ad info

CNN.com
 MAIN PAGE
 WORLD
 ASIANOW
 U.S.
 U.S. LOCAL
 ALLPOLITICS
  TIME
  analysis
  community
 WEATHER
 BUSINESS
 SPORTS
 TECHNOLOGY
 NATURE
 ENTERTAINMENT
 BOOKS
 TRAVEL
 FOOD
 HEALTH
 STYLE
 IN-DEPTH

 custom news
 Headline News brief
 daily almanac
 CNN networks
 on-air transcripts
 news quiz

 CNN WEB SITES:
CNN Websites
 TIME INC. SITES:
 MORE SERVICES:
 video on demand
 video archive
 audio on demand
 news email services
 free email accounts
 desktop headlines
 pointcast
 pagenet

 DISCUSSION:
 message boards
 chat
 feedback

 SITE GUIDES:
 help
 contents
 search

 FASTER ACCESS:
 europe
 japan

 WEB SERVICES:
 TIME on politics Congressional Quarterly CNN/AllPolitics CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly

The senators' trial questions: Day two

January 23, 1999
Web posted at: 5:15 p.m. EDT (1715 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, January 23) -- U.S. senators questioned House prosecutors and President Bill Clinton's legal team for a second day Saturday, submitting their queries in writing through Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Here are the questions, in the order they were asked:

Friday's questions

Saturday's questions:

1. Sen. Reid to the House managers:

Would you please tell us whether you provided notice to counsel for the president or to any official of the United States Senate of the manager's discussion with the Office of Independent Counsel regarding an informal interview of Ms. Lewinsky and the intention of the Office of Independent Counsel to file a motion in court to compel Ms. Lewinsky to meet with the managers? If you provided no such notice to counsel for the president or the Senate, please tell us why not?



2. Sens. Fitzgerald, Hatch, Smith (Oregon), Thurmond to the House managers:

How do you address the White House's argument that removal is a disproportionate remedy for the alleged acts of perjury and obstruction of justice? And should there be any particular concern about establishing a precedent that a president can commit felonies while in office and remain president of the United States?


3. Sen. Leahy to the House managers:

Did any of the managers consult with any member of the Senate before seeking aid from Kenneth Starr to speak with Ms. Lewinsky? Did you discuss whether this violated the Senate's 100-to-nothing vote on trial procedure?


4. Sens. Lott and Thurmond to the House managers:

Please give specific examples of conflicting testimony or an incomplete record where the calling of witnesses would prove beneficial to the Senate.


5. Sen. Dodd to counsel for the president:

Do you believe that a fundamental question of fairness and due process has been raised by the failure of the House managers to notify you of the proposed Lewinsky interview, or by your exclusion from that interview? And do you wish also to respond to Mr. Hutchinson's comments?

6. Sen. Abraham to counsel for the president:

Is it your position that Ms. Lewinsky was lying in her grand jury testimony, her grand jury deposition, and her FBI interviews, when she said that the president engaged in conduct with her that constituted sexual relations, even under his narrow interpretation of the term in the Jones deposition? Is it your position that she was also lying when she gave essentially the same account contemporaneously with the occurrence of the events to her friends and counselors?

7. Sen. Daschle to counsel for the president:

Do you believe that it is a requirement of due process and fairness that you be allowed to participate in the Lewinsky witness debriefing, sought by the managers? And do believe that the House would have asked for the same right if the White House had attempted to interview Ms. Lewinsky?


8. Sens. DeWine, Collins, and Murkowski to the House managers:

With all of the conflicting testimony that exists on the record between Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie for example, how are we to resolve the questions of perjury and obstruction of justice without observing the demeanor of witnesses?


9. Sens. Cole and Edwards to the House managers:

Throughout this trial, both sides have spoken in absolutes, that is if the president engaged in this conduct, prosecutors claim that he must be convicted and removed from office. While the president's lawyers argue that such conduct does not in any way, rise to an impeachable offense. It strikes many of us as a closer call, so let me ask you this. Even if the president engaged in the alleged conduct, can reasonable people disagree with the conclusion that as a matter of law he must be convicted and removed from office -- yes or no?


10. Sens. Voinovich, Jeffords and Chafee to the House managers:

In her interview with the Office of the Independent Counsel, Ms. Lewinsky stated that on January 5, 1998, the president told her not to worry about the affidavit because he had seen 15 others. Did the president mean that he had seen previous drafts of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, or did the president mean that he had seen drafts of other affidavits that were in some way connect to the Paula Jones matter?


