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

Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton -- Day 16

February 6, 1999
Web posted at: 7:20 p.m. EST (0016 GMT)

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment. The chaplain will offer a prayer.

LLOYD OGILVIE, SENATE CHAPLAIN: Mr. Chief Justice, it's with profound sadness that we express our grief over the loss of our legislative clerk, R. Scott Bates, who along with his wife Ricki Ellison (ph) Bates last evening was struck by a car while walking across Lee Highway in Arlington.

Mrs. Bates remains in serious condition, and needs our prayers throughout this day.

Let us pray.

Oh Eternal God, our Heavenly Father, who loves us within everlasting love and transforms the darkness of the valley of the shadow of death into bright hope, the Senate family of members and staff call on you for strength, comfort and courage. A tragic death has taken from us a beloved friend, an admired fellow worker, a faithful Senate employee for over 30 years.

In the quietness, we can hear his voice call the roll, read proposed legislation, and most of all express his caring friendship to us all.

Thank you for Scott's commitment to excellence and his dedication to the work of the Senate, regardless of long sessions or arduous debate.

We interceded for him, but especially now for his wife, for complete healing and recovery.

OGLIVIE: And hold those wonderful children in your loving arms -- Lisa, Laurie and Paul. We remember with gratitude Lisa and Laurie's outstanding service as pages here in the Senate. Help them and their brother Paul, to know that their dad, whom they loved so deeply, is with you. He trusted you in this life, and now lives with you forever. Dramatic as was his physical death, it was but a transition in his eternal life.

Now, Lord, bless the Senate as it turns to the work of this day, cognizant of the shortness of time and the length of eternity for all of us, in the sure hope of the resurrection and eternal life. Amen.

REHNQUIST: The sergeant at arms will make the proclamation.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.

REHNQUIST: The Majority Leader is recognized.

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MISSISSIPPI): Mr. Chief Justice, our Senate family grieves today, and our hearts are really heavy as a result of the tragic loss of Scott Bates. Senators come and senators go, but Scott has been a fixture in this great chamber for 30 years and the last eight years as our legislative clerk.

His familiar voice was a pillar of our continuity and tradition. He was not just a co-worker. He was a friend and really a great guy. Even as we conduct our business today, we will be grieving. But those who knew him well knew that that is exactly what he would want us to do -- to continue with the work of the Senate to which he devoted his life.

LOTT: He was an example of public service at its finest -- never claiming the spotlight, never seeking a headline, but always working for the good of this institution and for the country we are here to serve.

We pray for the recovery of his wife, Ricki (ph). We ask that the Lord keep her and their three children always in his care.

Before I ask for a moment of silence by the Senate, I yield to Senator Daschle for his comments.

REHNQUIST: The minority leader is recognized.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SOUTH DAKOTA): I thank the majority leader. And I thank our chaplain for his gracious prayer.

The presence of Scott Bates in that chair and in our lives is something most of us have counted on each and every day. As the majority leader so eloquently spoke, he, Scott, served the Senate, our country and each of us so admirably for the last 30 years.

Who can forget that resonant voice? Who can forget the call of the roll? Who can forget the authority with which he articulated each of our names? The answer is no one.

DASCHLE: When Scott began his service, Senator Mansfield was the Majority Leader and Senator Hugh Scott, the Minority Leader. Ever since that time, Scott was an integral part of the history created in this chamber and certainly an integral part of our Senate family.

He grew up with small town values, active in his church and the Boy Scouts. He loved politics in school and served as a page in both the House and the Senate, the Arkansas legislature. Scott's love of politics came naturally for him. And his father actually served as a member of the Arkansas state legislature.

In 1970, he came as a summer intern for Senator John McClellan (ph) in the Bill Clerk's office, and began his work for us in 1973. Toady, we send out thoughts and our prayers to his wife, Ricki (ph), who remains in the hospital, and to their three children: Lisa, Lauri (ph), and Paul, and his family in Arkansas, who are now dealing with this tragic loss.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I now ask that all senators rise and let's observe a moment of silence for our friend, Scott Bates.

(MOMENT OF SILENCE)

LOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. Chief Justice, under the order for today, there will be six hour presentation equally divided between the House managers and the White House counsel. It would be our intention to have a break at noon to allow -- around noon so we'll have an opportunity for lunch, and also it may be necessary to have one break -- brief break -- before that time.

Following today's presentation, the Senate will adjourn over until 1:00 p.m. on Monday.

REHNQUIST: If there's no objection, the journals of proceedings of the trial are approved today. Pursuant to the order of February 4, 1999, the managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel for the president each have three hours to make their presentations.

REHNQUIST: The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan to begin the presentation on the part of the House of Representatives.

REP. JAMES E. ROGAN (R-CALIFORNIA): Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished counsel for the president, members of the United States Senate. This is the first and only chance you will have in this historic impeachment trial to consider the evidence from a few of the actual witnesses.

After weeks of proceedings, the day is finally arrived when the United States Senate will listen not just to lawyers talk about the evidence, but to witnesses with direct knowledge of the unlawful conduct of the president of the United States.

Today, in particular, you will have your only opportunity to hear from the one person whose testimony invariably leads to the conclusion that the president of the United States committed perjury and obstructed justice in a federal civil rights action.

That person is Monica Lewinsky, a bright lady whose life has forever been marked by the most powerful man on the earth.

If her testimony is truthful, then the president committed the offenses alleged in the articles of impeachment.

ROGAN: Many different opinions have been informed about her over the last year. Nearly all of this has been fueled by spin and by propaganda rather than by truth.

Today the analysis and the speculation ends. There is only one judgment the Senate must make for history about Monica Lewinsky. Do you believe her?

UNKNOWN: Do you Monica S. Lewinsky, do swear or affirm, that the evidence that you shall give in the case now pending between the United States and William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

MONICA LEWINSKY: I do.

UNKNOWN: House managers may now begin your questioning.

ROGAN: Who is this former intern who swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Monica Lewinsky is an intelligent, articulate young woman who until recently held untarnished hopes for tomorrow like any other recent college graduate.

That was hope was drastically altered when she was subpoenaed in a law suit against the President of the United States.

REP. ED BRYANT (R-TENNESSEE): But for the record would state your name once again, your full name.

LEWINSKY: Yes. Monica Samille Lewinsky.

BRYANT: And you are -- you're a resident of California.

LEWINSKY: I'm not sure exactly where I'm a resident right now, but that's where I'm living right now.

BRYANT: OK. Did you grow up there in California.

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: I'm not going to go into all that but I thought just a little bit of background here.

You went to college where?

LEWINSKY: Lewis and Clark, in Portland, Oregon.

BRYANT: And you majored in--majored in?

LEWINSKY: Psychology.

BRYANT: Tell me about your work history, briefly, from the time you left college until, let's say, you started as an intern at the White House.

LEWINSKY: Uh, I wasn't working from the time I...

BRYANT: Okay. Did you...

LEWINSKY: I graduated college in May of '95.

BRYANT: Did you work part time there in Oregon with a District Attorney...

LEWINSKY: Uh...

BRYANT: ...in his office somewhere?

LEWINSKY: During -- I had an internship or a practicum when I was in school. I had two practicums, and one was at the public defender's office and the other was at the Southeast Mental Health Network.

BRYANT: And those were in Portland?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Okay. What -- you received a Bachelor of Science in Psychology?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: Okay. As a part of your duties at the Southeast Health Network, what did you -- what did you do in terms of working? Did you have direct contact with people there, patients?

LEWINSKY: Yes, I did. They referred to them as clients there and I worked in what was called the Phoenix Club, which was a socialization area for the clients to -- really to just hang out and sort of work on their social skills. So I...

BRYANT: Okay. After your work there, you obviously had occasion to come to work at the White House. How did -- how did you come to decide you wanted to come to Washington, and in particular work at the White House?

LEWINSKY: There were a few different factors. My mom's side of the family had moved to Washington during my senior year of college and I wanted -- I wasn't ready to go to graduate school yet.

LEWINSKY: So I wanted to get out of Portland, and a friend of our family's had a grandson who had had an internship at the White House and had thought it might be something I'd enjoy doing.

BRYANT: Had you ever worked around -- in politics and campaigns or been very active?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: You had to go through the normal application process of submitting a written application, references, and so forth to the White House?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Did you do that while you were still in Oregon, or were you already in D.C.?

LEWINSKY: No. The application process was while I was a senior in college in Oregon.

BRYANT: Had you ever been to Washington before?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Obviously, you were accepted, and you started work when?

LEWINSKY: July 10th, 1995.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: That image -- the image of a young woman very much like a family member or friend that we might know, is an image that the president did not want America to see when his indiscretions with her became public. When that happened, the president painted Monica Lewinsky in a very different and callous light.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie -- not a single time, never.

These allegations are false, and I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: "That woman." With that subtle description, the President invited a waiting America to adopt a totally impression of Monica Lewinsky. That was not fair. Yet, with his close aides, aides that he later testified he knew would be witnesses before the grand jury, he went much further than a subtle sneer.

Here are the words of Sidney Blumenthal, Assistant to the President, recount how the President painted this vulnerable, young intern, who made the tragic mistake of becoming involved with him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Did the President then give you his account of what happened between him and Monica Lewinsky?

SYDNEY BLUMENTHAL, WHITE HOUSE AIDE: As I recall, he did.

ROGAN: What did the President tell you?

BLUMENTHAL: He spoke fairly rapidly as I recall at that point, and said that she had come on to him and made a demand for sex. That he had rebuffed her, turned her down and that she threatened him. And he said that she said to him, that she was called "The Stalker" by her peers and that she hated the term. And that she would claim that they had had an affair, whether they had or they hadn't and that she would tell people.

ROGAN: Do you remember him also saying that the reason Monica Lewinsky would tell people that is because then she wouldn't be known by her peers as "The Stalker" anymore?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes, that's right.

ROGAN: Do you remember the President also saying that -- and I'm quoting -- "I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again"?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes. He told me that.

ROGAN: And that was in the same conversation that you had with the President?

BLUMENTHAL: Right, in -- in that sequence.

ROGAN: Can you describe for us the President's demeanor when he shared this information with you?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes. He was, uh, very upset. I thought he was a man in anguish.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: "He was a man in anguish." This was more than rakish behavior. When the president used his aides as a conduit to impart false information to a federal grand jury in a criminal investigation, his behavior graduated from the unconscionable to the illegal.

Members of the Senate, your task is to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. As you weigh that option, consider Mr. Blumenthal's conclusion drawn on the very subject:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: That's where you start talking about the story that the President told you. Knowing what you know now, do you believe the President lied to you about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: To justify a vote of not guilty for the president, you certainly have the right to reject Monica Lewinsky's testimony as untruthful. However, I trust your sense of fairness will dictate that you will listen to all of her testimony before you dismiss it outright.

If you believe her, you will see this morning how the president wove a web of perjury and obstruction of justice. You will see why he was impeached by the House of Representatives, and you will see why a just and proper verdict in this body would be to replace him as president with Vice President Al Gore.

Consider, for example, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony regarding witness tampering, one element of the obstruction of justice charge against the president. The president stands charged with illegally encouraging a witness in a federal civil rights suit brought against him to give perjured testimony in that proceeding. Did he do this? Listen to Monica Lewinsky.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: We're at that point that we've got a telephone conversation in the morning with you and the President, and he has among other things mentioned to you that your name is on the Jones witness list. He has also mentioned to you that perhaps you could file an affidavit to avoid possible testifying in that case. Is that right?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: And he has also, I think, now at the point that we were in our questioning, referenced the cover story that you and he had had, that perhaps you could say that you were coming to my office to deliver papers or to see Betty Currie.

BRYANT: Is that right?

LEWINSKY: Correct. It was from the entire relationship, that story.

BRYANT: Now, when he alluded to that cover story, was that instantly familiar to you?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: You knew what he was talking about?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: And why was this familiar to you?

LEWINSKY: Because it was part of the pattern of the relationship.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: "It was a part of the pattern of the relationship." During Ms. Lewinsky's testimony earlier this week under oath, pursuant to a Senate deposition order, she further elaborated on this critical piece of evidence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of -- I would draw your attention to the cover story -- I've alluded to that earlier, but did you talk about a cover story that night?

LEWINSKY: Yes, sir.

BRYANT: And what was said?

LEWINSKY: I believe that the president said something "you can always way you were coming in to see Betty or bringing me papers.

BRYANT: I think you've testified that you're sure that he said that, that night. You are sure he said that, that night?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ROGAN: Consider, also, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony regarding concealing subpoenaed evidence, namely the gifts he gave her. This is yet another element in the obstruction of justice allegation against the president. The president stands charged with corruptly engaging in a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a federal civil rights action brought against him.

ROGAN: Did he do this? Remember, on the morning of December 28, 1997, a few days after Miss Lewinsky received subpoena directing her to turn over any gifts she had received from the president, the president met with Miss Lewinsky. She suggested to him that she could give the gifts he gave her to Betty Currie, the president's personal secretary. The president said that he would think about it. Listen to what Monica Lewinsky said happened next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did you later that day receive a call from Betty Currie?

LEWINSKY: Yes, I did.

BRYANT: Tell us about that.

LEWINSKY: I received a call from -- from Betty, and to the best of my memory, she said something like I understand you have something for me or I know -- I know I've testified to saying that -- that I remember her saying either I know you have something for me or the President said you have something for me. And to me, it's a -- she said -- I mean, this is not a direct quote, but the gist of the conversation was that she was going to go visit her mom in the hospital and she'd stop by and get whatever it was.

BRYANT: Did you question Ms. Currie or ask her, what are you talking about or what do you mean?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: Why didn't you?

LEWINSKY: Because I assumed that it meant the gifts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: As you can see, the only way Betty Currie would have known to come and get the gifts would have been for the president to tell her to do so.

ROGAN: Finally, consider Miss Lewinsky's testimony, regarding the president's help in securing a New York job for her to encourage her silence. Which is another element of the obstruction of justice charge against him.

The president is charged with chasing a job for her in order to prevent her truthful testimony. Did he do this? Remember that the president learned on December 6th, 1997 that Miss Lewinsky was on the Paula Jones' witness list.

Listen to Monica Lewinsky.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEWINSKY: Okay.

BRYANT: Between your meeting with Mr. Jordan in early November and December the 11th when you met with Mr. Jordan again, you did not feel that Mr. Jordan was doing much to help you get a job. Is that correct?

LEWINSKY: I hadn't seen any progress.

BRYANT: Okay. After you met with Mr. Jordan in early December, you began to interview in New York and were much more active in your job search. Correct?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: In early January, you received a job offer from Revlon with the help of Vernon Jordan. Is that correct?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Member of the Senate, these are but a few highlights of a broad tapestry of corruption, that Mr. Manager Hutchinson and I will develop for you this morning, through videotaped testimony and through other evidence.

Before we proceed to that, it is worth briefly recounting the circumstances that elevated the president's initial indiscretions to the level of impeachable offenses. The lesson is not complex. It's quite elementary. In all the things we do in life, life is about making choices. Parents teach children that bad choices bring sorrow and consequences. We do that because the failure to impose meaningful consequences for bad choices, brings about more bad choices.

That simple primmer on life encapsulates the political and personal legacy of Bill Clinton. His is a continuing pattern of indulging all choices and accepting no consequences.

ROGAN: This is demonstrated by the actions he took leading to his impeachment and trial before the Senate.

In May 1991, an incident allegedly occurred that lead the president to make a bad choice. According to Paula Jones, a subordinate government employee, then Governor Clinton made a crude and unwelcome sexual advance on her. She later filed a legal claim for sexual harassment against him.

In November 1995, the president made another bad choice. He began a physical relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern.

He chose to begin a physical relationship with her. This was not, as he told the grand jury, a relationship that began as a friendship, only to later blossom into intimacy.

The president impulsively began using her for his gratification the very day he first spoke with her.

Later he made the bad choice of continuing the relationship after Monica became a paid government employee.

And important note -- as regrettable as his choice was here, any accountability for the private aspect for this should not be determined by the Congress of the United States. It should be determined by his family.

Had the president's bad choice simply ended with this indiscretion, we would not be here today. Adultery may be a lot of things, but it is not an impeachable offense.

Unfortunately, the president's bad choices only grew worse.

In December 1997, the president made a bad choice.

ROGAN: In order to avoid any possible legal accountability to Paula Jones, he chose to destroy her lawful right to proceed with her case. And this is how he did it.

During the so-called discovery portion of Paula Jones' case, federal judge Susan Wright ordered the president to answer questions under oath about any intimate relationships he may have had with subordinate female government employees while he was governor or president.

Why did Judge Susan Wright order him to answer these questions? She did it because sexual harassers in the workplace usually do not commit their offenses in the open. Typically, they get their victims alone and isolated.

Predators know that if they can do this, one of two things generally will happen. Out of fear and intimidation, the victim will submit. Or out of fear and intimidation, the victim will not submit, but the victim will not tell anybody about it.

There usually is no other way for a sexual harassment victim to learn if there is evidence of a pattern of similar conduct by a predator without being able to ask these sort of questions in a sexual harassment case. Without this information, a harassment victim in the workplace generally would not be able to prove her case. This is why courts routinely order defendants to answer these kind of questions in almost every sexual harassment case in the country.

Now, President Clinton vigorously pursued legal arguments and motions to avoid answering these questions about his sexual relations with subordinate government employees. Yet after hearing his arguments, Judge Susan Wright ordered the president to answer under oath these routine questions.

And by the way, Paula Jones also was required to provide truthful answers under oath as part of the trial discovery process. Had Paula Jones lied in providing such answers, she would have been liable for criminal prosecution.

ROGAN: It was while the Paula Jones' case was proceeding in the summer of 1995, that a 22-year-old named Monica Lewinsky went to work as an intern at the White House. Shortly thereafter, in November 1995, the president began his physical relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And this continued from 1995 until the early part of 1997.

In order to shield him, Monica Lewinsky promised the president that she would always deny the sexual nature of their relationship. She said she would always protect him. The president spoke words of approval and encouragement to this pledge of secrecy. Monica and the president even agreed to cover stories to disguise the true nature of their relationship.

In April 1996, Monica was transferred against her will from a White House job to a job at the Pentagon. After she left employment at the White House, she frequently returned there to continue her secret relationship with the president under the guise of visiting Betty Currie, the president's personal secretary.

After working at the Pentagon for over a year, Monica became disheartened. Despite the president's promises to the contrary, Monica was returned to work at the White House. In July 1997, she began looking for a job in New York. She wasn't having any luck, despite the president's promise to help her with this too.

By early November 1997, Monica became frustrated with the lack of assistance.

Finally, Betty Currie arranged a meeting for Monica with Vernon Jordan, one of the president's closest friends.

ROGAN: They sought to enlist his help in her New York job search. On November 5th, 1997, Monica met for 20 minutes with Mr. Jordan in his office. No job referrals followed, no job interviews were arranged, and there were no contacts from Mr. Jordan. In short, Mr. Jordan made no effort to find Monica a job.

Indeed, getting her a job was so unimportant to him that Mr. Jordan later testified that he didn't even remember meeting her on November the 5th. Nothing happened on her job through the month of November because Mr. Jordan was either gone, or he simply wasn't returning Monica's phone calls.

All that changed on December 5th, 1997. That was the day Monica Lewinsky's name appeared on the Paula Jones witness list. Members of the Senate, this is how the whole thing started. A lone woman in Arkansas felt that she had been wronged by the president of the United States.

The law said that she had a right to have her claim heard in a court of law. At each stage, the president could have chosen to uphold the law. Instead, he chose to obstruct justice and to commit perjury.

In his presentation, Mr. Manager Hutchinson will show you through videotaped words of the key witnesses how the president used his position to obstruct justice as set forth in the Articles of Impeachment. I will then return to make the same showing respecting the allegations of perjury in the Articles.

Throughout all of this, throughout this presentation, it is important to keep in mind that we seek no Congressional punishment for a man who chose to cheat on his wife.

ROGAN: However, we have a legal obligation to expect constitutional accountability for a president who chooses to cheat the law.

REHNQUIST: The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-ARKANSAS): Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I want to continue the presentation that was commenced this morning by Mr. Rogan. Let me continue with the path of obstruction. The obstruction, for our purposes, began on December 5, 1997, when the witness list came out in the civil rights case.

It was faxed to the president's lawyers, and it was later given to the president. At that point, the administration of justice became a threat to the president of the United States. He determined that the truth would be harmful to the case that he was trying to defend, and the president made a decision to take whatever steps were necessary to suppress the truth rather than to uphold the law.

The acts of obstruction included attempts to improperly influence testimony of witnesses in the case against him, the procurement of a false affidavit in the case, the willful concealment of evidence that was under subpoena and efforts to illegally influence the testimony of witnesses before the federal grand jury.

HUTCHINSON: You have heard these areas of obstruction presented to you before by managers on behalf of the House. But today it is important that you hear this case from those who have testified by deposition at your direction.

And as you hear their testimony, you will see that the president may have been the only individual who had the complete picture. He had all the facts and he did not always share those facts with others. He did not share those facts with Mr. Vernon Jordan. Nor did he share all the facts with Ms. Monica Lewinsky until he determines that the time is right to do so.

For example, he knows that Ms. Lewinsky is a witness but does not tell Ms. Lewinsky that fact until the time is right, and whenever the job search is proceeding.

He asks Mr. Jordan to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. But he does not tell Mr. Jordan the essential facts. First of all, that Ms. Lewinsky is a witness and secondly and that there is a dangerous relationship between them in which if she testifies, her testimony would be harmful.

The president was obviously concerned about the truthful testimony of Ms. Lewinsky. It would have been harmful to him interests in the case.

And as a result, the president personally instructed and directed the efforts of Mr. Jordan to secure Ms. Lewinsky a job, and to urge the filing of the affidavit.

Now, what is the president's defense to this charge? Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID KENDALL, CLINTON'S ATTORNEY (??): Was your assistance to Ms. Lewinsky which you described, in any way dependent upon her doing anything whatsoever in the Paula Jones' case?

VERNON JORDAN: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now you've heard that before. As you can see Mr. Jordan defends his actions and by implication, defends the actions of the president.

HUTCHINSON: Well you can weigh his intentions, but his intentions are not the issue. Because of regardless of your view of Mr. Jordan, and his motivations, they are irrelevant. His view as to whether there is a connection between the job and the testimony is not an issue. It is not an issue as to whether Miss Lewinsky thought there was a connection between the job and the testimony.

It's not an issue as to whether Revlon thought there was a connection between the job and the testimony. There is only one issue, and that is whether the president viewed that there was a connection between those two. And it is the president who under the law, had to have the corrupt intent. And that is the question that you must have to answer. And I believe that the evidence will show that regardless of what anyone else believed, he knew the direct connection.

Now after each of you hear the testimony of Miss Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan, some of you will conclude that surely he had to know that there was an inappropriate relationship between the president and Miss Lewinsky. And why do I say that?

Well, Miss Lewinsky will testify that he made it clear that she made it clear to Mr. Jordan that there was that type of relationship. At first, she sort of, is careful about it. But then she just ultimately tells him, as you will see from her testimony. But Mr. Jordan also, for those who have listened to his testimony, refers to Mother Wit, and his oft relied upon Mother Wit, would have told him as well under the circumstances, that there's something more going on.

And if he knew about the relationship, he had to know that all was not as it should be in what the president was asking him to do. The president requested a job for Miss Lewinsky at the same time he is monitoring the filing of a false affidavit, and knowing she was a witness in a case against him, all indicated that the job was not a favor for a young friend. But it was a favor for someone in high office that had to be accomplished in order to assure the cooperation of a dangerous witness.

HUTCHINSON: The evidence will show that it is the president who suggested the assistance from Miss Lewinsky and it is the president who suggested the false affidavit.

Now, let's listen to a testimony, step by step, through the job search, through the signing of the false affidavit, to the encouragement to file the false affidavit on December 17, to the discussion of the gifts on December 28, through the tampering of the testimony of Betty Currie on two occasions, and then with the president's aide when they were called before the federal grand jury or prior to that.

First, let's go to the job benefit to Miss Lewinsky. How involved was the president in this activity? Let's first listen to the president as to what he says when he testified under oath in his deposition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Do you know a man named Vernon Jordan?

CLINTON: I know him well.

QUESTION: You've known him for a long time?

CLINTON: A long time.

QUESTION: Has it ever been reported to you that he met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about this case?

CLINTON: I knew that he met with her, and I think that Betty suggested that he meet with her, and he met with her. I thought that he talked to her about something else. I didn't know that -- I thought he had given her some advice about her move to New York. It seems like that's what Betty said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Rather vague, attributes all of his knowledge about Vernon Jordan to -- reference to Miss Lewinsky to Betty, to Betty.

And let's go on and hear more of what the president has to say on this connection.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Have you ever had a conversation with Vernon Jordan in which Monica Lewinsky was mentioned?

CLINTON: I have. He told me that he talked -- he mentioned in passing to me that he had talked to her, and she had come to him for advice about moving to New York.

QUESTION: She had come to him for advice?

CLINTON: Mm-hmm. She had come to him for advice about moving to New York. She had called him and asked if she could come see him. Betty, I think, had maybe said something to him about talking to her, and he had given her some advice about moving to New York. That is all I know about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: "That is all I know about that." Diminished knowledge, diminished responsibility. But let's see what his good friend and confidant, Mr. Jordan, says about what the president knew, when he knew it and to what extent he controlled this effort.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now, is it true that your efforts to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky that you referenced in that meeting with Mr. Gittis -- were your efforts carried out at the request of the President of the United States?

