 |
|
Full coverage of the impeachment
trial.
Jan. 8, 1999:
Shields
and Gigot on the Senate deal.
Jan. 7, 1999:
Shield and
Gigot discuss the impeachment trial.
Jan. 6, 1999:
Tom
Oliphant and David Brooks analyze the beginning of the impeachment
trial in the U.S. Senate.
Jan. 6, 1999:
Two
of impeachment managers on the Senate trial.
Jan. 5, 1999:
Four
former senators discuss the format and duration of the upcoming
impeachment trial.
Jan. 4, 1999:
Senators are wrestling with a proposal for a shortened impeachment
trial.
Dec. 23, 1998:
Four
foreign journalists discuss how President Clinton's impeachment
played around the world.
Dec. 21, 1998:
A growing number of voices are calling for a censure
alternative.
Dec. 21, 1998:
A discussion
on the vote to impeach President Clinton.
Dec. 21, 1998:
Some
public reaction from Oregon on the impeachment vote.
Dec. 17, 1998:
Shields
& Gigot give analysis of the House's decision to continue
with the debate on impeachment despite the military action in
Iraq.
Dec. 15, 1998:
More
moderate Republicans came out in favor of impeaching President
Clinton.
Dec. 15, 1998:
Deborah
Tannen and Shelby Steele debate the impeachment proceedings
of President Clinton.
Nov. 27, 1998: President Clinton answers
questions
about the Lewinsky matter put to him by the House Judiciary
Committee.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the White
House, Starr
Investigation,and Political
Wrap.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the Senate:
 I
am Ed Bryant, the Representative from the 7th District of Tennessee.
During this portion of the case, I, along with Representative Asa Hutchinson
of Arkansas, Representative Jim Rogan of California and Representative
Bill McCollum of Florida will present the factual elements of the case.
Our presentation is a very broad road map in which I will first provide
the history and background of the parties, followed by Mr. Hutchinson
and Mr. Rogan who will review the Articles of Impeachment. Mr. McCollum
will close with a summation of these facts and evidence.
It is our intent to proceed in a chronological fashion, although by
necessity, there will be some overlap of the facts and circumstances
arising from what I have termed "the four-way intersection collision"
of President William Jefferson Clinton, Ms. Paula Corbin Jones, Ms.
Monica Lewinsky and the U.S. Constitution.
As a further preface to my remarks, permit me to say that none of us
present today in these hallowed chambers relishes the task before us.
But, we did not choose to be involved in that reckless misconduct, nor
did we make those reasoned and calculated decisions to coverup that
misconduct which underlie this proceeding. The collision at the intersection
of the President, Ms. Jones and Ms. Lewinsky was not enough to bring
us together. No. Had truth been a witness at this collision and prevailed,
we would not be here. But when it was not present, even under an oath
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a judicial
matter, the impact of our Constitution must be felt. Hence, we are together
today-- to do our respective duties.
By voting these Articles of Impeachment, the House is not attempting
to raise the standard of conduct to perfection for our political leadership.
Such a person does not walk the world today. Everyone falls short of
this mark daily.
But political life is not so much about how an individual fails, but
rather how the person reacts to that failure. For example. A person
campaigning for a political office admits wrongdoing in his past and
says he will not do that again. Most people accept that commitment.
He is elected. Thereafter, he repeats the wrongdoing and is confronted
again. What does he do? He takes steps to cover up this wrongdoing by
using his workers and friends. He lies under oath in a lawsuit which
is very important to the person he is alleged to have harmed. He then
takes a political poll as to whether he should tell the truth under
oath. The poll indicated the voters would not forgive him for lying
under oath. So he then denies the truth under oath in a federal grand
jury. If this person is the President of the United States, the House
of Representatives would consider articles of impeachment. It did and
voted to impeach this President.
But do not let it be argued in these chambers that " We are not electing
Saints, we are electing a President." Rather, let it be said that we
are electing people who are imperfect and who have made mistakes in
life, but who are willing to so respect this country and the Office
of the President that he or she will now lay aside their own personal
shortcomings and have the inner strength to discipline themselves sufficiently
that they do not break the law which they themselves are sworn to uphold.
