ad info

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

CNN Websites
 video on demand
 video archive
 audio on demand
 news email services
 free email accounts
 desktop headlines

 message boards



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

Transcript: Motion to depose witnesses introduced in Senate impeachment trial

January 26, 1999

January 27, 1999
Web posted at: 11:42 a.m. EDT (1142 GMT)

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

REVEREND LLOYD OGILVIE, SENATE CHAPLAIN: Gracious God, you not only guide our steps, you order our stops for quiet times of prayer. We hear your words spoken through the Psalmist, "Be still and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations. I will be exalted in the earth."

Help us absorb the true meaning of these words translating the original Hebrew. You called us to let up, to leave off, to let go, to truly know that you are God. You are in control. We cannot be still inside until we reaffirm that you are in control of us, this nation and this Senate.

We exalt you, El Shadai (ph), all sufficient one, Adenoi (ph) our Lord, Jehovah Ra'ah (ph), our shepherd who guides, Jehovah Ruf'ah (ph), who heals our bodies and our relationships, Jehovah Shema (ph), God who is here, strengthen the senators as they seek to exalt you as these pages of American history are written during this trial, you bless the nation that exalts you.

OGILVIE: You bless the nation that exalts you through him who taught us to seek first your kingdom and your righteousness. Amen.

REHNQUIST: The sergeant at arms will make the proclamation.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Here ye, here ye, here 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: If there's no objection, the journal of proceedings of the trial are approved to date. The chair recognizes the majority leader.

U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MAJORITY LEADER: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

LOTT: For the information of all senators, we are now prepared to hear arguments regarding the subpoenaing of witnesses and the taking of their depositions.

I understand the House managers will submit the list and begin their arguments, and the White House counsel will then state their arguments, with the House managers making the final or closing statement.

This period has been limited to four hours instead of the six hours that had been earlier indicated.

I also expect a motion may be offered again to close the session with regard to deliberations by the senators. I need some further consultation with Senator Daschle to confirm that or not. It could be that we could work it out without having to do the recorded vote.

Therefore, though, votes could occur this evening, probably between 4:30 and 5:00 o'clock.

As always, we will expect to take a break after about an hour and a half in the proceedings so that -- and it may be a little bit longer than usual so that if senators were not able to grab a quick bite, they may be able to grab a little something in the cloakroom during that first break. So, it might be a little longer than ordinary, and I expect that would occur sometime around 1:30, approximately.

Before we begin, since I see that there are still a few senators not in the chamber, I would suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST: The clerk will call the roll.


LOTT: I ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.

LOTT: And if all senators and counsel and managers would return to their desks, I believe we're ready to begin.

Mr. Chief Justice, again, just for the information of all senators, what happens next is I believe that the manager will be recognized on behalf of the House to present a motion with regard to the subpoenaing of witnesses and then the presentations will begin -- first, by the House managers and then by the White House counsel and then a close by the House managers to be spread over four hours. But that, at approximately 1:30, we will take a break so that we can assess how we can proceed the balance of the day and perhaps even get a bite to eat if senators had not had that opportunity. It won't be an extended break, but it will be a little bit longer than normal. I believe we're ready to proceed, Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant on behalf of the managers.

The manager will send the motion to the desk and the clerk will read the motion.

CLERK: Motion of the United States House of Representatives for the appearance of witnesses at a deposition and to admit evidence not in the record.

Now comes the United States House of Representatives by and through its duly authorized managers and respectfully submits to the United States Senate its motion for the appearance of witnesses at a deposition and to admit evidence not in the record, in connection with the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States.

The House moves that the Senate authorize and issue subpoenas for the appearance of the following witnesses at a deposition for the purpose of providing testimony related to the impeachment trial:

1. Monica S. Lewinsky.

2. Vernon Jordan; and

3. Sidney Blumenthal.

Further, the House moves that the Senate admit into evidence the following material not currently in the record:

REHNQUIST: One, the affidavit of Barry Ward (ph), law clerk to the honorable Susan Webber Wright, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Two, the sworn declaration of T. Wesley Holmes (ph) and attachments thereto. And three, certain telephone records which document conversations between Monica S. Lewinsky and William Jefferson Clinton, including a 56-minute exchange on December 6, 1997.

Additionally, the House petitions the Senate to request the appearance of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, at a deposition for the purpose of providing testimony related to the impeachment trial.

Pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, as modified by the order of January 25, the managers on the part of the House of Representatives and the counsel for the president, each have two hours to present their arguments on this motion.

The chair recognizes, is it Mr. Manager Bryant? Mr. Manager McCollum.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BILL MCCOLLUM (R-FL): Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Senate, we're here today to argue for the presentation of witnesses, and I want to state at the outset a couple of observations of mine regarding this.

The House managers have always understood the Senate sets the rules on these matters, and we don't question that fact, but I think it's important to set the record clear here today to say at the outset that we have always believed and we still do believe that 10 or 12 witnesses are what we should have and should have been permitted to call to prove our case.

We've estimated this could be done in a matter of two weeks at the outside, including all cross-examination. That's what we think the normal order would have been. It's what we think it should have been.

But we've been told again and again, and we believe it's true, that if we made such a request it would not be approved.

And a few weeks ago, we thought, maybe even a few days ago -- that we could submit a list of maybe five or six witnesses and there would be a reasonable chance for deposition they would be approved, and maybe two or three of them could actually be presented here live on the floor.

Now, we have been led to believe and we think that it's an accurate assessment that in order to get a vote to approve the opportunity to take depositions alone, whether or not anyone's called, that we cannot submit more than two or three witnesses to you and that's what we've done today. We have submitted a motion for simply three witnesses: Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sydney Blumenthal. The two people who know the most about this are Monica Lewinsky and President William Jefferson Clinton.

And while we have not submitted to you today the name of President Clinton in our motion, we strongly urge that if you allow us to have witnesses, which we believe you should, that you in addition or even if you don't, on your own, call President Clinton here to testify.

We think that it is exceedingly important that you have an opportunity, and we have an opportunity for you, to examine him and these other witnesses to get at the truth of this matter and to end all the speculation that is resolved [sic] around this matter and let you draw the proper inferences and conclusions.

I will simply say that I am going to make a brief outline of the matter of why we should have witnesses for you, the three we are asking for, and I'll be followed in order so you can get some sequence to this by Manager Bryant, who will discuss in detail the reason why we think that it's appropriate to call specifically Monica Lewinsky; Manager Hutchinson, who will discuss Mr. Jordan as a witness; and Manager Rogan who will discuss Mr. Blumenthal.

If our motion is granted, I want to make this very, very, very clear, at no point will we ask any questions of Monica Lewinsky about her explicit sexual relations with the president, either in deposition or if we are permitted on the floor of the House.

They will not be asked. That of course assumes that White House counsel does not enter into that discussion and we doubt that they would.

Secondly, we do not see why the entire process of deposing and calling all of these witnesses right here live would have to take more than just a very few days -- two or three, four, five, maybe early next week at the latest. There's no reason why that has to be longer than that. We absolutely reject the argument that some have been making -- and I don't know why they've been making it -- that somehow if we have a single witness out here, it's going to take weeks and weeks of protracted delay in this trial.

That's just not so. And certainly not so with the three witnesses we're asking you to permit us to present today.

I also want to address the argument that's been made by some that witnesses should only be permitted if there is new evidence.

Now, we believe, we managers, that we will present to you new evidence with the witnesses that we have asked to you bring, and let us depose. But think through this with me for one moment.

Under the rules you've set up, if we take depositions, which we are required to do of every one of these witnesses, at the end of the day when those depositions are completed, all the new evidence that we could imagine will certainly be from those three witnesses in those depositions and the argument would then be made, I'm sure, that there's no reason to have a live witness out here at all. That had to be a preconceived notion by somebody who thought of that in the first place if that is the argument.

That should not be the standard. It should be one of the standards, but not the standard, not the sole standard. There's a lot more to a witness and the reason why you need to have a witness out here than simply new evidence.

In real criminal trials, virtually all witnesses are deposed before they're brought to trial, and then the counsel on each side decides which witnesses they'll call. They're called. They're examined. They're cross-examined. And unless a witness is deceased or laid up or there's some other extraordinary reason why that witness isn't there, especially a key witness, then the witness normally is here live.

It's especially true in a case like this, where much of the evidence -- not necessarily all of it, there are quite a bit of direct evidence -- but much of the evidence is circumstantial and requires you to draw, as many finders of fact do all across this country every day, inferences and conclusions that involve the credibility of a witness, that involve the why it's said, that involve inflections and spontaneity of the witness, the exchange between the counsel asking the questions and the witness, and a description that the flavor of which you simply can't get without having the person here to observe.

That's what jurors do all the time. I think it's especially important, as well, because there's conflicting testimony. Now I don't suppose we have a stand here today, but I -- you've got in front of you the credibility of witness instruction, I think we've passed out. We'd like for you to keep it. It's a credibility of witness instruction -- here it is over on this side.

Credibility of witness of instruction is longer than this; I just excerpted a part of it and put it up here on this board. And I know you can't all see that, but you should have this sheet. And if you don't, please ask for it.

This is a jury instruction that's given in the District of Columbia. It's something that's given here as a part of our federal system and it's important, I think, for this particular paragraph to read it, to understand it because it's -- you wouldn't even write this jury instruction if you didn't expect to have live witnesses.