JORDAN: Oh, there is no question but that through Betty Currie, I was acting on behalf of the president to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. I think that's clear from my grand jury testimony.

HUTCHINSON: OK, and I just want to make sure that that's firmly established. And in reference to your previous grand jury testimony, you indicated, I believe, on May 28, 1998, at page 61, that "she" -- referring to Betty Currie -- "was the one that called me at the behest of the President."

JORDAN: That is correct, and I think, Congressman, if, in fact, the President of the United States' secretary calls and asks for a request that you try to do the best you can to make it happen.

HUTCHINSON: And you received that request as a request coming from the president?

JORDAN: I interpreted it as a request of the president.

HUTCHINSON: And then later on in June of 1998, in your grand jury testimony at page 45, did you not reference -- testify that the president asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job?

JORDAN: There is no question but that he asked me to help, and that he asked others to help. I think that is clear from everybody's grand jury testimony.

HUTCHINSON: And just one more point in that regard. In the same grand jury testimony as correct that you testified that he -- referring to the president -- was the source of it coming to my attention in the first place?

JORDAN: If that is...

HUTCHINSON: That's page 58 of the grand jury...

JORDAN: I stand on my grand jury testimony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: As Mr. Jordan testified, the president was the source of it coming to his attention in the first place. Mr. Jordan, the president's friend, testified that this was not a casual matter for the president. He was interested, he was directing the show, and, as will be clear, he was consumed with preventing the truth from coming out in a civil rights case.

But let's start back for a moment at the beginning. In the packet that's been provided to you, there's a time line at the very beginning, and you can see, again, that there was the witness list that came out on December 5th, and that triggered the action in this case.

But as we know, there was a meeting on November 5th between Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan in Mr. Jordan's office. Ms. Lewinsky wanted a job before the witness list came out, but not a whole lot was happening on that regard. And let's look at the testimony of Mr. Jordan in regard to this November 5th meeting that he was first asked about that he had no recollection about.

HUTCHINSON: When the records were reproduced for him, he had a recollection.

Let's listen to Mr. Jordan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Well, regardless of whether you met with her in November or not, the fact is you did not do anything in November to secure a job for Ms. Lewinsky until your activities on December 11 of '97?

JORDAN: I think that's correct.

HUTCHINSON: And on December 11th, I think you made some calls for Ms. Lewinsky on that particular day?

JORDAN: I believe I did...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: There will be a pattern develop as you can see. Mr. Jordan had no recollection of the November 5th meeting when he originally testified before the grand jury. No recollection whatsoever of that meeting.

Basically he said it didn't happen.

The second time he testified before the grand jury, the record was produced. It was substantiated and he recalls that.

The second thing you can see from this is that the meeting was absolutely of no consequence to him because this was not a priority issue with him. He was not going to do anything and it started happening of course when the witness list came out. The president met with the attorneys and the witness list.

And then December 7th, the president and Mr. Jordan meet. December 8th, the meeting is set up by Ms. Lewinsky with Mr. Jordan for the 11th and the 11th when they met is what things starting moving; calls were being made. Of course that was done at the direction of the president.

But let's look at Ms. Lewinsky's recollection of that same November 5th meeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEWINSKY: OK.

BRYANT: Between your meeting with Mr. Jordan in early November and December 11th, when you met with Mr. Jordan again, you did not feel that Mr. Jordan was doing much to help you get a job. Is that correct?

LEWINSKY: I hadn't seen any progress.

BRYANT: OK. After you met with Mr. Jordan in early December, you began to interview in New York and were much more active in your job search, correct?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: In early January, you received a job offer from Revlon with the help of Vernon Jordan, is that correct?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Ms. Lewinsky at this point is at their mercy.

HUTCHINSON: She doesn't know what the communication is, she doesn't know what the president knows. The witness list has come in and she hoped things were moving, but she doesn't know it. But finally they start moving after the witness list comes in, and December 11 she has the meeting in which things start moving.

Was this a typical referral? Each of you in this body have had occasions where friends, acquaintances, at different level, previous employees, come to you and say, "I'm going to applying for a job which such-and-such a company, will you be a reference for me?" Sometimes it even goes so far as to ask you to make a call to that company that they're applying a job for.

But this is not a typical referral, as you'll see from the testimony. A few days prior to the December 11 meeting, Miss Lewinsky sends a wish-list to Vernon Jordan of the company she wanted to apply for. Mr. Jordan quickly said, "I'm not concerned about your wish list. I've got the people I want to deal with," and he took control of the job search.

And let's listen to the testimony of Mr. Jordan as he emphasizes that point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now, you mentioned that she had sent you a -- I guess some people refer to it -- a wish list, or a list of jobs that she...

JORDAN: Not jobs, companies.

HUTCHINSON: ... companies that she would be interested in seeking employment with.

JORDAN: That's correct.

HUTCHINSON: And you looked at that, and you determined that you wanted to go with your own list of friends and companies that you had better contacts with.

JORDAN: I'm sure Congressman, that you too, have been in this business and you do know that you can only call people that you know, or if you're comfortable in calling.

HUTCHINSON: Absolutely. No question about it. And let me just comment and ask your response to this. But many times, I will be listed as a reference and that can take that to any company, you might be listed as a reference. And the name Vernon Jordan would be a good reference anywhere, would it not?

JORDAN: I would hope so.

HUTCHINSON: And so even though it was a company that you might not have the best contact with, you know, you could have been helpful in that regard.

JORDAN: Well, the fact is I was running the job search, not Miss Lewinsky. And therefore, the companies that she brought or listed were not of interest to me, I knew where I would need to call.

HUTCHINSON: And that is exactly the point that you looked at getting Miss Lewinsky a job as an assignment rather than just something that you were going to be a reference for.

JORDAN: I don't whether I looked upon it as an "assignment." Getting jobs for people is not unusual for me, so I don't view it as an assignment. I just view it as something that is part of what I do.

HUTCHINSON: You're acting on behalf of the president when you're trying to get Miss Lewinsky a job, and you were in control of the job search?

JORDAN: Uh, yes.

HUTCHINSON: Testimony is very clear as to Mr. Jordan's running the job search. In essence, a job placement in behalf of the president. Now let's go again to that meeting of December 11th, in which Miss Lewinsky goes, for the first time that Mr. Jordan remembers, for that meeting about the jobs.

HUTCHINSON: Ms. Lewinsky's view of this meeting, again, Jordan's list. He was the one that was controlling the job search. And also you will see that Mr. Jordan acquires some knowledge from Ms. Lewinsky as to the relationship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: All right. Let's go forward another week or so to December the 11th and a lunch that you had with Vernon Jordan, I believe, in his office.

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: How did -- how was that meeting set up?

LEWINSKY: Through his secretary.

BRYANT: Did you instigate that, or did he call through his secretary?

LEWINSKY: I don't remember.

BRYANT: What was the purpose of that meeting?

LEWINSKY: It was to discuss my job situation.

BRYANT: And what, what -- how was that discussed?

LEWINSKY: Mr. Jordan gave me a list of three names and suggested that I contact these people in a letter that I should call him on, and that's what I did.

BRYANT: Did he ask you to copy him on the letters that you sent out?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: During this meeting, did he make any comments about your status as a friend of the president?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: What -- what did he say?

LEWINSKY: In one of his remarks, he said something about me being a friend of the president. BRYANT: And did you respond?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: How?

LEWINSKY: I said that I didn't -- I think I -- my grand jury testimony, I know I talked about this, so it's probably more accurate.

LEWINSKY: My memory right now is I said something about seeing him more as a man than as a president, and I treated him accordingly.

BRYANT: Did you express your frustration to Mr. Jordan with the president?

LEWINSKY: I expressed that sometimes I had frustrations with him, yes.

BRYANT: And what was his response to you about after you talked about the president?

LEWINSKY: He sort of jokingly said to me you know what your problem is, and don't deny it -- you're in love with him. But it was sort of light hearted nature.

BRYANT: Did you have a response to that?

LEWINSKY: I probably blushed or giggled or something.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: That was on December 11th, and I'm sure Mr. Jordan's mother wit was starting to kick in at this point, understanding that there's something a little bit more involved in the relationship between Ms. Lewinsky and the president.

But let's go to another aspect of the relationship on the job search. Let's look how information is controlled. Mr. Jordan learns ultimately on December 19th clearly that Ms. Lewinsky is on the witness list because she presents a subpoena to him.

But whenever he pursues the jobs later on and makes the call to Mr. Perlman, he does not pass that information along to the company. Does that make a difference to Revlon? You'll hear some references to Mr. Halperin who's one of the executives at McAndrews & Forbes, the parent company of Revlon and Mr. Perlman who is the CEO of McAndrews & Forbes as well. Let's listen to the testimony of Mr. Jordan on how information is controlled.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Now the second piece of information was the fact that you knew and the president knew that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena in the Jones' case and that information was not provided to either Mr. Halperin (ph) or to Mr. Perlman.

Is that correct?

JORDAN: That's correct.

HUTCHINSON: Now I wanted to read you a question and answer of Mr. Howard Giddis (ph) and his grand jury testimony of April 23, 1998. And the question was now you had mentioned before that one of the responsibilities of director is to have a fiduciary duty to the company. If it was the case that Ms. Lewinsky had been noticed as a witness in the Paula Jones case and Vernon Jordan had known that, is that something you believe as a person who works for McAndrews and Forbes is that something that you believe that Mr. Jordan should have told you or someone in the company, not necessarily you, but someone in the company when you referred her for employment?

His answer was yes.

Do you disagree with Mr. Giddis' (ph) conclusion that that was important information for McAndrews and Forbes?

JORDAN: I obviously didn't think it was important at the time and I didn't do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Why would Revlon want to know that Ms. Lewinsky was on a witness list and under subpoena in a case that was adverse to the president and the fact that the president was really the one that was wanting the job placement for Ms. Lewinsky?

I think everyone understands the extraordinary conflict, the extraordinary impropriety of that circumstances.

As Mr. Jordan himself testified previously, that whenever the subpoena was issued, it changed the circumstances, and yet the information was not provided to Revlon and Mr. Giddis (ph) certainly would have thought that it should have been.

HUTCHINSON: And so Revlon wanted to know for the same reason really that Mr. Jordan would have liked to have had that information. But whenever the president learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list, he did not share that information with Mr. Jordan himself.

And so it's explosive information that the president does not make available to him until the right time. Now let's listen to Mr. Jordan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: And so there's two conversations after the witness list came out -- one that you had with the president on December 7th and then a subsequent conversation with him after you met with Ms. Lewinsky on the 11th.

Now in your subsequent conversation after the 11th, did you discuss with the president of the United States Monica Lewinsky, and, if so, can you tell us what that discussion was?

JORDAN: If there was a discussion subsequent to Monica Lewinsky's visit to me on December the 11th with the president of the United States, it was about the job search.

HUTCHINSON: And during that, did he indicate that he knew about the fact that she had lost her job in the White House and she wanted to get a job in New York?

JORDAN: He was aware that -- he was obviously aware that she had lost her job in the White House because she was working at the Pentagon. He was also aware that she wanted to work in New York in the private sector and understood that that is why she was having conversations with me. There's no doubt about that.

HUTCHINSON: And he thanked you for helping her?

JORDAN: There's no question about that either.

HUTCHINSON: And on either of these conversations that I have referenced that you had with the president after the witness list came out, your conversation of December 7th and your conversation sometime after the 11th, did the president tell you that Ms. Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Jones case?

JORDAN: He did not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: The president knew it was not disclosed to Mr. Jordan according to his testimony.

Now Mr. Jordan has to be reminded as to how important this information was, because he previously testified that expected to be told. It was significant enough information that if Ms. Betty Currie knew that Miss Lewinsky was under subpoena, that Betty Currie should tell him. He expected the president to tell him. And that was his expectation, for natural reasons, that this is extraordinary conflict whenever the president knows there's a relationship, she's an adverse witness, she's under subpoena, we're providing a job benefit, but he kept some of those details to himself without disclosing it.

Let's listen again to Mr. Jordan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Precisely. She disclosed to you, of course, when she received the subpoena, and that's information that you expected to know and to be disclosed to you?

JORDAN: Fine.

HUTCHINSON: Is --

JORDAN: Yes. Fine.

HUTCHINSON: And in fact, if Ms. Currie -- I'm talking about Betty Currie-- if she had known that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena, you would have expected her to tell you that information as well since you were seeking employment for Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: Well, it would have been fine had she told me. I do make a distinction between being a witness on the one hand and being a defendant in some sort of criminal action on the other. She was a witness in the civil case, and I don't believe witnesses in civil cases don't have a right for -- to employment.

HUTCHINSON: Okay. I refer you to page 95 of your grand jury testimony, in which you said: "I believe that had Ms. Currie known, that she would have told me."

HUTCHINSON: And the next question, let me ask the question again, though, "Would you have expected her to tell you if she knew?" And do you recall your answer?

JORDAN: I don't.

HUTCHINSON: "Yes, sure."

JORDAN: I stand by that answer.

HUTCHINSON: And so, it's your testimony that if Ms. Currie had known that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena, you would have expected her to tell you that information?

JORDAN: It would have been helpful.

HUTCHINSON: And likewise, would you have expected the President to tell you if he had any reason to believe that Ms. Lewinsky would be called as a witness in the Paula Jones case?

JORDAN: That would have been helpful, too.

HUTCHINSON: And that was your expectation, that he would have done that in your conversations?

JORDAN: It -- it would certainly have been helpful, but it would not have changed my mind.

HUTCHINSON: Well, being helpful and that being your expectation is a little bit different. And so, I want to go back again to your testimony on March 3, page 95, and when the question is asked to you. QUESTION: "If the president had any reason to believe that Ms. Lewinsky could be called as a witness in the Paula Jones case, would you have expected him to tell you that when you spoke with him between the 11th and the 19th about her?"

And your answer: "And I think he would have."

JORDAN: My answer was yes in the grand jury testimony. My answer is yes today.

HUTCHINSON: All right. So it would have been helpful, and it was something you would have expected?

JORDAN: Yes. HUTCHINSON: And yet, according to your testimony, the President did not so advise you of that fact in the conversations that he had with you on December 7 and December 11 after he learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list?

JORDAN: As I testified...

KENDALL: Objection. Misstates the record with regard to December 11.

HUTCHINSON: I -- I will restate the question. I believe it accurately reflects the record, and I'll ask the question.

HUTCHINSON: And yet according to your testimony, the president did not so advise you of the fact that Miss Lewinsky was on the witness list. Despite the fact that he had conversations with you on two occasions: on December 7th and December 11th?

JORDAN: I have no recollection of the president telling me about the witness list.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now I'm providing some long snippets, because I want you to see the testimony of the witnesses. And I think it is very important as you piece it together. You might say, "Well there's nothing explosive here."

Whenever you're talking about obstruction of justice, it ties together, it fits together. Information is controlled and that's what we see in this particular case. Clearly, Mr. Jordan expected information because he knew that something that the president should have shared, it was not shared, according to Mr. Jordan's testimony. And for natural reasons.

If you look at the exhibit that I passed out on the time line, we've talked about: when the witness list came out, on the 7th and on the 11th or sometime thereafter, the president and Mr. Jordan meet. And that information is not disclosed, despite this fact that the president knows she's on the witness list.

And now let's go to the 17th. Because now the president is ready to share some additional information with Miss Lewinsky. Now that he has got the job search moving, perhaps she's in a more receptive mood so that she can handle the news that she is on the witness list.

So let's listen to Miss Lewinsky's testimony as to this December 17th, 2:00 am telephone conversation from the President of the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Sometime back in the December of 1997 in the morning of December the 17th, did you receive a call from the president?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: What was the purpose of that call?

BRYANT: What did you talk about?

LEWINSKY: It was threefold. First to tell me that Ms. Currie's brother had been killed in a car accident. Second, to tell me that my name was on a witness list for the Paula Jones' case. And thirdly, he mentioned the Christmas present he had for me.

BRYANT: This telephone call was somewhere in the early morning hours of 2:00 o'clock to 2:30.

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: Did it surprise you that he called you so late?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: Was this your first notice of your name being on the Paula Jones' witness list?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Again, and I will try to ask sharper questions and avoid these objections. We're at that point, and we've got a telephone conversation in the morning with you and the president. And he has among other things, mentioned to you that you're name is on the Jones' witness list.

He has also mentioned to you that perhaps you could file an affidavit to avoid to possibly testifying in that case. Is that right?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: And he's also I think now at the point we were in our questioning; it referenced the cover story that you and he had had, that perhaps "you could say that you were coming to my office to deliver papers or to see Betty Currie." Is that right?

LEWINSKY: Correct. It was from the entire relationship, that story.

BRYANT: Now when alluded to that cover story was that instantly familiar to you?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: You knew what he was talking about?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: And why was this familiar to you?

LEWINSKY: Because it was part of the pattern of the relationship.

BRYANT: As I understand your testimony, too, the cover stories were reiterated to you by the president that night on the telephone...

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: ... after he told you you would be a witness or your name was on the witness list, I should say?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: And did you understand that since your name was on the witness list that there would be a possibility that you could be subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case?

LEWINSKY: I think I understood that I could be subpoenaed, and there was a possibility of testifying. I don't know if I necessarily thought it was a subpoena to testify, but...

BRYANT: Were you, in fact, subpoenaed to testify?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Let me -- let me ask it. Did you understand in the context of the telephone conversation with the president that early morning of December the 17th, did you understand that you would deny your relationship with the president to the Jones lawyers through use of these cover stories?

LEWINSKY: From what I learned in that -- oh, through those cover stories, I don't know. But from what I learned in that conversation, I thought to myself I knew I would deny the relationship.

BRYANT: And you would deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers?

LEWINSKY: Yes, correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Do you believe Monica Lewinsky? I believe her testimony is credible. She is not trying to hammer the president. She is trying to tell the truth as to her recollection of his 2:00 a.m. call to her by the president of the United States on December 17. The news is broken to her that she's on the witness list.

HUTCHINSON: It puts it in a legal context. This is a 24-year- old ex-intern. She might not have the legal sophistication of the president, but the president certainly knows the legal consequences as to his actions. What he is telling, a witness in a case that is adverse to him, is that you do not have to tell the truth, you can use the cover stories that we used before -- and that might have been in a non-legal context.

But now we're in a different arena, and he says, "Continue the same lies, even though you're in a court of law. Continue the same pattern."

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, in my book that's illegal, and I hate to say it, but that is obstruction of justice by the president of the United States. And if you believe Miss Lewinsky then you have to accept that fact. Otherwise, we're saying that is all right for someone to take a witness who is against them and say, "Don't tell the truth, don't worry about that, use the cover stories, you can file an affidavit, you can avoid telling the truth."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is significant. It is important. Do not diminish this -- the impact of what happened on December 17 with the obstruction of justice on that occasion.

And now, let's move on.

That's December 17. We can move on to December 19. And this is when the subpoena is actually delivered to Miss Lewinsky. She calls Vernon Jordan. She's in tears, she's upset. Vernon Jordan says, "Come to -- over to my office," and they have the discussion, and you're going to hear Mr. Jordan's version of what happens on December 19, you're going to hear Miss Lewinsky's testimony as to what happens in that office on December 19 as well.

Let's hear from Mr. Jordan.

HUTCHINSON: And during this meeting, did she in fact show you the subpoena that she had received in the Jones litigation?

JORDAN: I'm sure she showed me the subpoena.

HUTCHINSON: And the subpoena that was presented to you asked her to give a deposition, is that correct?

JORDAN: As I recollect.

HUTCHINSON: But did it also ask Ms. Lewinsky or direct her to produce certain documents and tangible objects?

JORDAN: I think, if I'm correct in my recollection, it asked her if she'd produce gifts.

HUTCHINSON: Gifts, and some of those gifts were specifically enumerated?

JORDAN: I don't remember that. I do remember gifts.

HUTCHINSON: And did you discuss any of the items requested under the subpoena?

JORDAN: I did not. What I said to her was that she needed counsel.

HUTCHINSON: Now just to help you in reference to your previous grand jury testimony of March 3, 1998, and if you'd like to refer to that page 121, but I believe it was your testimony that you asked her if there had been any gifts after you looked at the --

JORDAN: I may have done that. And if that's in my testimony, I stand by it.

HUTCHINSON: And did she -- from your conversation with her, did you determine that in your opinion there was a fascination on her part with the president?

JORDAN: No question about that.

HUTCHINSON: And I think you previously described it that she had a thing for the president.

JORDAN: Thing, yes.

HUTCHINSON: And did you make any specific inquiry as to the nature of the relationship that she had with the president?

JORDAN: Yeah, at some point during that conversation, I asked her directly if she had had sexual relationships with the president. HUTCHINSON: And is this not an extraordinary question to ask a 24-year-old intern whether she had sexual relations with the president of the United States?

JORDAN: Not if you had witnessed her emotional state and this thing, as I say. It was not.

HUTCHINSON: And her emotional state and what she expressed to you about her feelings for the president is what prompted you to ask that question?

JORDAN: That plus the question of whether or not the president at the end of his term, would leave the First Lady. And that was alarming and stunning to me.

HUTCHINSON: And she related that question to you in that meeting on December 19th?

JORDAN: That's correct.

HUTCHINSON: Now, going back to the question, in which you ask her if there -- if she had had a sexual relationship with the president. What was her response?

JORDAN: "No."

HUTCHINSON: And I'm sure that that was not an idle question on your part. And I presume that you needed to the know the answer for some purpose.

JORDAN: I wanted to know the answer based on what I had seen in her expression, obviously based on the fact that this was a subpoena about her relationship with the president.

HUTCHINSON: And so you felt like you needed to know the answer to that question, to determine how you were going to handle a situation?

JORDAN: No, I thought it was a factual data that I needed to know and I asked the question.

HUTCHINSON: And why did you need to know the answer to that question?

JORDAN: I am referring this lady, Miss Lewinsky, to various companies for jobs and it seemed to me that it was important for me to know in that process whether or not there had been something going on with the president, based on what I saw and based on what I heard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Why was it important? Why was it important for Mr. Jordan to know whether she was under subpoena? Why was it important for Mr. Jordan to know whether there was a sexual relationship? Why was it important? Because those would be incredible, explosive ingredients in a circumstance that is fraught with danger and impropriety.

HUTCHINSON: And he knows that. And he asks the right questions but he doesn't listen to the right answer, nor does he take the right steps, because he is acting at the direction of the president.

And as you will see, that during this meeting on December 19th, he was keeping the president very closely informed. You will see in your packet of materials that the call, as soon as was notified, Mr. Jordan was notified, that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena, he tries to get a hold of the president. Exhibit H-25 -- a 3:51 call to the president.

He didn't make contact at that point. Ms. Lewinsky came into his office about 4:47. It was at 5:01 that he received a call from the president and so the president actually called him at the same time Ms. Lewinsky was in the office.

Let's look at Ms. Lewinsky's testimony as to her recollection of that December 19th meeting with Mr. Jordan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: You went to see Mr. Jordan and you were inside his office after 5:00 o'clock and you did -- is that correct?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Were you interrupted in the office?

LEWINSKY: Yes, he received a phone call.

BRYANT: And you testified that didn't know who that was that called?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: Did you excuse yourself?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: What -- after you came back in, what occurred? Did he tell you who he had been talking to?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: OK. What happened...

LEWINSKY: I know I've testified about this...

BRYANT: Yes.

LEWINSKY: .... so I stand by that testimony and my recollection right now is when I came back in the room at I think shortly after he had placed a phone call to Mr. Carter's office and told me to come to his office at 10:30 Monday morning.

BRYANT: Did you know who Mr. Carter was?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: Did Mr. Jordan tell you who he was?

LEWINSKY: I don't remember.

BRYANT: Did you understand he was going to be your attorney?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Did you express any concerns about the subpoena?

LEWINSKY: I think that happened before the phone call came.

BRYANT: Okay. But did you express concerns about the subpoena?

LEWINSKY: Yes, yes.

BRYANT: And what were those concerns?

LEWINSKY: In general, I think I was just concerned about being dragged into this. And I was concerned because the subpoena had called for a hat pin -- that I turn over a hat pin, and that was an alarm to me.

BRYANT: In what sense -- in what sense was it an alarm to you?

LEWINSKY: The hat pin being on the subpoena was evidence to me that someone had given that information to the Paula Jones people.

BRYANT: What did Mr. Jordan say about the subpoena?

LEWINSKY: That it was standard.

BRYANT: Did he have any comment about the specificity of the hat pin?

LEWINSKY: No. He just kept telling me to calm down.

BRYANT: Did you raise that concern with Mr. Jordan?

LEWINSKY: Uh, I don't remember. If I testified to it, then yes. If -- I don't remember right now.

BRYANT: Would you have remembered then if he made any comment or answer about the hat pin?

LEWINSKY: I mean I think I would.

BRYANT: And you don't remember?

LEWINSKY: I remember him saying something that it was, you know, calm down, it's a standard subpoena or vanilla subpoena -- something like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: What we see here is, another example of compartmentalization of information. During this meeting with Miss Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan receives a call from the president, presumably in response to the call that he had placed to the president to tell him that Miss Lewinsky had been subpoenaed.

When the president calls, Mr. Jordan takes that call in private. It's about Miss Lewinsky, it's about the subpoena, and that information is not shared with Miss Lewinsky. It's of interest to her.