Every trial must have a beginning and this trial begins on a cold day
in January 1993.
As you can see from the video, William Jefferson Clinton, placed his
left hand on a Bible in front of his wife, the Chief Justice and every
American watching that day and affirmatively acknowledged his oath of
office. On that very day and again in January 1997, the President joined
a privileged few. He became only the 42nd person in our nation to make
the commitment to "faithfully execute" the office of the President and
to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." He has the complete
executive power of the Nation vested in him by virtue of this Constitution.
As we progress throughout the day, I would ask that you be reminded
of the importance of this oath.
William Jefferson Clinton is a man of great distinction. He is well-educated
with degrees from Georgetown and Yale Law School. He has taught law
school courses to aspiring young lawyers. He served as Governor and
Attorney General for the state of Arkansas, enforcing the laws of that
state. The President now directs our great nation. He sets our agenda
and creates national policy in a very public way -- he is in fact a
role model for many.
President Clinton also serves as the nation's Chief Law Enforcement
Officer. It is primarily in this capacity that the President appoints
federal judges. Within the Executive Branch, he selected Attorney General
Janet Reno and appointed each of the 93 United States Attorneys who
are charged with enforcing all federal civil and criminal law in federal
courthouses from Anchorage, Alaska to Miami, Florida and from San Diego,
California to Bangor, Maine. As protectors of our Constitution, the
U.S. Attorneys and their assistants prosecute more than 50,000 cases
per year.
 Through
these appointments and his administration's policies, the President
establishes the climate of this country for law and order. Each and
every one of these 50,000 cases handled by his U.S. Attorneys is dependent
upon the parties and witnesses telling the truth under oath. Equally
as important in these proceedings is that justice not be obstructed
by tampering with witnesses and hiding evidence.
Quoting from the November 9, 1998 Constitution Subcommittee testimony
of Washington D.C. attorney Charles J. Cooper: "The crimes of perjury
and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery,
are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting
injury immediately upon society itself, whether or not committed in
connection with the exercise of official government powers. Before the
framing of our Constitution and since, our law has consistently recognized
that perjury primarily and directly injures the body politic, for it
subverts the judicial process and this strikes at the heart of the rule
of law itself."
Professor Gary McDowell, Director, Institute For United States Studies,
University of London, in the same hearing referenced the influential
writer William Paley: Paley saw the issue of oaths and perjury as one
of morality as well as law... Because a witness swears that he will
speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, a person
under oath cannot cleverly lie and not commit perjury. If the witness
conceals any truth, Paley writes, that relates to the matter in adjudication,
that is as much a violation of the oath, as to testify a positive falsehood...Shame
or embarrassment cannot justify his concealment of truth...linguistic
contortions with the words used cannot legitimately conceal a lie, or
if under oath, perjury. Professor McDowell concludes with a quote from
Paley which accurately provides the essence of a lie or perjurious statement.
"It is willful deceit that makes the lie; and we willfully deceive,
where our expressions are not true in the sense in which we believe
the hearer apprehends them." Nor has this Senate been silent on the
issue of perjury. You have rightfully recognized through previous impeachment
proceedings the unacceptable nature of a high government official lying
under oath, even in matters initially arising from what some would argue
here are merely personal. In 1989, many of you present today, using
the very same standard set forth in the Constitution for impeaching
a federal judge or the President, actually voted in support of a conviction
and the removal of U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for perjury. Indeed,
truth-telling is the single most important judicial precept underpinning
this great system of justice we have, one which permits the courthouse
doors to be open to all people, from the most powerful man in America
to a young woman in Arkansas.
On May 6, 1994, Paula Corbin Jones attempted to open that courthouse
door when she filed a federal sexual harassment lawsuit against President
Clinton. The case arose from a 1991 incident when she was a state employee
and he was the Governor. Further details of the underlying allegations
are not important to us today, but Ms. Jones' pursuit for the truth
is worth a careful study. The parties first litigated the question of
whether Ms. Jones' lawsuit would have to be deferred until after the
President left office. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the President's
contention and allowed the case to proceed without further delay. Ms.