11. Sen. Leahy to counsel for the president:

Could you reply to the statement just made by Manager McCollum?


12. Sens. DeWine, Santorum and Fitzgerald to the president's counsel:

If we are to assume that the various allegations as to obstruction of justice are in fact true, is it your contention that if the president tampered with witnesses, encouraged the hiding of evidence and corruptly influenced the filing of a false affidavit by a witness, that these acts do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.


13. Sen. Wellstone to the president's counsel:

To what extent should the views of the American people be taken into account in considering whether a president should be removed from office?


14. Sen. Collins to the House managers:

The president's counsel has made much of Miss Lewinsky's statement that no one promised her a job for her silence. She did not testify, however, that no one promised a job in return for a false affidavit. Or for that matter, that no one implied that she would get a job for her cooperation. Can you think of any reason why we should not call Miss Lewinsky to help clarify such ambiguous testimony?


15. Sen. Lautenberg to the counsel for the president:

Could you reply to the question put by the manager?


16. Sen. Lott to the counsel to the House managers:

Do have any comment on the answer given by the president's counsel with regard to the views of the American people?


17. Sen. Biden to the counsel to the House managers:

If a senator believes that the president may have lied to the American people, his family and his aides, and that some of his answers before the grand jury were misleading or half truths, but that he could not be convicted in a court of law for either perjury or obstruction of justice, is it the opinion of the House managers' that his actions still justify removing the president from office?


18. Sens. Snowe, Mack, Chafee, Burns, and Craig to the House managers:

Before Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed in the Jones case, the president refused on five separate occasions, November 3, November 10, November 12, November 17 and December 6 to produce information about and gifts from Lewinsky. The president's counsel argued the president was unconcerned about these gifts. If that is the case, why didn't he produce his gifts in November and December?


19. Sen. Daschle to the House managers:

Will you agree to arrange to have prepared a verbatim, unedited transcript of any debriefing which may occur with Ms. Lewinsky for immediate distribution to the Senate and will you agree also to provide for the inclusion in any such debriefing of representatives of the Senate, ones selected by the majority and one by the minority?


20. Sens. Murkowski, Gregg, Grams, Thomas, Crapo, Thompson and Hatch to the House managers:

The president's counsel rely upon the president's statements in many instances, therefore the president's credibility is an issue. Is the president's credibility affected by the fact that until the DNA evidence surfaced the president denied any improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky?


21. Sen. Murray to the counsel for the president:

Could you reply to the comments of Manager Rogan?


22. Sens. Hutchison of Texas, Snowe, Allard, Collins and Hatch to the House managers:

The counsel for the president have said that the heart of this case is private, consensual sex. A tenant of sexual harassment law, however, is that the implied power relationship between a supervisor, in this case the president, and a subordinate, in this case an intern, is enough to constitute sexual harassment. This is well settled in military law and is developing along this line in the civilian sector. In your view, how might acquittal in this case affect laws regarding sexual harassment?


23. Sens. Boxer, Feinstein, Landrieu, Mikulski and Murray to counsel for the president:

Has Ms. Lewinsky ever claimed the relationship was other than consensual? And was not Ms. Jones' case dismissed as having no claim recognized by law?


24. Sen. Thompson to the House managers:

Is there any reason to believe that there's any relationship between the president telling Mr. Blumenthal that Ms. Lewinsky was a stalker and expressing his frustration about not being able to get his story out with the fact that shortly thereafter, negative stories about Ms. Lewinsky, including the allegation that she was a stalker began to appear in news articles quoting sources at the White House.


25. Sen. Kennedy to the counsel of the president:

Could you reply to Mr. Hutchinson's allegations.


26. Sen. Hatch to the House managers:

Isn't it true that Chief Federal District Judge Johnson ruled today, in an order that she authorized to be released to the public, that Ms. Lewinsky's immunity agreement, which requires her to "make herself available for any interviews, upon reasonable request" compels her to submit to an interview with the House? What light does this shed on the earlier debate on this matter?


27. Sens. Collins and Feingold. to the House managers:

On the basis of the president's and Betty Currie's testimony concerning their conversation on Sunday, January 18th, 1998, have each of the elements of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C., Section 1503 or witness tampering under 18 U.S.C., Section 1512 been met? We're particularly interested in your analysis of whether the Senate can infer that President Clinton intended to corruptly influence or persuade Ms. Currie to testify falsely and the weight to be given Ms. Currie's testimony in that regard.


