continued

MCCOLLUM: Dr. Battalino, what is your thought about the double standard we might be creating if we conclude that the president committed perjury and we don't impeach him with respect to people such as yourself who are convicted and sent to jail or put in house arrest for perjury regarding consensual sex in the federal system? What is the -- is this fair?

BATTALINO: I believe that we as a people, as a country, must not give the impression to our citizens, to our young people, to the world that we are indeed a country that does not take seriously the rule of law and liberty and justice for all.

MCCOLLUM: And is it wrong to have the president of the United States, the highest-ranking law enforcement officer of this country, walk away from a situation which would be presumably very similar to yours if indeed we conclude that he committed perjury involving consensual sex? Would that be wrong and the wrong message?

BATTALINO: I think it would be a very wrong message. And I would hope that that is not what indeed occurs. At the same time, I do believe that history will ultimately determine whether or not our country remains the country of justice and liberty for all.

MCCOLLUM: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Mr. Conyers.

CONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll reserve my time please.

HYDE: Mr. Frank.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my admiration for the witnesses for coming forward. It's not easy to come forward in a situation like this.

Ms. Parsons, I understand particularly your reticence over time to talk about some aspects of your personal life. It's a reticence I shared, and I agree with you that dealing with it and getting it over with is a very healthy thing.

What I want to talk about is not directly relevant to these two witnesses, though, because I want to talk about the difference between the accusations against President Clinton and the cases of these witnesses.

I know that the chairman began by describing this as a general oversight hearing which we just happen to be having at this time. I guess it's kind of a dead time -- early December. And oversight on perjury in general just happened to fill an empty agenda. But not everybody has stuck to the script, that this was simply an abstract exercise in discussing perjury.

Clearly this is part of a -- it's actually an interesting hearing. I've never seen a hearing before that was part of the whip operation of one of the two parties. This is an effort to increase votes on the floor, because they're in a little bit of trouble. But that's OK. We have a lot of discretion.

But is does seem to me we ought to talk about the difference. With regard to the accusations against the president, the first go to the Paula Jones case. And there we have a very real difference between the president's situation and that of the two witnesses here.

In both cases, they have very fairly acknowledged and in a very admirable way -- and I think that they deserve a great deal of credit for the openness and straightforwardness with which they've discussed this. They were accused of perjury on matters which were central to the case at issue -- the question of whether or not the patient had been mistreated, the question of a sexual relationship for one of the coaches. They were really quite central.

In the case of the Paula Jones situation, the questions were entirely peripheral, ultimately ruled not to be directly relevant. And this troubles me in this case. We're talking about general principles....

(GAP)

...GEKAS: There are some who feel that perhaps a pattern has evolved from all these what he calls inconsequential -- I'm using a term that he may not adopt, but at least that's the impression I get, that he feels that they're inconsequential.

Yet, a pattern has existed, both in the Jones trial and in grand jury, that indicates to some that a finding could be made that perjury was indeed committed.

And that is what we have to decide -- not whether the president is guilty of perjury or innocent of perjury, but whether or not there is enough evidence, cumulatively, from which Barney could determine there was no perjury committed or someone on some other point of view could find, yes, indeed, there is enough evidence from which a jury could find that perjury is committed.

Is there probable cause, in other words, on the part of this committee to be able to make a finding that an article of impeachment on perjury should lie?

That's the question, and I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts has confirmed what our duty is here. He finds in drawing some conclusions that nothing has occurred. Others may, looking at it as a pattern and looking at other questions that surround the testimony of the president in the Paula Jones depositions and in grand jury, could find otherwise.

And that is what our duty is: to determine whether there is enough evidence, sufficient and credible to be able to present to the trier of fact. That is the only thing before us. And we may differ on that in the final vote that might be taken on a possible of article of impeachment.

I would like to ask the witness Battalino just one question.

You had a complaint about a prosecutor who may have not have fulfilled a plea bargain bargain with you, et cetera. Do you believe that his action in any way -- as sour as you think it was -- do you think that that in anyway mitigates the perjury that you committed?

BATTALINO: No, sir, not at all. The point...

GEKAS: I have no further questions.

BATTALINO: The point I was trying to make, if I may make it -- the point I was trying to make is that truthfulness must be in every action, in every -- in every contract that we make with each other...

GEKAS: I thank you.

BATTALINO: ... as individuals and as a society.

GEKAS: Thank you for the testimony.

HYDE: The gentleman from New York.

GEKAS: I didn't yield back the balance of my time, but I want...

HYDE: I just took it away from you.

GEKAS: Well, I yield it.

(LAUGHTER)

HYDE: Thank you.

It's a pleasure to recognize the distinguished senator-elect from the great state of New York, Mr. Schumer.

SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Mr. Chairman, as I sit here today, I am convinced this committee needs help. We have before us 11 witnesses who share practically nothing in common. We are given five minutes to ask them questions and glean insight into the most serious matter our committee can consider, that of passing articles of impeachment to remove a duly elected president from office.

