REP. WILLIAM MCCOLLUM

January 15, 1999
		The House managers ended their factual presentations by having Rep. William McCollum (R-FL) summarize the information the Hour presented yesterday. The following is Mr. McCollum's prepared text.

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.     White House Homepage Jurist Guide to Impeachment The U.S. Senate

I'm here today to summarize the evidence that you heard yesterday, help you digest the huge quantity of material you have in front of you and that you've already heard, and prepare you for the discussion of the crimes of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering that will follow what I have to say. I bare no animosity towards President Clinton. But I happen to believe that allowing a President who committed crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice and witness tampering to remain in office would undermine our courts and our system of justice. But that is a determination for you to make after you have reviewed and weighed all of the evidence and heard all of the arguments. In fact the first thing you have to determine is whether or not the President committed crimes. If he didn't obstruct justice or witness tamper or commit perjury no one believes he should be removed from office. So let's review what the record shows. (REFER TO COMMITTEE AND STARR REPORTS) JONES SUIT President Clinton was sued by Paula Jones in a sexual harassment civil rights law suit. To bolster her case, she was trying to show that the President had engaged in a pattern of illicit relations with women in his employment, where he rewarded those who became involved with him and disadvantaged those who rejected him as Paula Jones did. Whatever the merits of this approach on May 27, 1997 the United States Supreme Court ruled in an unanimous decision that "like every other citizen," Paula Jones "has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims." Then on December 11, 1997 Judge Susan Weber Wright issued an order that said Paula Jones was entitled to information regarding any state or federal employee with whom the President had sexual relations, proposed sexual relations or sought to have sexual relations. CLINTON DEFENSE The record shows that President Clinton was determined to hide his relationship with Monica Lewinsky from the Jones' court. His lawyers will argue to you next week that everything he did to keep the relationship hidden was legal. They will say he may have split a few hairs and evaded answers and given misleading answers, but it was all within the framework of responses and actions that any good lawyer would advise his client to do. They will also say that if he crossed the line technically anywhere he didn't knowingly or intentionally do so. BELIEVE MONICA Oh, how I wish that were true! We wouldn't be here today. But, alas, that's not so. If you believe the sworn testimony of Monica Lewinsky in this record (and she's very credible), the President knowingly, intentionally and willfully set out on a course of conduct in December 1997 to lie to the Jones' court, to hide his relationship and to encourage others to lie and hide evidence, and to conceal the relationship with Monica Lewinsky from the court. He engaged in a pattern of obstruction of justice, perjury and witness tampering designed to deny the court what Judge Susan Webber Wright had determined Paula Jones had a right to discover in order to prove her claim. If you believe the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, you cannot believe the President or accept the arguments of his lawyers. The record is so clear on this that if you have any significant doubt about Monica Lewinsky's credibility on this testimony, you should have us bring her in here and examine her face to face and judge her credibility yourself. CRIMES As you will hear explained later this afternoon, the same acts can constitute both the crimes of obstruction of justice and perjury and the same acts can constitute the crimes of obstruction of justice and witness tampering. They are all cut from the same cloth. They are all crimes that obstruct the administration of justice and keep our courts from being able to get the evidence they need to decide cases. Such obstruction is so detrimental to our system of justice that the federal sentencing guidelines provide for a greater punishment for perjury and obstruction of justice than they do for bribery. (CHART 1) Now bribing a witness is different. It gets the same more severe punishment as perjury and obstruction of justice. It should be pointed out that lies under oath in a court proceeding whether or not they rise to the level of crimes of perjury can be obstruction of justice. So when the President lied in the Jones deposition this was part of his obstruction of justice charged under Article II even though there is no separate count. And he lied a lot in that deposition as we shall see later. The fact that the House did not send you the Article of Impeachment for perjury in the Jones deposition does not keep you from considering the lies in that deposition as an obstruction of justice crime under Article II that is before you. So what is this story of obstruction? To put the essence of this in a nutshell think back on the evidence presented yesterday. I would suggest President Clinton thought his scheme out well. He resented the Jones lawsuit. He was alarmed when Monica Lewinsky's name appeared on the witness list and even more alarmed when Judge Wright issued her order signaling the court would hear evidence of other relationships. To keep his relationship with Monica Lewinsky from the court once Judge Wright issued her ruling he knew he would have to lie to the court. To succeed at this he decided he had to get Monica Lewinsky to file a false affidavit to try to avoid her testifying, and he needed to get her a job to make her happy, make sure she executed the false affidavit and then stuck with her lies if questioned. Then the