28. Sens. Thurmond and Bunning to the counsel for the president:

If there was no case and the White House accepted the results of the justice system, why then did the president pay nearly $1 million to Paula Jones?


29. Sen. Johnson to the counsel for the president:

A few minutes ago Manager Hutchins stated that he would be more confident of obtaining a conviction for obstruction of justice in a court than he is in the Senate. Can that statement be reconciled with the following exchange which occurred on the Sunday program "This Week" on January 17, 1999 in which Manager Hutchinson was asked "on the case that you have against the president on obstruction of justice, not the perjury, would you be confident of a conviction in a criminal court?" And Manager Hutchinson said, "No, I would not."


30. Sens. Helms and Stevens to the House managers:

Do you have any comment upon the answer just given by the president's counsel?


31. Sen. Kerrey to the counsel for the president:

Could you elaborate on your comments about the settlement of the Jones' case, focusing on the reality for example that corporations in this country routinely settle cases they regard as utterly with merit simply to spare the costs of defense, public embarrassment and for other reasons?


32. Sens. Nickles, Warner, Helms, Inhofe and Thurmond to counsel for the president:

Members of the Armed Services are presently removed from service for improper sexual conduct and/or for perjury. If the president is acquitted by the Senate, would not it result in a lower standard of conduct for the Commander and Chief than the other 1.3 million members of the Armed Services?


33. Sen. Bingaman to counsel for the president:

When Samuel Dash resigned as adviser to the independent counsel, he wrote in a letter of resignation that he was doing so because the independent counsel had become an advocate and had unlawfully intruded on the power of impeachment which the Constitution gives solely to the House.In using his power to assist one party to the pending impeachment trial before the Senate, do you believe he has unlawfully intruded on the power of the Senate to try impeachments?


34. Sens. Specter, Frist, Smith (New Hampshire), Inhofe, Lugar, Brownback, Roth, and Crapo to counsel for the president:

In arguing that impeachable offense involves only a public duty, what is your best argument that a public duty is not involved in the president's constitutional duty to execute the laws? At a minimum, doesn't the president have a duty not to violate the laws under the constitutional responsibility to execute the laws?


35. Sen. Graham to counsel for President Clinton:

In the event that the Senate determines the removal of the president is not warranted, are there any constitutional impediments to the following actions? One, a formal motion of censure. Two, a motion other than censure incorporating the Senate's acknowledgement and disapproval of the president's conduct Three, a motion requiring a formal presidential apology or any other statement accepting the judgment of the Senate. Or four, a motion requiring the president to state that he will not accept a pardon for any previous criminal activities. Assuming that one or more of the above actions are constitutional, are there any other serious policy concerns about the advisability of the Senate formally adopting a legislative sanction of the president that falls outside the scope of the constitutional sanction of removal from office?


36. Sen. Thompson to the House managers:

Do you have any comment on the answer given by the president's counsel with regard to the office of Independent Counsel?


37. Sen. Baucus to the House managers:

In view of the direct election of the president, his popularity and sure duration of his term and in view of the fact that is House manager Graham stated reasonable people can differ in this case, please explain precisely how acquitting the president will result in an immediate threat to the stability of our government?


38. Sens. Nickles, Warner, Crapo, Helms, Inhofe and Thurmond to the House managers:

Would you like to comment on the remarks of Counsel Ruff concerning the impact of an acquittal of the president accused of improper sexual conduct and/or perjury and obstruction on the Armed Forces?


39. Sen. Torricelli to the President's Counsel:

At the outset of the House proceedings, a member of the majority, now a manager, stated the solemn duty that confronts us requires that we attain a heroic level of bipartisanship and that we conduct our deliberations in a fair, full and independent manner. The American people deserve a competent, independent, and bipartisan review of the Independent Counsel's report. They must have confidence in the process. Politics must be checked at the door. In evaluating the case against the president, should the Senate take into account A) the partisan nature of the proceedings in the House; or B) the public's lack of confidence in the proceedings thus far?


40. Sen. Lott to the House Managers:

Do you have any comment on the answer just given by the president's counsel?


41. Sen. Leahy to the White House Counsel:

The managers argued in response to a previous question that would set a bad example for the military to acquit the president. Given that argument, how can you reconcile the statement by Manager Hyde after Casper Weinberger was pardoned by President Bush of multiple criminal violations, including perjury, that "I'm glad the president had the hootzpah to do it. The prosecution of Weinberger was political in nature and effort to get at Ronald Reagan. I just wish us out of this mess: the six years and this 30 or 40 million dollars that has been spent by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh?