Later today, we will issue new subpoenas on unrelated matters, again to impeach the president. We're hurdling head-long into a constitutional crisis which the American people in their wisdom have begged us to rein in and reject.

All across the political spectrum, including mainstream Republicans in your own caucus, people know that the president's actions are not impeachable and that these proceedings should end.

Yet here we are moving closer and closer to impeachment. Why? Because, in my judgment, there is one small segment on the far right who have lost all objectivity and are determined to impeach the president at all costs.

Their hatred of the president exceeds their caring about this country and its people. And that small segment, which would respect a minority view anywhere else in America, dominates this committee. That is why we need help.

We have a new speaker of the House. This is his first crucial test. I guess I'm making a plea here, and that is to Mr. Livingston, to step in and take control of this runaway train before we go over a cliff.

The new speaker-elect should put an end to the hearings. He should put an end to secret depositions. He should allow a motion to censure or a motion to rebuke to be debated and voted on, on the floor of the House.

In my judgment, at least, he should join with Democrats and other Republicans to sponsor that motion. He should lead the House back to the sensible middle.

Mr. Chairman, I believe you will try to be fair and I don't envy your task, but these new hearings, these new subpoenas, wave a red flag that common sense and common wisdom are not welcome here.

Mr. Livingston, this may be the first and most important test you'll ever seek -- you'll ever face as speaker. Lead us out of this abyss.

I yield back my time.

HYDE: The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.

COBLE: I thank the chairman.

Good to have you all with us this morning. Thank you for being here.

Dr. Battalino, you indicated that the person with whom you had your sexual involvement was unmarried.

BATTALINO: Yes.

COBLE: You did not divulge your marital status at the time.

BATTALINO: I was unmarried also, sir.

COBLE: So you were both unmarried?

BATTALINO: Yes.

COBLE: Dr. Battalino and Mrs. Parsons -- Ms. Parsons, did either of you loose your jobs or your positions as a result of your convictions?

PARSONS: No.

BATTALINO: I did.

COBLE: You did, Doctor.

And Ms. Parsons, you had previously resigned, is that the...

PARSONS: Yes.

BATTALINO: Not only did I loose my job, sir, but I also have lost my professional standing as a physician and I can no longer pursue my legal profession either.

COBLE: You're reading my mind. My next question was going to be if either of you have been forced to surrender your respective licenses.

BATTALINO: Yes, sir, I have.

COBLE: Both medical and law?

BATTALINO: Yes.

COBLE: How about you, Ms. Parsons?

PARSONS: I've never tried to use them. I don't know.

COBLE: All right. Folks, we were visited some days ago by the country's best constitutional and historical and legal scholars, best in the land. And for the most part, that was a good day I think, Mr. Chairman. One or two of those witnesses laced his testimony with a good deal of arrogance, but I guess scholars and outstanding people have that latitude.

But I think that notwithstanding -- the fact that on balance it was a good day. But that notwithstanding, ladies, I believe that your testimony today describes the issue at hand more succinctly and with more gravity then the illuminating information then we received from that battery of scholars several days ago. And I thank you for being here.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

HYDE: The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher.

BOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the interest of time, I'm going to reserve my questions for the subsequent panels.

HYDE: Thank you.

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.

SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony this morning. Quite frankly, I am not sure that we have heard more candid, more heartfelt, more trenchant testimony than what we have heard from you all today, and I appreciate the courage that it took to be here and the humility that it took to admit that you were wrong.

It seems to me that there are similar points that you both made, and you also have some similarity in that you were both government employees, for example, and that you have both suffered severe consequences.

Dr. Battalino, in your testimony, you said: "I was wrong to lie. I merit punishment for breaking a fundamental law of God and society. Making false and/or misleading statements, especially under oath and regardless to subject matter is wrong for me or anyone who accepts the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the rule of law upon which this great land of ours is founded."

And Ms. Parsons, you mentioned the consequences to your actions, and I think you said, in so many word, it was a lot tougher to tell the truth than it was to win a ball game.

And Dr. Battalino, you also mentioned that "common frailty does not relieve us from responsibility to uphold the rule of law. This nation must never let any person or people undermine the rule of law."

And Ms. Parsons, you spoke, I think very persuasively, about the danger of undermining what you called "a code of law," which I think is the same thing and reinforces, I think, the importance of it.

So let me address questions to both of you, if I may. And the first one is: Do you think we should have different standards that apply to a high-level government officials, and apply different standards to them than we have seen apply to yourself? In effect, should we carve out exceptions to the rule of law or not?

And Dr. Battalino, if you want to reply first?

BATTALINO: I think we should not. I think that this country was grounded on liberty and justice for all, and therefore, all citizens of the United States, regardless of rank, financial status, any reasons, should be treated differently or separately from other citizens.