In reaching a conclusion as to the credibility of any witness, you may consider any matter that may have a bearing on the subject. That's part of the instruction.

You may consider the demeanor and the behavior of the witness. I think that's important. It's the third paragraph if you're looking at it. It's a bolded paragraph. You may consider the demeanor and the behavior of the witness on the witness stand; the witness's manner of testifying; whether the witness impresses you as a truthful person; whether the witness impresses you as having an accurate memory and recollection; whether the witness has any motive for not telling the truth; whether the witness had a full opportunity to observe the matters about which he or she has testified; whether the witness has any interest in the outcome of the case or friendship or hostility towards other persons in the case.

Demeanor, manner, truthfulness, how the witness impresses you. If you don't have that witness here, and it's a critical witness, there is no way as a trier of fact you can make those judgments fairly.

There just isn't any way. Now, we think that it is terribly critical, not only that we are permitted to depose these witnesses, but with respect particularly to Monica Lewinsky, and perhaps all three of them, that we be permitted to bring those witnesses here at the end of the day and examine them and let the president's counsel examine them.

The arguments of the president's counsel have been to some extent to you and to me, and I've heard it repeated several times, that somehow circumstantial evidence is not that important. That it is somehow inferior to direct evidence. I didn't pass out a jury instruction on that again. You've already heard us talk about that.

The reality is the jury instructions, if I passed one out today to you, would say exactly what we've seen before: Circumstantial evidence is given the same weight, the same weight as direct evidence. Inferences have to be drawn. I don't know of any case in this country in a criminal matter, or rarely I shouldn't say any, I suppose there's the confession that always you get once in awhile and read about in the paper.

But in almost every criminal case you have to draw inferences, there has to be circumstantial evidence of some sort. And there's nothing wrong with that.

President's counsel has said that somehow the nature of the evidence means you should automatically acquit him. I just don't buy that at all.

What -- what are inferences? Let's put inferences up for a second so you can look at that. Inferences are on this side.

This is another jury instruction. I don't know if you've got this one, but we'll give it to you. This is another one that is given out.

"An inference is a deduction or a conclusion which you as finders of fact are permitted to draw from the facts which have been established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In drawing inferences you should exercise your common sense. You are permitted to draw from the facts which you find to be proven, such reasonable inferences as would be justified in light of your experience."

A few days ago one of the White House counsel, Mr. Kendall, attempted to make you think it was very difficult to prove a crime by circumstantial evidence.

You may remember, Mr. Kendall told the story about a fellow who came out of his house one morning and he saw his driveway was wet. And he immediately thought it must have rained last night. But Mr. Kendall said, this man noticed right after that, that his neighbor's water sprinkler was dripping, and he thought, well maybe the water sprinkler caused it to be wet. And he used that illustration, ending the story right there, of how difficult circumstantial evidence is and how likely you might draw the wrong conclusion from inferences.

Mr. Kendall didn't allow you to proceed with the next common sense step that shows you how powerful circumstantial evidence might be. Let's suppose the man got up in the morning, he walked out of the house. He saw that his driveway was wet. He thought maybe it had rained. He immediately observed the water sprinkler is dripping.

He thought, well, maybe the water sprinkler cause it and he looked down the street then and looked at, not only his neighbor's sidewalk where it was wet as well as his and the driveway, but he looked at his neighbor's. And he looked at the -- several others, all around in his neighborhood and they were dry. The obvious conclusion from circumstantial evidence is the neighbor's water sprinkler caused his sidewalk and his -- or his driveway to be wet and didn't rain.

It's a kind of a reasonable, common sense, inferential, circumstantial conclusion you're allowed to draw. You're the finders of fact and I think that that suggestion was wrong, but this is why we need witnesses. You need to be able to see the temperament. You need to be able to have the background. You need to be able to have the feel and the flavor to draw those inferences properly.

In the impeachment case before you, you have both direct and circumstantial evidence that the president engaged in a pattern of obstruction, perjury and witness tampering designed to deny the court in the Jones case what Judge Wright had determined that Jones had a right to discover in order to prove her claim.

You have to use your common sense to get at this. Seeing, hearing, observing those live witnesses is important.

If you remember at the outset of this case, at the outset of these proceedings, I tried to draw you and your attention to a nutshell of what this was about. Some have said it's the theory of the case. White House counsel wants to call it speculation.

It's not speculation. It's what from all the evidence, especially once you've heard Monica Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal, I think, adding the flavor that you need to have, adding the body language you need to observe, adding the credibility you need to establish in this, I think that's the proper inference and the proper conclusion you need to draw.

What was that nutshell? And I won't bore you with going into every detail again, but I want to remind you what the record we think shows that this additional witness presentation would augment and be very important to.

It shows the president had a well thought out scheme. 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 the evidence of the relationship.

To keep his relationship with Monica Lewinsky from the court once it was apparent to him he was going to have to testify, 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. He needed to get her a job to make her happy, to make sure she executed the affidavit and then stick with her lies if questioned.

Then the gifts were subpoenaed. 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? Then he would be free to lie to the court in the deposition.

But after 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 to the public. And all of this worked until the dress showed up. Then he lied to the grand jury to cover up and explain away his prior crimes. The president, knowingly, intentionally, 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.

Now, that's the straight-forward case that we've presented. It's there, but it's very important that you recognize this is not speculation, that it is supported by the evidence, but it needs to have the witnesses here.

Now, I'm not going to go into every one of the articles. I'm not going to go over all that again. You've got them in front of you.

But you know there are four provisions -- four different provisions of the perjury article, and there are seven counts in the obstruction article. And in addition to the seven counts, we believe you have the right to consider the lies that the president made in the civil Paula Jones deposition as part of his obstruction of justice as written in the body of that article.

Now, why do I raise what is there on the table? Well, you can find the president guilty of any one of the perjury or obstruction of justice charges in our judgment. If you find him guilty of any one, you can convict him and you can remove him from office.

We think that's appropriate. We think that you should, that every one of them rises to that level.

Now, -- and I want to make a point to you, too. For example, about the first one in perjury, about the nature and details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Let's just say for a minute, so you will get this one clear, if I could beg your indulgence.

There were a lot of questions raised out here about particular statements that might be perjurious, some of which may have sounded a little bit stretched to you than others did.

But the body and gravamen of that is they're all grand jury about that relationship. Cumulatively, that's what you're voting on. You're not voting on, you know, is each and every one of these, particularly the singular lie that hangs the president of the United States. And therefore, there are three more in addition to that to look at. So please look at all of them.

We also strongly believe that each of these constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. It's very hard for us to conceive that there's a different standard for impeaching the president and impeaching a judge. We know that's been argued to you out here. But it's very hard for us to conceive of this.

On the other hand, I'm aware that many of you believe -- and I'm sure some of you at least do -- I hope it's not many, but I said many -- that no matter whether or not the president is guilty of the perjury and the obstruction of justice, everything that's in here in great detail, everything we've told you, there are some you that believe none of that rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor and that the president shouldn't be removed from office.

On the other hand, I think that the majority of you do believe that if the president committed all of this, surely it would rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

How can you leave a man in office who's president of the United States who has so intentionally through his scheme that he's concocted deny the court justice, denied information to a person who is trying to plead their case, gone through it systematically and lied again and again and again, and then went intentionally, calculatingly, and lied to the grand jury about it again? It's very hard to conceive of that.

But I also suspect that most of you, at the end of the day, will question some of these. And as I said earlier, you don't have to conclude that he committed all of them to convict him.

Certainly not to find him guilty of the charges. But somewhere in between, is it 50 percent of them? Is it seven eights of them? Is it -- how many of them does it take? What's the weight for some of you? Each one of you will be judging this differently. But in that process, there is no doubt in my mind that you need to go through the process of looking at and hearing from these witnesses to make that decision. And if you have a doubt, not about -- in your own mind, maybe some of you have no doubt at all that he's guilty of any and all of these crimes, but if you think one of your other colleagues does have that doubt at this moment for gosh sakes let's let the witnesses come here and let us have the chance to erase that doubt in the way you normally would in a trial.

For a few of the criminal charges under articles of impeachment -- under both of them -- it's our judgment that the president's guilt is so clear and convincing and compelling that we don't think that any witnesses are needed to be called in deposition or in person.

First, contrary to the impressions that the White House counsel would like to leave you, it should be clear to anybody reading the record that the president committed perjury before the grand jury when he told them that he never touched certain body parts of Ms. Lewinsky, when touching, the president admitted, would clearly be within the definition of sexual relations in the Jones' case.

Ms. Lewinsky testified that he touched these parts on a number of different occasions in a manner clearly within the president's understanding of that definition. The record contains testimony from at least six different friends and counselors with whom Ms. Lewinsky spoke and described these details contemporaneously as they occurred.

White House counsel has repeatedly tried to dismiss this absolutely clear perjury by claiming that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is uncorroborated, and therefore, you couldn't prove perjury to the court.

They say, again and again and again, it's a he says/she says situation. This is a gross misstatement of the law.

Even if there were no corroborating witness -- and there are in this case -- a person could be and would be convicted of perjury before any court in this country based on the evidence that's in this record now. We don't have to bring anything else in here and we're not planning to do so to prove that.

The law covering grand jury perjury that's been on the books since 1970 does not require a corroborating witness, does not require corroborating evidence, and there are more than a hundred people serving in federal prison today who have been convicted under this 1970 grand jury statute for perjury where it's one person's word against another, several of them for lies about sexual relations.