42. Sens. Kyl and Mack to counsel for the president:

Mr. Ruff said President Clinton was never asked in the grand jury whether everything he testified to in the Jones' deposition was true. If he were asked, would he say it was all true? Would the president be willing on interrogatory from the Senate, answering that question?


43. Sen. Murray to the counsel for the president:

Has Ms. Lewinsky ever claimed that she was sexually harassed by the president?


44. Sen. Shelby to the House managers:

Would a verdict of not guilty be a stronger message of vindication for the president than a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion to adjourn?


45. Sen. Levin to the counsel for the president:

Monica Lewinsky has explicitly in her handwritten proffer, that no one encouraged her to lie. Yet House Manager Asa Hutchinson claimed to the Senate using inferences, that Ms. Lewinsky was encouraged to lie. Do the House managers argue that such inferences are as credible as Ms. Lewinsky's direct testimony to the contrary?


46. Sen. Bond to the House managers:

When Ms. Mills described the president's testimony before the Jones grand jury, she said the president was surprised by questions about Ms. Lewinsky. What evidence is there of the president's knowledge that Lewinsky questions would be asked? Is there evidence he knew in advance the details of the Lewinsky affidavit which his counsel presented at the Jones deposition?


47. Sen. Kennedy to the counsel for the president:

Would you please respond to Manager Hyde's suggestion that an acquittal would send a bad message to the children of the country and to Manager Hyde's statements regarding the fairness of the process in the House of Representatives?


48. Sens. Bennett, Brownback, Campbell, Hagel, Roth, Specter, and McConnell to the House managers:

Would each of the managers who have been prosecutors prior to being elected to the House of Representatives please state briefly whether he believes he would have sought an indictment and obtained a conviction of an individual who had engaged in the conduct of which the president is accused.


49. Sens. Boxer and Johnson to the counsel for the president:

The managers repeatedly assert that if the Senate acquits President Clinton, the Senate will be making the statement that the President of the United States should be held above the law. If, as the managers concede, President Clinton may be held accountable in court for the charges alleged in the House articles, regardless of the outcome of his Senate trial, how could a Senate vote to acquit the president be fairly characterized as a vote to place him above the law?


50. Sens. Boxer and Johnson to the counsel for the president:

The managers repeatedly assert that if the Senate acquits President Clinton, the Senate will be making the statement that the President of the United States should be held above the law. If, as the managers concede, President Clinton may be held accountable in court for the charges alleged in the House articles, regardless of the outcome of his Senate trial, how could a Senate vote to acquit the president be fairly characterized as a vote to place him above the law?


51. Sens. Campbell, Hagel and Specter to the House managers:

White House counsel has several times asserted that the grand jury perjury charge is just a "he says, she says" case and that we cannot consider corroborating witnesses you cite. What is it about the president's grand jury testimony that convinces you he should be removed from office?


52. Sen. Dorgan to the counsel for the president:

How can the House claim that its function is accusatory only, when the articles it voted for -- voted call for the president's removal?


53. Sens. Bond, Brownback, Campbell, Hagel, Luger, Hutchison (Texas), Roth, Stevens, Specter and McConnell to the House managers:

After everything you've heard over the last several weeks from the president's counsel, do you still believe that the facts support the charges of obstruction of justice alleged in the articles of impeachment, specifically, what allegations of improper conduct has the president's counsel failed to undermine?"


54. Sen. Levin to counsel for the White House:

In their brief to the Senate, the House managers said that there was quote "no urgency," close quote, to help Ms. Lewinsky until December 11th, 1997 and that on that date quote "sudden interest was inspired," close quote by a court order which the House Managers had represented was issued on the morning of December 11th before the Vernon Jordan - Monica Lewinsky meeting that afternoon. It took doing yesterday to get the House Managers to finally acknowledge that the court order was not issued in the morning, but in the afternoon of December 11th. Why were the House Managers so reluctant to make that acknowledgment?


55. Sens. Cochran, Roth, Campbell, and Frist to the House managers:

The president's counsel has suggested that the Senate considered a good behavior standard in impeachment cases involving federal judges. The removal of judges seems to have been based by the Senate on the impeachment power whose standard for removal is the same for both federal judges and executive branch officials. Is the counsel for the president asking us to use a different test for removal of this president than we did in the case of Judge Walter Nixon? Please explain.



Investigating the President

MORE STORIES:

Saturday, January 23, 1999

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


© 1999 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.
Who we are.