Jones sought and, appropriately, won "her day in court". Incumbent with
this victory, though, was the reasonable expectation that President
Clinton would tell the truth. After all, this was the most important
case in the whole world to Paula Corbin Jones.
However, this did not happen. Even after the President was ordered to
stand trial, pursuing the truth for Ms. Jones remained an elusive task.
The evidence will indicate that President Clinton committed perjury
and orchestrated a wide variety of efforts to obstruct justice, all
of which had the effect of preventing the discovery of truth in her
case. During the discovery phase, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District Court of Arkansas ordered the
President to answer certain historical questions about his sexual relations
with either state or federal employees. In part, Judge Wright said:
"The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information
regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations
or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the
relevant time frame state or federal employees." (Referral at 6.) Judge
Wright validated Ms. Jones right to use this accepted line of questioning
in sexual harassment litigation. More often than not, these cases involve
allegations of "he said, she said", produce issues of credibility and
are done in private. Because of this, they are difficult for a victim
to prove. Such standard questions are essential in establishing whether
the defendant has committed the same kind of acts before or since. In
other words, a "pattern and practice" of harassing conduct. The existence
of corroborative evidence or the lack thereof is likely to be critical.
Both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines and the
Federal Rules of Evidence, 404(b) permit the use of this evidence. In
short, a defendant's sexual history, at least with respect to other
employees, is ordinarily discoverable in a sexual harassment suit. (Referral
at 6)
To not expect a defendant in this type of litigation to speak the truth
creates, in its worst case, a very real danger that the entire area
of sexual harassment law would be irreparably damaged, and in its best
case, sends outs a very wrong message. As such, the will and intent
of Congress with regard to providing protection against sexual harassment
in the work place would be effectively undermined.
The "pattern and practice" witnesses whom Paula Corbin Jones was entitled
to discover should have included the name of Monica Lewinsky. But before
I discuss Ms. Lewinsky further, I want to offer three matters of caution
to each of you as jurors in this very important matter:
1. I do not intend to discuss the specific details of the President's
encounters with Monica Lewinsky. However, I do not want to give the
Senate the impression that those encounters are irrelevant or lack serious
legal implications. In fact, everyday in courtrooms all across America,
victims of sexual harassment, rape, assault and abuse must testify,
in many cases publically, in order to vindicate their personal rights
and society's right to be free from these intolerable acts.
The President's lies about his conduct in the Oval Office with Ms. Lewinsky
also make these unseemly details highly relevant. If you are to accept
the President's version about the relationship, you must ,in effect,
say to her that she is the one who is disregarding the truth. But beyond
this, his denials not only directly contradict Ms. Lewinsky's testimony,
but also contradict eight of her friends and the statements by two professional
counselors with whom she contemporaneously shared details of her relationship.
By law, their testimony may serve as proper and admissible evidence
to corroborate her side of this unfortunate story. (Referral at 138.)
2. The evidence and testimony in this proceeding must be viewed as a
whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. Please do not be misled into
considering each event in isolation, and then treating it separately.
Remember, events and words that may seem innocent or even exculpatory
in a vacuum may well take on sinister, or even criminal connotation
when observed in the context of the whole plot. For example, we all
agree that Ms. Lewinsky testified "No one ever told me to lie..."
When considered alone this statement would seem exculpatory. In the
context of other evidence, we see that this one statement gives a misleading
inference. Of course no one said, "Now, Monica, you go in there and
lie." They didn't have to. Based upon their previous spoken and even
unspoken words, Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of her. Surely,
if the President were to come to the Senate floor and give testimony,
he would not tell you that he honestly expected her to tell the truth
about their personal relationship. After all, the purpose of her filing
the affidavit was to avoid testifying in the Jones case. If she had
told the truth in the affidavit, she would have been invited to testify
immediately if not sooner!
3. Throughout our presentation of the facts, especially as it relates
to the various illegal acts, I ask that you pay particular attention
to the RESULTS of these various illegal acts, as well as WHO BENEFITTED.