SMITH: OK, and Ms. Parsons, if you want to follow up on that and also maybe address the larger question that if we should mistakenly apply different standards to different individuals, depending on their level of employment, what does that do as far as the American people's respect for our judicial -- or for our justice system?

PARSONS: Oh, this is a toughy. With more responsibility and the more the people are in the eye of the public, and taking responsibility for this huge circle that you are creating, how much does it affect all of them when you lie? I know this, I can't get past all the ripples of what I created, yet -- and I was just a coach in a small state -- I have some feeling that the level of position you hold makes, at least in my heart, a feeling that there is more responsibility to make sure at you do tell the truth.

SMITH: So you think there is perhaps even a higher standard to be applied, if one holds a high-level office?

PARSONS: I hope so, if we picked him out to be a leader.

SMITH: And you agree with that, Dr. Battalino?

BATTALINO: Absolutely.

SMITH: OK. The last question is this, that if we do apply the same standards, or perhaps even higher standards, what should the solution be for this committee who are dealing perhaps with the highest level of individual? Should the individual...

PARSONS: Isn't this incredible we are in this position, first of all? Because I remember when I was in that position of hearsay or whatever happening around and about me. When our president travels to Japan and we hear from the stands things about what's happening related to those things. This is not cool.

And I think that the one thing is that there are certain things that do need to be found out behind closed doors. Just like we have certain military secrets we don't want out to the rest of the world because of the way that it makes us look. You don't give things out. It's a form of -- I don't know if the words are correct, treason or whatever you do when you give things you shouldn't.

There is a time to find out certain information quickly and as expediently as possible so that you can get on with the rest of business of life. But if there is something that's decaying away, that's corrosive to the morale of the whole environment, then something does have to be done. And all I can say is as expediently as possible.

SMITH: Thank you Ms. Parsons. And Dr. Battalino, real quickly, would you apply the same sanctions to the president that had been applied to you?

BATTALINO: Absolutely.

SMITH: OK. I thank you both and thank you, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from New York Mr. Nadler.

NADLER: Thank you.

Ms. Parsons, were you tried or did you -- were you tried and had a verdict or did you plead guilty?

PARSONS: I pleaded guilty.

NADLER: OK. But before that, you were aware that you had the option of going to trial?

PARSONS: Yes.

NADLER: And were you given to understand that if you went to trial, your attorney could cross-examine the witnesses against you?

PARSONS: It never went that far; wasn't necessary.

NADLER: No, but did you understand that if you went to trial, that that's what would happen?

PARSONS: Back then, did I understand that or today? Let's see. I don't remember about then, but what you are telling me now is they could. I don't know.

NADLER: OK.

Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is several-fold and I'm not going to ask any further questions.

No. 1, Ms. Parsons, Dr. Battalino, had they gone to trial would of course had had the rights any defendant has, namely to -- that the witnesses against them would have had to come forward and testify, they would have had the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and to call witnesses on their own behalf.

That is not what is happening with this committee. There has been no witness called in front of this committee against the president. Mr. Starr is not a witness. He has no personal knowledge of anything that happened. He wasn't there. He didn't see anything.

He didn't even depose the actual witnesses.

Those witnesses haven't been called, and it's elementary in this country that if you're going to charge someone with something, you produce the witnesses to testify against them, and it is a failure of the chairman of this committee that we're going to consider voting impeachment having heard no witnesses whatsoever against the president and nothing -- nothing -- can eliminate that failure, unless those witnesses are called.

Now, I don't want it said that I want those witnesses called. I don't want them called. This entire thing should be dismissed, because nothing that was alleged, even if true, is impeachable. But if you want to prosecute the president to an impeachment, it's the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, not the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence.

And those 81 questions, which were an attempt to convict the -- have the president convict himself out of his own mouth, to avoid the necessity of bringing witnesses, were frankly unworthy of the committee, unworthy of the Congress and failed in its purpose.

The second point I want to make is in response to something that the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania said, when he said that it's our job to determine whether there's enough evidence to send the trial -- to send the case to the trier of fact, that we have to see whether there's probable cause. The analogy obviously is that our role is similar to the role of the grand jury. Well, the fact is, it is not. That is a facile analogy often made simply because impeachment under our system is a two-step process.

But the fact is, there is a great difference between an indictment and a vote of impeachment. The former chief judge of the state -- of the court of appeals of the state of New York, Sol Wachler (ph), in a famous statement said, "Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." Because probable cause is not much of a requirement. It's a low threshold.

For us to send, for the House of Representatives to impeach a president and subject the country to the trauma of a four or six or seven-month's trial in the Senate, is one heck of a thing, is one heck of a thing to do, and we should not do it simply on probable cause. We should use the same standard that I believe they used in the Nixon case, namely, clear and convincing evidence, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but at least clear and convincing evidence, and that hasn't been shown. It hasn't been shown that the president committed perjury, clear and convincing evidence, or any persuasive evidence at all.