All you need to convict is to accept Monica Lewinsky had no motive to lie about this, the president did, and you have to draw the inferences you logically can from the chain of events that are in this record.

But even though you don't need any corroborating testimony, there is corroborating testimony. They're the six people, friends and counselors with whom she talked about this contemporaneously. Again, the White House counselors have tried to persuade you wrongly that you should not consider this. That this would not be admissible, these corroborating witnesses, in any courtroom in the country and that's not true. There are at least three exceptions to the hearsay rule which would in all probability permit those prior inconsistent statements -- or prior consistent statements, I should say, to come in to corroborate that testimony.

So, the bottom line is the perjury of the president in this case is as plain as day on the record and we don't need to call any witnesses on this matter. And we also believe that there are a number of other perjuries in that grand jury, that I'm going into in detail, that are just as plain on the record.

We don't need to call witnesses to prove he perjured himself when he told the grand jury it was his goal to be truthful in the Jones deposition. That's what he told the grand jury; it was his goal to be truthful.

The record is replete with many lies that he told in that deposition, and in the face of telling the grand jury that his goal to be truthful, he committed perjury. Nor do we believe that any witness needs to be called to further establish the president's guilt of the crimes of obstruction of justice and witness tampering in the case where he met Betty Currie on the day after his Jones deposition and suggested to her all those false, declaratory statements that we've been over so many times in here.

Betty Currie's testimony in this matter is undisputed on the record. The White House counsel's argument the president was just refreshing his memory is absurd on its face.

The same is true of the obstruction of justice and perjury charges related to allowing his attorney during the Jones deposition to make false and misleading statements with regard to Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, and then lying about not even paying attention to the attorney's exchange with the judge on this matter.

The record's clear. You watched the videotape on it. Inferences are perfectly appropriate to be drawn from body language. There you saw it on the videotape. You saw it. No more witnesses are needed.

The president committed these crimes.

On the other hand, we believe that you do need, we need, to bring in witnesses to resolve conflicting testimony, to give you a true picture of the president's scheme to lie and conceal evidence for the other obstruction of justice charges and certainly the last perjury charge.

They are more complex, they are more depending on circumstantial evidence and inferences that you logically have to draw. And that's why you need to hear from Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, Sidney Blumenthal, to tell you about these things themselves.

When you do, you're just plain going to get a different flavor. You're going to feel the sense of this. We believe that you would find at the end of the day once you've done that, even though you don't need to use this standard, that the president is guilty of the entire scheme we presented to you, in every detail, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remember, you don't need to convict him to find him guilty of all of the crimes we've suggested by any stretch of the imagination. You don't need to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. That's not required of you, but we can understand why many of you or some of you might. The reality is that we are in a position, you are in a position where you need though to make these determinations and to make them you need to have the witnesses. Any courtroom where you're going to certainly judge something beyond a reasonable doubt, you need to assess the credibility of the witnesses where you have conflicting testimony.

And one point in that regard, too, is we've heard White House counsel say a number of times that somehow the fact that there is so much conflicting testimony that makes our case weaker.

That's not so. I don't, again, unless the bad guy admits he's guilty, you go to trial in a criminal case, you always have conflicting testimony, at least you certainly have the accused denying it. And very, very frequently, most often, you have a lot of other people who conflict.

The fact there are conflicts are simply something for the triers of fact to resolve, but again resolve by listening to the witnesses, checking their demeanor, watching their body language, determining their credibility, feeling the case flow, seeing how it fits together, watch it.

I'm not going to be the one describing what Monica Lewinsky's going to show you if she comes in here, but I'm want to tell you, even if you depose -- we depose her, having had the opportunity to talk with this intelligent and very impressionable young woman the other day, I can tell you that she herself will convey this story to you in a way that it cannot be conveyed off a piece of paper, it just cannot be.

I suppose that's why the White House counselors are so afraid of our calling any witnesses. They don't want you to have the opportunity to see that; an opportunity you can only get the full flavor of if not only you let us take the depositions, but you let us at least call her live here on the floor, preferably with all three of our -- our other two witnesses as well.

They know that the written record conceals this. There's no way to lift that out. There's no way for you to see the relationship, how she responds to the questions, how she answers, how she conducts herself in making it very apparent what the president's true meaning of intent was. If you remember, a lot of this is his state of mind.

In the not too distant future, Monica Lewinsky is going to be free of the gag order and she's going to go out and she's going to talk to people. And freely, she should. At that point in time, she is going to have the public judging her and they're going to be judging this case, as will history.

And I would suggest that that the public at that point and history as well will be judging you and not judging the Senate well if it doesn't let her come here and testify.

Now, let me briefly turn to the last thing I want to do. I want to describe so you know what it is the three additional pieces of new evidence we'd like admitted in this motion.

First is the affidavit of Barry W. Ward, who's been a law clerk to Judge Wright during the consideration of the Jones case. None of this, I think, should be controversial, but we do have it, and I want to cover it briefly.

In his affidavit he attests to the fact that President Clinton's deposition in the Jones case that Mr. Ward was sitting at the conference table next to Judge Wright, that he was able to observe the colloquy between the judge and Mr. Bennett. If you recall, Mr. Bennett was engaged in this colloquy about the affidavit of Monica Lewinsky, and that's what you saw the film footage of with the president. And the question has been, has the president been observant? Was he watching? Was he keen? And that affidavit goes to that point and is the testimony of Mr. Ward with regard to the fact the president was observant.

Secondly, we have a piece of new evidence, and that is the declaration of the Jones' attorney, T. Wesley Holmes, and the attached copies of the subpoena in that case, the subpoena in that case to Betty Currie dated January 22, 1998, along with proof of service dated January 27th, 1998.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the senator from Vermont.

U.S. SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY (D-VT): Mr. Chief Justice, parliamentary inquiry. It's my understanding that Senate Resolution 16 says...

REHNQUIST: The senator from Vermont is advised that it takes unanimous concept to allow a parliamentary inquiry to be stated.

SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Well, then, Mr. Chief Justice, I object to the references the manager is making to new information. It is my understanding that Senate Resolution 16, that material outside the record may only be presented in connection with a motion to expand the record.

This new information we have skirted already with the Lewinsky interview this weekend, but now the latest that Mr. -- Manager McCollum states I would say respectfully expands that record and we are not at that point.

REHNQUIST: Yes, I think the motion that the managers have made is motion to authorize presentation of evidence that is not in the record and so, I think that is fair comment. I overrule the objection.

MCCOLLUM: I thank the -- thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

The attachments to Mr. Holmes' -- the declaration is the proof of the subpoena being issued to Betty Currie in January -- on January 22, 1998, along with service in the Jones case on January 27, 1998 and a copy of the supplemental witness list, including the name of Betty Currie, which was served on January 23, 1998.

And in his declaration Mr. Holmes (ph) explains that Mrs. Currie was subpoenaed because of testimony given by President Clinton in his deposition and because of reliable information which the attorneys have received to this effect that Mrs. Currie was an instrumental person in facilitating Monica Lewinsky's meetings with the president and central to their, quote, "cover story," unquote, as Mr. Holmes (ph) refers to it. He explicitly denies that any Washington Post article played any part in the decision of the Jones attorneys to subpoena Mrs. Currie.

And in the third and final piece of new evidence that we ask you to take in an accept is a declaration and accompanying documents with regard to a telephone conversation showing that a conversation occurred on December the 6th for 56 minutes between the president and Ms. Lewinsky. At least we believe that's what it shows, that obviously the telephone records show the phone records and they state what they are. But we suggest to you that that is relevant information because it confirms what we think the testimony in the record otherwise would lead you to believe.

At this point in time, having given you an overview and having given you this amount of the new evidence we want to, I want to turn the microphone over and yield to my colleague Mr. Bryant the rest of the time.

Mr. Bryant?

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Bryant.


REHNQUIST: Just under 90 minutes.

BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished senators. A recent letter from Manager Hyde to Senator Daschle stated that it's always been the position of the House managers that a trial with the benefit of relevant witnesses is in the best interests of the Senate and the American people.

The defense attorneys for the president, as well as others in this body, have publicly stated that they do not want witnesses.

Through the question and answer session that we have just participated in over the last few days some in this body have made it clear that they would prefer a few sharply-focused witnesses, limited only to the most relevant witnesses. We heard this. And as a result of our submission this morning, you will see that we have proposed three witnesses. Now, as background, we have brought this down from some 15 witnesses that we initially thought we would like to call. We eliminated, obviously, many witnesses that we would still like to call, but with respect for this body and certainly the sensitivity that we feel, we heard that three witnesses would be probably the best situation. I think from the, again, the tone of the question, the directness of many of your questions, we did get that message clearly.

And from these three witnesses we feel that we have the broadest coverage of the two articles of impeachment. Within the obstruction article, there are in essence seven so-called counts, seven instances that we allege, and with these three witnesses we've managed to cover six of those seven, with the one that we don't quite cover being the tampering with Betty Currie. As you will note, she's not on that list. But again, bringing this down to three, we had to eliminate, again, some witnesses we would have preferred to call.

Also, based on what we have read and what we have heard, it is clear that a very few have already determined that even assuming the truth of the articles of impeachment -- and that's perjury and obstruction of justice -- that there are insufficient to convict this president of high crimes and misdemeanors.

And since each of you as senators must consider this matter and vote your own conscience with impartial justice, that is apparently your individual decision, although with all due respect, I would suggest a premature decision before all the proof and all the arguments are made.

