged in misprision of Monica Lewinsky's felonies, of submitting a false affidavit, and of obstructing the due administration of justice both by taking affirmative steps to conceal those felonies and by failing to disclose the felonies, though under a constitutional and statutory duty to do so.

The record tends to establish the following. Monica Lewinsky admitted to the commission of two felonies -- signing a false affidavit under oath, and endeavoring to obstruct justice by using the false affidavit to mislead the court and the lawyers in the Jones case so that she would not be deposed and required to give evidence concerning her activities with the president.

In addition, the president was fully aware that those felonies had been committed when he gave his deposition on January 17th, 1998. Nonetheless, Mr. Clinton took affirmative steps to conceal these felonies, including allowing his attorney in his presence to use the affidavit and to suggest that it was true.

More importantly, the president himself, while being questioned by his own counsel late in the deposition referring to one of the clearly false affidavit -- paragraphs in Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, stated, quote, "That is absolutely true."

More importantly, again, the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. He is under a constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

When confronted with direct knowledge of the commission of a felony, he is required by his office, as is every other law enforcement officer, agent or attorney in the country, to bring to the attention of the appropriate authorities the fact of the felony and the identity of the perpetrator. If he did not do so, the president could be guilty of misprison, a felony.

Five, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition in Jones versus Clinton regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The record tends to establish the following. There are three instance where credible evidence exist that the president may have testified falsely about this relationship. When he denied a, quote, "sexual relationship" in sworn answers to interrogatories; two, when he denied having, quote, "an extramarital sexual affair" in his deposition; and three, when he denied having, quote, "sexual relations," closed quote, or quote, "an affair," closed quote with Monica Lewinsky in his deposition.

When the president denied a sexual relationship, he was not bound by the definition that the court later provided. There is substantial evidence obtained from Miss Lewinsky, the president's grand jury testimony, and DNA test results that Miss Lewinsky performed sexual acts with the president on numerous occasions. Those terms, given their common meaning, could reasonably be construed to include oral sex.

The president also denied having sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky as the court had defined that term. In the context of the lawsuit and the wording of that definition, there is substantial evidence that the president's later explanation given to the grand jury is an afterthought and is unreasonably narrow under the circumstances.

Consequently, there is substantial evidence that the president's denial under oath in his deposition of a sexual relationship, a sexual affair or sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky was not true.

Six, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have given false testimony under oath before the federal grand jury on August 17th, 1998, concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The record tends to establish the following. During his grand jury testimony, the president admitted only to inappropriate, intimate contact with Monica Lewinsky. He did not admit to any specific acts. He categorically denied ever touching Miss Lewinsky on the breasts or genitalia for the purpose of giving her sexual gratification.

There is, however, substantial contradictory evidence from Miss Lewinsky. She testified at length and with specificity that the president kissed and fondled her breasts on numerous occasions during their encounters, and at times, there was also direct genital contact. Moreover, her testimony is corroborated by several of her friends.

The president described himself as a nonreciprocating recipient of Miss Lewinsky's services. Therefore, he suggested that he did not engage in sexual relations within the definition given him at the Jones case deposition.

He also testified that his interpretation of the word "cause" in the definition meant either the use of force or contact with the intent to arouse or gratify. The inference drawn by the independent counsel that the president's explanation was merely an afterthought, calculated to explain away testimony that had been proven false by Miss Lewinsky's evidence, appears credible under the circumstances.

Seven, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have given false testimony under oath in his deposition given in Jones versus Clinton regarding a statement that he could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky and regarding his minimizing the number of gifts that they had exchanged.

MORE

Monday, October 5, 1998

• Judiciary Committee votes for impeachment inquiry
• Quotations from the Judiciary Committee meeting
• White House asks Supreme Court to hear dispute with Starr
• Key aides leaving White House
• No access to Lewinsky papers, court says
• Lott wonders about prospects for another government shutdown
• High court to tackle census, gangs

Transcripts:
• Schippers, Lowell briefings before Judiciary panel, part 1 | 2
• House Judiciary Committee meeting opening statements, part 1 | 2 | 3

Election '98
• Poll: Race for South Carolina governor tightening
• Elderly vote swings Florida elections

ARCHIVES

Search CNN/AllPolitics by           Enter keyword(s)       go    help