To adopt the contrary view, to adopt Mr. Gekas' view, would be to say that the role of this committee and of the House is a mere transmission belt or rubber stamp for the special prosecutor. The special prosecutor laid out evidence that the president committed impeachable offenses. If all we need is probable cause, what do we need the House for? We have his referral. Send it over to the Senate. What do we need hearings for? Well, of course, we haven't had hearings. Not hearings with witnesses, not real hearings, we've only had shams.

So maybe that is the belief of this committee, that this is a sham proceeding, that all we need is to act as a transmission belt for the special prosecutor and needn't establish anything on our own. As of today, we've had no witnesses -- to repeat, we've had no witnesses, no opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. Fundamental fairness, elementary due process that we've all paid lip service to, at least since the Magna Carta, demand that before we vote on impeachment we at least follow the normal processes and that we find clear and convincing evidence before we send anything to the Senate.

And unlike what would have been afforded, the rights that would have been afforded to these two witnesses or to any other criminal defendants in this country, these rights have not been afforded in this case, these procedures have not been followed, and it is shameful.

I yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly.

GALLEGLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Battalino and Ms. Parsons, thank you for being here today.

During this whole process I've thought so many times, what a difficult job we have sitting up on this side of the dais -- certainly, without question, the most uncomfortable series of hearings and so on that I've had to sit on in my years sitting on this Judiciary Committee.

But looking at the two of you out there today, I certainly don't envy you sitting on the other side, and I just want to thank you very much for coming forward to this committee today and bearing your soul and expressing things that I know are difficult -- yet it must be for a reason that you think is for the betterment of this nation moving ahead.

Dr. Battalino and Ms. Parsons, during the time that you were going through your cases, did anyone at the Department of Justice, or anyone else for that matter, ever suggest to you that you could not or would not be prosecuted because you testified falsely in a civil case as opposed to a criminal case? Dr. Battalino.

BATTALINO: No, sir.

GALLEGLY: Ms. Parsons.

PARSONS: No one said that to me directly.

GALLEGLY: Dr. Battalino, I understand that your prosecution by the Department of Justice took place just 1998 -- Is that correct?

BATTALINO: Yes, correct.

GALLEGLY: And that would also be during the time that President Clinton was in charge of the Justice Department. Is that also correct?

BATTALINO: Yes, that's correct.

GALLEGLY: Ms. Parsons, maybe we could focus just for a second on the issue which touched on in your testimony.

In your position of leadership, when you were a former college basketball coach, what do you feel -- personally feel -- is the impact of lack of honesty or lack of integrity by persons in leadership roles on the young people that you are so familiar with as a coach?

PARSONS: You affect them for the rest of your life. No one gets over what you've done. It gets easier.

They are looking to you in how you're experiencing life as they're stepping along too. It's a masterful position and requires tremendous maturity.

GALLEGLY: Ms. Parson, Dr. Battalino, thank you for being here.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.

SCOTT: Thank you -- thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the question before us is not whether or not perjury is a crime or whether it applies to sex or whether it applies in civil cases. The question before us is whether or not we should vote to impeach the president.

That question should be resolved in a fair and orderly process. But our process (OFF-MIKE) we have not followed the orderly process that was outlined in the Democratic alternative where we said we should first determine which allegations, even if true, could constitute impeachable offenses. And if follow the direction that we have from many constitutional scholars, of course, we would have concluded that none of the allegations before us constitute impeachable offenses.

But if any do, then we should get the facts on those allegations and determine whether or not the allegations were true.

And if any of those allegations were true, we would vote to decide -- we would have a vote to determine whether or not those impeachable offenses that we determined that the president committed were substantial enough to warrant his removal him from office.

Instead of that orderly process, Mr. Chairman, we received a referral, and released it without even reading it. Mr. Starr has now said that it was not his responsibility -- that he is not responsible for the release and absolved himself from blame for the fact that sexually explicit material was placed on the Internet.

We followed that by weeks of determination of what other sexually explicit material should get on the Internet. We had an arbitrary process where we'd make up the rules as we went along. The president was sent questions. That was without consultation or notice.

Most of us found out that the questions had been sent when the media notified us. We were, at the same time, denied the opportunity to take depositions of witnesses that we wanted.

Mr. Chairman, without consultation a deadline was set for the president to respond to those questions. We then had the spectacle of watching the prosecutor try to testify as a fact witness. And the last time we were here, the chairman admonished me for calling him a prosecutor. The chairman said that Mr. Starr was an independent -- independent counsel, and not a prosecutor.

Of course, the very next day, his ethics adviser quit because he was being too much of an advocate.

Mr. Chairman, there was a pronouncement without consultation that all of the hearsay, rumor and innuendo would be presumed to be true unless the president came up with proof that it was not true. That is without even a statement of what the allegations have been. It is a virtual presumption of guilt and it's in the midst of our scope -- without notice again.