One example of not having heard a complete case is Ms. Lewinsky. She is probably the most relevant witness -- that is, aside from the president himself, who so far has indicated through his counsel that he will not testify and, I might add, has not answered the questions that this at least some senators sent to the White House for his answering based on his attorney's statement that he would be willing to answer questions.

So, with that aside, Ms. Lewinsky is probably the most important witness left. And wouldn't you at least like to see and hear from her on this? As triers of fact, wouldn't you want to observe the demeanor of Ms. Lewinsky and test her credibility?

As I say, look into the eyes and test the credibility of these witnesses. Compare her version of the testimony to the contested events. And remember, the president's attorneys in numerous ways in their vigorous defense of the president have challenged Ms. Lewinsky's version of the facts.

I believe the majority of other senators have not yet reached a final determination and it's to you now that I make this further proposition: If there's one witness you and the American people honestly do need to hear, it's Ms. Lewinsky. Now, as you probably read in the newspapers, her lawyers don't want her to testify. They're good lawyers and they don't -- they don't want to have her out here.

And despite the protestations of the White House and their attorneys during the House hearings that they wanted to hear fact witnesses, we now know absolutely and without a doubt the White House does not want to hear Ms. Lewinsky, does not want you to hear Ms. Lewinsky.

And Ms. Lewinsky, if truth be known, probably does not want to come in here and testify. These are not our witnesses. We didn't get this case in a brown envelope, but we certainly didn't have any choice in selecting the witnesses. The witnesses are all out there are basically White House employees, friends of the White House or former employees.

These are not going to be our friends if they come in and testify. They are not going to be sympathetic to us, although we would anticipate that they would tell the truth. And that certainly would be our belief with Ms. Lewinsky if she were called.

We believe she understands her responsibility, despite any feelings that she might have about the president or the job that he's doing as president, that she understands this responsibility to tell the truth.

And senators, she does have a story to tell, and given the length that she has, that common thread that she is in most of the charges of these articles of impeachment, I would suggest that she should be permitted to testify.

I would go further to say that a closure of this case is somehow necessary, and without the direct presentation by Ms. Lewinsky, we all -- political and public -- would be denied the complete picture that she should be able to give us, to better sort this out.

As Manager Graham said yesterday, please don't leave us all hanging for the answers we so dearly need. Is this good? Is it bad? Or is it ugly? We managers believe that it's bad, ugly and illegal.

You know, we all like to talk about the Constitution. And it's a great document.

The opportunity to confront witnesses is present in that constitution, and it can be argued that this principle of confrontation of witnesses against you should apply to these proceedings. While we realize the confrontation right is one that belongs to a criminal defendant in the Constitution, and in this case apparently any right to confront Ms. Lewinsky and other witnesses is being waived by the president and his lawyers since they don't want to call witnesses in these proceedings, isn't it a time, though, for the rest of us to make that choice, that we do want to see and hear some witnesses?

Her testimony in particular would be extraordinarily enlightening in resolving factual disputes about the very charges for which we ask you to convict the president of the United States for the felonies of perjury and obstruction of justice.

These particular charges go to the very heart of our co- branch of government, the Judiciary. And members of the Senate, in terms of impact on our judicial system and the search for truth, there's no difference between a person lying, which is perjury, and person paying another person to lie, which is bribery. And bribery is in the Constitution and the perjury is not specifically mentioned. And in terms of this proposition of proportionality, is the 106th Senate prepared to have as its record on sexual harassment laws that perjury about sex is not illegal? After all, that's what this whole proportionality argument's about, that if it's about sex, it's OK to lie. Because Senator Bumpers says that upwards of 80 percent of his divorce cases from his Arkansas practice of law involved lying, that does not legitimize perjury nor should it provide any authority for this Senate to somehow legitimize perjury if it's just about sex.

We allege that the president is a reasoned -- in a reasoned and in a calculated manner prevented Paula Jones from attaining -- from obtaining truthful testimony and evidence that might have helped her lawsuit. At that time the president attempted his cover-up efforts, he obviously felt the disclosure of that information in the Paula Jones case would be material and helpful to her.

The president not only committed himself to illegal actions, but he enlisted others to assist, some knowingly and others perhaps unknowingly. And Ms. Lewinsky is one of these who interestingly enough might fit into both categories of knowing and unknowingly at different times, and she would be able to share with this Senate the so-called tone and tenor of her conversations with the president.

I mean, who else -- who else can do that but she or the president? And this -- this tone and tenor and observing her demeanor and listening to her talk about that -- that filing of the affidavit and those things, and how the president talked to her, and how she read what he said, and exactly what he did say -- these are all very important.

Because as we know in Washington and in so many other places where there's a lot of power and prestige and so forth, there are actions that can be prompted without even a direct, specific order. Things can get done even without it even being said to get done, just by the tone and tenor, the gestures, the appearance and so forth of certain things.

Often, these direct words, as I said, are not necessary and Ms. Lewinsky can tell you about some of these occasions. An appropriate examination and an appropriate cross-examination I might add -- let's don't -- let's don't limit the White House attorneys here -- of Ms. Lewinsky on the factual disputes of the affidavit and their cover story.

Wouldn't that be nice to hear that? The concealment of the gifts -- what really happened there? And the job search -- why did she get the job within 48 hours of the affidavit after months of unsuccess?

Wouldn't it be nice to hear Ms. Lewinsky's version of this when it's so important to the overall case of obstruction of justice?

These are just a few examples where the Senate could be helped by her testimony. And it very well, it very well could be dispositive and even -- it's even possible that she could help the president in some ways. But I assure you that she is an impressive young lady, and I suspect that she still very much does admire the president and the work that he is doing for this country, yet she would be a person who in all likelihood would be forthcoming.

If you have not made up your mind, and indeed if you have further interest in resolving many of the facts here, I do commend Ms. Lewinsky for your consideration.

s It would be my intent to lead her through direct examination -- the perjury charge as its alleged with the president -- by having her simply affirm those provisions of her written testimony, which are the ones that are generally referred to as salacious, without specifically mentioning those words.

Beyond, on the more complicated obstruction of justice, the pattern of obstruction of justice, which does not involve these salacious details and matters, they will be addressed more specifically. It would be my intent for the needed clarification and to resolve discrepancies in different inferences from this evidence that have been drawn by House managers and defense counsel for the president to ask her about the December 28 transfer of Ms. Lewinsky's gifts from the president, the transfer to Ms. Currie, particularly the cellular telephone call that has been put into issue by the defense team.

Another about her conversation with the president and her offer to allow him to review this false affidavit before she submitted it to her lawyer and eventually to the court and his comment that he didn't need to review it because he had seen 15 others just like it. Wouldn't you like to know what are we talking about 15 others there? Are they 15 drafts or 15 other type affidavits in other cases?

She would also be asked about her job interviews and her discussions with the president about these job interviews over a period of time, which are very important; her discussions with Vernon Jordan; and specifically why she felt that the interview that she did with Revlon the day after she signed the affidavit -- her impression that it went poorly.

Whereas we've heard not testimony, but statements in the presentation of White House lawyers that in fact it didn't go poorly. It went very well. But she felt it went so poorly that she went immediately out to call Vernon Jordan. Why? Why not hear her come in an tell us why she did that?

There will of course be other matters of record that she can clarify, and certainly being available to the White House defense team, certainly she will be vigorously cross-examined. I'm sure that may also clarify some other matters.

It is my feeling that a fair and comprehensive direct examination without interruption could be conducted of Ms. Lewinsky in two to four hours.

And depending on the length of cross-examination by White House attorneys, we may not need any redirect examination.

While defense counsel for the president and others for the president -- I've heard it so many times I'm not sure exactly who said this, so I don't want to just attribute it to defense counsel. And maybe they haven't even said it, but they have, they have -- has been word out of the White House that if we call one witness, we might as well settle in for the siege here in the Senate. We're going to be here for months and months and months. And I suggest that's an outrageous statement. That we will need that amount of time to pursue this case, if witnesses are called.

We are confident that that basically in its best case is an attempt to discourage you from calling witnesses, and in its worst case, unfortunately, is a veiled threat that they will be dilatory and drag this out for months and months if the Senate would allow.

House managers are establishing a good-faith effort to cut our witnesses, as I said, down to three people, and to commit to reasonable times of examination with the assurance that we will finish as quickly as we can.

And we would hope and, perhaps, the Senate would give similar direction to the White House in their defense team. Witnesses can be called and a fair trial could be accomplished if all concerned would agree.

Would the Senate consider requesting the president's defense team to also select three or fewer witnesses in an effort to move this process along?

And we think, too, that the depositions, while they are important, if they are solely for the purposes of discovery, I would ask why would the White House need to discover what Vernon Jordan has to say, what Betty Currie has to say, Sidney Blumenthal, John Podesta, any of these witnesses.

They have to take Monica Lewinsky's deposition, I would think, but any other discovery deposition it would seem to me they have complete access to already.

As I close, I want to leave you with some words that have been of some comfort to me -- and I think we've all need some type of comfort at times during these proceedings and they certainly have been comforting to me. And they the -- a part -- and it's a very short quote -- of the opening marks of Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino in 1974. Again in part, he says that, "We know that the very real security of this nation lies in the integrity of its institutions and the informed confidence of its people." Talking about the Nixon hearings. We will -- we will conduct our deliberations in that spirit. It has been said that our country, troubled by too many crises in recent years, is too tired to consider this one.