gifts were subpoenaed, and he had to have her hide the gifts, the only tangible evidence that could link him to her. She came up with the idea of giving them to Betty Currie and the President seized on that. Who would think to ask Betty to produce the gifts. Then he would be free to lie to the court in his deposition. But after he did this he realized he had to make sure Betty would lie and cover for him. He got his aides convinced to repeat his lies to the grand jury and the public. And all this worked well until the dress showed up. Then he lied to the grand jury to try to cover up and explain away his prior crimes. Now let's review what happened. And as we do I ask you to keep in mind what Mr. Bryant said to you yesterday: always ask yourself "what are the results of the act and who benefitted?" AFFIDAVIT On December 5, 1997, about a week before Judge Wright issued her order making it clear that the President's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was relevant to the Jones case, Ms. Lewinsky's name appeared on the Jones witness list. The President learned this fact the next day, December 6. The President telephoned Monica Lewinsky at about 2:00 a.m. on December 17 and informed her about her name being on the witness list. That was about ten days after he learned of it and about five days after Judge Wright's order made it clear that his relationship with Monica was discoverable by the Jones lawyers in that case. Long before the President was called to give a deposition, or Monica Lewinsky was named as a witness in the Jones case the evidence shows that she and the President had an understanding the she would lie about the relationship if asked by anybody. During the telephone conversation when he told her she might be called as a witness, President Clinton suggested she might file an affidavit to avoid being called to give a deposition or testify in person. In the same conversation they reviewed the cover stories they had concocted to conceal their relationship. In her grand jury testimony, Monica Lewinsky says the President didn't tell her to lie, but because of their previous, understanding she assumed they both expected her to lie in that affidavit. In this context, the evidence is compelling that the President committed both the crimes of obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Now Monica Lewinsky's testimony is so clear about this that the President's lawyers didn't spend a lot of time with us on this in the House Judiciary Committee, and I suspect they won't with you either because they don't want you to focus on this. I do. MONICA LEWINSKY TESTIMONY (A) Let's look specifically at pages 123 and 124 of Monica Lewinsky's August 6 grand jury testimony. (CHART 2) This is where she describes the December 17 telephone conversation with the President when she learned she was on the witness list. Let me read you part of it: ML: At some point in the conversation, and I don't know if it was before or after the subject of the affidavit came up, he sort of said, "You know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters." Which I understood was really a reminder of things which we had discussed before. Q: So when you say things you had discussed, sort of ruses that you had developed. ML: Right. I mean, this was - - this was something that - - that was instantly familiar to me. Q: Right. ML: And I knew exactly what he meant. Q: Had you talked with him earlier about these false explanations about what you were doing visiting him on several occasions? ML: Several occasions throughout the entire relationship. Yes. It was the pattern of the relationship, to sort of conceal it. MONICA LEWINSKY TESTIMONY (B) And let's look at pages 233 and 234 (CHART 3) of her August 6 grand jury testimony where in the context of her affidavit she makes the now famous statement "no one asked or encouraged me to lie": ML: 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... ML: ...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... Q: Did you understand all along that he would deny the relationship, also? ML: Mm-hmm. Yes. Q: And when you say you understood what it meant when he didn't say, "Oh, you know, you must tell the truth," what did you understand that to mean? ML: That - - that - - as we had on every other occasion and every other instance of this relationship, we would deny it. After reading this, if you believe Monica Lewinsky, can there be any doubt that the President was suggesting that she file an affidavit that would contain lies and falsehoods that might keep her from ever having to testify in the Jones case and give him the protection he wanted when he testified? And, of course, in the same December 17 conversation the President encouraged Monica to use the cover stories and tell the same lies as he expected her to do in an affidavit if she were called to testify personally in the case. This also was obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Taken together these are the basis for counts (1) and (2) of the second impeachment article. M.L. SUBPOENAED Two days later, Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed and contacted Vernon Jordan who put her in touch with attorney Frank Carter. As we all know, this very false affidavit was filed just before President Clinton's deposition in the Jones' case January 17. The record shows that the President was kept abreast of the preparation of this affidavit and the contents by Vernon Jordan and that Jordan notified the President when she signed the affidavit on January 7. Two days before Monica Lewinsky says in a phone conversation she asked the President if he wanted to see the draft affidavit, and he replied that he didn't need to see it because he had already seen "15 others." The circumstantial evidence makes it clear the President knew the content of the Lewinsky affidavit and knew it was false. ROBERT BENNETT During the President's deposition in the Jones case on January 17, his attorney Robert