Mr. Chairman, I think just in closing that we should focus on our constitutional responsibility, determine whether or not we have impeachable offenses before us, even if they're true, and then determine what to do if they are impeachable offenses after we determine that they be true.

If we ignore the advice that we received from many constitutional scholars who have told us that none of these allegations are impeachable offenses. That process can be completed in a swift matter of time. It should not take long you.

But here we are. We don't even have the allegations before us that we're going to be pursuing. And the referral came in early September.

When we have the allegations, then we can go into fact finding and bring this to a conclusion.

But I don't believe that thus far the proceeding has been helpful in helping us resolve that question. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Scott. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady, is recognized.

CANADY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank both witnesses for being with us here today. I know it's not easy to appear in a proceeding such as this with these circumstances, and we are very grateful for your testimony.

I think your testimony is quite relevant to the core issue that the committee confronts. And as I have listened to your testimony, it has reminded me of statements that various members of the Judiciary Committee made during the course of the committee's consideration of impeachment articles with respect to Richard Nixon.

And I was struck particularly by the parallel with comments that Mr. Brooks made at that time. Now, Mr. Brooks wasn't chairman of the committee them, of course. Mr. Rodino was.

Mr. Brooks subsequently served as chairman of this committee during my first term as a member of the Congress and a member of this committee. And Mr. Brooks, the gentleman from Texas, was our chairman.

In the Nixon matter he said this. "No man in America can be above the law. It is our duty to establish now that evidence of specific statutory crimes and constitutional violations by the president of the United States will subject all presidents now and in the future to punishment."

Mr. Brooks went on to say, "No president is exempt under our U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States from accountability for personal misdeeds any more than he is for official misdeeds."

And I think that we on this committee, in our effort to fairly evaluate the president's activities, must show the American people that all men are treated equally under the law. I would like to ask you -- both the witnesses -- to tell us whether you would agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Brooks during the Nixon inquiry.

Dr. Battalino?

BATTALINO: I was -- I was a adult during the Nixon impeachment hearings. And I was impressed with the manner in which the committee conducted the proceedings. So I would certainly agree with the statements that you have made that Mr. Brooks made. I would hope that this committee will have the same unbiased approach to dealing with the justice and fairness for all issue.

CANADY: Ms. Parsons?

PARSONS: It's another one of these questions that -- I remember in -- when I was serving time, people would ask me -- Do you feel like you should serve time if Mr. Nixon didn't. I couldn't necessarily relate because I don't compare oranges and apples. But I know this -- that we have certain basic things that must be addressed with all of us -- no matter what position we are in at any given time. It's unfortunate if you're in a high position of authority and in the public eye, but it might come up at that time. And it has to be dealt with.

CANADY: Thank you.

I'd like to now respond some of the points that have been made which I think are totally without merit.

The contention has been made that essentially this committee has the responsibility to conduct a proceeding in the nature of a criminal court trial. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The Constitution gives the sole power to try impeachment cases to the United States Senate. Now, we do have a responsibility to make certain that we act on a solid basis. We should not move forward with articles of impeachment on the basis of insubstantial evidence. And I think all of us agree on that.

But the fact of the matter is we have a mountain of sworn testimony that points to the conclusion that the president is guilty of various offenses including lying under oath. And if there are those who believe that that evidence is unreliable, that the witnesses were not telling the truth, they have an opportunity to request that those key witnesses be called before the committee.

I don't sense that they are interested in doing that. I don't think they want to do that. Because the real defense that's being waged here is not that the facts are untrue but that it really doesn't matter. It is this -- what has been referred to as the so what defense. Even if the president did all these things, it doesn't really matter. We have no real recourse to hold him accountable under the Constitution.

Well, I'll have to say that I disagree with that perspective. I think that's inconsistent with the precedents and the history of the impeachment power. And I hope that that viewpoint will not prevail.

And I thank witnesses again.

HYDE: The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.

WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I adopt, as if it were my own, the statement of my colleague Mr. Scott from Virginia. I have no questions of these two witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Inglis, the gentleman from South Carolina.

INGLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And congratulations to our two witnesses. You have done what nobody else has been able to do. You have just thrown a wrench in the White House spin machine.

It's incredible. For the first time since this whole thing began, you've single-handedly done it. Have you noticed that nobody on the other side has asked you a single question, and particularly, that nobody has yet attacked you?

Now, there's time left. We'll see. But the thing that you have accomplished here that no one else has accomplished is to stop the attack on the attacker. That's all the White House has done in this whole proceeding. That's all our friends on the other side have done, is attack the attacker.

It goes along with the defense that Mr. Canady just mentioned, the "so what" defense, but the way to lead into that "so what" defense is to begin by attacking the attacker.

So congratulations to both of you. You've shut them down, for a matter of minutes now. We do have time left; we'll see.

(LAUGHTER)

But it occurs to me that what you've also done is you've shifted the focus. You see, the White House spin machine likes to talk about vast right-wing conspiracies and they like to talk about procedural fairness. They're real big on that. But the thing that eludes them is another aspect of fairness, and it's the equal application of the law.