In the first year of the republic, Thomas Paine wrote: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Now, for almost 200 years, back to Peter Rodino, Americans have undergone the stress of preserving their freedom and the Constitution that protects it. It is now our turn.

And ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I would respectfully ask you to permit House managers to call these three named witnesses and add this additional evidence. And I thank you.

And it would bring up Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hutchinson.

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-ARKANSAS): Mr. Chief justice, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, my responsibility is to address the testimony of Vernon Jordan and the need to call him as a witness in this case.

Before I go into the details of that, let me just reflect for a moment on the Senate trial process. And I said many days ago that I had confidence in the United States Senate and I thought at this particular juncture it might be good if I reassured you that I still have confidence in the United States Senate.

And I think about the trial process that we're going through and I've complimented you on the fact that you structured a bipartisan process. And I think that's important because you gave this process credibility. And so you did the right thing and I for one am pleased with what you're able to accomplish in that endeavor.

Now, whenever you achieve a bipartisan process you have to make compromises along the way.

And the result is a format that is not particularly helpful to the trial managers, the House managers, who wish to call witnesses. And we've struggled through that.

But notwithstanding the present difficulty, I still compliment you and thank you for what you have done in achieving that bipartisan consensus.

But I think back to that meeting that I had early on, and some other managers with the bipartisan group of senators from this body, I look at some from both sides of the aisle, and I went in there with this high-minded thought that we can make a case for witnesses because of what the other managers have described as the tone and demeanor of witnesses.

Well, that was quickly brushed aside by saying, no, no, no, no, we want to hear about what conflicts exist in the testimony. Just tell us what the conflicts are, because that is a strong case for calling witnesses.

Well, that threw me back on my heels. And so I went back and, as you know, in the question-and-answer session I addressed the issue of conflicts, and I think we did a pretty good job of outlining the conflicts between various witnesses.

Well, then I was informed that well, we really are not interested in the conflicts because the conflicts exist in the current transcript. Therefore, really we want to know what new information, what new dynamic these witnesses can add.

Well, that really threw me back for a curve, and so we looked at this again and we tried to make a case. And I'm going to show you what new dynamics and questions can be asked. But ultimately, when you take the depositions, many of those questions are going to be answered.

And so you come back full circle to where we started at the beginning, that ultimately I hope that witnesses are called so that you can evaluate their credibility, determine their demeanor, and make an assessment of the truth in this case. And I think that that is important.

And I -- I know people talk about me as being a former federal prosecutor. Actually, I -- one time, I confess, I represented a defendant in a murder case.

And this gentleman was charged with murder and the prosecution in Logan County, Arkansas, near Senator Bumpers' home town, decided they wanted to handle the key witness -- one of the key witnesses by deposition who was out of state, and I objected.

I objected and because I thought that witness ought to be in the courtroom. And the judge overruled and said, you could go take the deposition and the defense counsel can be there and cross examine. So, we traced off to the other state, took this witness' deposition and she made a lousy witness. I said she wouldn't be believed for anything, the way she appeared.

Well, we brought it back, the transcript, back to the courtroom and the prosecution, over my objection, put the transcript into the record. And all of sudden, that cold transcript was believable, particularly when they had it read by another witness that didn't look anything like the original lady.

And so my client was convicted, but that case was reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court because the court said it was important that the jury, that the jury look into the eyes of the witness, see the demeanor of that witness, and determine the credibility.

And so ultimately, ultimately we come back to that same point, that somehow you're going to have to resolve the conflicts, and I know of only one way to do it.

We have tried to be extraordinarily helpful, cooperative with the United States Senate. I came in with this idea that if I was going to present this case, 14 to 15 witnesses, that's off the table clearly. We have narrowed this down to three witnesses that it's tough to decide, but we believe represents the basic heart of the obstruction of justice case and gets to at least six of the seven elements so that you can evaluate that. But we want to assist you clearly in getting to the truth, but also to bring this matter to a conclusion in as fairly and expeditiously manner as possible.

Now, let's look to Mr. Vernon Jordan. Should he be called as a witness in this case? His testimony goes on the heart of one of the elements of obstruction of justice. And that is the job search, and the false affidavit, and the connection, the interconnection between those.

I have tried during my presentation of this case, to present portions of his testimony, excerpts if you will, from his testimony. But if you will see, he has testified five times before the federal grand jury. I've read all of this, and I'm not going to ask for a show of hands, but how many of you have read all of this?

And so, have you had to rely upon a trial, an ordeal by lawyers, rather than a trial by witnesses, because I have had to present the testimony of Vernon Jordan in excerpt fashion, limited quotes, here and there, as the defense counsel has done likewise.

Now, that makes it difficult because the problem is, one, you're hearing it from me, but secondly, it's not a story, it is excerpts, and there's no way you can assess the truth because of that.

Now, if you look at the times that Mr. Jordan has testified before the grand jury, March 3 of '98, March 5, May 5, May 28, and June 9, the last time he testified was June 9, 1998. But let's look what has happened since then.

Since Mr. Jordan last testified before the grand jury -- I believe these charts are in front of you -- July 22 Ms. Currie testified before the grand jury. So any of the facts we gained from Ms. Currie was not utilized in the last examination of Vernon Jordan.

August 6 -- what happened on that date? Ms. Lewinsky testified before the grand jury and she revealed some new facts during that time that Mr. Jordan has never had an opportunity to explain, respond or answer.

And I'll go into that. One of them about disposing of notes, the second one about drafting the affidavit. And of course by that time, the DNA on the dress had been revealed.

And the then the next thing that happened was the president's revelation to the nation that this relationship did exist, and then he testified before the grand jury all of the facts revealed from those incidences were not available at the time Vernon Jordan last testified before the grand jury.

So obviously, any lawyer would understand there are naturally questions that would arise from each of those incidences that could be posed to Mr. Jordan. Why has that not been done? Quite frankly, I have talked to, as I mentioned the other day, the attorney for Mr. Jordan. I have not talked to Mr. Jordan personally. I think that clearly the Senate does not want us to do that until we get past this next hurdle.

But those are things that need to be resolved.

Now, let me address briefly about three areas of conflicts in the testimony between Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky that points up other areas of questioning that would be appropriate, that he should have the opportunity to explain.

I've been accused of being harsh on Mr. Jordan. And I don't mean to be that. There have been certain things that have been stated, by witnesses in this case, that ought to be explained, that ought to be questioned to Mr. Jordan, but he might have good answers to the questions. We need to know those answers.

The first conflict -- let me see what the next one is? And I'm not going to get to that yet. But the first conflict is between Mr. Jordan's testimony and Ms. Lewinsky's testimony about whether Mr. Jordan knew the true nature of the relationship with the president. And in Mr. Jordan's testimony of May 28, he was asked the question, you are saying no one, to your recollection, ever suggested or alleged a sexual relationship prior to the 18th of January, between Monica Lewinsky and the president? The answer, that is correct.

Now, that was on May 28. Ms. Lewinsky was asked the same series of questions, months later, in August of 1998, and she indicated -- she testified, "and I remarked that I didn't really look at him as the president; that I saw him more as a man and reacted to him more as a man and got angry at him like a man, and just a regular person. And Mr. Jordan asked me what I got angry at the president about, so I told him, when he doesn't call me enough to see me enough."

The answer -- another statement -- "and so after we had the conversation, I was just talking about, with Mr. Jordan, he said to me 'well you know what your problem is.' And I said 'what'? He said 'don't deny it.' And I said -- 'you're in love; that's what your problem is." This is Monica Lewinsky referring to what Mr. Jordan had said.

And so clearly, there -- those are relevant questions that need to be readdressed to Mr. Jordan because they were raised by Ms. Lewinsky in a subsequent testimony that have never been asked to him in that fashion.

There's a conflict in the testimony between Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky about whether the subpoena was discussed at the December 22nd meeting. Mr. Jordan testified in March that we did not talk about the subpoena, she wanted to know about her job. That was the purpose of her coming. And the question was, anything beyond that? The answer was no. That's in march 3 of 1998.

But Ms. Lewinsky, contrary, testified:

"Question: Let's turn attention, then, to December 22, which is the day that you met with Frank Carter and I think that you said you were going to meet with Mr. Jordan.

"Answer: So I came to see Mr. Jordan earlier, and I also wanted to find out if he had in fact told the president that I had been subpoenaed."

And so that was her testimony, which is in direct conflict that the subpoena was discussed on the same day that she went to see Mr. Carter about the representation.

end where is the relevance in this? If you recall, Mr. Jordan said it didn't take an Einstein to figure out whenever you combined whenever she got the subpoena, that it changed the circumstances.

Here you've got three problems. You've got a job search. You've got a witness in court. And if you combine that with knowledge of a relationship, those are three dynamite issues combining together that should cause anyone not just one change of circumstances, but it elevates it to a higher level of danger because the correlation between each of those three separate facts.

And each of these conflicts in the testimony of Monica Lewinsky goes to those key fundamental issues and Mr. Jordan has never been asked sufficiently about those areas.

The third conflict is -- and this is key, and that is that chart there on the gifts -- is the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan testified that he never talked to Ms. Lewinsky about Linda Tripp. That's his March 5, '98 testimony.

But Ms. Lewinsky testifies in her August 6 testimony about a meeting with Mr. Jordan on December 31. This is the third exhibit.