Please make a mental note now, and always ask yourself: A) What was
the result of this action? B) Who benefitted from this result? I believe
that you will find that the evidence will show that while the President's
"fingerprints" may not be directly on the evidence proving these illegal
acts, the results of the acts usually enure to the benefit of the President
and the President alone . Subordinates and friends alike are drawn into
this web of deceit. The President is insulated. Crimes are committed.
Justice is denied. The Rule of Law is suspended. And this President
is the beneficiary. Some examples: 1. Subpoenaed evidence disappears
from Ms. Lewinsky's apartment and reappears under Ms. Currie's bed.
Result/Benefit 2. Ms. Lewinsky files false affidavit in Jones case.
Result/Benefit 3. President's attorney files the Lewinsky affidavit,
not knowing it was false, representing to the Court that "there is absolutely
no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form". President sits silently.
Result/Benefit (Referral at 174). 4. Ms. Lewinsky, after months of job
searching in NYC, is offered a job with a Fortune 500 company in NYC
within 48 hours of her signing the false affidavit. Result/Benefit
 Another
example occurred in a meeting between the President and Ms. Lewinsky
on July 4, 1997, when as a part of their conversation, she mentioned
that she had heard from someone that Newsweek was working on
a story about Kathleen Willey. The President had Ms. Lewinsky back for
a visit on July 14th following his return from an overseas trip. She
was questioned about the Willey story, and specifically, if Linda Tripp
had been her source. Important to this point, the President then asked
Ms. Lewinsky to try to persuade Ms. Tripp to call White House Legal
Counsel Bruce Lindsey. The President told her to notify Ms. Currie the
following day, "without getting into the details with her, even mentioning
names with her", whether Ms. Lewinsky had "mission-accomplished' ***with
Linda". She was unsuccessful. (Referral at 69.) As you will learn from
Mr. Hutchinson who will follow with his presentation, this is similar
to another job the President requested be done, but which succeeded
with a "Mission accomplished."
I want to now rewind the clock back to November, 1995. We are here in
Washington where Ms. Lewinsky has been working at the White House since
July.
As you continue to listen to the evidence, from this point on November
15th forward, remember that Ms. Lewinsky and the President were alone
in the Oval Office workplace area at least 21 times. They had at least
11 of the so-called salacious encounters there in the workplace at various
time during the day and night: 3 in 1995, 5 in 1996 and 3 in 1997. They
had in excess of 50 telephone conversations, most of which appear to
have been calls to or from Ms. Lewinsky. They exchanged some 64 gifts,
the President receiving 40 presents and Ms. Lewinsky 24.
We know their affair began on November 15th. Interestingly, there is
conflict even here. They had never spoken to each other up to that time.
Yet, he asked this unknown intern into a private area off the Oval Office
and kissed her. He invited her to return to his office later that same
day when the two engaged in the first of the eleven acts of misconduct.
The contradiction in testimony with President Clinton's appears in his
written statement used before the federal grand jury: "I regret that
what began as a friendship came to include this conduct..."As Ms. Lewinsky's
internship was ending, she applied for and received a paying job with
the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. This position allowed
her even more access to the Oval Office area. She remained a White House
employee until April, 1996 when she was reassigned to the Pentagon.
The proof would show that Ms. Evelyn Lieberman, Deputy Chief of Staff
at the time, believed the transfer was necessary because Ms. Lewinsky
was so persistent in her efforts to be near the President. Although
Ms. Lieberman could not recall having heard any rumors linking her and
the President, she acknowledged that the President was vulnerable to
these kinds of rumors. (Referral at 42.) While Ms. Lewinsky tried to
return to work in the White House, her absence was appreciated by those
on the President's staff who wanted to protect him. After she began
her job at the Pentagon in April, there was no further physical contact
with the President through the 1996 election and the remainder of the
year. The two communicated by telephone and occasionally, saw each other
at public events. Their only attempt at a private visit in the Oval
Office was thwarted because Ms. Lieberman was nearby. On December 17th,
she attended a holiday celebration at the White House and had a photograph
made shaking hands with the President. However, the evidence establishes
that in 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was more successful in arranging visits.