And Dr. Battalino, I'd like to ask you. You were in law school, as I was years ago, and in fact Steve Saltzburg may not remember this, but I was one of his students in evidence. So I'll ask you to do probably what he asked Mr. Inglis to do one time at UVA Law School. Distinguish the case, Dr. Battalino, between your situation and President Clinton's.

BATTALINO: Well, unfortunately, I think there are very many similarities. So in some respects, I can empathize with Mr. Clinton's position and his embarrassment and avoidance in discussing a private, sexual encounter, especially consensual, and also, the fact that there were tape recordings. Unlike Mr. Clinton, the gentleman with whom I had the relationship did the taping of the conversations that we had.

I think, too, the most important similarity is that initially there's a hesitancy and there appears to continue be a hesitancy on Mr. Clinton's part to assume the full responsibility of -- of the fact that lying, whether it be about sex or about stealing or about anything, is wrong. And we cannot permit the concept that certain lies are OK and other lies are not acceptable.

That is destructive to our youth. It's destructive to our nation as a whole. And I believe that in the depths of my soul.

And if there was anything that I could change, it would be that day never to have lied.

INGLIS: Let me ask you this: Do you see any distinguishing facts between your case and the president's?

BATTALINO: Well, certainly, I was not able to have the great availability of great legal minds that the president has. In addition, I did not have the financial backing or ability to pursue going to a trial. And that is the main reason why I plea bargained.

INGLIS: So in other words, other than the circumstances of your own situation of, lacking the power of the presidency, the wealth of the presidency in terms of the ability to have lawyers, you don't see any distinguishing facts between your situation and his?

BATTALINO: Well, I certainly see the other distinction being that I -- that I was innocent, able to acknowledge that I must assume full responsibility for my actions, that it is not right to tell a lie. And by simply suggesting that once you apologize for the lie, it just should go away and we should move on -- that's not the way our country's based. That's not the way our society is based. There do have to be consequences.

And I would -- I would not in any way attempt to describe what those consequences should be. That's way beyond my level of expertise or condition.

But I do say that there should be consequences and that the consequences have to be significant and serious consequences.

INGLIS: Thank you.

HYDE: Gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.

LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague, Mr. Scott, spoke well and really articulated what is on my mind.

When last the committee met, I mentioned that the entire issue before us was one of the most embarrassing segments of American history, and this hearing certainly does not change that.

In fact, I wish that I had followed Mr. Berman's example and not come here at all today. I -- it is not the fault of the witnesses, who I credit for coming forward and being honest and going through their embarrassment.

It is not their fault that we are sitting here asking these two ladies questions that have nothing to do with the constitutional issues that faces this committee and the country.

I am not going to ask them any questions, because I don't know that they have insight into whether the president's behavior matches that envisioned by George Mason and James Madison when they drafted the provision in the Constitution.

I have no questions for the individuals. I have questions for the committee on why we are sitting here when we do actually have some judges waiting in the audience who may actually have points of law to share with us, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

HYDE: I thank the gentlelady, and I think I'll speak out of turn to answer the gentlelady's question.

Why are we sitting here? Well, I can give you some reasons why we're sitting here.

We're exploring the double standard. We're exploring whether there's one rule of law for the powerful, for the rulers, and another one for the ruled. We still believe this is a country and a nation governed by laws and not men.

And we're exploring whether there are different consequences for different aristocracies in our government. That may be a sterile inquiry for the gentlelady, but I think it's important.

Now, we have been criticized by the distinguished gentleman from New York for not producing witnesses to cross-examine as though this is where the adjudicatory function is and I guess the Senate is left for the accusatory function.

It's the other way around. We accuse; they adjudicate. But I will say this: We haven't called a lot of witnesses, because you've pled nolo contendere.

Well, I have a quote here from the distinguished gentleman -- he's not here now -- Mr. Schumer. "It's clear that the president lied when he testified before the grand jury -- not to cover a crime, but to cover embarrassing personal behavior. To me, Mr. Speaker, it's clear the president lied when he testified before the grand jury."

Another member of this committee, not here -- "The president had an affair. He lied about it. He didn't want anybody to know about it. Does anyone reasonably believe that amounts to subversion of government?"

Well, that's what we're here to discuss. So you have conceded on the facts. You never produce witness to question the facts.

It's all process and procedure and personal attacks on the chairman. I just think that's interesting.

But the one person in this country that is sworn, as the chief law enforcement officer, who has sworn to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, if he perjures himself, what are the consequences of that perjury? You would say none. Maybe a rebuke, not provided for in the Constitution or anywhere else. Some of us think it should be stronger than that. That's what we're discussing here.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege.

HYDE: No, sir, I'd let you wander on.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, it's a point of personal privilege.

HYDE: All right.

FRANK: You mentioned my name.

HYDE: What's your point?