And I'll just read that. "And I met Mr. Jordan for breakfast on the morning of December 31 at the Park Hyatt Hotel. And in the course of the conversation, I told him that I had this friend, Linda Tripp, and I was a little bit concerned because she had spent the night at my home a few times. And I thought I told Mr. Jordan, I said, well, maybe she's heard some -- I mean, maybe she saw some notes lying around. And Mr. Jordan said, notes from the president to you? And I said, notes from me to the president. And he said, go home and make sure they're not there."

This is Ms. Lewinsky's testimony of August 6 before the grand jury. And before anything is said, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. But let me tell you, it would be significant if Mr. Jordan is asked the question, if that is a true statement, and he says yes, it is significant to the case.

If he says no, that's significant, because there's a clear conflict in the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, and her testimony goes to the heart of the issue.

If he says, I don't remember, which is a third alternative -- and by the way, I hate giving these prospective witnesses all my questions. But if he says I don't remember, that does not put the issue in dispute with Ms. Lewinsky and establishes really her recollection of the incident.

And so I could go through more. I could go through more. The conflict with Ms. Lewinsky about whether Mr. Jordan saw the unsigned draft copy of her affidavit. A key issue in this case. Ms. Lewinsky testifies one way. Mr. Jordan did not have the benefit of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony when he was asked earlier in the grand jury, and so that needs to be readdressed with him.

There's a conflict with Ms. Lewinsky on whether they discussed the contents of the affidavit, not just whether they saw the signed affidavit, whether the contents were discussed.

The question to Mr. Jordan was: "Did you ever discuss with Ms. Lewinsky what she was going to include in the affidavit?" Answer: "I was not Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer. The answer to that is 'no'." But -- and he goes on and elaborates on that. But Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and Jordan did have a conversation about deleting a certain sentence of the affidavit and reworking that.

And that's the -- what I just covered on the contents of the affidavit.

And let me just go to one other -- on the conflict where the affidavit was discussed at their last meeting. Mr. Jordan testified in March that she came to the office; she gave me a tie; I said, "Monica, I'm real busy, thank you." She thanked me and said she's gone.

Any substantive conversation? The answer was no.

Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is: "I stopped in to see him for five minutes to thank him for getting me the job, to thank him for getting me a job, and I gave him a tie and a pocket."

Answer: "And I" -- she further testified -- "I believe I showed him a copy of the affidavit." Clear conflict, very important, once again showing a connection between the job, the false affidavit. And of course if you tie in the other aspect about the relationship it gets very significant and something that needs to be further inquired about.

And so there are some of the conflicts between he testimony.

What new areas do we need to inquire to Mr. Jordan about? The notes to the president that Ms. Lewinsky said she had a conversation with him about and that has never been addressed to Mr. Jordan whatsoever.

The December 19 meeting we need to explore more with Mr. Jordan. This is the meeting when Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed, she called Mr. Jordan. He says, come over.

She goes over there with Mr. Jordan. And during that meeting, according to the telephone logs, Mr. Jordan received a call from the president of the United States.

Mr. Jordan has testified that he told the president that Ms. Lewinsky got subpoenaed. Now, that appears to be exactly during the meeting, the conversation he is having with Ms. Lewinsky. I think appropriate questions to Mr. Jordan is, did you excuse Ms. Lewinsky from the meeting? Did you have the private conversation of the president about the subject that you were talking to Ms. Lewinsky about? And when you renewed your conversation with Ms. Lewinsky, did you in fact tell her about your conversation with the president?

If Ms. Lewinsky was not told about that conversation, I think there's some significance there that things were going on that people were compartmentalizing and not sharing with the other interested parties.

And I think that's significant and that needs to be explored.

His involvement with reviewing the affidavit needs to be developed and the conflicts. His knowledge of the nature of the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. And so all of these needs to be further explored, there are a number of unanswered questions.

One final area -- I obviously have a number, but I don't want to belabor this point. There was testimony, I had mentioned, about Mr. Isikoff and how Betty Currie felt compelled to go see Mr. Jordan about Mr. Isikoff inquiring about the courier records on the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky to the president.

There is some indication that that information might have been shared with Mr. Frank Carter because Mr. Lewinsky testified that she received a page from Mr. Carter, her attorney, about the Isikoff call -- the Isikoff request.

How did that information get to Mr. Carter? I think there's some legitimate questions that should be asked there.

And so we would respectfully ask the Senate to permit us to call Mr. Jordan as a witness, to depose him. But further, we hope that we'll be able to call him so that you can evaluate the conflicts that I'm sure exist now, but very likely will exist later on as well.

The story needs to be told. The truth should be determined. Justice should be accomplished. That is done not through lawyers up here talking, but it's done not through transcripts, but through witnesses.

Edmund Burke said that "to fail to hear the evidence is to fail to hear the cause." And I know that you have transcripts, but I would contend to you that to fail to hear the testimony is in essence to fail to hear the cause.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, could I inquire about the balance of the time remaining for the House managers?

REHNQUIST: Yes, the managers have 52 minutes remaining.

LOTT: Do they intend to use more of their time now? I -- well, Mr. Chief Justice, I ask consent that we take a 30 minute break at this point.

REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it's so ordered.


REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order. The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I have a unanimous consent request to propound. We have discussed this with Senator Daschle, and it's been cleared. And I ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the arguments by the managers and the White House counsel today on the motion to subpoena witnesses, it be in order at that point only for Senator Harkin or Senator Wellstone to make a motion to open that debate, pursuant to his motion, timely filed, and that the Senate proceed immediately to the vote pursuant to the impeachment rules.

LOTT: I further ask that following that vote, if defeated, it be in order to move to close the session for deliberations on the motion to subpoena witnesses as provided under the impeachment rules in the Senate, and proceed to an immediate vote.

If we have any change in either one of these, certainly we would have to ask for consent on that and would notify members to that effect.

I further ask that if the Senate votes to proceed to closed session, those deliberations be limited to three hours equally divided between the two leaders, notwithstanding the five-minute allocation of time under the impeachment rule.

I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate concludes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27th.

LOTT: And finally, I ask unanimous consent that pursuant to Rule S -- to S. Res. 16, the votes occur immediately upon convening on Wednesday, first on the motion to dismiss and, if defeated, the motion to subpoena witnesses without intervening action or debate.

REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.

LOTT: And I believe, Mr. Chief Justice, we are ready to proceed with White House counsel.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Counsel Kendall. Oh, I'm -- yes?


REHNQUIST: Very well. Thank you, Mr. Rogan. Mr. Kendall? Oh, you -- you're going to use it now? Very well. You have 52 minutes remaining.

The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Rogan.

ROGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate.

When I was a trial judge back in California, there was something I had to do in every single case, whether it was a civil or criminal case, and that was to advise the triers of fact -- in that particular case the jury -- that what the lawyers say is not evidence.

This is a universal warning that is given in courtrooms throughout the country to the triers of fact, because the law prefers that those people who have to make the determination as to what the facts are make that determination based not on the interpretation of the evidence, but based upon what the evidence actually is.

And that has been the underpinning of our argument before this body from the very first day as to why witnesses are needed not to accommodate us, but for the Senate to be able to make the ultimate conclusion as to what is the truth.

A perfect example of why the evidence should come from witnesses rather than lawyers can be seen from the fact that throughout these proceedings lawyers on both sides have tried to characterize what is the evidence and try to characterize the interpretation that this body should adopt.

I'm reminded of when we were before the Judiciary Committee, just before we voted articles of impeachment, White House counsel suggested to our committee, as they do before this body, that the president's state of mind during his various statements under oath were intended to mislead people but to be truthful. They say the president didn't lie.

Instead, they say he carefully crafted these hyper-technical definitions to protect himself from any perjury charge. We believe the evidence will show that by so doing, Paula Jones was denied the information a federal judge said she was entitled to have, and thereby, perjury and obstruction of justice lie.

Before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ruff reaffirmed this was the president's strategy.

This is what Mr. Ruff told our committee. Question to Mr. Ruff: "I do want to make sure I understand your position. From the beginning, the president takes the position that he never lied to the American people or while giving testimony under oath. Essentially, he simply misled them with a different definition, and he was sending the same message both to the American people and to the court." Answer by Mr. Ruff: "I think that is fair, congressman. Yes."

Question: "And he did that intentionally because in his own mind, he drew a distinction between the technical definition of 'sexual relations,' and the definition of 'improper relationship' or something along those lines, which is how he now characterizes his relationship with Monica Lewinsky." Answer by Mr. Ruff: "Yes, I think that's correct."

Question: "You suggested earlier in your testimony this is a distinction that he has drawn since the Jones deposition.

"My notes indicate you said the definitions are ones that he held in his mind in January and in August and he has so testified."

Answer by Mr. Ruff: "Yes."

Question: "In determining whether the president either perjured himself or lied under oath in this matter, you are asking this committee to look at his state of mind from the beginning of this whole episode and made that determination."

Answer: "Yes."

Members of this body, we suggest that the evidence has shown and the evidence will further show by the calling of the witnesses that we propose that the president denied under oath specific facts that were relevant to the case, relevant to the Jones case, relevant to perjury and obstruction, the perjury and obstruction investigation of the grand jury, and in so doing, among the other lies that my colleagues have pointed out, we will show that he lied to his aides.