She used the discreet assistance of Ms. Currie to avoid the likes of
Ms. Lieberman. Ms. Currie indicated that she did not want to know the
details of the relationship. She testified that on one occasion when
Ms. Lewinsky told her, "As long as no one saw us--and no one did--then
nothing happened." Ms. Currie responded: "Don't want to hear it. Don't
say any more. I don't want to hear any more." (Referral at 55.) Early
on during their secret liaisons, the two had concocted a cover story
to use if discovered. Ms. Lewinsky was to say she was bringing papers
to the President. The evidence will show this statement to be false.
The only papers she ever brought were personal messages having nothing
to do with her duties or the President's. The cover story plays an important
role in the later perjuries and obstruction of justice. (Judiciary Report
at 7) Ms. Lewinsky stated that the President did not expressly instruct
her to lie. He did, however, suggest the "misleading" cover story. And,
when she assured him that she planned to lie about the relationship,
he responded approvingly. On the frequent occasions when she promised
that she would "always deny" the relationship and "always protect him,"
for example, the President responded, in her recollection, "That's good,'
or--something affirmative. ***"Not, don't deny it." Referral at 23.
The evidence will establish further that the two of them had, in her
words, "a mutual understanding" that they would "keep this private,
so that meant deny it and ***take whatever appropriate steps needed
to be taken." When she and the President both were subpoenaed in the
Jones case, Ms. Lewinsky anticipated that "as we had on every other
occasion and every other instance of this relationship, we would deny
it." Referral at 22.
In his grand jury testimony, President Clinton acknowledged that he
and Ms. Lewinsky "might have talked about what to do in a nonlegal context'
to hide their relationship, and that he "might well have said" that
Ms. Lewinsky should tell people that she was bringing letters to him
or coming to visit Ms. Currie. But he always stated that "I never asked
Ms. Lewinsky to lie." Referral at 24.
But neither did the President ever say they must now tell the truth
under oath; to the contrary, as Ms. Lewinsky stated: "It wasn't as if
the President called me and said, 'You know, Monica, you're on the witness
list, this is going to be really hard for us, we're going to have to
tell the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire world about
what we've done,' which I would have fought him on probably. That was
different. And by him not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew
what that meant.' Judiciary at 172.
In a related, but later incident that Mr. Hutchinson may refer to, Monica
Lewinsky testified that President Clinton telephoned her at home around
2:00 to 2:30 in the morning on December 17, 1997. He told her that her
name was on the list of possible witnesses to be called in the Jones
case. When asked what to do if she was subpoenaed, the President suggested
she could sign an affidavit. Ms. Lewinsky indicated that she was 100%
sure that he had suggested that she might want to sign an affidavit.
She understood his advice to mean that she might be able to execute
an affidavit that would not disclose the true nature of their relationship.
(Judiciary at 171.)
 When
Ms. Lewinsky agreed to a false affidavit, she told the President by
telephone that she would be signing it and asked him if he wanted to
see it. According to her, the President responded that he did not, as
he had already seen about 15 others. (Referral at 106.) Concurrent with
the events I have just described, the evidence will further demonstrate
that as Ms. Lewinsky attempted to return to work at the White House
after the 1996 elections, she spoke with President Clinton. According
to Bettie Currie, the President instructed her and Marsha Scott, Deputy
Director of Personnel, to assist in her return to the White House. (Referral
at 63.) In the Spring of 1997, Ms. Lewinsky met with Ms. Scott. She
complained with subsequent notes to Ms. Scott and the President about
no progress being made. On July 3rd of that year, she dispatched a more
formal letter to the President using the salutation "Dear Sir" and raising
the possible threat that she might have to tell her parents about why
she no longer had a job at the White House. She also indicated her possible
interest with a job in New York at the United Nations. They met the
next day in what she characterized as a "very emotional" visit, including
the President scolding her that it was illegal to threaten the President
of the United States. Their conversation moved on to other topics, primarily
her complains about his failure to get her a job at the White House.