FRANK: My point, Mr. Chairman, is that -- is twofold. One, some members of this committee on both sides of the aisle may have concluded the president lied. Some may even have concluded he lied under oath. Some have not so concluded, and we have not pleaded nolo contendere. I have not concluded that he committed perjury. I have seen no proof he committed perjury, and that's very much at issue.

HYDE: Well, have lunch with Mr. Schumer, and maybe he will...

FRANK: And the second point, Mr...

HYDE: ... inform...

FRANK: He's entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to mine, and the president's entitled to the same due process as everybody else.

HYDE: Very well.

FRANK: And the second point, Mr. Chairman...

HYDE: Yes.

FRANK: ... is that it has been repeatedly stated, and you just said that what we are saying, or what some of us are saying, is that it doesn't matter; that perjury isn't very important.

I think what some of us are saying is that perjury, even if not impeachable, is prosecutable, and that's what upholds the rule of law.

HYDE: Well, thank you for informing me of that. That comes as a surprise to me that that's your position.

The fact is the referral from Judge Starr has a lot of information under oath, grand jury testimony, sworn statements, depositions, and you have yet to provide a witness to contradict the factual assertions in the referral. We wait with baited breath for that to happen. We give you a full day or more. If you have any exculpatory witnesses, where are they?

You don't question about it, you don't -- all you do is browbeat the chairman and this side of the aisle for trying to do its job, and it is not an easy one.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman?

HYDE: Yes, I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

FRANK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I promise not to browbeat you in my response, and apologize for the stress that you...

HYDE: Oh, go ahead. Why should you be different.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANK: Well, I don't know why I'm different, Mr. Chairman, but I just am.

(LAUGHTER)

HYDE: But why you should be?

FRANK: The point I would make is that it is inaccurate to assert that we have conceded the point. I do not believe perjury has come close to being proven before the grand jury, and I clearly believe that the witnesses themselves refute the notion of an obstruction of justice.

The obstruction of justice presumably involved Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie and Bill Clinton. There were four people who deny that an obstruction of justice took place: Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie and Bill Clinton. If they were to be a prosecution, it would be a witnessless one. So, no, we don't for a minute think there was obstruction of justice. We have argued, for instance, her statement, her volunteered statement, that no one asked her to lie and no one asked her -- no one offered her a job. Those refute that.

So, I want to differentiate myself from this view, and also with regard to perjury before the grand jury. I don't think anybody has proven the sex began in November of '95, not February of '96, and that the president in August of '98 consciously and deliberately misremembered that. No, I don't think that's perjury at all, and I don't think anyone's proven it.

HYDE: Well, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. But I just want to say, the reason we are here with these two exceptionally productive witnesses is to illustrate the fact that there are very serious consequences for perjury, for lying under oath.

They have borne those very serious consequences to their detriment. They have been brave enough to come in and tell us about it, and I just think it's important that we understand that there are consequences for perjury, notwithstanding the trivialization of -- of lying under oath and misstatements and misleading under oath. There are very serious consequences that some people have to pay. It's a shame everybody doesn't.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, one more question?

WATT: (OFF-MIKE) parliamentary inquiry.

FRANK: May I ask a question?

HYDE: Well, the gentleman from Massachusetts.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, are you saying that if you were a prosecutor, you would prosecute the president, if you were prosecuting him, for having remembered that the sexual activity began in February of '96 rather than November of '95?

HYDE: No...

FRANK: That's one of the three counts of perjury in the grand jury that Kenneth Starr has put forward. February of '96 versus November of '95, asked more than two years after the fact. Do you believe that is something for which you should be prosecuted?

HYDE: I would rather not answer that. It doesn't strike me as a terribly serious count. I don't rank that up with lying to the grand jury, saying he didn't have sexual...

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, that's one of Mr. Starr's arguments in his referral...

HYDE: I'm not...

FRANK: ... the three points in his referral.

HYDE: Mr. Starr is Mr. Starr and I'm myself.

WATT: Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

HYDE: The gentleman from North...

FRANK: Viva la difference, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Yes, viva la difference.

The gentleman from North Carolina.

WATT: Could I inquire of the chair what the regular order is? Is the chairman using his five minutes?

HYDE: Yes, I used my five minutes although I yielded, as you lawyers say...

WATT: I want to be clear what the regular order is.

HYDE: Yes. I hope you don't think I was violating the regular order.

WATT: It's been known to happen before, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Yes, but I'm very concerned by what you think, so I want to make sure you think I wasn't violating...

WATT: It's quite obvious you are very concerned about what I think. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Yes, well, I hope you notice I'm recognizing you more and more.

The -- oh, Mr. Goodlatte, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia. We'll get back on track.

GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the work of this committee was to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to see that the rule of law in this country is preserved. And I think these witnesses are very fine contributing panelists as we address that issue.

And quite frankly, for months, some on the other side in this committee have asked us to address the issue of whether or not the actions taken by the president are indeed impeachable offenses. And to point out, to the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts, it's far more than whether or not the president remembered the date that some of these activities started. And I'd like to refresh his recollection.