Bennett at one point tried to stop one of the Jones lawyers from asking the President about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky by pointing out the affidavit she had signed. Mr. Bennett asserted that the affidavit indicated "there is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form." After a warning from Judge Wright, Mr. Bennett stated, "I'm not coaching the witness. In preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know." The President did not say anything to correct Mr. Bennett, even though he knew the affidavit was false. The Judge allowed the questioning to proceed and later Mr. Bennett read to the President a portion of paragraph 8 of Monica Lewinsky's affidavit in which she denied having a "sexual relationship"with the President and asked him if Ms. Lewinsky's statement was true and accurate, to which the President responded, "That is absolutely true." PARAGRAPH 8 Paragraph 8 of Monica Lewinsky's affidavit was absolutely false and the President knew it. (CHART 4) In allowing his attorney on the day of the deposition to make false and misleading statements to the judge characterizing this affidavit when he knew better, President Clinton committed the crime of obstruction of justice. This is count 5 of Article II. Now the President's lawyers will argue that he sat silent because he wasn't paying attention and that he didn't hear or appreciate what Mr. Bennett was saying. You've already seen the video that shows that he was looking in Mr. Bennett's direction and appears to have been paying attention. Remember he was intensely following the conversation with his eyes. He certainly wasn't thinking about anything else. The President's other defense also falls apart on it's face. During his grand jury testimony, the President argued that when Mr. Bennett characterized the Lewinsky affidavit as indicating "there is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form" that it was a completely true statement because at that particular moment when he made the statement on January 17, 1998, there was no sex going on. That was when the President made his famous grand jury comment, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Of course, the President knew perfectly well in the context of Mr. Bennett's discussion with the Judge that his characterization of the Lewinsky affidavit was referring to her denial in paragraph 8 of that affidavit that there had never been any sexual relationship, not that there was no sex or sexual relationship going on on January 17, the day of the deposition. I implore you not to get hung up on some of the absurd and contorted explanations the President and his attorneys try to make to get around his obvious and apparent criminal behavior. This is a perfect example. When you are thinking about all of this keep in mind the whole context not just some compartmentalized portion that might be subject to word games. GIFTS When Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed to testify she was also subpoenaed to produce any gifts that the President had given her. When she met with Vernon Jordan the day she received the subpoena she told him of her concerns about the gifts and asked him to tell the President about the subpoena. Early in the morning of December 28 they met in his office, exchanged gifts and discussed the gifts being subpoenaed. According to Ms. Lewinsky's testimony in the record she suggested that maybe she should put the gifts away outside of her house somewhere or give them to somebody like maybe Betty Currie. She says he responded with an "I don't know" or "let me think about that." She is very clear that at no point did he ever give her the impression that she should turn the gifts over to the Jones attorneys. Consistent with their cover stories and all the plans for denying the relationship her testimony in this regard is quite believable. On the other hand the President's later testimony in front of the grand jury that he encouraged her to turn all the gifts over to the Jones lawyers is not believable. When he said that in the grand jury testimony, he committed perjury. When a few hours later, according to Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie called her on the telephone and said "I understand you have something to give me" or "the President said you have something to give me" and Betty Currie came over and got the gifts and hid them under her bed. The President 's crime of obstruction of justice as described in count 3 of Article II was complete. Remember by their nature obstruction of justice crimes are most frequently shown by circumstantial evidence. In the context of all that was going on at the time and the general truthfulness of Monica Lewinsky's testimony in other respects, how can anyone come to any other conclusion than that the President collaborated with Monica and Betty on December 28 to hide these gifts? CLINTON GIFT DEFENSE The President's lawyers may spend a lot of time attacking this particular obstruction of justice charge. They may question why the President would have given Monica Lewinsky more gifts on December 28 if he was expecting her to hide the gifts. Monica's explanation in her testimony is that "from everything he said to me," he expected her to conceal the gifts including the ones being given that day. When Mrs. Currie's call came, wasn't it the logical thing for Monica to conclude that this was the result of the President's having thought about what to do with the gifts and deciding to have Mrs. Currie hide them? The President's attorneys no doubt will also question the veracity of Ms. Lewinsky with regard to who made the telephone call, since Mrs. Currie's recollection was that Monica called her. Of course, the telephone records indicate that Mrs. Currie called Monica. And that is the much more logical sequence. Also it doesn't make sense that the President's secretary, who is so close to him, would have taken these gifts and would have hidden them under