(Referral at 67)
Continuing with Ms. Lewinsky's effort to return to work near the President,
there was a July 16th meeting and a September 3rd telephone call with
Ms. Scott. On the evening of September 30th, the President advised Ms.
Lewinsky that he would have Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles help in the
job search, and Bowles later passed this on to John Podesta, although
each recall their involvement occurring earlier in the year. (Referral
at 74). Just a few days later, however, her hopes of a job at the White
House quickly ended. On October 6th, she had a conversation with Linda
Tripp who told her that she would never return to work there, this according
to a friend on the staff. Learning about this "second-hand" was, according
to Ms. Lewinsky, "the straw that broke the camel's back". She decided
to ask the President for a job in New York with the United Nations and
sent him a letter to that effect on October 7th. During an October 11th
meeting with the President, he suggested she give him a list of New
York companies which interested her. She asked if Vernon Jordan might
also help her. Five days later, she provided the President with her
"wish list" and indicated that she was no longer interested in a U.N.
position, although she did later receive an offer on November 24th and
declined it on January 5, 1998. After this meeting with the President,
arrangements are made through the President and Ms. Currie for Ms. Lewinsky
to meet with Mr. Jordan. On the morning of November 5th, Mr. Jordan
spoke by telephone with the President for 5 minutes and later met with
Ms. Lewinsky for 20 minutes. According to her, He told her that he had
spoken with the President, that she came "highly recommended" and that
"We're in business".
However, the evidence reflects that Mr. Jordan took no steps to help
Ms. Lewinsky until early December of that year, after she appeared on
the witness list in the Jones case. Actually, Mr. Jordan testified in
a March 3, 1998 grand jury proceeding that he had "no recollection of
having met with Ms. Lewinsky on November 5." (Referral at 85). When
shown documentary evidence demonstrating that his first meeting with
Ms. Lewinsky occurred in early November, he acknowledged that such a
meeting "was entirely possible". For many months, Ms. Lewinsky had not
been able to find a job to her satisfaction-- even with the "help" of
various people. Then in December of 1997, something happened which caused
those interested in finding Ms. Lewinsky a job in New York to intensify
the search. Within 48 hours of her signing the affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky
had landed a job with a prestigious Fortune 500 Company. It is anticipated
that attorneys for the President will present arguments which will contest
much of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The President has maintained
throughout the last few months that while there was no sexual relationship
or affair, in fact, there was some type of inappropriate intimate contact
with her. What has now been dubbed as "legal gymnastics" on the part
of the President arrives.
Other examples were to follow. Within his definition of the word "alone",
he denies being alone with Ms. Lewinsky at any time in the Oval Office.
Further, we would expect the President to continue to disavow knowledge
of why evidence detrimental to his defense of the Jones case was removed
from Ms. Lewinsky's apartment and hidden beneath Ms. Currie's bed or
knowledge of how Ms. Lewinsky found herself with an employment offer
in New York virtually at the same time she executed the affidavit in
the Jones case.
Unfortunately for your search for the truth in the proceedings, the
President continues to parse his words and use "legal hairsplitting"
in his defense. I cite for your consideration his Answer filed with
this Body just days ago. For instance: 1. Responding in part to the
Impeachment Article I, the President persists, in a wrongheaded fashion,
with his legal hair-splitting of the term "sexual relations" which permits
him to define it in such a way that-- in the salacious act at issue,
one person has sex and the other does not. As a graduate of one of the
finest law schools in America and as a former law professor and State
Attorney General, the President knows better.
2. Responding to both Articles of Impeachment, the President now would
have you believe that he "was not focusing" when his attorney Bob Bennett
was objecting and attempting to cut off questioning of the President
by representing to Judge Wright that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit proved
that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or
form". Remember that this is the same President who is renowned for
his intelligence and ability "to compartmentalize" or focus or concentrate
on whatever the matter is at hand. Now he comes before you, by and through
his attorneys, and pleads that he simply wasn't paying attention at
this important point during his own deposition. In Tennessee, we have
a saying for situations like this. "That dog won't hunt."