On December 23, 1997, the president signed an affidavit in which he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answers to written questions asked in the Jones v. Clinton case. Such written questions are necessary in civil rights lawsuits in order for the coward court and the parties to ascertain the true facts of the case.

In those answers, the president swore he had not had sexual relations with any federal employees. The evidence presently before this committee, unrebutted by the president, indicates that he lied.

The president told a series of lies under oath, based upon the evidence before the committee, after swearing to tell the truth in a deposition given in the Clinton versus Jones case in order to thwart that federal -- civil judicial proceeding.

On January 17, 1998, the president swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given in the Jones case. The president swore that he did not know that his personal friend Vernon Jordan met with Monica Lewinsky -- a federal employee and subordinate and a witness in the Jones versus Clinton case in which the president was a named defendant -- and talked about the case. The evidence before the committee, unrebutted, indicates that he lied.

The president swore that he did not recall being alone with Ms. Lewinsky. The evidence before the committee indicates that he lied.

The president swore that he was not sure whether he had ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in the Jones versus Clinton case. The evidence before the committee indicates that he lied.

The president swore that the contents of an affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky in the Jones versus Clinton case in which she denied they had a sexual relationship were absolutely true. The evidence before this committee indicates that he lied.

GOODLATTE: The president told a series of lies under oath -- according to the evidence before this committee -- after swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, before a federal grand jury that was investigating his alleged misconduct. On August 17, 1998, seven months after his deposition in the Jones versus Clinton case, the president swore to tell the truth.

Before the grand jury, the president swore that he did not want Monica Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit in the Jones versus Clinton case. The evidence before this committee indicates that he lied.

The president swore that he did not allow his attorney to refer to an affidavit before the judge in the Jones versus Clinton case that the president knew to be false. The evidence indicates that he lied.

The president swore that he did not give false testimony in the Jones versus Clinton deposition. And clearly the evidence before this committee indicates that he lied.

The president has been afforded the opportunity, members of this committee have been afforded the opportunity, the president's counsel has been afforded the opportunity to come forward and rebut this evidence.

We have not even begun to talk about subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

So these witnesses are very pertinent because of their own testimony regarding their own experiences and the consequences they confronted. Dr. Battalino, it's my understanding that in your circumstances there were tape-recorded conversations with a trusted person that were used in the prosecution of you in that case.

Is that not correct?

BATTALINO: Yes, that's right.

GOODLATTE: And it's my understanding that in that case you were deprived of your employment as a result of this prosecution. Is that not correct?

BATTALINO: Yes.

GOODLATTE: It seems to me that there are very substantial similarities.

Do you have any other similarities that you would point out to the committee between the circumstances I just described about allegations regarding the president and the circumstances that you have very courageously talked about today?

BATTALINO: I think since the issue has come up about due process, that I plea bargained. I agreed to negotiate a settlement. So in many respects, I did not have the full due process right that I would have had had I had the opportunity and the financial and the other supportive background to have a full trial.

I opted not to do that as a means to not subject my family to any more financial loss, and myself, and/or any further embarrassment.

GOODLATTE: Let me interrupt and point out another similarity that is...

HYDE: Gentlemen, time has expired.

GOODLATTE: Mr. Chairman, if I might ask one additional question to point that out?

HYDE: Very well.

GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my understanding that the underlying civil suit that you were a party to was dismissed. Is that not correct?

BATTALINO: Yes, that's correct.

GOODLATTE: So you nonetheless still were convicted of perjury in that suit and lost your federal government job as a result of that.

BATTALINO: I was prosecuted before the settlement of the case, the final dismissal of the case, yes.

GOODLATTE: Thank you, Dr. Battalino. I appreciate your taking the time, that both of you having the courage to come before us today and talk about equal justice under the law.

HYDE: The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to add certainly my respect and certainly my appreciation for the willingness of the two witnesses to come before us today.

I think it is difficult for you and difficult for those of us who have offered a different perspective, for our questions are not directed personally at you or to in any way disrespect, as I indicated, the courage you have offered today or what you have gone through.

Back | Next

Tuesday, December 1, 1998

• House panel expands impeachment probe
• FEC audit says Clinton, Dole campaigns owe taxpayers millions
• Georgia firm fined $1 million for illegal campaign contributions
• Espy trial goes to jury
• Sources: Craig Smith in line to head Gore 2000 campaign
• FCC fairness rule challenged
• Lott, unopposed, re-elected Senate majority leader
• Ashcroft, pondering White House run, stresses pragmatism
• News Analysis: How do you count Americans?
• Arkansas state senator charged in fatal accident
• Tom Hanks says he still supports president
• Indiana congressman robbed
• White House Christmas tree arrives
• Justices' voices to be transmitted

Transcript:
• House Judiciary Committee

ARCHIVES

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