her bed and never talked with the President about doing so before or after she did so. It's also noteworthy that the President did everything he could in his January 17 deposition to conceal the true nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is inconsistent with the arguments that he never intended the gifts be kept from the Jones attorneys. Common sense tells us that he knew that if these gifts were revealed, questions would be raised and his efforts to conceal would be jeopardized. JOB SEARCH Another obstruction count the President's attorneys are likely to spend a lot of time on is the one concerning the job search. There is no question that Monica Lewinsky sought the President's help in getting a job in New York long before the President had reason to be particularly concerned about the Jones case probing into his relationship with her. That is not the issue. The question is whether or not the President intensified his efforts to get her a job and made sure that she got one after it became clear to him that he would need her to lie, sign a false affidavit and stick with cover stories to conceal their relationship from the court in the Jones case. In other words as count 4 of Article II alleges did he make sure she was rewarded for sticking with him in this scheme of concealment in anticipation that this reward would keep her happy and keep her from turning on him? Did the President make sure Monica Lewinsky signed a false affidavit by rewarding her with a job? The record shows that while she did get some interviews from earlier contacts, including one involving a job with the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, no one of real influence around the President put on a full court press to get her a job and she hadn't had any success as of December 6. She had not been able to get in touch with Vernon Jordan and mentioned that fact to the President on December 6. The President met with Mr. Jordan the next day, but there was no mention of Ms. Lewinsky. The record shows that not until December 11 did Mr. Jordan act to help Ms. Lewinsky find a job when he met with her and gave her a list of contact names. Mr. Jordan that same day (December 11) made calls to contacts at MacAndrews & Forbes (the parent corporation of Revlon) and two other companies. He also telephoned the President to keep him informed of his efforts. Keep in mind that on this day, December 11, Judge Wright issued her order in the Jones case entitling Jones lawyers to do discovering of the President's sexual relations. Later in December Monica Lewinsky interviewed with New York based companies that had been contacted by Mr. Jordan. She discussed her move to New York with the President during their meeting on December 28. On January 5 she declined a United Nations offer. On January 7 Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit. The next day, on January 8, 1998, she interviewed in New York with MacAndrews & Forbes, but the interview went very poorly. Learning of this Vernon Jordan called Ronald Pearlman, the Chairman of the Board at MacAndrews & Forbes. She was interviewed again the next morning and a few hours later received an informal offer for a job. She told Jordan of the offer and he then immediately notified Betty Currie and personally told the President later. On January 13 her job offer at Revlon was formalized and within a day or so President Clinton told Erskine Bowles that Ms. Lewinsky had found a job in the private sector. Then her false affidavit was filed, and on January 17 the President gave his deposition relying on that false affidavit and using their cover stories to conceal the relationship. Was this full court press in December and early January to insure Monica Lewinsky had a job just a coincidence? Logical common sense says no. The President needed her to continue to cooperate in his scheme to hide their relationship. Keeping her happy so he could control her and be assured she would file the false affidavit and testify untruthfully if called as a witness in the Jones case is the only plausible rationale for this stepped up job assistance effort at this particular time. In so doing the President committed the crimes of obstruction of justice and witness tampering as set forth in count 4 of Article II. BETTY CURRIE JAN. 18 During his deposition in the Jones case the president referred to Betty Currie several items and suggested she might have answers to some of the questions. He used the cover stories he and Monica Lewinsky had created which included Betty Currie a good deal. When he finished the deposition he telephoned Mrs. Currie and asked her to come to his office the next day and talk with him. Betty Currie told the grand jury that when she came in the next day the President raised his deposition with her and said there were several things he wanted to know. He then rattled off in succession the following: "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 can't do that." It's clear from the record that Mrs. Currie always tried her best to be loyal to the President, her boss. In answering questions in her testimony she tried to portray this event and the President's assertions in the light most favorable to him. Even so she acknowledges that she couldn't hear and see everything that went on between Monica and the President and that she wasn't actually present in the same room with them on any number of occasions so they were alone and she couldn't say what they might have been doing or saying. On January 20 or 21 the President again met with Mrs. Currie and according to her recapitulated what he had said on Sunday. In the context of everything it seems abundantly clear that the President was trying to make sure that Betty Currie corroborated his lies and cover stories from the deposition if she were ever called to testify in the Jones case or in any other court proceeding. In doing so the President committed the crimes of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Later