Let's go on and hear some more about Miss Lewinsky's version of that conversation on December 19.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did Mr. Jordan during that meeting make an inquiry about the nature of the relationship between you and the President?

LEWINSKY: Yes, he did.

BRYANT: What was that inquiry?

LEWINSKY: I don't remember the exact wording of the questions, but there were two questions, and I think they were something like did you have sex with the President or did he--and if--or did he ask for it or some--something like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: At this point Miss Lewinsky denies the relationship. She thinks this is some type of a test. She's not sure of the reason for the question. She thinks he knows. There's a little confusion on that.

But clearly, Mr. Jordan is not satisfied with the answer, Mother Wit (ph) is still around, as he indicated. But he feels so concerned about it that that night he goes to see the president -- that we'll later see -- and asked that same question to the president.

And now, let's talk to President Clinton and see what he testifies to about when this information was reported to him on the subpoena.

Let's listen to the testimony of President CLINTON:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with subpoena in this case?

CLINTON: I don't think so.

QUESTION: Did you ever talk with Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case?

CLINTON: Bruce Lindsey -- I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she was. I think maybe that's the first person to tell me about it. I want to be as accurate as I can.

QUESTION: This is the January deposition?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN SENATOR: Chief Justice, if the manager could answer the question and then show that again because this is the second time he's shown a tape of the president without indicating which deposition it was?

REHNQUIST: Yes, I think it would be a good idea if the manager would indicate what deposition it was if you're showing a deposition of the president.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and I thank the Senator for the question. It's a very fair question, and I will try to be more clear in the identification of that. This is the testimony of William Jefferson Clinton before the deposition in the Jones case in January -- January 17th. And I believe -- are we going to replay that? No, we're not going to replay that. Let me go on.

But the testimony that he gave at that time was that, did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in that case. And the answer was "I don't think so."

And clearly Mr. Jordan was keeping close contact with the president, telling him every step of the way with the subpoena, the calls, he's placing a call back, the information is there. But, of course, the president tries to diminish that.

Now let's go on with some more testimony from Ms. Lewinsky.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did you ask Mr. Jordan to call the president and advise him of the subpoena?

LEWINSKY: Hmm, I think you, yes.

I asked him to inform the president. I don't know if it was through telephone or not.

BRYANT: And you did that because the president had asked you to make sure you let Betty know that?

LEWINSKY: Well, sure. With Betty not being in the office, I couldn't -- there wasn't anyone else that I could call to get through to him.

BRYANT: Did Mr. Jordan say to you when he might see the president next?

LEWINSKY: I believe he said he would see him that evening at a holiday reception.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, could I inquire, was the manager thinking in terms of concluding this portion in 15 minutes, or do you want to take a break now and then go...

HUTCHINSON: This would be a good time for a break.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask consent we take a 15 minute break at this time.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.

(BREAK)

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I was going to take advantage of the opportunity to replay the videotape -- in fact, I will now -- that I did not properly explain before. This is the videotape of President Clinton in his testimony before the civil deposition in the Jones case in January 1997.

REHNQUIST: You said before. You actually mean during, don't you? It's not before the deposition. It was during -- his testimony was during the deposition.

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Chief Justice, you're absolutely correct, excuse me. Thank you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in this case?

CLINTON: I don't think so.

QUESTION: Did you ever talk with Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case.

CLINTON: Bruce Lindsay -- I think Bruce Lindsay told me that she was. I think maybe that's the first person who told me she was. I want to be accurate as I can.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: And now let's go to what Mr. Jordan has to say in reference to his contacts to the president when he learned of the subpoena on December 19. Let's play that tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now, Mr. Jordan, you indicated you had this conversation with the President at about 5:01 p.m. out of the presence of Ms. Lewinsky. Now, during this conversation with the President, what did you tell the President in that conversation?

JORDAN: That Lewinsky -- I'm sure I told him that Ms. Lewinsky was in my office, in the reception area, that she had a subpoena, and that I was going to visit with her.

HUTCHINSON: And did you advise the president as well that you were going to recommend Frank Carter as an attorney?

JORDAN: I may have.

HUTCHINSON: And why was it necessary to tell the president these facts?

JORDAN: I don't know why it was not unnecessary to tell him these facts. I was keeping him informed about what was going on, and so I told him.

HUTCHINSON: Why did you make the judgment that you should call the president and advise him of these facts?

JORDAN: I just thought he ought to know. He was interested in it. He was obviously interested in it, and I felt some responsibility to tell him, and I did.

HUTCHINSON: And what was the president's response?

JORDAN: He said thank you.

HUTCHINSON: Subsequent to your conversation with the president about Monica Lewinsky, did you advise Ms. Lewinsky of this conversation with the president?

JORDAN: I doubt it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Once again, Mr. Jordan testifies that the president was obviously interested in it. This was not a matter of casual interest to him. It was a matter of deep concern that jeopardized what he saw as his position in that lawsuit.

Now let's go back again to the testimony of President Clinton, this time before the grand jury in August of 1998.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: You were familiar, weren't you, Mr. President, that she had received a subpoena...

CLINTON: Yes sir, I was.

QUESTION: Mr. Jordan informed you of that, was that right?

CLINTON: No sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Perhaps they will be able to correct it. But let me just read the answer again. "And Mr. Jordan informed you of that."

HUTCHINSON: "Is that right?" And his answer is "no, sir."

Now in fairness to the president, he gives a longer answer than that. That I would welcome anyone to read but it appears rather convoluted. But I think that you can see the contrast. There is no question in Mr. Jordan's mind as to the details that he is providing to the president on a regular basis.

We're on December 19th. The subpoena is issued. He notifies the president. He notifies the president how the job search is going. He notifies the president that they've got representation through Mr. Carter.

And so the details are provided to the president. And contrast that with the president's recollection as to "did he have any contact with Mr. Jordan," once again diminishing that.

And now let's go still to December 19th, going back to the chart where we are time wise. December 19th when the subpoena is issued, Mr. Jordan meets with Monica Lewinsky. He confronts her about the relationship.

Now he goes that evening to see the president at the White House to confront him personally about it, to discuss this with him. And let's here from Mr. Jordan.

This is at the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now would you describe your conversation with the president.

JORDAN: We were upstairs in the White House. Mrs. Jordan -- we came in by way of the Southwest Gate into the diplomatic entrance. We left the car there. I took the elevator up and Mrs. -- to the residence and Mrs. Jordan went and visited at the party. And the president was already upstairs. I had ascertained that from the usher. And I went up and I raised with him the whole question of Monica Lewinsky and asked him directly if he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and the president said, "no, never."

HUTCHINSON: All right.

Now, during that conversation did you tell the president again that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed? JORDAN: Well, we had established that.

HUTCHINSON: All right. And did you tell him that you were concerned about her fascination?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: And did you describe her as being emotional in your meeting that day?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: And did you relate to the president that Ms. Lewinsky asked about whether he was going to leave the first lady at the end of the term?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: And as -- and then, you concluded that with the question as to whether he had had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: And he said he had not, and I was satisfied -- end of conversation.

HUTCHINSON: All right. Now, once again, just as I asked the question in reference to Ms. Lewinsky, it appears to me that this is an extraordinary question to ask the president of the United States. What led you to ask this question to the president?

JORDAN: Well, first of all, I'm asking the question of my friend who happens to be the president of the United States.

HUTCHINSON: And did you expect your friend, the president of the United States, to give you a truthful answer?

JORDAN: I did.

HUTCHINSON: Did you rely upon the president's answer in your decision to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job?

JORDAN: I believed him, and I continued to do what I had been asked to do.

HUTCHINSON: Well, my question was more did you rely upon the president's answer in your decision to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job.

JORDAN: I did not rely on his answer. I was going to pursue the job in any event. But I got the answer to the question that I had asked Ms. Lewinsky earlier from her, and I got the answer from him that night as to the sexual relationships, and he said no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now, you'll have to judge for yourself as to why Mr. Jordan felt compelled to ask the question. He's asking the right questions. It was important information.

If the president had said, "Yes, there is," then it would certainly have been inappropriate to continue providing a job benefit for a witness that you're seeking an affidavit from denying a relationship when you know the relationship exists, when that witness would be adverse to the president's interest who is seeking the job.

HUTCHINSON: Now, to some, that might be convoluted, and perhaps I didn't explain it as best it can be, but it looks to me like that's why Mr. Jordan is asking the questions, because he knows it would be inappropriate if that in fact did exist.

Now, he got an answer, "No." I don't know what he thought in his mind, but clearly, as you see this conversation has developed with Ms. Lewinsky, that she eventually made it totally clear to him, without any question, that there was that relationship. But still, the job benefit was provided.

Now, we're not going to have time to go through it all, but sequentially, the next thing that happens is that, December 22nd, Ms. Lewinsky goes to Mr. Jordan's office, where Mr. Jordan drives her, in the chauffeur-driven Aiken-Gump (ph) vehicle, to Mr. Frank Carter's office, where the attorney is provided for Ms. Lewinsky, and that is the only that has happened in the referrals that Mr. Jordan took it upon himself to personally deliver a client to Mr. Carter.

And during that conversation, Ms. Lewinsky tells Mr. Jordan more of the details of their relationship. But let's go to another element of obstruction. On December 28th, a few days after Christmas -- you're very familiar with this episode, in which Ms. Lewinsky and the president meet, they exchange gifts, the testimony in the Jones case is discussed, there is concern expressed about the gifts.

She asks the president, in essence, "Should I get them out of my house," and you will hear her answer -- her testimony is very clear on this, and that's what I would like you to listen to. There is no ambiguity, there is no audience, it is very clear, and let's move now to the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Let's go back now and resume where we were before the lunch break. We were talking about the December visit to the White House and the conversation with the president. You had discussed -- well, I think we were to the point where perhaps you -- I'll ask you to bring up your discussion with the president about the subpoena and the request for production.

LEWINSKY: Part way into my meeting with the president, I brought up the concern I had as to how I would have been put -- how I might have been alerted -- not alerted, but how I was put on the witness list, and how I might have been alerted to the Paula Jones attorneys, and that I was sort of concerned about that.

So I discussed that a little, and then I said that I was concerned about the hat pin. And to the best of my memory, he said that that had concerned him as well. And...

BRYANT: Could he have said that bothered him?

LEWINSKY: He could have. I mean, I know that sometimes in my grand jury testimony they've put quotations around things when I'm attributing statements to other people. And I didn't necessarily mean that those were direct quotes. That was the gist of what I remembered him saying.

LEWINSKY: (OFF-MIKE) concern, bothered, it doesn't...

BRYANT: Was there a discussion at that point as to how someone might have -- may have discovered the hatpin and why?

LEWINSKY: Well, he asked me if I had told anybody about it, and I said no.

BRYANT: But the two of you reached no conclusion as to how that hatpin came...

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: ...to appear on the motion?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: Did he appear at all, I think, probably surprised that-- that you had received a request for production of documents or the-- the hatpin was on that document?

LEWINSKY: I didn't discuss -- we didn't discuss documents, request for documents, but with regard to the hatpin, um, I don't remember him being surprised.

BRYANT: Mm-hmm. How long did the discussion last about the -- this request for production of the items?

LEWINSKY: The topic of the Paula Jones case, maybe 5 minutes. Not very much.

BRYANT: What else was said about that?

LEWINSKY: About the case?

BRYANT: Yes.

LEWINSKY: There was -- then, at some point in this discussion--I think it was after the hatpin stuff--I had said to him that I was concerned about the gifts and maybe I should put them away or possibly give them to Betty, and as I've testified numerously, his response was either ranging from no response to "I don't know" or "let me think about it."

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUTCHINSON: I have a long segment at that point, but we're going to stop in the interest time, but I would encourage you to listen to all of that discussion of Miss Lewinsky about the December 28.

But what you just heard was that she discussed the concern about the gifts, the subpoena with the president of the United States, and that she asked him, or posed the possibility, "Perhaps I should put them away or possibly give them to Betty?"

HUTCHINSON: And her answer as to what the president said was, "I don't know" or "Let me think about it."

Now, I would agree with you that that's not enough to convict someone for obstruction of justice, taking it by itself alone. But if you take that statement -- and one thing, you know, that statement troubles you. And whenever you're talking about the chief executive of the United States saying "I don't know" or "Let me think about it" when you're talking about evidence that is under subpoena in a court proceeding, that's not the answer you'd like to hear.

But regardless, you take that statement, combined with the fact that -- that Miss Lewinsky says unequivocally that it was Betty Currie that called subsequent to that, which is documented by a cell phone call. And then, Betty Currie comes out in which to pick up the package of gifts she later places under her bed. Everyone knowing this is evidence that's under subpoena in a case.

That combination of facts gives you the circumstantial evidence, combined with the direct evidence and testimony that it had to be the president of the United States, that directed Betty Currie that Monica Lewinsky had something for you.

Now let's hear what the president has to say about what he recalls, and this is from his grand jury testimony, August 17, '98.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: After you gave her the gifts on December 28, did you speak with your secretary, Ms. Currie, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts (OFF-MIKE) compilation of gifts that Miss Lewinsky would have?

CLINTON: No sir. I didn't do that. I did not do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Well, that is a different -- is not as sophisticated a sound collection system as the United States Senate used in the depositions here and so it, I apologize for the fact that that was inaudible.

But the question that was asked of the president, "After you gave her the gifts on December 28th, did you speak with your secretary, Miss Currie, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that were some compilation of gifts that Miss Lewinsky would have." His answer, "No sir. I did not do that."

Now, his denial and then you have the facts that has been presented by the testimony of Miss Lewinsky and the circumstantial evidence. The question that was asked to Miss Lewinsky, "Did the president ever tell you to turn over the gifts." Her answer, "Not that I remember." But she's -- when I say that she testified unequivocally, whenever Miss Lewinsky was asked, "Did you later that day receive a call from Betty Currie?" The answer was, "Yes I did." And she goes ahead and explains it.

There is no hesitation, there is no question, but there -- her memory is clear that the call came from Betty Currie. Now how could Betty Currie know to go pick up the gifts? I think that you understand how that, there's only one way that could have come about and that would have been through a communication from the president to her.

And now, let's go on down the path. After we see the meeting on December 28th, there was a meeting at the Hyatt on December 31st. Now we could play this video, I would like to, with Vernon Jordan and with Miss Lewinsky. And this is a meeting at the Hyatt that Mr. Jordan totally denied ever happened in his first few testimonies before the grand jury. But in his most recent testimony before the Senate in the deposition, he was confronted with the receipts from the Hyatt and the testimony of Miss Lewinsky, which was clear and the corroborative facts, and he said, "Yes. In fact it did happen."

HUTCHINSON: And not only did he recall the meeting, but then he recalled what was discussed, that yes in fact notes were discussed there. And Ms. Lewinsky testifies that she raised the issue of other evidence that would be possibly in her apartment, notes to the president. And according to her testimony, she was told that "you need to get rid of those."

Now Mr. Jordan clearly denies that. But the point is there's more evidence at risk for the president. Mr. Jordan who is doing the work for the president has this conversation with Ms. Lewinsky that earlier denied ever happening.

And so I think you look at the credibility there. Do you believe Ms. Lewinsky? If you accept the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, then you have more evidence that is at issue that is being urged to be destroyed and not available for the truth seeking endeavor in the civil rights case.

I think that is significant. Now you say, that's not the president, that is not Mr. Jordan. You have to put this in context. Ms. Lewinsky who says that she believes she's talking to the president when she's talking to Mr. Jordan.

And I'm paraphrasing that. But that is what she was seeing in her -- seeing Mr. Jordan as a conduit to the president.

And then we do on after the meeting in the Hyatt, we go into January where the job search continues but it is tied directly to the signing of the affidavit which is false by its nature.

And if we look at the testimony of Mr. Jordan in the January 5, timeframe where the affidavit is prepared and discussed with Mr. Jordan.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Do you now why you have been calling Mr. Carter on three occasions, the day before the affidavit was signed?

JORDAN: Yes, I -- my recollection is, is that I was exchanging or sharing with Mr. Carter what had gone on, whether she had asked me to do what I refused to do. Reaffirming to him that he was the lawyer and I was not the lawyer. I -- I mean it would be so presumptuous of me to try to advice Frank Carter as to how to practice law.

HUTCHINSON: Would you have been relating to Mr. Carter your conversations with Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN: I may have.

HUTCHINSON: And if Ms. Lewinsky expressed to you any concerns about the affidavit, would you have relayed those to Mr. Carter?

JORDAN: Yes.

HUTCHINSON: And if Mr. Carter was a good attorney that was concerned about the economics of law practice, he would have likely billed Ms. Lewinsky for some of those telephone calls?

JORDAN: You have to talk to Mr. Carter about his billing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: And so you have Mr. Jordan discussing the affidavit with both Miss Lewinsky and her attorney, Mr. Carter, and if you look at the testimony of Mr. Carter, he talks about the fact that he did bill some time for his conversation with Mr. Jordan.

Certainly, there are matters of substance in relation to the affidavit that was being discussed between the three -- Miss Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Carter.

Now, let's hear what Miss Lewinsky has to say on the changes that were made in the affidavit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Okay. Have you had an opportunity to review the draft of your affidavit?

LEWINSKY: I -- yes.

BRYANT: Okay. What--do you have any comment or response?

LEWINSKY: I received it. I made the suggested changes, and I believe I spoke with Mr. Jordan about the changes I wanted to make.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Now I'm, because of time, am not going to be able to go completely through all of their testimony. But let me just take you time sequentially through what is happening here. And this is the second page of the time chart that you have.

HUTCHINSON: It was January 5th and 6th, the affidavits were prepared, discussed with Mr. Jordan and with the president. On the 7th, the affidavit is signed, and you'll recall, Mr. Jordan lets the president know that the affidavit was signed, and he says he was interested -- he was obviously interested in this.

On January 8th, the job came through, the day after the affidavit is signed, and of course it had to come through the personal call from Mr. Jordan to Mr. Perlman to make it happen if it can happen. Once that job is secure, the president is informed, "Mission accomplished."

January 15th, there is some inquiries to the news media about the gifts that had been delivered to the White House. This makes Betty Currie nervous enough that she asked to go see Mr. Jordan about it.

You go to the 17th, the president gives his deposition, in which that false affidavit is presented, on behalf of Ms. Lewinsky and the president's attorney.

And then the next day, after that deposition is given, you go to January 18th, where he is very concerned because he mentions Betty Currie's name so many times. Now, we were not able -- we did not ask for the deposition of Betty Currie. We wish that we had had that opportunity. We'd like to call her here, but that is one of the most critical and most important elements in obstruction in which the proof is so critically clear, because it happened not just on one day, but it happened on a couple of days.

We see on the 17th, the president is deposed -- and this is the third chart that you have. The 18th, the president coaches Betty Currie, going through the series of questions. On the 19th, there is this dramatic search for Ms. Lewinsky. On the 20th, the "Washington Post" story becomes known, because the president's counselors get calls, and the OIC investigation becomes known.

HUTCHINSON: On the 21st at 12:30 a.m., the Post story appears on the Internet. At 12:41, the president calls Bruce Lindsey. At 1:16 a.m. after the Post story appears, the president calls Betty Currie for 20 minutes and discusses the Post story. And then according to Betty Currie, on the 20th or the 21st, it was the second incident of coaching that took place where the president calls her in and goes through that series of questions -- I did nothing wrong, she came on to me, we were never alone. And so that was the second time that it happened.

And that, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, is another example of witness tampering. A known witness clearly going to be testifying, a subordinate employee who is called in and coached. Now the president says I was trying to gain facts. You determine that. You are the ones that have to defend that question as to whether under common sense the president was gaining information on two separate occasions, or whether he was actually trying to tamper with the testimony of a witness. The 21st, she's subpoenaed by OIC. The 23rd, she's added to the Jones witness list.

And now I want to play the last video clip that I'm going to move to on Ms. Lewinsky and some things that she said that are different in regard to the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: The president did not in that conversation on December the 17th of 1997 or any other conversation for that matter instruct you to tell the truth, is that correct?

LEWINSKY: That's correct.

BRYANT: But the pattern that you had had with the President to conceal this relationship, it was never a question that, for instance, that given day that he gave you gifts that you were not going to surrender those to the Jones attorneys because that would...

LEWINSKY: In my mind, there was never a question, no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: We have one more here I'd like you to listen to.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEWINSKY: (OFF-MIKE) I think to me that if the President had not said the Betty and letters cover, let's just say, if we refer to that, which I'm talking about in paragraph 4, page 4, I would have known to use that. So to me, encouraging or asking me to lie would have -- you know, if the President had said, "Now, listen, you'd better not say anything about this relationship, you'd better not tell them the truth, you'd better not" -- for me, the best way to explain how I feel what happened was, you know, no one asked or encouraged me to lie, but no one discouraged me, either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: It's very important to understand that we want you to know very clearly, Miss Lewinsky says that the president never told her to lie. There's no question about that. There's no dispute about that either. I think you have to look at all the context of this.

Now what the president did suggest to her was, to use an affidavit to avoid truthful testimony, to stick with the cover stories under legal context.

Is the issue here whether Miss Lewinsky believed the president was encouraging her to lie, that what the president was trying to do here? Or is the issue what the president was trying to do? It is your determination. You have to make the decision whether the president, in talking to a 24-year-old ex-employee, whether he is encouraging her to come forward and to tell the truth or, in a legal context, to use the old cover stories, to lie, to use false affidavits to avoid the truth from coming out.

HUTCHINSON: It's not Ms. Lewinsky's viewpoint that's important, it is what the president intended. What did the president intend by this conversation when he told her on December 17, "Guess what? Bad news. You're a witness."

And then he proceeded to suggest to her ways to avoid truthful testimony. I really don't care what is in Ms. Lewinsky's mind at that point. The critical issue is what is in the president's mind at that point. As to what he intended, was it an innocent conversation, or was it a conversation with corrupt intent?

And I believe that if you put all of this in context from the affidavit to the job search to the coaching of Ms. Betty Currie to all of the other conversation with the aides, that it was the president's intent to avoid the workings of the administration of justice, to impede the flow of the truth in the administration of justice for his own benefit.

And that is what obstruction of justice is about. That is what people go to jail about, and that is what we are presenting to you as a factual basis for this case.

And now, I yield to my fellow manager, Mr. Rogan.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I think it would be appropriate that we take a break at this time for lunch and we return at 1:15. I ask consent that that be the case.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.

(RECESS)

REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order. The chair recognizes the Majority Leader.

LOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I believe we are ready to resume the presentation by the House managers, and Manager Rogan is prepared to proceed.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan.

ROGAN: Members of the Senate, before the break you had the opportunity to hear the very able presentation from Mr. Manager Hutchinson relating to the article of impeachment alleging obstruction of justice against the president of the United States.

I would like to use my portion to discuss very briefly Article I of the impeachment resolution that alleges on August 17, 1998, the president committed perjury before a federal grand jury conducting a criminal investigation.

He did this in a number of ways, embarking on a calculated effort to cover up illegal obstruction of justice. First, the president lied about statements he made to his top aides regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is significant, because the president admitted under oath that he knew these aides were potential witnesses before a criminal grand jury.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship, that I used -- in the language I used, I said there's nothing going on between us -- that was true. I said I have not had sex with her -- as I define it, that was true. And did I hope that I would never have to be here on this day giving this testimony? Of course.

But I also didn't want to do anything to complicate this matter further. So I said things that were true, they may have been misleading, and if they were, I have to take responsibility for it, and I'm sorry.

QUESTION: They may have been misleading, sir, and you knew though, after January 21 when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that they might be witnesses.

QUESTION: You knew that they might be called into a grand jury, didn't you?

CLINTON: That's right.

QUESTION: Do you recall (OFF-MIKE) denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to the following people: Harry Thomason, Erskine Bowles, Harold Ickes, Mr. Podesta, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Betty Currie? Do you recall denying any sexual relations...?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: The question to the president, "You knew they might be called into a grand jury, didn't you?" Answer by the president, "That's right." The president's testimony, that he said things that were misleading, but true, to his aids, was perjury. Just as the president predicted, several of his top aids later were called to testify before the grand jury as to what the president told them.

And when they testified before the grand jury, they passed along the president's false account, just as the president intended. The president's former chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, and his current Chief of Staff, John Podesta, went before the grand jury and testified that the president told them he did not have sexual relations with Monica and he did not ask anybody to lie.

Mr. Podesta had an additional meeting with the president two days after the story broke. Mr. Podesta testified that at that meeting with the president, the president was extremely explicit in saying he never had sex with her, in any way whatsoever, and that he was not alone with her in the Oval Office.

The most glaring example of the president using an aid as a messenger of lies to the grand jury was his manipulation of Presidential Assistant Sidney Blumenthal. Mr. Blumenthal has been assistant to the President since August of 1997.

ROGAN: Mr. Blumenthal testified that dealing with the media was one of his responsibilities on January 21, 1998, the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke.

Mr. Blumenthal testified under oath that once the story became public he attended twice a day, White House strategy sessions called to deal with the political, legal and media impact of the Clinton scandals on the White House.

In his deposition testimony taken just this week by authority of the United States Senate, Mr. Blumenthal shared in chilling detail the story of how the president responded to the public discovery of his long-standing relationship with a young woman who had shared tearful and emotional descriptions of her love for him.

Mr. Clinton responded not in love, not in friendship, not even with a grain of concern for her wellbeing or emotional stability.

Instead the president took the deep and apparently unrequited emotional attachment Monica Lewinsky had formed for him and prepared to summarily take her life and throw it on the ash heap.