And this is important. Because he admitted he knew -- the president admitted he knew -- that his aides were potential witnesses in a criminal investigation before the grand jury. This is the portion of the grand jury transcript where the president testified about his conversations with key aides once the Monica Lewinsky story became public.

Question to the president: "Did you deny to them or not, Mr. President?"

Answer: "I did not want to mislead my friends, but I wanted to find language where I can say that. I also, frankly, do not want to turn any of them into witnesses, because I..."

And sure enough, they call became witnesses.

Question: "Well, you knew they might be witnesses, didn't you?"

Answer: "And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship, that I used in the language I used. I said there is nothing go on between us. That was true. I said I have not had sex with her as I defined 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 say -- to do anything to complicate the matter further, so I said things that were true."

The president's position is they were misleading but they were true. No lies. And that is precisely what Mr. Ruff told the Judiciary Committee and that is the position that White House counsel takes before this body.

Now, remember, the grand jury was conducting a criminal investigation. They were seeking evidence of possible perjury and obstruction of justice.

And the White House contends before this body that the president did nothing to obstruct their investigation. The evidence shows that he did, and one of those witnesses who will demonstrate that to this body is the president's own aide, Sidney Blumenthal.

And that is why we request this body allow Mr. Blumenthal to be deposed, and further we hope that you will allow him the opportunity to testify before you so that you can gauge his credibility and his demeanor as he presents the answers that we expect he will give. Mr. Blumenthal's testimony puts him in direct conflict with the claims of the president and shatters the myth of the president's truthful, but misleading answers given under oath.

Now just for a quick way of background, Mr. Blumenthal on January 21, 1998 was an assistant to the president. That was the day the Monica Lewinsky story broke in the national press through The Washington Post.

That story broke in the morning. Later the same day, Mr. Blumenthal met both with the first lady and then with the president to discussion these news revelations.

One month later, Mr. Blumenthal was called the testify before the grand jury. His testimony was not particularly helpful during that time, because to most of the questions that involved conversations that he had the White House, Mr. Blumenthal claimed executive privilege.

That issue was apparently litigated, and then he returned in June to testify before the grand jury twice -- on June 4th and on June 25th, 1998.

When Mr. Blumenthal was free to share his recollections of the events, this is how Mr. Blumenthal characterized his meetings with President and Mrs. Clinton before the grand jury. And it's interesting to note, by the way, that there was a dual lie going on here from the president. The president was lying to his wife, who could never be called as a witness against him, but he was also lying to his aides, whom he admitted he knew could be called.

This is from Mr. Blumenthal's testimony on June 4.

"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 he does so out of religious conviction and personal temperament.

"And the first lady said he had done this dozens, if not hundreds of times with people. The president came from a broken home and this was very hard, to prevent him from trying to minister to these troubled people.

"So I related that conversation to the president. And I said to him that 'I understand that you want to minister to troubled people, that you feel compassionate, but that part of the problem with troubled people is that they are troubled.'

"I said, 'However, you're president and these troubled people can just get you in incredible messes. You have to cut yourself off from them.'

"And he said, meaning the president, he said: 'It's very difficult for me to do that, given how I am. I want to help people.'"

Then Mr. Blumenthal testified the president said Dick Morris suggested that the president go on television and admit in a national address whatever he may have done wrong.

Once again, Mr. Blumenthal testified: "And I said to the president, 'What have you done wrong?' And he said, 'nothing. I haven't done anything wrong.'

"And I said, 'Well, then that's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Why would you do that if you've done nothing wrong?'

"And it was at that point that he gave his account of what happened to me, and he said that Monica, and it came very fast, he said, 'Monica Lewinsky came at me and make a sexual demand on me.' He rebuffed her.

"He said, 'I've gone down that road before. I've caused pain for a lot of people, and I'm not going to do that again.'

"She threatened him. She said he would tell people they had an affair; that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it. And if she said she had an affair or said she had an affair, then she wouldn't be the stalker anymore. And I repeated to the president that he really needed never to be near people who were troubled like this. That it was just -- he needed not to be near troubled people like this.

"And I said, 'You need to find some sure footing here, some solid ground.' And he said, 'I feel like a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me, and I can get the truth out.'

"'I feel like the character in the novel "Darkness at Noon."'

And I said to him, I said, 'When this happened with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone?' He said, "Well, I was within eyesight or earshot of someone."

"I said, 'You know, there are press reports that you made phone calls and that there's voice mail. Did you make phone calls to her?' He said that he remembered calling her when Betty Currie's brother died, and that he left a message on her voice machine that Betty's brother had died. And he said he was close to Betty and had been very kind to Betty, and that's what he recalled."

And then at his June 24th deposition, Mr. Blumenthal expanded on this theme. He was asked the question: "In your conversation with the president when he stated that Monica Lewinsky threatened to disclose an affair or fabricate an affair in a public disclosure, did you understand him to be saying that if the president didn't concede or didn't agree to have some type of sexual contact with her, she would report the affair?"

Answer: "My understanding was that she demanded to have sexual relations. He rejected her. And she said that -- this is I recall him saying that 'they call me the stalker,' that's what Lewinsky said, 'and if I can say we had an affair, then they won't call me that,' something like that."

Question: "Now, you previously characterized Ms. Lewinsky's comments to the president as a threat, if you will."

Answer: "Right. Yeah. I would interpret that's my understanding."

Then Mr. Blumenthal told the grand jury about the impact the president's emphatic denials had upon his state of mind, the mind of a potential grand jury witness.

Question: "In response to my question how you responded to the president's story about a threat or discussion about a threat from Ms. Lewinsky, you mentioned you didn't recall specifically. Do you recall generally the nature of your response to the president?"

Answer by the president, or I'm sorry, answer by Mr. Blumenthal: "It was generally sympathetic to the president and I certainly believed his story. It was a very heartfelt story. He was pouring out his heart and I believed him."

Question: "Did the president explain to you what Monica Lewinsky's trouble was that he was helping?" Answer: "No." "And did you ever ask him?" "No." "Did anyone else, including the first lady, tell you what Monica Lewinsky's trouble was, that the president was ministering about?" Answer: "No."

Question: "What did you understand the president to mean by he 'had done nothing wrong.'"

Answer: "My understanding was that the accusation against him, which appeared in the press that day, was false; that he had not done anything wrong."

Question: "That he had not had any sort of sexual relationship?"

Answer: "He had not had a sexual relationship with her and had not sought to obstruct justice or suborn perjury."

Mr. Blumenthal then went on to say that he asked the president about some of these reports that there were phone calls between him and Monica Lewinsky.

Question: "Did the president say anything to you about telephone calls with Monica Lewinsky?"

Answer: "As I testified. I had said to him that there were reports of that his voice was on her voice mail, her tape machine at home to take message -- message machine. And he said to me that he could recall that after Betty's brother died, he may have called Monica, because Monica had been very close to Betty, and Betty didn't have a way of relating to her that her brother had died. So that he had called and left a message that Betty's brother died."

Question: "Did he suggest to that you that that was the only call he had ever made to Monica Lewinsky?"

Answer: "That's the only one he told me about."

Question: "Did you ask him if there were any more calls than that?"

Answer: "He said that's the only one he could remember."

Well, we now know certainly from White House logs that the only one the president could remember isn't quite true, that in fact I believe it was over 50 telephone conversations between the president and Monica Lewinsky. And it begs the question: Why was the president on the day this story broke pulling his aides in to relay information that the president knew was patently false when he knew that they were potential witnesses before the grand jury?

Now, it's important to remember that this testimony from Mr. Blumenthal was given one month before Monica Lewinsky decided to cooperation with the Office of Independent Counsel. Thus these questions were asked of him in a vacuum without the benefit of Ms. Lewinsky's extensive testimony, as well as the president's own grand jury testimony.

And the House managers agree that these and other areas need to be more fully explored with Mr. -- with the gentleman under oath in light of the later revelations that occurred surrounding this case.

Now, we know a couple of things.

We know that the -- that the Monica Lewinsky story broke on January 21st. We know that the president spoke to Sidney Blumenthal the very same day. We know the president said he knew his aides could be potential witnesses before the grand jury. And we also know that Mr. Blumenthal was called three times before the grand jury -- once in February, twice in June.

There's an important question that was never asked Mr. Blumenthal during his testimony. It could not have been asked because at the time he testified, the revelation that the president shared with America in August and Monica Lewinsky's revelation had not yet been aired.

If the president knew that Mr. Blumenthal was going to be a witness, a potential witness before the grand jury; if six months after this story broke, the president presumably knew that his aide had gone down not once, but twice to the grand jury, I'd like to know from Mr. Blumenthal: Did the president ever come up to you and say something to you? Did he ever say to you, "Do you remember that story I told you back in January? Well now that you're actually going to be a witness, now that you're going down to testify before the grand jury, I don't want you to give the grand jury a false impression. I don't want you to give false information to the grand jury. I don't want you to be a cog in the wheel of an obstruction of giving the grand jury the opportunity to hear the truth. I need to recant for you what I told you."

There's no evidence of that, and we'd like to find that out, and the only way we can do that is by deposing Mr. Blumenthal and hopefully bringing him in and sharing that information with this body.

Another area we would like to inquire about is the area of a potential plan to destroy Monica Lewinsky if she ever decided to cooperate with law enforcement authorities.

Mr. Blumenthal told the grand jury that following the Monica Lewinsky news revelations, White House aides held twice-a-day staff briefings at 8:30 in the morning and at 6:45 in the evening every day to discuss among other topics the media impact of the Lewinsky scandal and how to deal with it in the press.