the President testified disingenuously that he was simply trying to refresh his memory when he was talking to Mrs. Currie. Mrs. Currie's confirmation of false statements that the President made in his deposition could not in any way remind him of the facts they were patently untrue. That he was trying to refresh his recollection is implausible. Recognizing the weakness of their clients position on this matter the President's attorneys have suggested he was worried about what Mrs. Currie might say if the press really got after this matter. Of course, it's possible the President might have been worried about the press, but common sense says he was much more worried about what Betty Currie might say if she were called as a witness since he referred to her so much during his deposition. As those who will follow me will tell you arguments by the President's lawyers that Betty Currie wasn't on the Jones witness list at the time and that the window of opportunity to call her as a witness in that case closed shortly thereafter is irrelevant. The witness tampering law doesn't even require that there be a pending judicial proceeding for it to be violated. LIES TO AIDES Within four or five days of his Jones deposition the President not only explicitly denied the true nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to key White House aides, he also embellished the story when he talked to Sydney Blumenthal. To Blumenthal he portrayed Monica Lewinsky as the aggressor; attacked her reputation by portraying her as a "stalker"; and presented himself as the innocent victim being attacked by the forces of evil. Certainly he wanted his denial and his assertions to be spread to the public by these aides, but at the same time he knew that the Office of Independent Counsel had been recently appointed to investigate the Monica Lewinsky matter. In the context of everything else he was doing to hide his relationship it seems readily apparent that his false and misleading statements to these staff members whom he knew were potential witnesses in any federal grand jury proceeding were designed in part to corruptly influence their testimony as witnesses. In fact the President actually acknowledged in his grand jury testimony that he knew his aides might be called before the grand jury. And one of the aides testified he expected to be called. Sure enough they were, and they repeated the false and misleading information he had given them. In this the President committed the crimes of witness tampering and obstruction of justice as set forth in count 7 of Article II. PERJURY Now let's briefly review the grand jury perjury. SEXUAL RELATIONS If you believe Monica Lewinsky, the President lied to the grand jury and committed perjury in denying he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky even if you accept his interpretation of the Jones court's definition of sexual relations. There isn't anything clearer in this whole matter. Just look at the President's grand jury testimony on pages 93-96. (CHART 5) I urge you to read every page of this carefully. Specifically I call your attention to the following questions and answers: Q So touching, in your view then and now - - the person being deposed touching or kissing the breast of another person would fall within the definition? A That's correct, sir. ... Q If the person being deposed touched the genitalia of another person would that be - - and with the intent to arouse the sexual desire, arouse or gratify, as defined in definition in (1) would that be under your understanding then and now - - A Yes, sir Q - - sexual relations? A Yes, sir. Q Yes, it would? A Yes, it would. ... A You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined. Q Including touching her breasts, kissing her breasts, or touching her genitalia? A That's correct. In her sworn testimony Ms. Lewinsky described nine incidents of sexual activity in which the President touched and kissed her breasts and four incidents involving contacts with her genitalia. On these matters Lewinsky's testimony is corroborated by the sworn testimony of at least six friends and counselors to whom she related these incidents contemporaneously. Again, if you believe the testimony of Monica Lewinsky there is nothing clearer in all of this than that the President committed the crime of perjury in testifying before the grand jury regarding the nature and details of his relationship with her. On the other hand, there is plenty in the record to indicate that the President cleverly created his own narrow definition of sexual relations to include only sexual intercourse (absent the explicit definition of the court in the Jones case) after he had already lied in responding to interrogatories and other pleadings and perhaps even in the deposition itself in the Jones case. In other words you are free to deduce he knew full well that most people would include oral sex and the other intimate activities he engaged in with Ms. Lewinsky as sexual relations and chose to contrive his own definition when caught lying about it. In that case you don't even have to rely on Monica Lewinsky's testimony to conclude the President committed the crime of perjury in testifying before the grand jury regarding the nature of his relationship with her. There were other perjurious lies in the President's grand jury testimony regarding the nature and details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The President's prepared statement given under oath said "I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct." The evidence indicates that he lied. As Ms. Lewinsky testified, her relationship with the President began with flirting, including Ms. Lewinsky showing the President her underwear, and just a couple of hours later they were kissing and engaging in other intimacies. DEPOSITION PERJURY Before the grand jury the President swore that he testified truthfully at his deposition. The evidence indicates that he lied. He