The date is January 21, 1998. The Lewinsky scandal had just broken in the newspapers that morning. Mr. Blumenthal met initially with the First Lady, Mrs. Clinton to get her take on the growing political fire storm.

Later that day Mr. Blumenthal is summoned to the Oval Office. Listen as Sidney Blumenthal describes step by step the destructive mechanism of the man who twice was elected president under the banner of feeling other people's pain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Mr. Blumenthal, specifically inviting your attention to January 21st, 1998, you testified before the grand jury that on that date you personally spoke to the president regarding the Monica Lewinsky matter, correct?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

ROGAN: Thank you. You are familiar with the Washington Post story that broke that day?

BLUMENTHAL: I am.

ROGAN: The story stated that the Office of Independent Counsel was investigating whether the president made false statements about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones case.

BLUMENTHAL: Right.

ROGAN: And also that the Office of Independent Counsel was investigating whether the president obstructed justice in the Jones case. Is that your best recollection of what that story was about?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

ROGAN: And so you now remember that the president asked to speak with you?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

ROGAN: Did you go to the Oval Office?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

ROGAN: During that conversation, were you alone with the president?

BLUMENTHAL: I was.

ROGAN: Do you remember if the door was closed?

BLUMENTHAL: It was.

ROGAN: When you met with the president, did you relate to him a conversation you had with the first lady earlier that day? BLUMENTHAL: I did.

ROGAN: What did you tell the president the first lady told you earlier that day?

BLUMENTHAL: I believe that I told him that the first lady had called me earlier in the day and, in the light of the story in the Post, had told me that the president had helped troubled people in the past, and that he had done it many times, and that he was a compassionate person, and that he helped people also out of his religious conviction, and that this was part of his nature.

ROGAN: And did she also tell you that one of the other reasons he helped people was out of his personal temperament?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes. That's what I mean by that.

ROGAN: Do you remember telling the president that the first lady said to you that she felt that -- with -- in reference to this story, that he was being attacked for political motives?

BLUMENTHAL: I remember her saying that to me, yes.

ROGAN: And you relayed that to the president?

BLUMENTHAL: I'm not sure I relayed that to the president. I may have just relayed the gist of the conversation to him. I don't -- I'm not sure whether I relayed the entire conversation.

ROGAN: Inviting the senators' and counsels' attention to the June 4th, 1998 testimony of Mr. Blumenthal, page 47, beginning at line five.

Mr. Blumenthal, let me just read a passage to you, and tell me if this helps to refresh your memory. Do you have that now?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes I do. Thank you.

ROGAN: Reading at line five. "I was in my office, and the president asked me to come to the Oval Office. I was seeing him frequently in this period about the State of the Union. Blair's visit" -- that was Prime Minister Tony Blair, is that correct?

BLUMENTHAL: That's right.

ROGAN: Thank you. And then again, reading at line seven: "So I went up to the Oval Office, and I began the discussion, and I said that I had received -- that I had spoken to the first lady that day in the afternoon about the story that had broke in the morning, and I related to the president my conversation with the first lady, and the conversation went as follows.

ROGAN: "The first lady said that she was distressed that the President was being attacked, in her view, for political motives for his ministry of a troubled person. She said that the President ministers to troubled people all the time," and then it goes on to...

BLUMENTHAL: Right.

ROGAN: ...relate the substance of the answer you just gave. Does that help to refresh your recollection with respect to what you told the President, the first lady had said earlier?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

ROGAN: Thank you.

And do you now remember that the first lady had indicated to you that she felt the President was being attacked for political motives?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, I remember she said that to me.

ROGAN: And just getting us back on track, a few moments ago, I think you--you shared with us that the first lady said that the President helped troubled people and he had done it many times in the past.

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

ROGAN: Do you remember testifying before the grand jury on that subject, saying that the First Lady said he has done this dozens, if not hundreds, of times with people...

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

ROGAN: ...with troubled people?

BLUMENTHAL: I recall that.

ROGAN: After you related the conversation that you had with the First Lady to the President, what do you remember saying to the President next about the subject of Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, I recall telling him that I understood he felt that way.

BLUMENTHAL: And that he did help people, but that he should stop trying to help troubled people personally, that troubled people are troubled and they can get you in a lot of messes. And that you had to cut yourself off from it, and you just had to do it.

That's what I recall saying to him.

ROGAN: Do you also remember in that conversation saying to him "you really need to not do that at this point but you can't near anybody who is even remotely crazy. You're president."

BLUMENTHAL: Yes. I think that was a little later in the conversation but I do recall saying that.

ROGAN: When you told the president that he should avoid contact with troubled people, what did the president say to you in response?

BLUMENTHAL: I'm trying to remember the sequence of it. He, he said that was very difficult for him. He said he, he felt a need to help troubled people and it was hard for him to cut himself off from doing that.

ROGAN: Do you remember him saying specifically "it's very difficult for me to do that; given how I am, I want to help people."

BLUMENTHAL: I recall, I recall that.

ROGAN: And when the president referred to the trying to help people, did you understand him in that conversation to be referring to Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I think it included Monica Lewinsky, but also many others.

ROGAN: But it was your understand that he was all -- that he was specifically referring to Monica Lewinsky in that list of people that he had tried to help?

BLUMENTHAL: I believe that was implied.

ROGAN: Do you remember being asked that question before the grand jury and giving the answer, "I understood that."?

BLUMENTHAL: If you could point it out to me, I'd be happy to see it.

ROGAN: Certainly. Inviting the senators' and councils' attention to the June 25th, 1998 grand jury, page five. I believe it's at lines six through eight.

BLUMENTHAL: Yes, I see that. Thank you.

ROGAN: You recall that now?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes.

ROGAN: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Following this conversation where Mr. Blumenthal told the president about his conversation with the First Lady that day, the president told Mr. Blumenthal about the president's own conversation he had earlier that day with his pollster, Dick Morris.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Mr. Blumenthal did the president then relate a conversation he had with Dick Morris to you?

BLUMENTHAL: He did.

ROGAN: What was the substance of that conversation as the president related it to you?

BLUMENTHAL: He said that he had spoken to Dick Morris earlier that day and that Dick Morris had told him that if Nixon, Richard Nixon had given a nationally televised speech at the beginning of the Watergate Affair, acknowledging everything he'd done wrong, he may well have survived it. And that was the conversation that Dick Morris, Mr. Dick Morris said to the president.

ROGAN: Did it sound to you like the president was suggesting perhaps, he would go on television and give a national speech?

BLUMENTHAL: I don't know, I didn't know. ROGAN: And when the president related the substance of his conversation with Dick Morris to you, how did you respond to that?

BLUMENTHAL: I said to the president, "Well, what have you done wrong?"

ROGAN: Did he reply?

BLUMENTHAL: He did.

ROGAN: What did he say?

BLUMENTHAL: He said I haven't done anything wrong.

ROGAN: And what did you say to that response?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, I said, as I recall, that's one of the stupidest ideas I ever heard. If you haven't done anything wrong, why would you do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: After denying to Mr. Blumenthal any wrongdoing with Monica Lewinsky, the president then struck the harshest of blows against her. He launched a preemptive strike against her name and her character to an aide that he expected would be -- and very shortly became -- a witness before a federal grand jury investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Did the president then give you his account of what happened between him and Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: As I recall, he did.

ROGAN: What did the president tell you?

BLUMENTHAL: He spoke fairly rapidly, as I recall, at that point and said that she had come on to him and had made a demand for sex, that he had rebuffed her, turned her down, and that she threatened him. And he said that she said to him that she was called the stalker by her peers, and that she hated the term, and that she would claim that they had had an affair whether they had or they hadn't, and that she would tell people.

ROGAN: Do you remember him also saying that the reason Monica Lewinsky would tell people that is because then she wouldn't be known by her peers as "The Stalker" anymore?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes, that's right.

ROGAN: Do you remember the President also saying that -- and I'm quoting--"I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain for a lot of people. I'm not going to do that again"?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes. He told me that.

ROGAN: And that was in the same conversation that you had with the President?

BLUMENTHAL: Right, in -- in that sequence.

ROGAN: Can you describe for us the President's demeanor when he shared this information with you?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes. He was, uh, very upset. I thought he was, a man in anguish.

ROGAN: And at that point, did you repeat your earlier admonition to him as far as not trying to help troubled people?

BLUMENTHAL: I did. I think that's when I told him that you can't get near crazy people, uh, or troubled people, you're President; you just have to separate yourself from this.

ROGAN: And I'm not sure, based on your testimony, if you gave that admonition to him once or twice. Let me -- let me clarify for you why my questioning suggested it was twice. In your grand jury testimony on June the 4th, at page 49, beginning at line 25, you began the sentence by saying, and I quote, "And I repeated to the President...

BLUMENTHAL: Right.

ROGAN: ...that he really needed never to be near people who were...

BLUMENTHAL: Right.

ROGAN: ...troubled like this," and so forth. Do you remember now if you--if that was correct? Did you find yourself in that conversation having to repeat the admonition to him that you'd given earlier?

BLUMENTHAL: I'm sure I did. Uh, I felt -- I felt that pretty strongly. He shouldn't be involved with troubled people.

ROGAN: Do you remember the president also saying something about being like a character in a novel?

BLUMENTHAL: I do.

ROGAN: What did he say?

BLUMENTHAL: He said to me that he felt like a character in a novel. He felt like somebody surrounded by an oppressive environment, that was creating a lie about him. He said he felt like the character in the novel "Darkness at Noon."

ROGAN: Did he also say he felt like he can't get the truth out?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes, I believe he said that.

ROGAN: Politicians are always loath to confess their ignorance, particularly on videotape. I will do so. I am unfamiliar with the novel "Darkness at Noon." Did you have -- do you have any familiarity with that, or did you understand what the president meant by that?

BLUMENTHAL: I understood what he meant. I was familiar with the book.

ROGAN: What did he mean by that, per your understanding?

BLUMENTHAL: The book is by Arthur Koestler, who was somebody who had been a communist and become disillusioned with communism. And it's an anti-communist novel. It's about the Stalinist purge trials, and somebody who was a loyal communist who then is put in one of Stalin's prisons and held on trial and executed, and it's about his trial.

ROGAN: Did you understand what the president was trying to communicate when he related his situation to the character in that novel?

BLUMENTHAL: I think he felt that the world was against him.

ROGAN: I thought only members of Congress felt that way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: The president continued to pass along false information to Mr. Blumenthal, regarding the substance of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Mr. Blumenthal, did you ever ask the president if he was ever alone with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I did.

ROGAN: What was his response?

BLUMENTHAL: I asked him a number of questions that appeared in the press that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Mr. Blumenthal, did you ever ask the President if he was ever alone with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I did.

ROGAN: What was his response?

BLUMENTHAL: I asked him a number of questions that appeared in the press that day. I asked him, uh, if he were alone, and he said that, uh, he was within eyesight or earshot of someone when he was with her.

ROGAN: What other questions do you remember asking him?

BLUMENTHAL: There was a story in the paper that there were recorded messages left by him on her voice-mail and I asked him if that were true.

ROGAN: What did he say?

BLUMENTHAL: He said that it was -- that he had called her.

ROGAN: You had asked him about a press account that said there were potentially a number of telephone messages left by the President for Monica Lewinsky.

And he relayed to you that he called her. Did he tell you how many times he called her?

BLUMENTHAL: He did. He said he called once. He said he called when, uh, Betty Currie's brother had died, to tell her that.

ROGAN: And other than that one time that he shared that information with you, he shared no other information respecting additional calls?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: He never indicated to you that there were over telephone conversations between himself and Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: No. ROGAN: Based on your conversation with the President at that time, would it have surprised you to know that there were over 50-- there were records of over 50 telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky and the President?

BLUMENTHAL: Would I have been surprised at that time?

ROGAN: Yes.

BLUMENTHAL: I -- to see those records and if he -- I don't fully grasp the question here.

BLUMENTHAL: Would I have been surprised?

ROGAN: Based on the president's response to your question at that time, would it have surprised you to have been told or to have later learned that there were over 50 recorded -- 50 conversations between the president and Ms. Lewinsky.

BLUMENTHAL: I did (ph) later learn that as the whole country did, and I was surprised.

ROGAN: When the president told you that Monica Lewinsky threatened him, did you ever feel compelled to report that information to the Secret Service?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: The FBI, or other law enforcement organizations?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: I'm assuming that a threat to the president from somebody in the White House would normally send off alarm bells among staff?

UNKNOWN: Well, I'd like to object to the question senator. There is no testimony that Mr. Blumenthal learned of a threat contemporaneously was it being made by someone in the White House. This is a threat that was related to him sometime afterwards by someone who was no longer employed in the White House. So, I think the question doesn't relate to the testimony of this witness.

ROGAN: Respectfully, I'm not sure what the legal basis of the objection is. The evidence before is is that the president told the witness that Monica Lewinsky threatened him.

UNKNOWN: Well, I think the answer is that he would say the stalking was contemporaneous and I didn't think it appropriate to say.

UNKNOWN: He's got to answer the question anyway.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PENNSYLVANIA): We've conferred and overruled the objection on the grounds that it calls for an answer, that however the witness chooses to answer it, that it was not a contemporaneous threat or he thought it was stale (ph) or whatever he thinks.

SPECTER: But the objection is overruled.

ROGAN: Thank you. Let me restate the question, if I may. Mr. Blumenthal, would a threat...

SPECTER: I withdraw the agreement (ph).

(LAUGHTER)

ROGAN: Senator Specter, the ruling is just fine by my liking. I'm going to try to simplify the question for the witness's benefit.

SPECTER: We'll hold in abeyance the decision on whether to reinstate.

ROGAN: Maybe I should just quit while I'm ahead then, and have the question read back. Basically, Mr. Blumenthal, what I'm asking is, I mean, normally would a threat from somebody against the president in the White House typically require some sort of report being made to a law enforcement agency?

BLUMENTHAL: In the abstract, yes.

ROGAN: This conversation that you had with the president on January the 21st, 1998, how did that conversation conclude?

BLUMENTHAL: I believe we -- well, I believe that after that, I said to the president who seemed to me to be upset that you needed to find some sure footing and to be confident, and we went on, I believe, to discuss the state of the union.

ROGAN: You went on to other business?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes, we went on to talk about public policy.

ROGAN: When this conversation with the president concluded as it related to Monica Lewinsky, what were your feelings toward the president's statement to you?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, they were complex.

BLUMENTHAL: I believed him, uh, but I was also, uh--I thought he was very upset. That troubled me. And I also was troubled by his association with troubled people and thought this was not a good story and thought he shouldn't be doing this.

ROGAN: Do you remember also testifying before the grand jury that you felt that the President's story was a very heartfelt story and that "he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him"?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes, that's what I told the grand jury, I believe; right.

ROGAN: That was--that was how you interpreted the President's story?

BLUMENTHAL: Yes, I did. He was, uh--he seemed--he seemed emotional.

ROGAN: When the President told you he was helping Monica Lewinsky, did he ever describe to you how he might be helping or ministering to her?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: Did he ever describe how many times he may have tried to help or minister to her?

BLUEMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: Did he tell you how many times he visited with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: Did he tell you how many times Monica Lewinsky visited him in the Oval Office complex?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: Did he tell you how many times he was alone with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: He never described to you any intimate physical activity he may have had with Monica Lewinsky? BLUMENTHAL: Oh, no.

ROGAN: Did the President ever tell you that he gave any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: Did he tell you that Monica Lewinsky gave him any gifts?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: Based on the president's story as he related on January 21st, would it have surprised you to know, at that time, that there was a repeated gift exchange between Monica Lewinsky and the president?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, I learned later about that, and I was surprised.

ROGAN: The president never told you that he exchanged in occasional sexual banter with her on the telephone?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: He never told you about any cover stories that he and Monica Lewinsky may have developed to disguise a relationship?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: He never suggested to you that there might be some physical evidence pointing to a physical relationship between himself and Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: Did the president ever discuss his grand jury -- strike that. Did the president ever discuss his deposition testimony with you in the Paula Jones case on that date?

BLUMENTHAL: Oh, no.

ROGAN: Did he ever tell you that he denied under oath in his Paula Jones deposition that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: Did the president ever tell you that he ministered to anyone else who then made a sexual advance toward him?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: One of the things that the president's counsel has continually urged upon this body, as they did over in the House of Representatives, is to look at the president's state of mind, in determining whether, in fact, he committed the crime of perjury.

ROGAN: We hope that you will do that, because nowhere is the president's state of mind more evident than it is in the manner in which he dealt with Sidney Blumenthal at this point. Remember, the date of this conversation that Sidney Blumenthal just related to you was January the 21st, the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke. About a month later, Sidney Blumenthal was called to testify as a witness before the grand jury. That was the first time.

Five months later, or four months later, Sidney Blumenthal was called back to testify to the grand jury, not once, but two more times. From January 21st until the end of June, 1998, the president had almost six months in which to tell Sidney Blumenthal, after he was subpoenaed, but before he testified, not to tell the grand jury information that was false. The president had the opportunity to not use his aid as a conduit of false information.

Listen to what Sidney Blumenthal said the president failed to tell him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: After you were subpoenaed to testify, but before you testified before the Federal Grand Jury, did the president ever recant his earlier statements to you about Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: No.

ROGAN: After you were subpoenaed, but before you testified before the Federal Grand Jury, did the president ever say that he did not want you to mislead the grand jury with a false statement?

BLUMENTHAL: No, we didn't have any subsequent conversation about this matter.

ROGAN: So, it would be fair to also say that after you were subpoenaed, but before you testified before the Federal Grand Jury, the president never told you that he was not being truthful with you in that January 21st conversation about Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: He never spoke to me about that at all.

ROGAN: The president never instructed you before your testimony before the grand jury not to relay his false account of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: We didn't speak about anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: The president of the United States used a special assistant, one of his aides, as a conduit to go before a federal grand jury and present false and misleading information and preclude the grand jury from being able to make an honest determination in their investigation.

He obstructed justice when he did it. And when he denied that activity, he committed the offense of perjury. In response to a question from Mr. Manager Graham, Mr. Blumenthal candidly addressed the president's claim under oath that he was truthful with his aides that he knew would be future grand jury witnesses.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SOUTH CAROLINA): Knowing what you know now, do you believe the president lied to you about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I do.

GRAHAM: I appreciate your honesty. Is it a fair statement, given your previous testimony concerning your 30-minute conversation, that the president was trying to portray himself as a victim of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I think that's the import of his whole story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: In an earlier presentation, the president's attorney, Mr. Ruff, said that the very same denial the president made to his family and his friends was the same one he made to the American people. Mr. Ruff said, "Having made the announcement to the whole country, it is simply absurd, I suggest to you, to believe that he somehow was attempting corruptly to influence his senior staff when he told them virtually the same thing at the same time."

ROGAN: Members of the Senate, Mr. Ruff's conclusion is wrong because his premise is wrong. The president didn't tell the American public and his aides the same thing nor did he make the very same denial.

On the contrary, the president went out of his way with his aides, to make explicit denials, coupled with character assassination against Monica Lewinsky.

Why the distinction?

Because the American public was not destined to be subpoenaed as a witness before the grand jury and the president's aides were.

Members of the Senate, our time draws short. The record is replete with other examples which I have addressed and which Mr. Manager Hutchinson has addressed dealing with the president's perjuries in other areas.

For instance in the Paula Jones deposition where he emphatically denied having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky that we now know to be true, a relationship that a federal judge ordered him to discuss with Paula Jones' attorneys because it was relevant information in a sexual civil harassment lawsuit.

The president's perjury is with respect to Betty Currie and using Betty Currie as somebody to be brought into the Oval Office so that he could coach her as a witness and doing everything he could in his testimony to ensure that the Jones' attorneys would subpoena her as a witness, to once again use a White House aide as a conduit of false information before the grand jury.

I don't feel the need to have to go over this ground with you any further.

In my final couple of minutes before I reserve time, I do want to raise one last point, because I think it's a valid one and it perhaps in the long run is the most important point that this body should consider in coming to their verdict.

ROGAN: We have heard an awful lot, throughout this entire episode, about the idea of proportionality of punishment. We've also heard that lying about sex somehow minimizes the perjury, because everybody does it.

Many people in everyday life, under the stress of ordinary relations, may well lie about personal matters when confronted with embarrassing situations. But no, everybody doesn't commit perjury under oath in a court proceeding, having been ordered by a federal judge to answer questions. And if they do, they generally don't expect to keep their job or their liberty if they get caught.

The dispensation this president wants for himself is not the same dispensation he grants, as head of the executive branch, to ordinary Americans when they lie about sex under oath. Bill Clinton wants it both ways. The question before this body is whether you are going to give it to him.

During our committee hearings, we learned the Clinton administration had no shyness in prosecuting other people for lying under oath about consensual sex in civil cases, even when the underlying civil case was dismissed.

For instance, Dr. Barbara Battalino was an attorney and a VA doctor, when she began a relationship with one of her counseling patients at a VA hospital. On a single occasion, she performed an inappropriate sexual act with him in her office. The patient later sued the Veterans' Administration for, among other things, sexual harassment.

ROGAN: During a deposition in the civil lawsuit, Dr. Battalino was asked if anything of a sexual nature took place in her office with the patient. Fearing embarrassment, disgrace, and the loss of her job, Dr. Battalino answered no. Later she learned that the patient had taped recorded conversations which proved that she lied about sex under oath. Even though the patient's harassment case was eventually dismissed, the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted Dr. Battalino. She lost her medical license, she lost her right to practice law, she was fired from her job. She later agreed to a plea bargain. She was fined $3,500 and sentenced to six months of imprisonment under electronic monitoring.

Listen to the words of Dr. Battalino as she testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and then explain to her the theory of proportionality -- if you can.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Dr. Batta --

BATTALINO: Battalino.

ROGAN: Battalino. Your case intrigues me. I want to make sure I understand the factual circumstances. You lied about a one-time act of consensual sex with someone on federal property.

BATTALINO: Yes.

ROGAN: Is that correct?

BATTALINO: Absolutely correct.

ROGAN: And this act of perjury was in a civil lawsuit, not in a criminal case.

BATTALINO: That's also correct. And that --

ROGAN: In fact, the civil case eventually was dismissed.

BATTALINO: Correct.

ROGAN: Yet, despite the dismissal, you were prosecuted by the Clinton Justice Department for this act of perjury, is that correct?

BATTALINO: That's correct. ROGAN: What I want to know, Dr. Battalino, during your ordeal, during your prosecution, did anybody from the White House, from the Justice Department, did any members of Congress, did any academics from respected universities, ever show up at your trial and suggest that you should be treated with leniency because everybody lies about sex?

BATTALINO: No sir.

ROGAN: Did anybody ever come forward from the White House or from the Justice Department and urge leniency for you because your perjury was only in a civil case?

BATTALINO: No.

ROGAN: Did they argue for leniency because the civil case, at which you committed perjury, was ultimately dismissed?

BATTALINO: No.

ROGAN: Did anybody from the White House ever say that leniency should be granted to you because you otherwise did your job very well?

BATTALINO: No.

ROGAN: Did anybody ever come forward from Congress to suggest that you were the victim of an overzealous or sex-obsessed prosecutor?

BATTALINO: No.

ROGAN: Now, according to the "New York Times" they report that you lied when your lawyer asked you at a deposition whether, "Anything of a sexual nature" occurred. Is that correct?

BATTALINO: Yes, that's correct.

ROGAN: Did anybody from Congress or from the White House come forward to defend you saying that that phrase was ambiguous or it all depended what the word "anything" meant.

BATTALINO: No sir. May I just -- I'm not sure if it was my lawyer that asked the question, but that is the exact question that I was asked.

ROGAN: The question that you were asked that caused your prosecution for perjury?

BATTALINO: That's correct.

ROGAN: No one ever argued that that phrase itself was ambiguous, did they?

BATTALINO: No. UNIDENTIFIED JUDGE: Does the gentleman yield?

ROGAN: Regrettably, my time is limited and I will not yield for that purpose.

Now Doctor, you lost two licenses, you lost a law license...

BATTALINO: Well I have a law degree, I was not a member of any bar.

ROGAN: Your conviction precludes you from practicing law?

BATTALINO: That's correct, sir.

ROGAN: You also had a medical degree?

BATTALINO: That's correct.

ROGAN: You lost your medical degree?

BATTALINO: Yes. I am no longer permitted to practice medicine either.

ROGAN: Did anybody from the White House or from Congress come forward during your prosecution or during your sentencing and suggest that rather than you suffer the incredibly difficult punishment of no longer being able to practice your profession, perhaps you should simply just receive some sort of rebuke or censure?

BATTALINO: No one came to my aid or defense, no.

ROGAN: Nobody from the Justice Department suggested that during your sentencing hearing?

BATTALINO: No.

ROGAN: Has anybody come forward from the White House to suggest to you that in light of circumstances as we now appear to see them unfolding, you should be pardoned for your offense?

BATTALINO: Nobody has come, no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: That's how the Clinton administration defines proportionality and punishment. Mr. Chief Justice, we reserve the balance of our time.

REHNQUIST: Very well. The Chair recognizes the Majority Leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe now we would be prepared to go to up to three hours of the White House counsel -- and how much time is remaining for the House Managers?

REHNQUIST: Thirty-one minutes.

LOTT: Would the Chief Justice suggest that we take a brief break here? REHNQUIST: No, let's keep going.

LOTT: All right, sir.

(LAUGHTER)

LOTT: I guess that settles that. Well, I'll ask you again later.

REHNQUIST: The Chair recognizes Ms. Counsel Seligman.