3. His further response to Article I effectively admits his guilt to
obstruction. His pleadings refer to the President stating, "He truthfully
explained to the grand jury his efforts to answer the questions in the
Jones deposition without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky."
Then at the bottom of the same page 4 of this Answer, he says that he
denies that he attempted "to impede the discovery of evidence in the
Jones case." Think about this with me a minute. The purpose of the Jones
deposition of the President was to secure truthful testimony about "pattern
and practice" witnesses and therein discover the likes of Ms. Lewinsky.
The President has just admitted in his Answer that he purposefully answered
questions so as not to disclose his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Said another way-he intentionally answered questions to avoid the discovery
of one of his female employees with whom he was sexually involved. That
is precisely what impeding the discovery of evidence is.
4. In his Answer to Article II, the President "denies that he encouraged
Monica Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit in the Jones case". When
everything is said and done, Ms. Lewinsky had no motivation or reason
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. But this twenty- something young lady was listening to
the most powerful man in the United States, a man she greatly admired,
and hearing him effectively instruct her to file an affidavit to avoid
having to testify about their sexual relationship, and in order to do
that, she had to lie about the physical aspects of their relationship.
According to her, the President didn't even want to review the actual
affidavit because he had seen fifteen more just like it and as such,
knew it would be right.
5. In additional response to Article II, the President asserts that
"he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could have filed a limited but truthful
affidavit that might have enabled her to avoid having to testify in
the Jones case. That is an incredible statement given the fact that
the President knew first-hand of the extent of their sexual relationship
and that the Jones discovery efforts were specifically after that type
of conduct. Even with the best of legal hair-splitting, it is still
difficult to envision a truthful affidavit from Ms. Lewinsky which could
have skirted this issue enough to avoid testifying.
And, if the President had REALLY held this belief, don't you think he
would have accepted Ms. Lewinsky's offer to review her affidavit and
share his wisdom with her before she signed it? After all, in this Answer
he just filed with you, he says he had an out for her-a way to have
the best of both worlds-not to have to lie and still avoid testifying
in the Jones case.
Even if, for some reason, you don't believe Ms. Lewinsky gave him the
opportunity to review the affidavit, don't you think it would still
have been in the President's best interest to give Ms. Lewinsky his
thoughts before she violated the law with a completely false affidavit?
As a House Manager, I believe I can speak for all us, out of a sense
of fairness, and again request that we and the President be permitted
to call witnesses. I would submit that the state of the evidence is
such that unless and until the President has the opportunity to confront
and cross-examine witnesses like Ms. Lewinsky, and himself, to testify
if he desires, there could not be any doubt of his guilt on the facts.
A reasonable and impartial review of this present record demands nothing
less than a guilty verdict. While it has been the consistent defense
of the White House to be inconsistent, it still comes as something of
a surprise that the President has not made a stronger case for calling
for witnesses. Before now, he has aggressively sought the opportunity
to challenge the truth and veracity of witnesses in these impeachment
proceedings. During the hearings in the House, which many believe are
analogous to a grand jury proceeding, the President's defenders and
his attorneys consistently complained of the failure to call witnesses
and lack of fairness and due process. Almost everyday, there were partisan
attacks from the White House and its emissaries who were dispatched
throughout the media talk shows with the same complaints of no witnesses.
And always, our response was the calm assurance that there would be
witnesses called during the trial phase in the Senate. Is there any
doubt that our forefathers intended a two-step impeachment proceeding?
The House would function as the Grand Jury and determine whether to
charge-- to impeach. Then you, as the trier of fact, would function
as the jury to try the case and weigh the testimony of the fact witnesses.