testified before the grand jury that, "my goal in this deposition was to be truthfull, but not particularly helpful... I was determined to walk through the mine field of this deposition without violating the law and I believe I did." But contrary to his deposition testimony, the President was alone with Ms. Lewinsky when she was not delivering papers which he even conceded in his grand jury statement. So he lied in his deposition when he said he was not alone with her. In the deposition the President swore that he could not recall ever being in the Oval Office hallway with Ms. Lewinsky except perhaps when she was delivering pizza. The evidence indicates that he lied. The President swore in the deposition that he could not recall gifts exchanged between Monica Lewinsky and himself. The evidence indicates that he lied. He swore in the deposition that he did not know whether Monica Lewinsky had been served a subpoena to testify in the Jones case at the last time he saw her in December, 1997. The evidence indicates that he lied. In his deposition the President swore that the last time he spoke to Monica Lewinsky was when she stopped by before Christmas 1997 to see Betty Currie or at a Christmas party. The evidence indicates that he lied. In his deposition the President swore that he did not know that his personal friend, Vernon Jordan, had met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about the case. The evidence indicates that he lied. The President in his deposition indicated the he was "not sure" whether he had ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in the Jones case. The evidence indicates that he lied. The President in his deposition swore that the contents of the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky in the Jones case in which she denied they had a sexual relationship were "absolutely true". The evidence indicates that he lied. In other words when the President swore in the grand jury testimony that his goal in Jones deposition was to be truthful but not particularly helpful the evidence is clear that he lied and committed the crime of perjury in as much as he had quite intentionally lied on numerous occasions in his deposition testimony - his intention in the deposition was to be untruthful. BENNETT The third part of Article I concerning grand jury perjury relates to his not telling the truth about false and misleading statements his attorney Robert Bennett made to Judge Wright during the President's Jones case deposition. During the President's deposition in the Jones case Mr. Bennett, however unintentional on his part, misled the court when he stated, "Counsel (for Ms. Jones) is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is no sex of any kind, of any manner shape or form, with President Clinton..." Judge Wright interrupted Mr. Bennett and expressed her concern that he might be coaching the President to which Mr. Bennett responded, "in preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know..." In his grand jury testimony about these statements by Mr. Bennett to the Judge in the Jones case the President testified, "I'm not even sure I paid attention to what he was saying.... I didn't pay much attention to this conversation which is why, when you started asking me about this, I asked ot see the deposition... I don't believe I ever even focused on what Mr. Bennett said in the exact words he did until I started reading this transcript carefully for this hearing. That moment, the whole argument just passed me by." In so testifying before the grand jury the President lied and committed the crime of perjury. As you saw yesterday the video tape of the President during this portion of the deposition shows the President looking directly at Mr. Bennett, paying close attention to his argument to Judge Wright. PERJURY RE WITNESS Several of the most blatant examples of grand jury perjury are found in that portion of his testimony sited in the fourth part of Article I which goes to his efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in the Jones case. The President swore during the grand jury testimony that he told Ms. Lewinsky that if the Jones lawyers requested the gifts exchanged between them, she should provide them. If you believe Monica Lewinsky's testimony the President lied and committed perjury. In her grand jury testimony Ms. Lewinsky discussed in detail their December 28 meeting where the gifts were discussed which preceded by a couple of hours Mrs. Currie coming to her apartment and taking the gifts and hiding them under her bed. As you will recall she said she raised with the President the idea of removing her gifts from her house and giving them to somebody like Betty Currie and that his response was something to the effect of "let me think about that." She went on to say that from everything he said to her they were not going to do anything but keep these gifts private. In a separate sworn statement she testified that she was never under the impression from anything the President said that she should turn over the gifts to the Jones attorneys and obviously didn't have the idea that she should do that because she gave them all to Mrs. Currie. When the President told the grand jurors that he was simply trying to "refresh" his recollection when he made a series of statements to Betty Currie the day after his deposition he lied and committed the crime of perjury. As I've already pointed out today the evidence is compelling that those statements such as "I was never really alone with Monica, right?" were made to try to influence Betty Currie's possible testimony so that she would corroborate his cover stories and other false testimony he had given the previous day in the Jones deposition if she were called as a witness. If you conclude that these series of statements constituted witness tampering and obstruction of justice then you must also conclude that the President committed perjury when he asserted that the sole purpose of these