NICOLE K. SELIGMAN, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON: Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, the House Managers have suggested to you that the deposition of Ms. Lewinsky helped their case.

SELIGMAN: The opposite is true. Ms. Lewinsky undermined critical aspects of the House Managers obstruction case. As those of you who watched the entire video are well aware, the managers have cleverly snipped here and there in an effort to present their story, even if as a result the story they are telling you is not Ms. Lewinsky's story.

They have distorted, they have and they have created a profoundly erroneous impression.

So, let's look at the facts. In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky reaffirmed her previous testimony and provided extremely useful supplements to that testimony.

We asked her no questions. Why? Because there was no need. Her testimony exonerated the president.

In four areas in particular, what she said demonstrates that the allegations in the articles cannot stand.

First, she refuted the allegations in Article II, Subpart I, with respect to alleged efforts to obstruct and influence Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit.

Second, she contradicted the allegations in Article lI, Subpart II, with respect to alleged efforts to influence Ms. Lewinsky's testimony as distinct from her affidavit.

Third, she undermined the allegations in Article II, Subpart II with respect to alleged efforts to conceal gifts.

And fourth, she rebutted the allegations in Article II, Subpart IV with respect to Ms. Lewinsky's job search. I will discuss each briefly.

SELIGMAN: Let's begin with the December 17 phone call between the president and Ms. Lewinsky, which is at the heart of article two's first two sub-parts. The managers have consistently exaggerated the facts, the impact, and the import of this conversation. They have relentlessly argued that you should draw inferences and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.

Ms. Lewinsky's testimony this week should put an end to these inflated claims about that call.

Article two charges, in sub-part one, that the president, on or about December 17th, 1997, corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false, and misleading.

On or about December 17. In other words, the allegation is firmly grounded in the December 17th phone call. That's where the House of Representative charged the deed was done. That's the single event on which the managers base the first obstruction of justice charge.

Indeed, Mr. Manager McCollum made this point emphatically before the Senate. He claimed, and I quote, "In this context, the evidence is compelling that the president committed both the crimes of obstruction of justice and witness tampering right then and there, on December 17."

He went on: "Now, Monica Lewinsky's testimony is so clear about this that the president's lawyers probably won't spend a lot of time with you on this. They didn't in the Judiciary Committee. I could be wrong, and they probably will just to show me I am wrong."

Well, Mr. McCollum was wrong in one respect. We do plan to spend time on that call, but he was absolutely right in another respect. He was correct that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is so clear on this issue. It is so clear, it exonerates the president.

SELIGMAN: The managers asked this body to permit the deposition and later the live testimony of Miss Lewinsky to complete their proof -- as Mr. Manager Bryant stated, an appropriate examination, and an appropriate cross-examination I might add, let's don't limit the White House attorneys here -- of Miss Lewinsky on the factual disputes of the affidavit and their cover story. Wouldn't that be nice to hear?

Well, the managers got their examination of Miss Lewinsky about the December 17 phone call, and it defeated the charge. It showed that she and the president did not discuss the content of an affidavit -- never, ever. Again, the managers ask you to convict the president and remove him from office for what turns out to be his silence. No discussion of content.

Let's listen to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky about that December 17 phone call. It's critically important. And we're showing it to you unvarnished, not in snippets, because the snippets you have seen are terribly misleading.

The tape you will hear establishes beyond doubt that she and the president did not discuss the content of the affidavit in that call or ever. It establishes beyond doubt that what happened is not obstruction of justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Sometime back in December of 1997 -- in the morning of December the 17th, did you receive a call from the president?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: What was the purpose of that call? What did you talk about?

LEWINSKY: It was threefold. First, to tell me that Ms. Currie's brother had been killed in a car accident. Second, to tell me that my name was on a witness list for the Paula Jones case. And thirdly, he mentioned the Christmas present he had for me.

BRYANT: This telephone call was somewhere in the early morning hours of two o'clock -- two-thirty?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: Did it surprise you that he called you so late?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: Was this your first notice of your name being on the Paula Jones witness list?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: I realize he commented about some other things, but I do want to focus on the witness list.

LEWINSKY: Okay.

BRYANT: Did he say anything to you about how he felt concerning this witness list?

LEWINSKY: He said it broke his heart that my name was on the witness list. Can I take a break, please.

(BREAK IN DEPOSITION)

BRYANT: Did we get your response? We were talking about the discussion you were having with the president over the telephone early morning of December 17th phone call, and he had mentioned that it broke his heart that you were on that list. LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: And I think you were about to comment on that further, and then you needed to break.

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: No?

LEWINSKY: I just wanted to be able to focus. I know this is an important date. So I thought I needed a few minutes to be able to focus on it.

BRYANT: And you're comfortable now with that -- with your -- you're ready to talk about that?

LEWINSKY: Comfortable, I don't know. But I'm ready to talk about it.

BRYANT: Well, you're comfortable that you can focus on it.

BRYANT: And you're comfortable now with that, with your -- you're ready to talk about that?

LEWINSKY: Comfortable, I don't know. But I'm ready to talk about.

BRYANT: Well, I mean you're comfortable that you can focus on it?

LEWINSKY: Yes, sir.

BRYANT: Good. Now, with this discussion of the fact that your name appeared as a witness. Had it -- had you been asleep that night when the phone rang?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: So were you wide awake by this point? It's the President calling you, so I guess you're -- you wake up.

LEWINSKY: I wouldn't say wide awake.

BRYANT: He expressed to you that your name -- you know, again, you talked about some other things, but he told you your name was on the list?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: What was your reaction to that?

LEWINSKY: I was scared.

BRYANT: What other discussion did you have, regard to the fact that your name was on the list? You were scared, he was disappointed, or it broke his heart. What other discussion did you have?

LEWINSKY: I believe he said that, -- and these are not necessarily direct quotes, but to the best of my memory -- that he said something about that, just because my name was on the list didn't necessarily mean I'd be subpoenaed. And at some point, I asked him, you know, what I should do if I received a subpoena. He said I should, I should let Ms. Currie know.

BRYANT: Did he say anything about an affidavit?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: What did he say?

LEWINSKY: He said that I could possibly file an affidavit -- if I were subpoenaed, that I could possibly file an affidavit and avoid being deposed.

BRYANT: How did he tell you, you would avoid being deposed by filing an affidavit?

LEWINSKY: I don't think he did.

BRYANT: You just accepted that statement? Yes?

LEWINSKY: Yes, yes. Sorry.

BRYANT: Did he make any representation to you about what you could say in that affidavit?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: What did you understand you would be saying in that affidavit to avoid testifying?

LEWINSKY: I believe I testified to this in the grand jury. In the best of my recollection, it was to my mind it was a range of things. I mean, it could either be something innocuous, or it could go as far as having to deny the relationship. Not being a lawyer nor having gone to law school, it could be anything.

BRYANT: Did he at that point suggest one version or the other version?

LEWINSKY: No, I didn't even mention that. There wasn't a further discussion -- there was no discussion of what would be in an affidavit.

BRYANT: When you say it could have been something where the relationship was denied.

BRYANT: When you say it would be--it could have been something where the relationship was denied, what was your thinking at that point?

LEWINSKY: I think I don't understand what you're asking me. I'm sorry.

BRYANT: Well, based on prior relations with the President, the concocted stories and those things like that, did this come to mind? Was there some discussion about that, or did it come to your mind about these stories -- the cover stories?

LEWINSKY: Not in connection with the -- not in connection with the affidavit.

BRYANT: How would -- was there any discussion of how you would accomplish preparing or filing an affidavit at that point?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: Why didn't you want to testify? Why would not you -- why would you have wanted to avoid testifying?

LEWINSKY: First of all, I thought it was nobody's business. Second of all, I didn't want to have anything to do with Paula Jones or her case. And -- I guess those two reasons.

BRYANT: You have already mentioned that you were not a lawyer and you had not been to law school, those kinds of things. Did you understand when you -- the potential legal problems that you could have caused yourself by allowing a false affidavit to be filed with the court, in a court proceeding?

LEWINSKY: During what time, I mean -- I -- can you be -- I'm sorry...

BRYANT: Well, at this point, I may ask it again at later points, but the night of the telephone...

LEWINSKY: Are you -- are you still referring to December 17th?

BRYANT: The night of the phone call, he's suggesting you could file an affidavit. Did you appreciate the implications of filing a false affidavit with the court?

LEWINSKY: I don't think I necessarily thought at that point it would have to be false, so, no, probably not. I don't -- I don't remember having any thoughts like that, so I imagine I would remember something like that, and I don't, but...

BRYANT: Did you know what an affidavit was?

LEWINSKY: Sort of.

BRYANT: And of course, you're talking at that time by telephone to the President, and he's -- and he is a lawyer, and he taught law school -- I don't know -- did you know that? Did you know he was a lawyer?

LEWINSKY: I -- I think I knew it, but it wasn't something that was present in my -- in my thoughts, as in he's a lawyer, he's telling me, you know, something.

BRYANT: Did the president ever tell you, caution you, that you had to tell the truth in an affidavit?

LEWINSKY: Not that I recall.

BRYANT: It would have been against his interest in that lawsuit for you to have told the truth, would it not?

LEWINSKY: I'm not really comfortable --I mean, I can tell you what would have been in my best interest, but I...

BRYANT: But you didn't file the affidavit for your best interest, did you?

LEWINSKY: Actually, I did.

BRYANT: To avoid testifying.

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: But had you testified truthfully, you would have had no --certainly, no legal implications -- it may have been embarrassing, but you would have not had any legal problems, would you?

LEWINSKY: That's true.

BRYANT: Did you discuss anything else that night in terms of -- I would draw your attention to the cover stories -- which I've alluded to that earlier but did you talk about a cover story that night?

LEWINSKY: Yes, sir.

BRYANT: And what was said?

LEWINSKY: I believe that the president said something "you can always say you were coming to see Betty or bringing me papers."

BRYANT: I think you've testified you're sure he said that -- that night -- you are sure he said that that night?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Now was that in connection with the affidavit?

LEWINSKY: I don't believe so. No.

BRYANT: Why would he have told you, you could always say that?

LEWINSKY: I don't know...

UNKNOWN: Objection...

BRYANT: We're at that point we've got a telephone conversation in the morning with you and the president. And he has among other things mentioned to you that you're name is on the Jones' witness list.

He has also mentioned to you that perhaps you could file an affidavit to avoid possible testifying in that case. Is that right?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: And he's also I think now at the point that we were in our questioning. It referenced the cover story that you and he had had, that perhaps you could say that you were coming to my office to deliver papers or to see Betty Currie.

BRYANT: Is that right?

LEWINSKY: Correct. It was from the entire relationship, that story.

BRYANT: Now, when he alluded to that cover story, was that instantly familiar to you?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: You knew what he was talking about?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: And why was this familiar to you?

LEWINSKY: Because it was part of the pattern of the relationship.

BRYANT: Had you actually had to use elements of this cover story in the past?

LEWINSKY: I think so, yes.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Now let me go back again to the December 11th date, I'm sorry, the 17th. This is the conversation in the morning. What else -- was there anything else you talked about in terms of -- other than your name being on the list and the affidavit and the cover story?

LEWINSKY: Yes. I had had my own thoughts on why and how he should settle the case, and I expressed those thoughts to him. And at some point, he mentioned that he still had this Christmas present for me and that maybe he would ask Mrs. Currie to come in that weekend, and I said not to because she was obviously going to be in mourning because of her brother.

BRYANT: As I understand your testimony, too, the cover stories were reiterated to you by the president that night on the telephone...

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: ... and after he told you you would be a witness -- or your name was on the witness list, I should say?

LEWINSKY: Correct.

BRYANT: And did you understand that, since your name was on the witness list, that there would be a possibility that you could be subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case?

LEWINSKY: I think I understood that I could be subpoenaed, and there was a possibility of testifying. I don't know if I necessarily thought it was a subpoena to testify, but...

BRYANT: Were you in fact subpoenaed to testify?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: And that was what...

LEWINSKY: December 19th, 1997.

BRYANT: December 19th.

Now, you have testified in the grand jury. I think your closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie, but yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997, when the president told you that you were on the witness list, he also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use misleading cover stories. Isn't that correct?

LEWINSKY: Well, I -- I guess in my mind, I separate necessarily signing affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So, does...

BRYANT: Well, those two...

LEWINSKY: Those three events occurred, but they don't -- they weren't linked for me.

BRYANT: But they were in the same conversation, were they not?

LEWINSKY: Yes, they were. BRYANT: Did you understand in the context of the conversation that you would deny the -- the president and your relationship to the Jones lawyers?

LEWINSKY: Do you mean from what was said to me or...

BRYANT: In the context of that -- in the context of that conversation, December the 17th...

LEWINSKY: I don't -- I didn't...

BRYANT: Okay. Let me ask it. Did you understand in the context of the telephone conversation with the president that early morning of December the 17th, did you understand that you would deny your relationship with the president to the Jones lawyers?

LEWINSKY: Do you mean from what was said to me, or...

BRYANT: In the context of that conversation, December the 17th.

LEWINSKY: I don't -- I don't...

BRYANT: Let me ask it. Did you understand in the context of the telephone conversation with the president that early morning of December the 17th, did you understand that you would deny your relationship with the president to the Jones lawyers through the use of these cover stories?

LEWINSKY: From what I learned in that conversation -- oh, through those cover stories, I don't know. But from what I learned in that conversation, I thought to myself I knew I would deny the relationship.

BRYANT: And you would deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers?

LEWINSKY: Yes, correct.

BRYANT: Good.

LEWINSKY: If that's what it came to.

BRYANT: And in fact, you did deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers in the affidavit that you signed under penalty of perjury?

LEWINSKY: I denied a sexual relationship.

BRYANT: The president did not in that conversation on December the 17th of 1997 or any other conversation for that matter instruct you to tell the truth, is that correct?

LEWINSKY: That's correct.

BRYANT: And prior to being on the witness list, you both spoke...

LEWINSKY: Well, I guess any conversation in relation to the Paula Jones case, I can't say that any conversation from the entire relationship that he didn't ever say are you mad, tell me the truth. So...

BRYANT: And prior to being on the witness list, you both spoke about denying this relationship if asked?

LEWINSKY: Yes, that was discussed.

BRYANT: He would say something to the effect that or you would say that -- you would deny if it ever came up, and he would nod or say that's good, something to that effect, is that right?

LEWINSKY: Yes, I believe I testified to that.

BRYANT: In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has indicated that he thought he might have had a way that he could have you -- get you to file basically a true affidavit but yet still skirt these issues enough that you wouldn't be called as a witness. Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?

LEWINSKY: He didn't discuss the content of my affidavit with me at all ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: Now there's a lot there, but that's the testimony.

SELIGMAN: I'd like to go quickly through some parts of it.

First, let's be very clear. As you saw, Ms. Lewinsky repeatedly told Mr. Manager Bryant that she and the president did not discuss the content of the affidavit in that phone call.

Let's listen quickly again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did he make -- strike that. Did he make any representation to you about what you could say in that affidavit or did...

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: What did you understand you would be saying in that affidavit to avoid testifying?

LEWINSKY: I believe I've testified to this in the grand jury. In the best of my recollection, it was, to my mind it came, was a range of things. I mean, it could either be, something innocuous or could go as far as having to deny the relationship.

Not being a lawyer nor having gone to law school, I thought it could be anything.

BRYANT: Did he at that point suggest one version or the other version?

LEWINSKY: No. I didn't even mention that. So that, there wasn't a further discussion, there was no discussion of what would be in an affidavit.

BRYANT: In his answer to this proceeding in the Senate he has indicated that he thought he had, might had a way that he could have you, get you to file a, basically a true affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you wouldn't be called as a witness.

Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?

LEWINSKY: He didn't discuss the content of my affidavit with me at all, ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: Now ladies and gentlemen, the managers skipped these excerpts. They hide from you this key fact about the call.

To borrow a phrase, "they want to win too badly."

In that excerpt, Ms. Lewinsky also made clear that the president only suggested she might be able to file an affidavit that might enable her to avoid testifying.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN: Did he say anything about an affidavit?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

ROGAN: What, what did he say?

LEWINSKY: He said that -- that I could possibly file an affidavit, if I were subpoenaed, that I could possibly file an affidavit to avoid being deposed.

ROGAN: How did he tell you, you would avoid being deposed by filing an affidavit?

LEWINSKY: I don't think he did.

ROGAN: You just accepted that statement? Yes...

LEWINSKY: Yes, yes, sorry...

ROGAN: And in that same telephone conversation, he encouraged you to file an affidavit in the Jones' case.

LEWINSKY: He suggested I could file an affidavit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: She also made clear that the president was not certain she even would be subpoenaed and have to confront the issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROGAN: What other discussion did you have with regard to the fact your name was on the list? You were scared; he was disappointed, or it broke his heart? What other discussion did you have?

LEWINSKY: I believe he said that -- and this are not necessarily direct quotes but to the best of my memory -- that he said something about that just because my name was on the list didn't necessarily mean I'd be subpoenaed. And at some point I asked him you know, what I should do if I received a subpoena. He said I should, I should let Ms. Currie know.

BRYANT: How would -- was there any discussion of how you would accomplish preparing or filing an affidavit at that point?

LEWINSKY: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN: Now, where does this leave us? Ms. Lewinsky described a brief conversation in which the president mentioned the possibility that an affidavit might enable her to avoid testifying, if the need for it arose, and they left the subject. No discussion of content, no discussion of logistics, no discussion of timing, virtually no discussion at all. And that very brief exchange is the heart of the case.

Now, the managers contend that, because Ms. Lewinsky also recalls a reference to cover stories in that call, it is clear beyond doubt that the president instructed her to file a false affidavit, but, for at least two reasons, this claim fails also.

First, Ms. Lewinsky repeatedly told Mr. Manager Bryant that the mention of cover stories in that call was not connected to the mention of a possible affidavit, a position, I must note, that she had taken with the independent counsel for a very long time.

And second, Ms. Lewinsky has insisted for more than a year that the cover stories were not, in any event, false, a position she reasserted this week in explaining why an affidavit didn't necessarily have to be false.

Let's look quickly at Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, first with respect to the alleged connection between cover stories and the affidavit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : Well, based on prior relations with the president, the concocted stories and those things like that, did this come to mind -- was there some discussion about -- did it come to your mind about these stories?

LEWINSKY: : Not in connection with the affidavit.

BRYANT : Did you discuss anything else that might in terms of -- I would draw your attention to the cover stories. I've alluded to that earlier. But did you talk about the cover story that night?

LEWINSKY: : Yes sir.

BRYANT : And what was said?

LEWINSKY: : I believe that the president said something you can always say you were coming in to see Betty or bringing me papers.

BRYANT : I think you've testified that you're sure he said that that night. You are sure he said that that night?

LEWINSKY: : Yes.

BRYANT : Now was that in connection with the affidavit?

LEWINSKY: : I don't believe so, no.

BRYANT : Now you have testified in the grand jury -- I think your closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie. But yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997, when the president told you that you were on the witness list, he also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use misleading cover stories, isn't that correct? LEWINSKY: : Well, I guess in my mind I separate necessarily signing an affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So -- those three events occurred, but they weren't linked for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : Again, the managers did not play these excerpts for you either. They don't want you to know Ms. Lewinsky's recollection which is that the cover stories and the affidavit were not connected in that telephone call.

SELIGMAN : And that's the call that's at the heart of that first obstruction charge.

The managers have suggested to you that Miss Lewinsky, for the first time this week, offered responses -- responses concerning literal truth, for example, of the cover stories designed to help the president. That was a suggestion a few days ago.

Concerned that her testimony might now undermine their case, they suddenly did an about face and attacked her on Thursday. Through this proceeding, the managers have consistently told you how credible a witness Miss Lewinsky is, and they have invoked her immunity agreement as the reason that she must be honest. And today they again credit her testimony, but carefully, only in snippets, only when it suits their purposes.

The responses Miss Lewinsky provided about the cover stores, that were mentioned on Thursday by Mr. Manager Bryant, are not new. They are the same response Miss Lewinsky gave to the independent counsel. For example, when asked about the so-called the cover stories, Miss Lewinsky testified as follows this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : Would you agree that these cover stories that you've just testified to, if they were told to the attorneys for Paula Jones, that they would be misleading to them and not be the whole story, the whole truth?

LEWINSKY: : They would -- yes, I guess misleading. They were literally true, but they would be misleading, so incomplete.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : Now, the managers suggest that this testimony may be new, different, tinted and tainted, I think they said on Thursday. But they don't tell you that Miss Lewinsky said the very same thing to the independent counsel. She did so repeatedly, and she did so -- and this key -- before the president testified. She didn't know what he would say; he didn't know what she had said.

For example, Miss Lewinsky referred to the two cover stories in her February 1998 proffer more than a year ago.

SELIGMAN : Remember one such cover story concerned the reasons for visiting the president before she left the White House, that was to bring papers to him. And the other concerned her reasons for visiting the president after she left the White House, and that was to visit Betty Currie.

Ms. Lewinsky was asked and said that neither of these statements was untrue. And also that there was truth to both of these statements in her proffer a year ago. She repeated this testimony in July to the independent counsel telling an FBI agent that, "These statements were not untrue, but were misleading and that some facts were omitted from this statement." That's what she said this week. The cover story's testimony is consistent and it is consistently exculpatory.

Now of course it was easy for Mr. Manager Bryant to stand before you on Thursday, reminiscing abut the "open and forthcoming" Ms. Lewinsky that he had met during the informal interview. It was easy for Mr. Manager Bryant to complain that the Ms. Lewinsky of the deposition, was I believe he said, "Not open to discussion or fully responsive to fair inquiry." Open up the (ph) questioning and the answers, and let you be the judge of that.

It was easy for him to say that because the House managers had refused Senator Daschle's request that they be allowed to make a transcript of the interview. That absence of a transcript allowed them this unverifiable fallback if their examination was disappointing. "Oh, she changed on us." The truth is that she didn't tell the story that the managers wanted to hear. So, remember those stubborn facts.

So we know that the managers are disappointed and want to blame their disappointment on Ms. Lewinsky. But when you get to the substance, today's presentation by the House managers, shows that they have not in fact, identified any significant area where Ms. Lewinsky's testimony on Monday, differs from her earlier testimony in the grand jury.

Her view of the cover stories has been consistent from day one. Now Mr. Manager McCollum has also insisted that in the December 17th call, it was clear both to the president and Ms. Lewinsky that the affidavit had to be false.

SELIGMAN : As he put it -- and I quote, "Can there be any doubt that the president was suggesting that she file an affidavit that contains lies and falsehoods, that might keep her from ever having to testify in the Jones case and give the president the kind of protection he needed when he testified? Yes, there surely is doubt."

Ms. Lewinsky herself explained this week that she did not discuss the content of the affidavit with the president. We've played those portions already, and I will not again. But also that in her mind an affidavit presented a whole range of possibilities that were not necessarily false.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : The night of the phone call, he suggested you could file an affidavit. Did you appreciate the implications of filing a false affidavit with the court?

LEWINSKY: : I don't think I necessarily thought at that point it would have to be false. So, no, probably not. I don't -- I don't remember having any thoughts like that. So I imagine I would remember something like that, and I don't. But...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : Thus, as we have seen and heard, Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no discussion of what would be in an affidavit, and also that to her thinking the affidavit would not necessarily have been false. Now that the December 17th call has fallen short, the managers have tried to transform the articles as drafted by asserting that the alleged obstruction occurred also on another date, January 5, in a call that took place then, even though the articles pin everything on December 17.

With respect to a January 5 call, Mr. Manager Hutchinson made the following claim to you. He asserted -- and I quote "Well, the record demonstrates that Monica Lewinsky's testimony is that she had a conversation with the president on the telephone in which she asked questions about the affidavit. She was concerned about signing that affidavit, and" -- and this is still a quote -- "according to Ms. Lewinsky, the president said, well, you can always say that people in Legislative Affairs got it for you or helped you get it."

SELIGMAN : And this is still in the quote, "And that is in reference to a paragraph in the particular affidavit." Those were Mr. Manager Hutchinson's words.

But the record unequivocally demonstrates that Miss Lewinsky and the president did not ever discuss the content of that affidavit in this January 5 call or otherwise. And I challenge you to find any paragraph in Miss Lewinsky's affidavit -- either her draft or the final -- reflecting this conversation. There isn't one. The call wasn't about the affidavit. He didn't tell her what to say in the affidavit. It's just not there.

In fact, Mr. Manager Hutchinson repeatedly represented to you that Miss Lewinsky reviewed the content of her affidavit with the president. He had to say that, because he's asking you to remove the president from office for getting her to file a false affidavit. That's a tough sell if they never talked about the content of the affidavit. That's why he told you, and I quote, "that on January 6 -- 5th or 6th -- she discussed that with the president, signing that affidavit, and the content of the affidavit." That's why Mr. Manager Hutchinson also told you -- and I quote again -- "she went over the contents of that, even though she might not have had it in hand with the president." That's just not true. It's not true. To borrow a phrase, again, it's wanting to win too much.

What is clear from Miss Lewinsky's testimony is that she never went over the contents of the affidavit with the president on January 5 or at any other time.

Let's watch a brief excerpt about this matter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : Did the subject of the affidavit come up with the President?

LEWINSKY: : Yes, towards the end of the conversation.

BRYANT : And how did -- tell us how that occurred.

LEWINSKY: : I believe I asked him if he wanted to see a copy of it, and he said no.