In recent days, some have publically asserted that the House is hypocritical
because it didn't call some of the fact witnesses it now asks to call
in the Senate. For the record, it must be noted that the House Judiciary
Committee, out of an abundance of fairness, did allow the President's
defense team 30 hours during which any of these witnesses could have
been examined. But any allegation of hypocrisy certainly appears to
miss the point that the writers of our Constitution never contemplated
two separate trials for an impeachment proceeding. But now we would
respectfully suggest is the time for witnesses. All Americans, including
the President, are entitled to enjoy a private family life, free from
public or governmental scrutiny. But the privacy concerns raised in
this case are subject to limits, three of which I will briefly discuss
here. First. The first limit was imposed when the President was sued
in federal court for alleged sexual harassment. The evidence in such
litigation is often personal. At times, that evidence is highly embarrassing
for both plaintiff and defendant. As Judge Wright noted at the President's
January 1998 deposition, "I have never had a sexual harassment case
where there was not some embarrassment." Nevertheless, Congress and
the Supreme Court have concluded that embarrassment-related concerns
must give way to the greater interest in allowing aggrieved parties
to pursue their claims. Courts have long recognized the difficulties
of proving sexual harassment in the work place, inasmuch as improper
or unlawful behavior often takes place in private. To excuse a party
who lied or concealed evidence on the ground that the evidence covered
only "personal" or "private" behavior would frustrate the goals that
Congress and the courts have sought to achieve in enacting and interpreting
the Nations's sexual harassment laws. That is particularly true when
the conduct that is being concealed--sexual relations in the workplace
between a high official and a young subordinate employee--itself conflicts
with those goals. Second. The second limit was imposed when Judge Wright
required disclosure of the precise information that is in part the subject
of this hearing today. A federal judge specifically ordered the President,
on more than one occasion, to provide the requested information about
relationships with other women, including Ms. Lewinsky. The fact that
Judge Wright later determined that the evidence would not be admissible
at trial, and still later granted judgment in the President's favor,
does not change the President's legal duty at the time he testified.
Like every litigant, the President was entitled to object to the discovery
questions, and to seek guidance from the court if he thought those questions
were improper. But having failed to convince the court that his objections
were well founded, the President was duty bound to testify truthfully
and fully. Perjury and attempts to obstruct the gathering of evidence
can never be an acceptable response to a court order, regardless of
the eventual course or outcome of the litigation. The Supreme Court
has spoken forcefully about perjury and other forms of obstruction of
justice: "In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony,
perjury simply has no place whatever. Perjured testimony is an obvious
and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings.
Effective restraints against this type of egregious offense are therefore
imperative." The insidious effects of perjury occur whether the case
is civil or criminal. Only a few years ago, the Supreme Court considered
a false statement made in a civil administrative proceeding: "False
testimony in a formal proceeding is intolerable. We must neither reward
nor condone such a 'flagrant affront' to truth-seeking function of adversary
proceedings...Perjury should be severely sanctioned in appropriate cases."
Stated more simply, "perjury is an obstruction of justice." Third. The
third limit is unique to the President. "The Presidency is more than
an executive responsibility. It is the inspiring symbol of all that
is highest in American purpose and ideals." As the head of the Executive
Branch, the President has the constitutional duty to "take Care that
the Laws be faithfully executed". The President gave his testimony in
the Jones case under oath and in the presence of a federal judge, a
member of a co-equal branch of government; he then testified before
a federal grand jury, a body of citizens who had themselves taken an
oath to seek the truth. In view of the enormous trust and responsibility
attendant to his high Office, the President has a manifest duty to ensure
that his conduct at all times complies with the law of the land. In
sum, perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen--whether
in a criminal case, a grand jury investigation, a congressional hearing,
a civil trial or civil discovery--are profoundly serious matters. When
such acts are committed by the President of the United States, those
acts are grounds for conviction and removal from his Office. ( Referral
at 5-7.) As I reach the conclusion of my presentation, the time line
is now in December of 1997. Following her November 5th meeting with
Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky had no communication with him or the President
for a month. Then in early December, the parties in the Jones case exchanged
witness lists and Ms. Lewinsky was scheduled as a potential witness
by the Jones' attorneys. On or about that same day, Ms. Lewinsky attempted
to make an uninvited visit to the White House and later that day, was
allowed in by the President. But it was during this time, in December
of 1997, that the some of the seams began to unravel for the President.
I will conclude my remarks at this point and thank the Chief Justice
and the Members of the Senate for their attention. My colleague from
Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson will follow me now or at the end of any recess
as may be necessary.
|
|