statements to Betty Currie were to "refresh" his recollection. Even if you were to buy the President's counsel's suggestion that these statements might have been made to influence her in order for her to corroborate him not in actual testimony in a court case but with the press then you would still conclude that he was lying when he said that this was simply to refresh his own recollection. In the context of all of this the idea that he was refreshing his recollection by firing off these declarative sentences simply doesn't make sense. If you read the statements and think about them on their face they are inherently inconsistent with refreshing the President's recollection. Also the President told the grand jury that the things he told his top aides about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky may have been misleading, but they were true. If you believe the aides testified truthfully to the grand jury about what the President had told them about the relationship, the President told them many absolute falsehoods. So when the president described them under oath to the grand jury as truths, he lied and committed the crime of perjury. One example of this comes from Deputy Chief John Podesta's testimony before the grand jury that on January 23 the President explicitly told him that he and Monica Lewinsky had not had oral sex. Another is Sydney Blumenthal's testimony that on January 23 the President told him that Monica Lewinsky "came at me and made a sexual demand on me" and that he rebuffed her. And also Blumenthal's testimony that the President told him that Lewinsky threatened him and said that she would tell people they had had an affair and that she was known as a stalker among her peers. NUMEROUS G. J. LIES In short the President lied numerous times to the grand jury under oath when he testified last August 17. He certainly wasn't caught by surprise by any of the questions asked him during the grand jury appearance, and he was even given wide latitude not normally given to grand jury witnesses to give a prepared statement, have his counsel present and refuse to answer questions without taking the fifth amendment. It's hard to imagine a case where it's clearer that the lies meet the threshold of the crime of perjury. But I'll leave the discussion of the elements and the law of perjury and how it applies to this case to those who come after me. The facts are clear that the President lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky even under his understanding of the definition of the Jones case if you believe Monica Lewinsky. He lied when he said he gave truthful testimony in his Jones deposition. He lied when he said he wasn't paying attention to his attorney's discussion of Monica Lewinsky's false affidavit during his deposition in the Jones case. He lied when he said he told Monica's Lewinsky she should turn over the gifts to the Jones lawyers if asked for them. He lied when he told the grand jury he made the declaratory statements to Betty Currie the day after his deposition simply to refresh his recollection. And he lied when he told the grand jury that he only told the truth to his White House aides such as John Podesta who testified the President told him he had not had oral sex with Lewinsky and to Sydney Blumenthal who testified he told him very exaggerated and highly untrue characterizations of Monica Lewinsky's role in all of this. These impeachment proceedings aren't before you because of one or two lies about a sexual relationship. They're before you because the President lied again and again in a perjurious fashion to a grand jury and tried to get a number of other people to lie under oath in the Jones law suit and to the grand jury and encouraged the concealment of evidence. CLINTON DEFENSE In a couple of days the President's lawyers are going to come before you and try to get you to focus on 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 or possibly 100 specific little details that they are going to argue don't square with some aspects of this fact presentation about the lies and obstruction of justice. But never lose sight of the totality of this scheme to lie and obstruct justice. Avoid considering each event in isolation, and then treating it separately. The evidence and testimony must be viewed as a whole. The weight of the evidence is very great - it's huge - that the President engaged in a scheme starting in December of 1997 to conceal from the court in the Jones case his true relationship with Monica Lewinsky and then cover up his acts of concealment which he had to know by then were serious crimes. CREDIBILITY - CALL WITNESSES The case against the President rests to a great extent on whether or not you believe the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. But it is also is based upon the sworn testimony of Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie and Sydney Blumenthal and John Podesta and corroborating witnesses. Time and again the President says one thing and they say something entirely different. Time and again somebody is not telling the truth and time and again an analysis of the context the motivation and all of the testimony together with common sense says it's the President who is not telling the truth. But if you have serious doubts about the truthfulness of the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie and other key witnesses then let us bring them before you to testify in person and invite the President to come and judge everybody's credibility for yourself. I believe that when you finish hearing and weighing all the of evidence you will conclude as I have that Willaim Jefferson Clinton committed the crimes of obstruction of justice, witness tampering and perjury; that these in this case are high crimes and misdemeanors, that he has done grave damage to our system of justice and leaving him in office would do more; and that he should be removed from office as President of the United States.