BRYANT : Well, I mean, how did you introduce that into the subject -- into the conversation?

LEWINSKY: : I don't really remember.

BRYANT : Did he ask you, well, how's the affidavit coming or...

LEWINSKY: : No, I don't think so.

BRYANT : But you told him that you had one being prepared, or something?

LEWINSKY: : I think I said -- I think I said, you know, I'm going to sign an affidavit, or something like that.

BRYANT : Did he ask you what are you going to say?

LEWINSKY: : No.

BRYANT : And this is the time when he said something about 15 other affidavits?

LEWINSKY: : Correct.

BRYANT : And tell us as best as you can recall what -- how that -- how that part of the conversation went.

LEWINSKY: : I think that was the -- sort of the other half of his sentence of, no, you know, I don't want to see it. I don't need to, or, I've seen 15 others. It was a little flippant.

BRYANT : His answer to this proceeding in the Senate, he has indicated that he thought he had -- might have had a way that he could have you -- get you to file a -- basically a true affidavit, but yet still skirt these issues enough that you wouldn't be called as a witness. Did he offer you any of these suggestions at this time?

LEWINSKY: : He didn't discuss the content of my affidavit with me at all, ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : In fact, Ms. Lewinsky made clear that she did not have any indication whatsoever that the president learned of the content of the affidavit from Mr. Jordan, either.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : The fact that you assume that Mr. Jordan was in contact with the president -- and I believe the evidence would support that through his own testimony that he had talked to the president about the signed affidavit and that he had kept the president updated on the subpoena issue and the job search...

LEWINSKY: : Sir, I'm not sure that I knew he was having contact with the president about this. I -- I think what I said was that I felt that it was getting his approval. It didn't necessarily mean that I felt he was going to get a direct approval from the president.

BRYANT : Did -- did -- did you have any indication from Mr. Jordan that he -- when he discussed the signed affidavit with the president, they were discussing some of the contents of the affidavit? Did you have...

LEWINSKY: : Before I signed it or...

BRYANT : No; during the drafting stage.

LEWINSKY: : No, absolutely not -- either/or. I didn't. No, I did not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : And finally, lacking direct evidence of any kind that there was a discussion about the content of the affidavit, the managers have argued again and again that the president must have told Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit because it was in his interest -- not hers -- to avoid her testifying in the Jones case.

Mr. Manager Bryant argued to you at the start of these proceedings -- and I quote, "When everything is said and done, Ms. Lewinsky had no motivation, no reason whatsoever to want to commit a crime by willfully submitting a false affidavit with a court of law. She really did not need to do this at that point in her life."

Mr. Manager Bryant also argued that only the president would benefit from a false affidavit. So he must have instructed her to do it. As he put it, "Ms. Lewinsky files a false affidavit in the Jones case. What is the result of filing that false affidavit, and who benefited from that?"

But he was wrong. He was wrong, as Ms. Lewinsky made very clear when Mr. Manager Bryant asked her about this very subject this week. Let's listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : But you didn't file the affidavit for your best interest, did you?

LEWINSKY: : Actually, I did.

BRYANT : To avoid testifying?

LEWINSKY: : Yes.

BRYANT : Why didn't you want to testify? Why would you have wanted to avoid testifying?

LEWINSKY: : First of all, I thought it was nobody's business. Second of all, I didn't want to have anything to do with Paula Jones or her case. And it's those two reasons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : In short, Ms. Lewinsky concedes that she had a reason to act on her own. Now we've been discussing Subpart 1 of Article II, the affidavit allegation. But this testimony also undermines Subpart 2 of Article II which alleges that the president obstructed justice in that very same phone call by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie in any testimony that she might give.

SELIGMAN : Ms. Lewinsky previously denied that she and the president ever discussed the content of any deposition in that conversation. That happened before this week.

Indeed, she had told the FBI that she and the president never discussed what to say about her visit to the White House in the context of the Paula Jones case. And the managers themselves said in a press release on January 19 of this year, that the president and Ms. Lewinsky quote "did not discuss the deposition that evening because Monica had not yet been subpoenaed."

So, it's not entirely surprising that the managers did not ask Ms. Lewinsky to confirm that she and the president talked about the testimony in this call even though that's where the obstruction allegedly occurred.

They didn't ask her about that this week because they knew the answer. They knew the answer was no. They knew there was no discussion about the content of her testimony during that call.

And the testimony you have seen today confirms that answer resoundingly.

There is no evidence to support the charge in Subpart II either. The managers did not even try to elicit it. The president did not obstruct justice.

Ms. Lewinsky's testimony explodes these two claims arising out of the December 17 telephone call.

Now let's turn to the allegation in Article II concerning gifts.

Subpart III charges that on or about December 28, 1997, the president corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a federal civil rights action brought against him.

Now the managers have indicated to you that Ms. Lewinsky provided testimony useful to their case with respect to the president's involvement in the transfer of gifts to Ms. Currie.

We must have attended a different deposition. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony provides powerful support for the position that Ms. Lewinsky decided on her own to keep from the Jones' lawyers the gifts she had received from the president.

SELIGMAN : It provides powerful support for the position that she had her own reasons and concerns for keeping the gifts from them. And it provides powerful support for the position that she never discussed either the topic of gifts or her own reasons for concern with the president before making her own independent decision on how to handle the gifts.

Perhaps most notably, her testimony also provides corroboration for the president's testimony that he told her she had to turn over to the Jones lawyers what gifts she had.

That's new evidence, but it undermines the managers' case; it doesn't help it.

In one of the most extraordinary points in the deposition -- and we'll get to this in a moment -- we learned that the Office of Independent Counsel failed to disclose to the House, to the Senate, to the president, Miss Lewinsky's exculpatory statement on this point. Since the OIC evidently had chosen not to share the information with us, with the House, or with this body, we owe the managers a small debt of gratitude for allowing us to learn of it here.

Now let's look at the record with respect to the phone calls giving rise to the gift pickup.

The managers repeatedly asserted at the outset that they could prove Ms. Curry called Miss Lewinsky, and not the other way around. They claimed they had found a cell phone record documenting that initial call to arrange to pick up the gifts. As Mr. Manager Hutchinson -- Hutchinson, excuse me -- Hutchinson said tantalizing at the start of these proceedings, and I quote, "Well, it was not known at the time of the questioning of Monica Lewinsky, but since then, the cell phone record was retrieved."

"And you don't have it in front of you, but it will be available. The cell phone record was retrieved that showed on Betty Currie's cell phone calls that a call was made at 3:32 p.m. from Betty Currie to Monica Lewinsky." And this is still under quotes, "and this confirms the testimony of Monica Lewinsky that the follow up to get the gifts came from Betty Currie.

SELIGMAN : That's what Mr. Manager Hutchinson promised the record would show. But that's not, in the end, what the record now shows.

There is no evidence that the cell phone call initiated the process, as the managers claimed, and since there is no evidence that that call from Ms. Currie was the call initiating the process, there's no documentary evidence that Ms. Currie initiated the process. It's that simple. The proof has failed.

What the record does show is that there was a cell phone call that day, a proposition that no one has ever disputed. Ms. Lewinsky testified to the managers that she recalls a cell phone call that day. Let's look at the testimony. This passage that you are about to see addresses the calls between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie on December 28th. Ms. Lewinsky has just described Ms. Currie's call to her about picking something up, and this is what follows.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : Did -- did you have other telephone calls with her that day?

LEWINSKY: : Yes.

BRYANT : OK. What was the purpose of those conversations?

LEWINSKY: : I believe I spoke with her a little later to find out when she was coming, and I think that I might have spoken with her again when she was either leaving her house or outside or right there, to let me know to come out.

BRYANT : Do -- at that time, did you have the caller identification...

LEWINSKY: : Yes, I did.

BRYANT : --on your telephone?

LEWINSKY: : Yes.

BRYANT : And did you, at least on one occasion, see her cell phone number on your caller-ID that day?

LEWINSKY: : Yes, I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SELIGMAN : Nowhere does Ms. Lewinsky say which call was the cell phone call. In fact, if anything, it's logical to assume that it was the call from Ms. Currie announcing her imminent arrival, which, of course, says nothing about how the visit initially was planned. And no one ever has disputed that Ms. Currie picked up the box. The fact that she might have called to say, "I'm downstairs now," is of no additional evidentiary value whatsoever.

Left without a documentary record, the managers assert that there is new testimonial evidence of other calls on December 28th that somehow corroborate their theory of the case, but the new testimony doesn't even establish who made the other calls that day, and the record already had evidence of other calls on that day.

SELIGMAN : And the record ready had evidence of other calls on that day. Ms. Lewinsky mentioned such calls to the grand jury. Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie spoke often, especially in that time period. There were phone calls.

There's nothing new here. Ms. Currie has one recollection, Ms. Lewinsky has a different recollection. Indeed, when asked by Mr. Manager Bryant whether there's any doubt in her mind that it was Betty Currie who called her, Ms. Lewinsky stated simply, "That's how I remember this event." Straining for something beyond this absolutely resolvable conflict, the managers promised evidence to tip the balance. And they produced none.

The much-touted cell phone call utterly fails to establish who initiated the gift pick-up by Ms. Currie. It's therefore clear that the deposition testimony does not advance the managers' case with respect to the gifts. But it sure advances the defense case.

Remember Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena on December 19, requesting gifts she had received from the president. She met with her lawyer, Frank Carter, on December 22. And she did not speak to the president in the interim. In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky testified at some length, about how she decided what to bring her attorney, Frank Carter, in response to that request for gifts.

As we will see, she decided on her own, that she would bring only innocuous things to produce, things that any intern might have in his or her possession. Again, this was on December 22, well before the December 28 meeting with the president at which the managers and the Articles say the plan to hide the gifts was hatched.

Ms. Lewinsky explained to the managers what she did and why she did it.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : Did you bring with you to the meeting with Mr. Jordan and -- for the purpose of carrying it I guess, to Mr. Carter, items that -- in response to this request for production?

LEWINSKY: : Yes.

BRYANT : Did you discuss those items with Mr. Jordan?

LEWINSKY: : I think I showed them to him, but I'm not 100 percent sure. If I testified that I did, then I stand by that.

BRYANT : How did you select those items?

LEWINSKY: : Actually, kind of in an obnoxious way, I guess. I felt that it was important to take the stand with Mr. Carter and then I guess to the Jones people that this was ridiculous -- that they were looking at the wrong person to be involved in this.

And in fact, that was true. I know and knew nothing of sexual harassment. So I think I brought the Christmas cards that I'm sure everyone in this room has probably gotten from the president and first lady and considered that correspondence and some innocuous pictures -- and they were innocuous.

BRYANT : Were they the kind of items that typically an intern would receive or that any one of us might receive?

LEWINSKY: : I think so.

BRYANT : In other words, it wouldn't give away any kind of special relationship.

LEWINSKY: : Exactly.

BRYANT : Was that your intent?

LEWINSKY: : Yes.

BRYANT : Did you discuss how you selected those items with anybody?

LEWINSKY: : I don't believe so.

BRYANT : Did Mr. Jordan make any comment about those items?

LEWINSKY: : No.

BRYANT : Were any of these items eventually turned over to Mr. Carter?

LEWINSKY: : Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : As Ms. -- contrary to the assertion of Mr. Manager Rogan, it is also clear from that excerpt that Ms. Lewinsky knew nothing of sexual harassment. That was what she said. So it's clear from this tape that well before December 28, Ms. Lewinsky had made her own decision for her own reasons not to produce the gifts. She remained firm in this decision for her own reasons on December 28 when the president gave her more gifts. Let's watch again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT : Did -- he gave you some gifts that day, and my question to you is, what went through your mind when he did that, when you knew all along that you had just received a subpoena to produce gifts. Did that not concern you?

LEWINSKY: : No, it didn't. I was happy to get them.

BRYANT : All right. Why did it -- beyond your happiness in receiving them, why did the subpoena aspect of it not concern you?

LEWINSKY: : I think at that moment -- I mean, you asked me when he gave me those gifts. So, at that moment, when I was there, I was happy to be with him, I was happy to get these Christmas presents. So I was nervous about the case, but I had made a decision that I wasn't going to get into it too much...

BRYANT : Well...

LEWINSKY: : ... with a discussion.

BRYANT : Have you, in regards to that -- you've testified in the past that, from everything that the president had told you about things like this, there was never any question that you were going to keep everything quiet, and turning over all the gifts would prompt the Jones attorneys to question you. So you had no doubt in your mind, did you not, that you weren't going to turn these gifts over that he had just given you?

LEWINSKY: : I think the latter half of your statement is correct. I don't know if you're reading from my direct testimony, but -- because you said -- your first statement was from everything the president had told you. So I don't know if that was -- if those were my words or not, but I -- no, I was -- I -- it -- I was concerned about the gifts. I was worried someone might break into my house or concerned that they actually existed, but I wasn't concerned about turning them over because I knew I wasn't going to, for the reason that you stated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : Now, when Ms. Lewinsky raised the issue of gifts with the president on December 28th, she cannot say he even answered. Her recollection of whether he said anything has been murky, as we've heard discussed here, and in her recent deposition, she declined to resolve the inconsistencies in favor of the version the managers have advanced.

And then what happened after she left on December 28th?

SELIGMAN : As Ms. Lewinsky recounted the subsequent events, Ms. Currie later called and arranged to pick up something. But what?

According to Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie never said gifts when she called. Ms. Lewinsky assumed that's what she was calling about. That's her testimony. No doubt because they had been on her mind for the reasons we have just heard explained.

Now the managers' attempt to respond to all this by saying over and over, yes, the president never told Ms. Lewinsky she had to produce the gifts he had given her.

They attempt to convert his silence into a failure to perform a legal duty, and then to convert that failure to perform a legal duty into a high crime.

But are we really sure that he didn't tell her to produce the gifts? Remember the president volunteered on his own in the grand jury, that Ms. Lewinsky has raised the subject of gifts with him. That was long before he knew she had said it. And remember he said what his response was. Quote "you have to give them whatever you have," close quote.

Now the managers would have you believe Ms. Lewinsky rejected that recollection wholesale, that she said he never said any such thing.

They need that to be the case.

But it's not so we now learn, no thanks to Mr. Starr's agents.

Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGAN Now, were you ever under the impression from anything that the president said that you should turn over all of the gifts to the Jones' lawyers?

LEWINSKY: : No, but this is a little tricky and I think I might have even mentioned this last weekend, was that I had an occasion in an interview with one of the -- with the OIC -- where I was asked a series of statements, if the president had made those, and there was one statement that Agent Fallon (ph) said to me -- there were other people and they said and they asked me these statements. This is after the president testified and they asked me some statements. Did he say this, did he say this, and I said no, no, no. And Agent Fallon (ph) said something and I think it was "well you have to turn over whatever you have."

And I said to him, you know that sounds a little bit familiar to me.

So, I -- that's what I can tell you on that.

ROGAN That's in the 302 exam?

LEWINSKY: : I don't know if it's in the 302 or not, but that's what happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SELIGMAN : This is extraordinary testimony.

SELIGMAN : Why? Because Ms. Lewinsky apparently corroborated the president. She recognized those words when she heard them. She didn't refute the president and the OIC never told us that that's what she'd said. Never told the House, never told this body. We had no idea about Ms. Lewinsky's recollection until we heard her testimony. we can only wonder in troubled disbelief, how much more we still don't know.

The president did not obstruct justice. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony seriously undermines the gift claim that is before you. We've reviewed the first three subparts of Article II.

Now let's quickly at the Fourth. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony also confirms what has been clear throughout these proceedings: that her New York job search efforts began in October 1997, well before Ms. Lewinsky was ever named a potential witness in the Jones case. And that Mr. Jordan first became involved in the job search effort in November, early November. Also before she became a witness.

That Ms. Lewinsky had received a job offer in New York from the United Nations in November also, and also well before there was any indication she would be a witness. And that Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky had several contacts related to her job search in November, despite the fact that both of them were traveling extensively, including out of the country in that period.

In fact, Ms. Lewinsky makes it clear on this testimony that she and Mr. Jordan began arranging the meeting that took place on December 11, before Thanksgiving, before anyone knew Ms. Lewinsky's name would be on a witness list. All of this, of course, before anyone knew Ms. Lewinsky's name would be on a witness list.

SELIGMAN : If the fact that the assistance to Miss Lewinsky preceded her appearance on the witness list needed confirmation, it's been confirmed again.

But there's more. What has also been confirmed is Miss Lewinsky's grand jury testimony that "no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence." We have repeatedly reminded this body of these plain and simple words with their plain, simple, and exculpatory meaning.

The House managers repeatedly have tried to suggest that these words must mean something else. But at no time in their hours of questioning Miss Lewinsky did they question her about this pivotal assertion regarding the job search allegation. They did not ask her to explain it, to amend it, to qualify it. They did not challenge it, they did not confront it. They didn't dare. They knew the answer. They knew there was no quid pro quo. And their failure to elicit a response speaks volumes.

The president did not obstruct justice, Miss Lewinsky's testimony undermines this job search claim as well. Plain and simple, the evidence is to the contrary.

Now Mr. Manager Bryant remarked on Thursday that after deposing Miss Lewinsky he felt like the actor Charles Laughton in the film, "Witness for the Prosecution." As counsel for the president, I would respectfully submit that another famous role of Charles Laughton might be the more fitting reference. It is that of the dogged, tireless, obsessed Inspector Xavier (ph) once played Mr. Laughton in the 1935 movie version of "Les Miserables."

The most recent testimony of Miss Lewinsky has seriously damaged the managers' case and has confirmed that it is time for this tireless pursuit of the president to come to an end.

I turn now to my partner, Mr. Kendall, who will discuss Mr. Jordan's recent testimony.

REHNQUIST : The Chair recognizes the Majority Leader.

LOTT : I think I see in the Chief Justice's eyes the desire for a 15-minute break, or let's return shortly after 3:30 as is possible.

REHNQUIST : Without objection, it is so ordered.

(RECESS)

REHNQUIST : (OFF-MIKE) Senate will be in order. The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT : Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I believe the White House counsel has an additional presenter at this time.

REHNQUIST : The chair recognizes Mr. White House Counsel Kendall.

KENDALL : Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, distinguished House Managers.

I'm going to deal with the Vernon Jordan videotaped deposition. And that deposition was taken of February 2, this last Tuesday, and it produced nothing at all which was significantly new.

Time and again, Mr. Manager Hutchinson cited Mr. Jordan's previous grand jury testimony, and time and again Mr. Jordan confirmed and re-cited his previous grand jury testimony.

The managers had a full and fair opportunity to take Mr. Jordan's testimony, and they indeed had time to spare, they used just about three hours of their allotted four hour's time. And they discovered nothing that was not contained in the previous 900 pages of Mr. Jordan's grand jury testimony, which had been taken in his March 3, March 5, May 5, May 28, and June 9 appearances before the OIC grand juries.

Assertion by counsel is not the same thing as proof, and I think that's clear when you watch the actual videos, as we've done today, of the three witnesses whose testimony the managers took earlier this week.

For example, with respect to Mr. Jordan, Mr. Manager Hutchinson, who did a first-rate job of interrogation.

KENDALL : As you can see from the video, told you last Thursday that he needed to have in evidence the videotape, and you admitted it into evidence. Because, and I quote, "Mr. Jordan's testimony goes to the connection, the connection, between the job search, the benefit provided to a witness and the solicited folks' testimony from that witness.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson also asserted more than once last Thursday that Mr. Jordan's testimony will prove that the president was controlling the job search. There's only one problem with these assertions. When you actually look at the videotape and listen to what Mr. Jordan testified to, there's no support for these propositions. There's no direct evidence and there's no circumstantial evidence.

It's plain that helping somebody find a job is an acceptable activity. It's only when this is tied as the Second Article of Impeachment alleges it's tied, to some obstruction in the Paula Jones case that it becomes illegal. And when fairly considered, Mr. Jordan's testimony provides no evidence whatsoever of that.

Now Mr. Jordan was a long time and close personal friend of the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON : It's probably not bad from Washington standards. Would you describe the nature of your relationship with President Clinton?

JORDAN : President Clinton has been a friend of mine since approximately 1973, when I came to your state, Arkansas, to make a speech as President of the National Urban League about race and equal opportunity in our nation. And we met then and there, and our friendship has grown and developed and matured and he is my friend and will continue to be my friend.

HUTCHINSON : And just to further elaborate on that friendship, it's my understanding that he and his, the First Lady has had Christmas Eve dinner with you and your family for a number of years?

JORDAN : Every year since his presidency, the Jordan family has been privileged to entertain the Clinton family on Christmas Eve.

HUTCHINSON : And has there been any exceptions in recent years to that? JORDAN : Every year that he has been President, he has had, he and his family, Christmas Eve with my family.

HUTCHINSON : And have you vacationed together with the Clinton family?

JORDAN : Yes. I think you have seen reels of us playing golf and having fun at Martha's Vineyard.

HUTCHINSON : And so you vacation together, you play golf together on a semi-regular basis?

JORDAN : Whenever we can. We've not...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL : It's been well known since the start of this investigation that Mr. Jordan was active in helping Ms. Lewinsky secure employment in New York, and also that he construed this request which came to him through Betty Currie as having come from the president himself.

In his May 28th grand jury testimony, for example, Mr. Jordan testified that Betty Currie was the president's secretary. "She was the person who called me at the behest of the president, I believe, to ask me to look into getting Monica Lewinsky a job."

And, again, on June 9th, Mr. Jordan testified to the grand jury that the president asked me to help get Monica Lewinsky a job. Now, Mr. Manager Hutchinson played an excerpt which I will not play again which once more repeats that testimony.

Mr. Jordan, however, made clear that while he recommended Ms. Lewinsky for a job at three New York firms which he had some connection with, the decision to hire her was the companies', and he put no pressure of any kind on these companies to hire Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, she received an offer at one company, Revlon, and failed to obtain one from American Express or Burston Marsteller.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON : Do you believe that you were acting in the company's interest or the president's interest when you were trying to secure a job for Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : Well, what I knew was that the company would take care of its own interest. This is not the first time that I referred somebody. And what I know is that if a person being referred does not meet the standards required for that company, I have no question but that that person would not be hired.

And so the referral is an easy thing to do. The judgment about employment is not a judgment as a person referring that I make. But I do have confidence in all of the companies on whose boards that I sit that regardless of my reference that as to their needs and as to their expectations for their employees, that they will make the right decisions as happened in the American Express situation.

JORDAN : American Express called and said: We will not hire Ms. Lewinsky. I did not question it, I did not challenge it, because they understood their needs and their needs in comparison to her qualifications. They made a judgment. Revlon, on the other hand, made another judgment. I am not the employer, I am the referrer, and there is a major difference.

HUTCHINSON : Now, going back to what you knew as far as information and what you conveyed to Revlon, you indicated that you did not tell Mr. Halperin that you were making this request or referral at the request of the President of the United States.

JORDAN : Yes, and I didn't see any need to do that.

HUTCHINSON And then, when you talked to ...

JORDAN : Nor do I believe not saying that, Counselor, was a breach of some fiduciary relationship.

HUTCHINSON : And when you had your conversation with Mr. Perelman...

JORDAN : Right.

HUTCHINSON : ...at a later time...

JORDAN : Right.

HUTCHINSON : ...you do not remember whether you told him -- you do not believe you told him you were calling for the President...

JORDAN : I believe that I did not tell him.

HUTCHINSON : ...but you assumed that he knew?

JORDAN : No. I did not make any assumptions, let me say. I said, "Ronald, here is a young lady who has been interviewed. She thinks the interview has not gone well. See what you can do to make sure that she is properly interviewed and evaluated" -- in essence.

HUTCHINSON : And did you reference her as a former White House intern?

JORDAN : Probably. I do not have a recollection of whether I described her as a White House intern, whether I described her as a person who had worked for the Pentagon. I said this is a person that I have referred.

I think, Mr. Hutchinson, that I have sufficient, influence, shall we say, sufficient character, shall we say, that people have been -- throughout my career able to take my word at face value.

HUTCHINSON : And so you didn't need to reference the President. The fact that you were calling Mr. Perelman...

JORDAN : That was sufficient.

HUTCHINSON : ...and asking for a second interview for Ms. Lewinsky, that that should be sufficient?

JORDAN : I thought it was sufficient and obviously Mr.Perlman thought it was sufficient.

HUTCHINSON : There is no reason based on what you told him for him to think that you were calling at the request of the President of the United States?

JORDAN : I think that's rather (ph) right.

HUTCHINSON : And so, at least with the conversation with Mr. Halperin and Mr. Perlman, you did not reference that you were acting on the behalf of the President of the United States. Was there anyone else that you talked to at Revlon in which they might have inquired that information?

JORDAN : The only persons that I talked to in this process as I explained to you was Mr. Halperin and Mr. Perlman about this process. And it was Mr. Halperin who put the, who got the process started.

HUTCHINSON : And so those are the only two you talked about and you made no reference that you were acting on behalf the of the president.

JORDAN : That's right.

HUTCHINSON : Now the second piece of information was the fact that you knew and the president knew that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena in the Jones case. And that information was not provided to either Mr. Halperin or to Mr. Perlman. Is that correct?

JORDAN : That's correct.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

KENDALL : The most critical thing about this deposition is it contained no evidence of any kind which supports the central allegation of Article II, the obstruction of justice article that Mr. Jordan's job search assistance was tied to Ms. Lewinsky testifying in a certain way, or that the president intended Mr. Jordan's assistance to corruptly influence her testimony.

Mr. Jordan was unequivocal about the fact that he had frequently helped other people and that here there was no quid pro quo, no tie in of any kind. Indeed, he provided direct evidence of this fact.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KENDALL : Mr. Jordan you were asked questions about job assistance. Will you describe the job assistance you have over your career given to people who have come to you requesting help finding jobs, or finding employment?

JORDAN : Well, I've known about job assistance and helped for a very long time. I learned about it dramatically when I finished at Howard University Law School, 1960 to return home to Atlanta, Georgia to look for work.

JORDAN : In the process of my -- during my senior year, it was very clear to me that no law firm in Atlanta would hire me. It was very clear to me that I could not get a job as a black lawyer in the city government, the county government, the state government or the federal government.

And thanks to my high school bandmaster, Mr. Kenneth Days, who called his fraternity brother, Donald L. Hollowell, a civil rights lawyer, and said, "That Jordan boy is a fine boy, and you ought to consider him for a job at your law firm," that's when I learned about job referral, and that job referral by Kenneth Days, now going to Don Hollowell, got me a job as a civil rights lawyer working for Don Hollowell for $35 a week.

I have never forgotten Kenneth Days' generosity. And given the fact that all of the other doors for employment as a black lawyer graduating from Howard University were open to me, that's always -- that's always been etched in my heart and my mind, and as a result, because I stand on Mr. Days' shoulders and Don Hollowell's shoulders, I felt some responsibility to the extent that I could be helpful or got in a position to be helpful, that I would do that.

And there is, I think, ample evidence, both in the media and by individuals across this country, that at such times that I have been presented with that opportunity, that I have taken advantage of that opportunity, and I think that I have been successful at it.

HUTCHINSON : Was your assistance to Ms. Lewinsky, which you have described, in any way dependent upon her doing anything whatsoever in the Paula Jones case?

JORDAN : No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL : That's direct evidence. That's not circumstantial evidence, that's unimpugned direct evidence.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson emphasized that Mr. Jordan now admits that he met with Ms. Lewinsky for breakfast on December 31, but Mr. Jordan also conceded in his deposition that, while he has no direct recollection of it, he also met with Ms. Lewinsky on November 5, a date well before any of the many managerial selected dates for the beginning of the corrupt conspiracy here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON : Now, when was the first time that you recall that you met with Monica Lewinsky?

JORDAN : If you've read my grand jury testimony.

HUTCHINSON : I have.

JORDAN : And I'm sure that you have, there is testimony in the grand jury that she came to see me on or about the 5th of November. I have no recollection of that. It was not on my calendar, and I just have no recollection of her visit.

There is a letter here that you have in evidence, and I have to assume that in fact that happened. But as I said in my grand jury testimony, I'm not aware of it. I don't remember it. But I do not deny that it happened.

HUTCHINSON : And Ms. Lewinsky has made reference to a meeting that occurred in your office on November 5, and that's the meeting that you have no recollection of?

JORDAN : That is correct. We have no record of it in my office, and I just have no recollection of it.

HUTCHINSON : And in your first grand jury appearance, you were firm, shall I say, that the first time you met with Ms. Lewinsky that it was on December 11th.

JORDAN : Yeah, it was firm based on what my calendar told me, and subsequently to that, there's been a refreshing of my recollection, and I do not deny that it happened. By the same token, I will tell you, as I said in my grand jury testimony, that I did not remember that I had met with her.

HUTCHINSON : And in fact, today, the fact that you do not dispute that that meeting occurred is not based upon your recollection but is simply based upon you seeing the records, and it appears that that meeting occurred?

JORDAN : That is correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL : The manager's theory is that it wasn't the original job assistance which constitutes obstruction of justice. It was rather the intensification of it which began at a certain point, and that point has varied.

When you boil it all down, when you look at Mr. Jordan's deposition or read his grand jury testimony, you see that he acted for Ms. Lewinsky on two different occasions. On December the 11th, he made three phone calls to her -- for her to New York firms. And then on January the 8th when she thought an interview had gone badly, he made another phone call, this time to Mr. Perlman.

KENDALL : That's all he did.

Now you also will recall, I think, that the managers original theory was that what catalyzed his job search intensification, what really kick-started it, was the entry of an order in the Paula Jones case by Judge Wright on December 11. Mr. Manager Hutchinson told you on January 14 that what -- let's look at the chain of events. The judge -- the witness list came in, the judge's order came in, that triggered the president into action, and the president triggered Vernon Jordan into action. That chain reaction here is what moved the job search along.

Remember what else happened on that day, December 11 again, that was the same day that Judge Write ruled that the questions about other relationships could be asked by the Jones' attorneys. That was the theory then; this is now.

We demonstrated in our own presentation, of course, that that order was entered late in the day, at a time when Mr. Jordan was high in the Atlantic in an airplane on his way to Amsterdam. And Mr. Hutchinson's -- Manager Hutchinson's very able examination did not try to resuscitate that theory. He didn't even make the attempt. He didn't ask Mr. Jordan about the December 11th order.

So today we have a different timeline. We have a new chart and a new timeline. Let's look at this. This was Mr. Manager Hutchinson's chart this morning. What is critical here? Well, we learn today that it's the December 5 date that is critical -- that's when the witness was faxed to the president's counsel. And that's what triggers the succeeding chain of events.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson remarked -- if I heard him correctly, that whenever you're talking about obstruction of justice, it ties together, it all fits together.

Well, let's look at his chart. You see that December 11th is on here, but Judge Wright's order has dropped off entirely -- unless it's there where I don't see it. Judge Wright's order is now not part of the chain of causation.

We look at December 7th, and we ask ourselves, "What happened then?" This is two days after the witness list came in.

KENDALL : Must have been some nefarious because the president and Jordan meet." But Mr. Manager Hutchinson did not represent to you that they even talked about the Jones litigation or Ms. Lewinsky, because they didn't. The managers told you that in their trial brief and it's been Mr. Jordan's consistent testimony.

Now the -- on December 11th, Mr. Jordan did have a meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, that was originally set up not on December 8th you'll recall, but back in November, when Ms. Lewinsky had agreed to call Mr. Jordan when returned from his travels. So the chronology here produces no, even circumstantial evidence of some linkage between the Paula Jones case and Mr. Jordan's job search.

It's also significant, I think that while the witness list came in on December the 5th, the president met with his lawyers on December the 6th, the president doesn't call Ms. Lewinsky until December the 17th. And Mr. Jordan doesn't learn about the fact that Ms. Lewinsky is on the witness list until December 19th. There does not seem to be a lot of urgency here.

Well, let's review the nefarious conspiracy that we've heard about today to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. We're told today that Vernon Jordan had no corrupt intent, that Ms. Lewinsky had no corrupt intent, and that Revlon had no corrupt intent. Rather, it was the president who somehow spun out this conspiracy. But I ask you, "Where in all this voluminous record is there any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the president somehow tied these things together through Mr. Jordan?"

It's a shell game, but the game doesn't have any shell in it. And I think that this is the loneliest conspiracy in human history, if it was a conspiracy, but it wasn't. Now, on the subject of quid pro quo I want to play two excerpts. And part of these, I ask your indulgence. They were played in part by Mr. Manager Hutchinson, but I think they deserve to be seen in their full context.

KENDALL : In one of them, you're going to hear Mr. Jordan say that he was running the job search, he was in control of the job search. Well, I think that's true about the Vernon Jordan job search. Ms. Lewinsky's job search had also been proceeding with Ambassador Richardson -- Mr. Jordan wasn't involved in any way in that -- and through one of her superiors at the Pentagon, Mr. Ken Bacon.

But let's listen to the full context, and listen for any evidence of a quid pro quo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON : Mr. Jordan, let me go back to that meeting on December 11th. I believe we were discussing that. My question would be: How did the meeting on December 11 of 1997 with Ms. Lewinsky come about?

JORDAN : Ms. Lewinsky called my office and asked if she could come to see me.

HUTCHINSON : And was that preceded by a call from Betty Currie?

JORDAN : At some point in time, Betty Currie had called me, and Ms. Lewinsky followed up on that call, and she came to my office, and we had a visit.

HUTCHINSON : Ms. Lewinsky called, set up a meeting, and at some point sent you a resume, I believe.

JORDAN : I believe so.

HUTCHINSON : And did you receive that prior to the meeting on December 11th?

JORDAN : I have to assume that I did, but I -- I do not know whether she brought it with her or whether -- it was at some point that she brought with her or sent to me -- somehow it came into my possession -- a list of various companies in New York with which she had -- which were here preferences, by the way -- most of which I did not know well enough to make any calls for.

HUTCHINSON : All right. And I want to come back to that, but I believe -- would you dispute if the record shows that you received the resume of Ms. Lewinsky on December 8th?

JORDAN : I would not. HUTCHINSON : And presumably, the meeting on December 11th was set up somewhere around December 8th by the call from Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : I -- I would not dispute that, sir.

HUTCHINSON : All right. Now, you mentioned that she had sent you a -- I guess some people refer to it -- a wish list, or a list of jobs that she...

JORDAN : Not jobs -- companies.

HUTCHINSON : ... companies that she would be interested in seeking employment with.

JORDAN : That's correct.

HUTCHINSON : And you looked at that, and you determined that you wanted to go with your own list of friends and companies that you had better contacts with.

JORDAN : I'm sure congressman that you too have been in this business and you do know that you can only call people that you know of, that you feel comfortable in calling.

HUTCHINSON : Absolutely. No question about it, and let me just comment and ask your response to this, that many times I will be listed as a reference and they can take that to any company. You might be listed as a reference and the name Vernon Jordan would be a good reference anywhere, would it not?

JORDAN : I would hope so.

HUTCHINSON : And so, even though it was a company you might not have the best contacts with, you know, you could have been helpful in that regard.

JORDAN : Well, the fact is I was running the job search, not Ms. Lewinsky and therefore the companies that she brought or listed were not of interest to me. I knew where I would need to call.

HUTCHINSON : And that is exactly the point, that you looked at getting Ms. Lewinsky a job as an assignment, rather than just something that you were going to be a reference for.

JORDAN : I don't know whether I looked upon it as assignment. Getting jobs for people is not unusual for me, so I don't view it as an assignment. I just view it as something that is part of what I do.

HUTCHINSON : You were (ph) acting on behalf of the president when you're trying to get Ms. Lewinsky a job, and you were in control of the job search?

JORDAN : Yes.

HUTCHINSON : Now going back, going to your meeting that we're talking about on December 11th, prior to the meeting, did you make any calls to prospective employers on behalf of Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : I don't think so. I think, I think not. I think I wanted to see here before I made any calls.

HUTCHINSON : And so if they were not before, after you met with her, you made some calls on December 11th?

JORDAN : I believe that's correct. HUTCHINSON : And you called Mr. Richard Halperin (ph) of McAndrews and Forbes?

JORDAN : That's right.

HUTCHINSON : You called Mr. Peter...

JORDAN : Gorjesco (ph).

HUTCHINSON : Gorgesco (ph) and he is the -- with what company?

JORDAN : He is chairman and chief executive officer of Young and Rubicam, a leading advertising agency on Madison Avenue.

HUTCHINSON : And did you make one other call?

JORDAN : Yes. I called Ursie Fairbairn who runs Human Resources at American Express -- at American Express Company where I am the senior director.

HUTCHINSON : All right. And what did you base the communique (ph) to each of these officials in behalf of Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : I essentially said that you're going to hear from Ms. Lewinsky and I hope that you will afford her an opportunity to come in and be interviewed and look favorably upon her if she meets your qualifications and your needs for work.

calls on December 11th. You believe that they were after you met with Ms. Lewinsky--

JORDAN : I doubt very seriously if I would have made the calls in advance of meeting her.

HUTCHINSON : And why is that?

JORDAN : You sort of have to know what you're talking about, who you're talking about.

HUTCHINSON : And what did you basically communicate to each of these officials in behalf of Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : I essentially said that you're going to hear from Ms. Lewinsky, and I hope that you will afford her an opportunity to come in and be interviewed and look favorably upon her if she meets your qualifications and your needs for work.

HUTCHINSON : Okay. And at what level did you try to communicate this information?

JORDAN : By -- what do you mean by `what level'?

HUTCHINSON : In the company that you were calling, did you call the chairman of human resources, did you call the CEO -- who did you call, or what level were you seeking to talk to? JORDAN : Richard Halperin is sort of the utility man; he does everything at McAndrews & Forbes. He is very close to the chairman, he is very close to Mr. Gittis. And so at McAndrews & Forbes, I called Halperin. As I said to you, and as my grand jury testimony shows, I called Young & Rubicam, Peter Georgescu as its chairman and CEO.

I have had a long-term relationship with Young & Rubicam going back to three of its CEOs, the first being Edward Ney, who was chairman of Young & Rubicam when I was head of the United Negro College Fund, and it was during that time that we developed the great theme, `A mind is a terrible thing to waste.' So I have had a long- term relationship with Young & Rubicam and with Peter Georgescu, so I called the chairman in that instance.

At American Express, I called Ms. Ursie Fairbairn who is, as I said before, in charge of Human Resources. So that is the level--in one instance, the chairman; in one instance a utilitarian person; and in another instance, the head of the Human Resources Department.

HUTCHINSON : And the utilitarian connection, Mr. Richard Halperin, was sort of an assistant to Mr. Ron Perlman?

JORDAN : That's correct. He's a lawyer.

HUTCHINSON : Now, going to your meeting on December 11th with Ms. Lewinsky, about how long of a meeting was that?

JORDAN : I don't--I don't remember. You have a record of it, Congressman.

HUTCHINSON : And actually, I think you've testified it was about 15 to 20 minutes, but don't hold me to that either.

HUTCHINSON : During the course of the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, what did you learn about her?

JORDAN : Enthusiastic, quite taken with herself and her experience, bubbly, effervescent, bouncy, confident, actually, I sort of had the same impression that you House Managers had of her when you met with her. You came out and said she was impressive, and so we come out about the same place.

HUTCHINSON : And did she relate to you the fact that she liked being an intern because it put her close to the President?

JORDAN : I have never seen a White House intern who did not like being a White House intern, and so her enthusiasm for being a White House intern was about like the enthusiasm of White House interns -- they liked it. She was not happy about not being there anymore -- she did not like being at the Defense Department. And I think she actually had some desire to go back. But when she actually talked to me, she wanted to go to New York for a job in the private sector, and she thought that I could be helpful in that process.

HUTCHINSON : Did she make reference to someone in the White House being uncomfortable when she was an intern, and she thought that people did not want her there?

JORDAN : She felt unwanted -- there is no question about that. As to who did not want her there and why they did not want her there, that was not my business.

HUTCHINSON : And she related that...

JORDAN : She talked about it.

HUTCHINSON : ...experience or feeling to you?

JORDAN : Yes.

HUTCHINSON : Now, your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky was on December 11th, and I believe that Ms. Lewinsky has testified that she met with the President on December 5 -- excuse me, on December 6 at the White House and complained that her job search was not going anywhere, and the President then talked to Mr. Jordan. Do you recall the President talking to you about that after that meeting?

JORDAN : I do not have a specific recollection of the President saying to me anything about having met with Ms. Lewinsky. The President has never told me that he met with Ms. Lewinsky, as best as I can recollect. I am aware that she was in a state of anxiety about going to work. She was in a state of anxiety in addition because her lease at Watergate, at the Watergate, was to expire December 31st. And there was a part of Ms. Lewinsky, I think, that thought that because she was coming to me, that she could come today and that she would have a job tomorrow. That is not an unusual misapprehension, and it's not limited to White House interns.

JORDAN : She could come to today and that she would have a job tomorrow. That is not an unusual misapprehension, and it's not limited to White House interns.

HUTCHINSON : I mentioned her meeting with the President on the same day, December 6. I believe the record shows the President met with his lawyers and learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the Jones witness list. Now, did you subsequently meet with the president on the next day, December 7th?

JORDAN : I may have met with the President. I'd have to, I mean, I'd have to look. I'd have to look, I don't know whether I did or not.

HUTCHINSON : If you would like to confer, I believe the record shows that. But I'd like to establish that through your testimony.

MS. WALDEN: Yes.

JORDAN : Yes.

HUTCHINSON : All right. So you met with the President on December 7th. And was it the next day after that, December 8th, that Ms. Lewinsky called to set up the job meeting with you on December 11th?

JORDAN : I believe that is correct.

HUTCHINSON : And sometime after your meeting on December 11th with Ms. Lewinsky, did you have another conversation with the President?

JORDAN : You do understand that conversations between me and the President, was not an unusual circumstance?

HUTCHINSON : And I understand that.

JORDAN : All right.

HUTCHINSON : And so let me be more specific. I believe your previous testimony has been that sometime after the 11th, you spoke with the president about Ms. Lewinsky.

JORDAN : I stand on that testimony.

HUTCHINSON : All right. And so there's two conversations after the witness list came out. One that you had with the president on December 7th. And then a subsequent conversation with him after you met with Ms. Lewinsky on the 11th.

Now, in your subsequent conversation after the 11th, did you discuss with the President of the United States Monica Lewinsky? And if so, can you tell us what that discussion was?

JORDAN : If there was a discussion subsequent to Monica Lewinsky's visit to me on December the 11th with the President of the United States, it was about the job.

HUTCHINSON : All right.

JORDAN : Search.

HUTCHINSON : And during that, did he indicate that he knew about the fact that she had lost her job in the White House, and she wanted to get a job in New York?

JORDAN : He was aware that, he was obviously aware that she had lost her job in the White House, because she was working at the Pentagon. He was also aware that she wanted to work in New York, in the private sector, and understood that that is why she was having conversations with me. There's no doubt about that.

HUTCHINSON : Okay. And he thanked you for helping her?

JORDAN : There's no question about that, either.

HUTCHINSON : And on either of these conversations that I've referenced that you had with the President after the witness list came out: your conversation on December 7th, and your conversation sometime after the 11th, did the President tell you that Ms. Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Jones case?

JORDAN : He did not.

HUTCHINSON : And did you consider this information to be important in your efforts to be helpful to Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : I never thought about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL : Mr. Jordan found out about Ms. Lewinsky subpoena on December the 19th when a weeping Ms. Lewinsky telephoned him and came to his office. Mr. Manager Hutchinson played that excerpt from the testimony this morning, I won't replay it.

Mr. Jordan than did what I think is best called due diligence.

KENDALL : He talked to Ms. Lewinsky, got her a lawyer, asked her whether there was any sexual relationship with the president, and was assured that there was none (ph).

That same evening he went to the White House and made a similar inquiry of the president and received a similar response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON : And still on December 19th, after your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, did you subsequently see the President of the United States later that evening?

JORDAN : I did.

HUTCHINSON : And is this when you went to the White House and saw the president?

JORDAN : Yes.

HUTCHINSON : Now at the time that Ms. Lewinsky came to see you on December 19th, did you have any plans to attend any social function at the white House that evening?

JORDAN : I did not.

HUTCHINSON : And in fact there was a social invitation that you had at the White House but you had declined...

JORDAN : I had declined it, that's right

HUTCHINSON : And subsequent to Ms. Lewinsky visiting you did you change your mind and go see the president that evening?

JORDAN : After a social engagement that Mrs. Jordan and I had, we went to the White House for two reasons.

We went to the White House to see some friends who were there, two of whom were staying in the White House. And secondly, I wanted to have a conversation with the president.

HUTCHINSON : And this conversation that you wanted to have with the president was one that you wanted to have with him alone?

JORDAN : That is correct.

HUTCHINSON : And did you let him know in advance that you were coming and wanted to talk to him?

JORDAN : I told him I would see him sometime that night after dinner.

HUTCHINSON : Did you tell him why you wanted to see him?

JORDAN : No.

HUTCHINSON : Now was this what you told him you wanted to see him, did it occur the same time that you talked to him while Ms. Lewinsky was waiting outside?

JORDAN : It could be. I made it clear I would come by after dinner and he said fine.

HUTCHINSON : Now let me backtrack for just a moment because whenever you talked to the president, Ms. Lewinsky was not inside the room.

JORDAN : That's correct.

HUTCHINSON : And therefore you did not know the details about her questions on the president might leave the first lady and those questions that set off all of these alarm bells.

And so you're having a -- is the answer yes?

JORDAN : That's correct.

HUTCHINSON : And so you're having this discussion with the president, not knowing the extent of Ms. Lewinsky's fixation?

JORDAN : Ah...

HUTCHINSON : Is that correct?

JORDAN : Correct.

HUTCHINSON : And regardless, you wanted to see the president that night and so you went to see him, and was he expecting you?

JORDAN : I believe he was.

HUTCHINSON : And did you have a conversation with him alone?

JORDAN : I did.

HUTCHINSON : No one else around?

JORDAN : No one else around.

HUTCHINSON : And I know that's a redundant question.

JORDAN : It's okay.

HUTCHINSON : Now, would you describe your conversation with the President?

JORDAN : We were upstairs in the White House. Mrs. Jordan -- we came in by way of the Southwest Gate into the Diplomatic Entrance -- we left the car there. I took the elevator up to the residence, and Mrs. Jordan went and visited at the party. And the President was already upstairs -- I had ascertained that from the usher -- and I went up, and I raised with him the whole question of Monica Lewinsky and asked him directly if he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and the President said, `No, never.'

HUTCHINSON : All right. Now, during that conversation, did you tell the President again that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed?

JORDAN : Well, we had established that.

HUTCHINSON : All right. And did you tell him that you were concerned about her fascination?

JORDAN : I did.

HUTCHINSON : And did you describe her as being emotional in your meeting that day?

JORDAN : I did.

HUTCHINSON : And did you relate to the President that Ms. Lewinsky asked about whether he was going to leave the First Lady at the end of the term?

JORDAN : I did. HUTCHINSON : And as -- and then, you concluded that with the question as to whether he had had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : And he said he had not, and I was satisfied -- end of conversation.

HUTCHINSON : Now, once again, just as I asked the question in reference to Ms. Lewinsky, it appears to me that this is an extraordinary question to ask the President of the United States. What led you to ask this question to the President?

JORDAN : Well, first of all, I'm asking the question of my friend who happens to be the President of the United States.

HUTCHINSON : And did you expect your friend, the President of the United States, to give you a truthful answer?

JORDAN : I did.

HUTCHINSON : Did you rely upon the President's answer in your decision to continue your efforts to seek Ms. Lewinsky a job?

JORDAN : I believed him, and I continued to do what I had been asked to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL : This morning, a very short portion of the president's grand jury testimony was played. The sound was not very good. It was a very short snippet, but it relates to what happened between Mr. Jordan and the president in that December 19th late night meeting at the White House.

KENDALL : The snippet that was played for you was, Question: "And Mr. Jordan informed you of that? Is that right" -- that being the subpoena. Answer: "No sir," and that leaves the misleading impression that, in his grand jury testimony, the president did not acknowledge this visit with Mr. Jordan.

The question right above the one that was quoted, however, was the following: "You were familiar, weren't you, Mr. President, that she had received a subpoena. You have already acknowledged that." The answer was, "Yes, sir, I was," and then two pages later, the president was asked by the OIC, "Did you in fact have a conversation with Mr. Jordan on the evening of December 19th, 1997, in which he talked to you about Monica being in Mr. Jordan's office, having a copy of the subpoena, and being upset about being subpoenaed?"

And the president's answer was: "I remembered that Mr. Jordan was in the White House on December 19th, and for an event of some kind. Betty came up to the residence floor and told me that he had -- that Monica had gotten a subpoena, or that Monica was going to have to testify, and I think he told me he recommended a lawyer for her. I believe that's what happened, but it was a very brief conversation."

So I think it's absolutely clear that there is no conflict between the president's testimony and Mr. Jordan's testimony about this.

Mr. Jordan had recommended Ms. Lewinsky, and he took her to the lawyer's office, to a lawyer, Mr. Frank Carter, a respected Washington, D.C. lawyer, to whom Mr. Jordan had recommended other clients.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON : Now, you have referred other clients to Mr. Carter during your course of practice here in Washington, D.C.?

JORDAN : Yes, I have.

HUTCHINSON : About how many have you referred to him?

JORDAN : Oh, I don't know. Maggie Williams is one client that I -- I remember very definitely. I like Frank Carter a lot. He's a very able young lawyer. He's a first-class person, a first-class lawyer, and he's one of my new acquaintances amongst lawyers in town, and I like being around him. We have lunch, and he's a friend. HUTCHINSON : And is it true, though, that when you've referred other clients to Mr. Carter that you never personally delivered and presented that client to him in his office?

JORDAN : But I delivered Maggie Williams to him in my office. I had Maggie Williams to come to my office, and it was in my office that I introduced Maggie Williams to Mr. Carter, and she chose other counsel. I would have happily taken Maggie Williams to his office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL : Gary, I'm going to skip the next two videotapes, 21 and 22. I hear a sigh of relief.

I want to use the next videotape, and I'm almost through, to correct the record as to one point that was made by the managers on Thursday, and again, this representation was important because it asserted an interconnection between the job search assistance and testimony in the Jones case.

KENDALL : You were shown a chart on Thursday, and it was a chart which was entitled "Interconnection Between Job Help and Testimony -- Managers Version." "Question: So you talked to her both about the job and her concern about parts of the affidavit?" Answer, according to Managers' Version, "That is correct."

Now when we actually look at the testimony which we're going to see in just a second, the question is "Did you in fact talk to her about the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?" Answer: "I have never in any conversation with Ms. Lewinsky talked to her about the job on the one hand or job being interrelated with the conversation about the affidavit. The affidavit was over here, the job was over here."

I don't suggest any intentional misrepresentation. But I think the record deserves to be corrected.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON : Do you know why you would have been calling Mr. Carter on three occasions the day before the affidavit was signed?

JORDAN : Yeah. My recollection is that I was exchanging or sharing with Mr. Carter what had gone on, what she had asked me to do, what I had refused to do, reaffirming to him that he was the lawyer, and I was not the lawyer. I mean, it would be so presumptuous of me to try to advise Frank Carter as to how to practice law.

HUTCHINSON : Would you have been relating to Mr. Carter your conversations with Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : I may have.

HUTCHINSON : And if Ms. Lewinsky expressed to you any concerns about the affidavit, would you have relayed those to Mr. Carter?

JORDAN : Yes.

HUTCHINSON : If Mr. Carter was a good attorney that was concerned about the economics of law practice, he would have likely billed Ms. Lewinsky for some of those telephone calls.

JORDAN : You'd have to talk to Mr. Carter about his billing.

HUTCHINSON : It wouldn't surprise you if his billing did reflect a charge for a telephone conversation with Mr. Jordan? JORDAN : Bear in mind that Mr. Carter spent most of his time being a legal services lawyer. I think his concentration is primarily on service rather than billing.

HUTCHINSON : But again, based upon the conversations you had with him which sounds like conversations of substance in reference to the affidavit that it would be consistent with the practice of law if he charged for those conversations?

JORDAN : That's a question you'd have to ask Mr. Carter.

HUTCHINSON : They were conversations of substance with Mr. Carter concerning the affidavit?

JORDAN : And they were likely conversations about more than Ms. Lewinsky.

HUTCHINSON : But the answer was yes, that they were conversations of substance in reference to the affidavit?

JORDAN : Or at least a portion of them.

HUTCHINSON : In other words, other things might have been discussed?

JORDAN : Yes.

HUTCHINSON : In your conversation with Ms. Lewinsky prior to the affidavit being signed, did you in fact talk to her about both the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?

JORDAN : I have never in any conversation with Ms. Lewinsky talked to her about the job, on one hand, or job being interrelated with the conversation about the affidavit. The affidavit was over here. The job was over here.

HUTCHINSON : But the -- in the same conversations, both her interest in a job and her discussions about the affidavit were contained in the same conversation?

JORDAN : As I said to you before, Counselor, she was always interested in the job.

HUTCHINSON : Okay. And she was always interested in the job, and so, if she brought up the affidavit, very likely it was in the same conversation?

JORDAN : No doubt.

HUTCHINSON : And that would be consistent with your previous grand jury testimony when you expressed that you talked to her both about the job and her concerns about parts of the affidavit?

JORDAN : That is correct. HUTCHINSON : Now, on January 7th, the affidavit was signed. Subsequent to this, did you notify anyone in the White House that the affidavit in the Jones case had been signed by Ms. Lewinsky?

JORDAN : Yes. I'm certain I told Betty Currie, and I'm fairly certain that I told the President.

HUTCHINSON : And why did you tell Betty Currie?

JORDAN : I'm -- I kept them informed about everybody else that was -- everything else. There was no reason not to tell them about that she had signed the affidavit.

HUTCHINSON : And why did you tell the President?

JORDAN : The President was obviously interested in her job search. We had talked about the affidavit. He knew that she had a lawyer. It was in the due course of a conversation. I would say, "Mr. President, she signed the affidavit. She signed the affidavit."

HUTCHINSON : And what was his response when you informed him that she had signed the affidavit?

JORDAN : "Thank you very much."

HUTCHINSON : All right. And would you also have been giving him a report on the status of the job search at the same time?

JORDAN : He may have asked about that. And part of her problem was that, you know, she was -- there was a great deal of anxiety about the job. She wanted the job, she was unemployed, and she wanted to work.

HUTCHINSON : Now, I think you indicated that he was obviously concerned about -- was it her representation and the affidavit?

JORDAN : I told him that I had found counsel for her. And I told him that she had signed the affidavit.

HUTCHINSON : Okay. You indicated that he was concerned, obviously, about something. What was he obviously concerned about in your conversations with him?

JORDAN : Throughout, he had been concerned about her getting employment in New York. Period.

HUTCHINSON : Alright. And he was also concerned about the affidavit?

JORDAN : I don't know that that was concern. I did tell him that the affidavit was signed. He knew that she had counsel, and he knew that I had arranged the counsel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KENDALL : In his presentation, Mr. Manager Hutchinson discussed the breakfast with Ms. Lewinsky, which Mr. Jordan now concedes he had on December the 31st. He showed you the restaurant bill.

I'm not going to dwell long on that because it really is not relevant to Article II. First of all, it is nowhere alleged as a ground of obstruction of justice. Mr. Manager Hutchinson referred to the Seven Pillars of Obstruction in Article II. Those are seven different factual grounds this alleged destruction is nowhere one of the grounds.

There is plainly a conflict in the testimony between Ms. Lewinksy and Mr. Jordan, although Mr. Jordan, as you recall, vehemently denies ever giving that instruction. Saying in that videotape that was played this morning, "I'm a lawyer and I'm a loyal friend, but I'm not a fool. That's ridiculous. I never did that."

The second reason why I think this is irrelevant is it was not presented as a separate ground for impeachment by the Independent Council. It was identified, the fact that the conflict in testimony was identified, but it was not urged as a separate ground, despite the very, very energetic investigation of Mr. Starr.

KENDALL : We've heard a lot in this case about dogs that won't hunt. In my mind this is like the Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark. If the independent counsel didn't raise it, that is significant.

And finally, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the president by anybody's contention.

Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to raise a question now which arose in the final stage of the Vernon Jordan deposition.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson had taken the deposition. I had asked a couple of questions in response. Then after I had concluded, Mr. Jordan made a statement defending his own integrity, to which Mr. Manager Hutchinson objected.

I would propose that since the issue has arisen of his integrity, since Mr. Jordan is an honorable man, and a distinguished -- has had a distinguished career, that I be allowed to play the approximately two minute segment of his own statement about his integrity.

REHNQUIST : Do the managers object?

HUTCHINSON : Mr. Chief Justice, it's my understanding it's not a part of the Senate record and therefore it would not be appropriate to be played under the rules of the Senate.

REHNQUIST : Well, is it a part of his -- the deposition of him that was taken?

HUTCHINSON : It is not a part of the deposition that was entered into the Senate record under the Senate rule.

REHNQUIST : The parliamentarian advises me that division one of the motion on Thursday which was approved would prevent the playing of that. So the chair will rule that it not, not acceptable.

KENDALL : Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.

LEAHY: Mr. Chief Justice...

REHNQUIST : The Senator from Vermont.

LEAHY: Mr. Chief Justice, I was one of the Senators at that deposition. I think it would be extremely interesting to hear it. It was taken at the deposition. REHNQUIST : Well...

LEAHY: I would ask unanimous consent that it be allowed.

REHNQUIST : The Senator from Vermont may appeal the decision of the chair which is that it not be played.

LEAHY: I, I'm not...

REHNQUIST : Ask consent for further...

LEAHY: I'm asking unanimous consent under the circumstances, and because it is such a short one, that the deposition -- and it would clarify it, that part of the deposition that Mr. Jordan took and which has been videotaped, be allowed to be shown here on the floor.

REHNQUIST : Is there objection?

UNKNOWN: Objection.

REHNQUIST : There is -- objection is heard. Counsel may proceed.

UNKNOWN: I'd like to recognize my colleague.

KENDALL : I think that concludes our presentation.

UNKNOWN: We'll yield back the remainder of our time, Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST : Very well.

UNKNOWN: How much?

REHNQUIST : The managers have 31 minutes remaining.

The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant. The Senate will be in order. The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.

BRYANT : Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

We will conclude our roughly half-hour by responding to as many of the contentions and statements raised by counsel for the White House as we can, and I first want to talk first, I suppose, about this statement that we heard back a couple of weeks ago, and was repeated today by one of White House counsels that the managers want to win too much.

This is not a game. This is not a game to anyone here. There are extraordinary consequences to what we're doing, and what we've been doing, and what your decision will be. The stakes are very high, and we don't need to take a poll to do what we did.

I'm reminded of the testimony of the president and Dick Morris taking a poll to determine whether to tell the truth or not, and then, after deciding that the public would not forgive his perjury, he said, "We'll just have to win."

BRYANT : But that's not the attitude this House has -- the managers have in bringing this case here. We fully appreciate the seriousness of it and the long term consequences of it, and we want to do the right thing.

We're not here just to win. We're here to help the Senate in this constitutional process do the constitutional thing not only for the precedent of this Senate, but for the precedent of the future generations in terms of how the courts now and later will view obstruction of justice and perjury.

And we believe this is a constitutional effort and not a gain. The question about snippets -- that we just put some snippets on the air today. We wanted to call live witnesses. We wanted Ms. Lewinsky to be here and let everybody examine her fully and completely.

But we're working with a time frame, and we brought up those points in her testimony and in Mr. Jordan's testimony and Mr. Blumenthal's testimony that we felt proved our case. With regard to the issue that Ms. Seligman raised about filing the false affidavit, she ran my testimony many times. I thought we ran the president's testimony earlier in these hearings several times, but I think she beat our record with my testimony. And I appreciate the exposure.

But what that's important for is not what Ms. Lewinsky felt was going on that night, but I think it perfectly illustrates what I told you the other day about her testimony. While she was truthful and while she gave us the testimony she had to give us to keep her immunity agreement, where there were some blanks to fill in or where there was something that could be bent, she did so.

Now as they pointed out, the question of the linkage -- the linkage between filing an affidavit and this cover story was so obvious that they were connected that the OIC did not ask that question did you think about this and that. It was obvious, but he did not ask that question. She was right. The question was not asked.

So when she, Ms. Lewinsky, had an opportunity in these hearings, when I asked her, she said, well, you know, I really didn't link the two together. Now let's don't throw away all our common sense here. She gets a phone call in the middle of the night with a message that you're on the witness list, and she says these three things occurred. You're on the witness list, you can file an affidavit, and you can use this cover story. Why else did the president raise the issue of the cover story at 2:30 in the morning if he didn't intend for her to use that?

BRYANT : But keep in mind, too, it really doesn't matter how she appreciated this. It really matters what the president intended, and he intended to let her now that she was on the list, she could be subpoenaed, she could file an affidavit, and she could use the cover story.

And in fact, she did use that cover story. She went to her lawyer, Mr. Carter, and told him that, and it was incorporated in the draft affidavit, that she went to take papers to the president to sign, and on those occasions, she may have been alone.

But they didn't like this, the specter of her being alone, so they struck that provision out of the final affidavit, but they did attempt to use it.

But keep in mind also that it's the president's intent, and his intent was to hinder justice, to impede the Paula Jones case, and to have her give a false affidavit, and that's why he so suggested that.

On the gift retrieval, it -- is it really an issue? Is there really an issue here? Some fabulous lawyering over here, but there's no issue here. Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no doubt in her mind that Ms. Currie initiated the call, and that's all there is to this issue.

The fact that there were other calls in the day, the fact that one of those other calls may have been at 3:30, really are moot point. The issue is, if Betty Currie initiated that phone call, the only impetus for her to initiate that call had to come from the president -- had to come from the president. She was not in that conversation that morning. The president had to tell her, and apparently did so, because she made the call.

At the end of the examination, or her testimony, or toward the end, it was shown several times, we asked her, "Did the president ever tell you anything about the gifts," and she said, "Not that I remember." And then later, on the segment you also saw, she was asked the question again by me.

BRYANT : "Okay. Were you ever under any impression or the impression that anything the president -- from the president that you should turn over all the gifts to the Jones' lawyers?" And she said, "No." And then she goes on to say, "This gets a little tricky here, and it could be that I've heard this statement from an agent somewhere along the line," and perhaps it did sound familiar.

I would suggest to you what happened there is that Mr. Carter, and it's clearly in his testimony before all of us, in the records. Mr. Carter, her own lawyer, told her she had to turn over all the records. And that's where she heard that. But it -- logic demands you reject that view because why would the president whose intent it was to conceal this whole affair ever think of telling her that you've got to turn over all those gifts?

And if he did tell her that she had to turn over all those gifts, why would she immediately go out that afternoon and reject that instruction? Just completely say, "Well, I'm going to forget what he told me to do. I'm going to call his secretary and have her come pick up these gifts and store them for me." That's not logical. Common sense tells you that didn't happen that way. And Ms. Lewinsky was absolutely positive that there was not doubt Betty Currie initiated the call. And that's that.

Job search very quickly. This is not a bribery case. This is not giving her a job, bribing her with a job to get her false testimony. It's not a bribery case. If it was we wouldn't argue -- we wouldn't be arguing about the impeachability of obstruction of justice. It would be clear that bribery is mentioned in the Constitution.

It's about attempting to corruptly persuade or influence the behavior of a witness. And that's exactly what that's about. I would also close very quickly by telling you, in the beginning, I urged you to look at -- in the -- particularly the obstruction of justice charges, the result-benefit analysis. And I don't ever hear anybody talking about that but me, so maybe I'm off base here.

But I ask you to consider each of these Seven Pillars of Obstruction that Mr. Hutchinson raised and look at the end result of those acts. And look at who benefited from those results. And what I believe you would have found, and can still find, is that in each case, the result impeded justice in the Paula Jones case in some way that favored the president. And the benefit naturally inured to the president.

BRYANT : And I guess if you reject that result-benefit test, and if you accept each and every argument of these extremely fine defense counsel, that the president wasn't behind any of this, then I guess you just have to reach the conclusion that the president was the luckiest man in the world, that people would crimes by filing false affidavits, by hiding evidence, by going out and possibly trashing witnesses and giving false testimony and grand jury proceedings.

If that's the way you feel about it, then so be it. We will abide by your judgment.

But I suggest to you that the facts of this case really aren't in contest. They've been argued very -- very well by defense counsel for the White House.

And I'm about to exhaust my time, so I would yield at this point to Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Manager Hutchinson, to make. . . .

REHNQUIST : The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

HUTCHINSON : Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. This will be very brief, and then I'll yield to Mr. Gramm.

Let's recall Miss Monica Lewinsky to the stand for a brief moment. Let's go to the Park Hyatt Hotel, December 31, 1997 -- breakfast between Miss Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEWINSKY: : I gave to Mr. Jordan was that I was trying to sort of alert to him that, gee, maybe Linda Tripp might be saying these things about me having a relationship with the President, and right now, I'm explaining this to you. These aren't the words that I used or how I said it to him, and that, you know, maybe she had seen drafts of notes, trying to obviously give an excuse as to how Linda Tripp could possibly know about my relationship with the President without me having been the one to have told her. So that's what I said to him.

BRYANT : And what was his response?

LEWINSKY: : I think it was something like go home and make sure-- oh, something about a--I think he asked me if they were notes from the President to me, and I said no. I know I've testified to this. I stand by that testimony, and I'm just recalling it, that I said no, they were draft notes or notes that I sent to the President.

LEWINSKY: : And that I believe he said something like, well, go home and make sure they're not there.

BRYANT : And what did you do when you went home?

LEWINSKY: : I went home, and I searched through some of my papers and the drafts of notes I found. I sort of -- I got rid of some of the notes that day.

BRYANT : So you threw them away?

LEWINSKY: : Uh-hmm. Yes. Sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON : Thank you. This goes to the overall pattern of obstruction. It goes to credibility. I believe it's relevant in this case, and I yield to Mr. Graham.

REHNQUIST : The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham.

GRAHAM: : How much do we have left?

REHNQUIST : You have 18 minutes and 7 seconds.

GRAHAM: : May I yield some of the seconds, I hope. Point of agreement -- rebuttal is to refocus, and the law allows that for the person or the party with the burden, and we do have that burden.

Point of agreement -- White House counsel says there's much more that we need to know. There is much more we need to know. The White House counsel says strongly when these proceedings opened up the president is not guilty of obstruction of justice. The president is not guilty of perjury.

Refocus -- no fair-minded person in my opinion could come to any other rational conclusion that our president obstructed justice, that our president committed perjury in front of a grand jury. You vote your conscience. I told you to do so. And if we disagree at the end of the day, that's America at its best.

I have never suggested that there was any reasonable doubt that this president committed crimes. I will ask you at the conclusion of this to remove him with a clear conscience. You vote your conscience, and I know it will be clear. Refocus -- the gifts, simply put. If you believe the president of the United States in his grand jury testimony said I told her, I said, look, the way these things work is when a person gets a subpoena, you have to give them whatever you have.

GRAHAM: : That's the way -- that's what the rule -- that's what the law is.

If you believe that, we need to congratulate our president because he did in fact state the law correctly. He fulfilled his obligation as chief executive officer of the land. He fulfilled his obligation as an honorable person by telling someone who happened to be Ms. Lewinsky, "you're doing a bad thing here, even by suggesting that we do something with these gifts. You need to turn them over because that's what the law says."

If you believe that, that's the only time he really embraced the law in this case I can see.

Everything about him and the way he behaved was 180 degrees out from that statement.

That is the most self serving statement that flies in the face of every action he took for months. The truth is that a reasonable person should conclude that when Ms. Lewinsky approached him about what to do with the gifts, he said I will have to think about that.

And you know what, ladies and gentlemen, he thought about it and you know what he did after he thought about it -- "Betty, go get those gifts."

And they wound up under the bed of the president's secretary and people are wondering what the heck happened here.

What the heck happened here is you've got a man trying to hide his crimes.

Affidavit -- where I come from you call somebody at 2:30 in the morning, you're up to no good.

(LAUGHTER)

GRAHAM: : That will be borne out if you listen to the testimony and use your common sense, who (ph) is up to no good.

He told her "my heart is breaking because you're on this witness list and maybe here's a way to get out of it." That's the God's truth; that's what he did and it was wrong and that's a crime.

The rule of law -- what does it mean? It means that process and procedure wins out over politics and personality. That means that subpoenas have to be honored by the great and the small.

That means when subpoenas come you can't as the president try to defeat them because you're nobody special in the eyes of the law,

except that you're the guardian (ph) of the law.

GRAHAM: : If you're special, you're special in a more ominous way -- not a less way. When you file an affidavit in a court of law, nobody because of their position in society has the right to cheat and to get somebody to lie for them, even as the president.

That means we're not a nation of men or kings. We're a nation of laws, and that's what this case has always been about to me. This affidavit was false for a reason -- because the president and Ms. Lewinsky wanted it to be false.

The job search -- mission accomplished says it all. Mission accomplished. It went from being no big deal to the biggest deal in the world with a telephone bill. I don't know what the telephone bill was to get this job, but it was huge. Mission accomplished.

All these are crimes. All these are things that average Americans should not be allowed to do. But I'm going to tell you something. At this point in time, what is going on is that he's trying to conceal a relationship about the work place that would be embarrassing and that would be illegal, that would help Ms. Jones, that would hurt him, and it's just not about his private life.

But you can say this about the president. He was trying to get her a job, and he was trying to just get her to file a false affidavit so this would go away, and he was trying to hide the gifts, and that's bad. But that's not nearly as bad as what was to come.

Let me tell what was to come, ladies and gentlemen. After the deposition, when it was clear that Ms. Lewinsky may have been talking or somebody knew something they weren't supposed to know, the alarm bells went off and concealing the relationship changed to redefining the relationship. That is why he should not be our president.

The redefining of the relationship began very quickly after that deposition. It started with the president's secretary, and it goes like this.

GRAHAM: : The president, on two occasions, under the guise of refreshing his memory, makes the following statements to his secretary: "You were always there when she was there, right?" "We were never really alone." "You could see and hear everything." "Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?" "She wanted to have sex with me, and I couldn't do that."

If you believe that's about refreshing your memory, you're not being reasonable. That is about coaching a witness, but here's where it gets to be nasty, here's where it gets to be mean. "Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?" "She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that."

He didn't say it once; he said it twice, just to make sure Ms. Currie would get the point.

Now that Miss Lewinsky may be a problem, let me tell you how the discussion goes. It's not from concealing, it's redefining.

Conversation with Mr. Morris after they did the poll about what to do here, and "we just got to win."

The president had a follow up conversation with Mr. Morris during the evening of January 22, 1998, the day after the story broke, when Mr. Morris was considered holding a press conference to blast Miss Lewinsky out of the water, the president told Mr. Morris to be careful -- to be careful. According to Mr. Morris, the president warned him not to be too hard on Miss Lewinsky, "because there's some slight chance she may not be cooperating with Mr. Starr, and we don't want to alienate her by anything we're going to put out."

In other words, don't blast her now; she may not be a problem to us.

During this period of time, it went from concealing to redefining. When he knew he "had to win," what did he do? He went to his secretary and he made her a sexual predator and him an innocent victim -- and he did it twice. But did he do it to anybody else? Did he redefine his relation to anybody else?

I now would like to have a clip from Mr. Blumenthal, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: : You have a conversation with the President on the same day the article comes out, and the conversation includes a discussion about the relationship between him and Ms. Lewinsky.

GRAHAM: : Is that correct?

BLUMENTHAL : Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: : Next tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: : Now you stated I think very honestly, and I appreciate that you were lied to by the president. Is it a fair statement given you previous testimony, concerning your 30 minute conversation, that the president was trying to portray himself as a victim of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL : I think that's the import of his whole story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: : Ladies and gentleman, that is the import of his whole story. That story was told on the day this broke in the press and it goes on.

That story is very detailed; it makes him the victim of a sexual predator called Ms. Lewinsky. He had to rebuff her. He threatened her. She threatened him -- excuse me. And it goes on and on and on and I have always wondered, how did that story make it to the grand jury and how did it make it into the press.

We know how it made it to the grand jury, because Mr. Blumenthal told it and the president told him and they claimed executive privilege. And the president never straightened it out.

Your president redefined this relationship and your president let that lie be passed to a grand jury. Your president obstructed justice in a mean way.

Next tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Tape 49?

GRAHAM: : Yes, sir.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

GRAHAM: : That's where you start talking about the story that the president told you. Knowing what you know now, do you believe the president lied to you about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL : I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: : Next tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: : Do you have any idea how White House sources are associated with statements such as, "She's known as `Elvira'," "She's obsessed with the president," "She's known as a flirt," "She's the product of a troubled home, divorced parents," "She's known as `The Stalker' "? Do you have any idea how that got in the press?

LANNY BREUER, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I'm going to object. The document speaks for itself, but it's not clear that the terms that Mr. Lindsey has used are necessarily -- any or all of them --are from a White House source. I object to the form and the characterization of the question.

GRAHAM : The ones that I have indicated are associated with the White House as being the source of those statements and...

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Senator Edwards and I think that question is appropriate, and the objection is overruled.

BLUMENTHAL : I have no idea how anything came to be attributed to a White House source.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM : Everybody wants this over so bad you can taste it, including me, but let's don't leave a taste behind that history cannot stand. It was shouted in these chambers, "For God's sake, vote!"

Let me quietly, if I can, for God's sake, get to the truth. For God's sake, figure out what kind of person we have here in the White House. For God's sake, spend some time to fulfill your constitutional duty, so that we can get it right, not for just our political moment, but for the future of this nation.

When the president redefined this relationship, he did so by telling a lie. He told a lie to a White House aide, who repeated that lie to a federal grand jury. In our system, ladies and gentlemen, that is a crime. That lie made it into the public domain. That lie was mean. That lie would have the effect to run this young lady over, and you can think what you want to think, too, about Ms. Tripp, and I agree she's not going to be in the hall of fame of friends, but let me tell you, the best advice she ever gave that young lady was to keep that blue dress. The final thing is that our president, in my opinion, and for you to judge, in August of last year, after being begged not to by many members of this body and prominent Americans, appeared before a federal grand jury to answer for the conduct in this case, his conduct.

GRAHAM : We have alleged that with forewarning and knowledge on his part, that instead of clearing it up to make America a better place, instead of fulfilling his role as the chief law enforcement officer of the land to do honor to the law, instead of taking this burden off all Americans' back, he told a story that defies common sense.

That he played a butchery game with the English language, that is: maybe is not is, and alone is not alone. And he told John Podesta, my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was not sexual, including oral sex. He went on and told an elaborate farce to a federal grand jury that they just didn't ask the right question and really the sexual relationship did include one thing, but not another.

And he says he never lied to his aid. And he says he never lied to a grand jury. Well, God knows he lied to somebody. And he lied to that grand jury and this whole story is a fraud and a farce. And the last people in the United States to straighten it out, is the United States Senate. God bless you in your endeavors.

BOXER : Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST : Yes the Chair recognizes the Senator from California.

BOXER : In light of the negative comments made against Mr. Jordan by Manager Hutchinson and Manager Graham, I ask once again unanimous consent that in fairness...

REHNQUIST : The regular order of business has been called for.

BOXER : I ask unanimous consent that in fairness Mr. Jordan's two minute testimony regarding his own integrity be shown to the Senate at this time.

REHNQUIST : Is there objection.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I object.

REHNQUIST : The objection carries.

LOTT : Yes. Chief Justice has all time been used or yielded back?

REHNQUIST : All time has been used or yielded back.

LOTT : Then that concludes the presentations for today. The Senate will reconvene as a Court of Impeachment on Monday, beginning at 1:00. At that time the House managers and the White House will proceed with their closing arguments, for up to three hours. I ask the Court of Impeachment stand adjourned under the previous order and further business resume after that.

REHNQUIST : Without objection, it's so ordered.


Investigating the President

MORE STORIES:

Saturday, February 6, 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.