Mr. Blumenthal testified that the primary purpose of these meetings was to discuss press strategy.

In making his presentation to the Judiciary Committee last month, chief investigative counsel David Schippers related some of the quotes that emanated in the press following the Lewinsky story.

I just want to read a few paragraphs from Mr. Schippers' presentation.

"Worst of all, in order to win, it was necessary to convince the public, and hopefully the grand jurors who read the newspapers, that Monica Lewinsky was unworthy of belief. If the account given by Monica was believed, then there would emerge a tawdry affair in and near the Oval Office.

Moreover, the president's own perjury and that of Monica Lewinsky would surface. How do you do this? Congressman Graham showed you. You employ the full power and credibility of the White House and its press corps to destroy the witnesses.

Mr. Schippers then quoted from several news sources. Now, this is just a few days after the president told Mr. Blumenthal that Monica was known as "the stalker." Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy "that woman," as President Clinton called Monica Lewinsky. Should they paint her as a friendly fanaticist or as a malicious stalker?

Again, January 30th -- It's also very easy to take a mirror's eye view of this thing -- look at this thing from a completely different direction and take the same evidence and posit a total innocent relationship in which the president was, in a sense, the victim of someone, rather like the woman who followed David Letterman around.

From another source, one White House aide called reporters. One White House aide called reporters to offer information about Monica Lewinsky's past: Her weight problem and what the aide said was her nickname: The stalker.

Just hours after the story broke, one White House source made unsolicited calls offering that Lewinsky was the troubled product of divorced parents and the reference goes on and on. You can find the complete reference in the committee report. Now, the question is was there a mere coincidence that the president's false statements to Mr. Blumenthal about Monica Lewinsky being a stalker quickly found their way into press accounts, even though those accounts are attributed by the press to sources inside the White House?

The answer to the question is yes, it's a coincidence, according to White House counsel. And we heard that from them just three days ago.

Mr. Ruff said in his presentation, and I'm quoting, "the White House, the president, the president's agents, the president's spokespersons, no one has ever trashed, threatened, maligned or done anything else to Monica Lewinsky. No one."

Mr. Blumenthal needs to be questioned now under the light of the facts as we now know them. All we have from Mr. Blumenthal are the facts as he testified before the revelations saw the light of day. And he needs to be questioned for the benefit of those who must make the determination of credibility and the determination of guilt or innocence.

This is the reason we've included Mr. Blumenthal on our proposed list.

He is just one example of several aides whose testimony is already before you in the record. But we feel it would be beneficial not only for the body to hear him, but certainly to question him in light of the revelations that occurred following his grand jury testimony.

Mr. Chief Justice, with that we reserve the balance of our time.

REHNQUIST: Very well. The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Kendall for the White House counsel.

DAVID E. KENDALL, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON: Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, House managers. The purpose of the managers' motion and what I'm going to address is whether you need to add any evidence to the record before you.

And that's all I'm going to address today.

Now, I'm tempted, and it's like waving a red flag at the bull, to take on the substantive arguments that have been presented here as to why the president is guilty. I'm going to refrain from doing that, but my refraining from doing that is not because I agree with them. We've already addressed them, and I think here that the proper procedure is just to address the need for new evidence to add to the record before you.

The managers' case is in no way, no way, harmed by being unable to call witnesses at this point. The independent counsel conducted a wide-ranging investigation. It was intense, it was comprehensive of every conceivable allegation against the president after the Lewinsky publicity erupted on January 21, 1998.

In the record of the publicly available materials which the Senate has asked the House managers to certify, the actual number of pages is somewhat understated because, as I've mentioned before, frequently four or six pages of transcript are reproduced on a single page of the bound volume.

But in fact, there are over 10,000 pages of grand jury testimony, over 800 pages of other testimony, such as depositions, 3,400 pages of documentary evidence, 1,800 pages of audio transcripts and 800 and some pages of FBI interviews.

The Office of Independent Counsel has an unlimited budget with unlimited investigative resources, ranging from the FBI to private investigators. Its agents interviewed people all over the country, used several different grand juries, conducted hundreds of interviews, even called people back from abroad.

If the OIC could have turned up anything that was negative or prejudicial, it would be in those volumes.

So you can rest assured that they did their best to find that evidence, and the Starr team has been fully supportive of the pro- impeachment forces in the House of Representatives. Indeed, so supportive that the independent counsel's ethics adviser, Professor Sam Dash, resigned to protest Mr. Starr's zealous advocacy of the impeachment of the president.

Just this weekend, Mr. Starr and his staff have aggressively

continued to support the House managers during these Senate proceedings. Some commentators have commented that the independent counsel is perhaps the honorary 14th House manager.

Now I rehash this all not to cast aspersions at Mr. Starr, but to remind the Senate that after five years and $50 million, President Clinton may be the most investigated person in America. I will certainly say this for Mr. Starr, he is thorough. He is thorough. After all the work that has been done for them, by the independent counsel, there's simply no way that the House managers are prejudiced by not being able to add to this record at this point.

Now, Mr. Manager McCollum repeated this morning that we are afraid of witnesses. We are not. We have reviewed, in detail, in our presentations what the evidence shows about both the perjury and the obstruction of justice allegations. We are not at all afraid of what the witnesses would say. Indeed, we know what they're going to say because it's all right there in the volumes before you.

We think that you have everything there on the basis of which you can make a fair judgment and achieve a fair resolution.

The managers' hope to call more witnesses is simply a product of their desire, their hope, their prayer that something will come to rescue their case.

Let's be clear about one thing. Any delay in the process necessary for us to have fair discovery is on their heads.

Our point here is, that there's simply no need to go outside this record, because what you have before you is voluminous, and it's a completely adequate basis for your decision.

As I pointed out the other day in the questioning period, the only thing left out of this record evidence that might be exculpatory or helpful to the president. And if we must, we will, as conscientious lawyers, seek out that helpful additional evidence through discovery.

And if we must, we will as conscientious lawyers seek out that helpful additional evidence through discovery.

This body has been scrupulously fair in these proceedings and I'm confident it will be fair if -- concerning our need for discovery if the genie of discovery is let out of the bottle and live witnesses are deemed to be appropriate. Then we're going to need a fair period of time for our own discovery.

But again, the point is today on this motion that the managers have simply identified no particularized need for witnesses, no specific areas of testimony that might contribute to what is already in the record.

And indeed, no questions, no material questions -- you can always think up questions that are unasked -- but no material questions, given the allegations in the two articles, that are not in the record before you.

Just recall, in the House, the managers believed that this was an adequate record to come to you and urge removal of the president. They rested on that record in the House and they impeached an elected president on the basis of that record.

They cannot now complain that it is for some reason unfair to submit this same record to you for judgment at this point. We're not afraid of or reluctant to call witnesses, but we think at the end of the day the addition of more testimony from the three witnesses you've heard about won't affect any evidentiary judgment you've got to make.

Mr. Manager Barr declared, during his presentation a week ago, Friday, on January the 15th, that this was, in fact a relatively simple case, although we, the White House lawyers, would try to nit pick the evidence. He told you, what we have before us, senators and Mr. Chief Justice, is really not complex. Critically important, yes, but not essentially complex.

The able House managers have kept insisting on their need for witnesses, but they haven't indicated what substantial material and relevant questions the witnesses would be asked which haven't already been asked or why such questions are essential or even relevant to the resolution of this proceeding. Frankly, I think this is because there just aren't that many more questions to ask of these witnesses.

And Mr. Manager McCollum kind of let the cat out of the bag on this one when a week ago Friday he told you, "I don't know what the witnesses will say, but I assume if they're consistent they'll say the same thing that's in here."

I was surprised at some of the statements the managers made during the questioning period on Friday and Saturday. Mr. Bryant said, "We would very much like to talk to some of these witnesses." And he added, "It was very critical that you talk to the witness before having that witness testify."

Mr. Jus -- Mr. Manager McCollum stated, "As a matter of fact, we think we would have been incompetent and derelict as presenters of the evidence if we hadn't talked to them first."

Just this Sunday, Mr. Manager Hyde on "Meet the Press" observed that the purpose of the court-ordered Office of Independent Counsel chaperoned interview of Ms. Lewinsky last Sunday was to get a sense of what kind of a witness she'd make.

I say this respectfully. But I am duty bound to observe that it is in fact a dereliction of duty to have come this far in the process, to have made this serious a set of charges as have been made against the president, to seek his removal and not to have talked to the witnesses on whom they purport to rely.

How can they have come this far and now tell you oh, yes, we now need to meet face to face with the witnesses. We don't know what they sound like, we don't how credible they'll be. We've rested our judgment on this. We need to see them personally.

This procedure, I submit to you, is just backwards. First they file the charges, which have been spoon-fed by Mr. Starr. They don't bother to check these out.

They take them at face value. Now, they finally want to talk to the witnesses and they again use Mr. Starr to threaten Ms. Lewinsky with imprisonment unless she cooperates with them.

Now, it's no answer to say that the witnesses didn't want to talk to us. There was a way to talk to them in the House of Representatives and that was through the subpoena power that the House could have used, if they had wanted to talk to their witnesses; if they had fulfilled the obligation they had before they proffered these charges to you.

This has been a partisan process on the part of the House managers. In the House, they had the votes. They didn't think they needed to talk to witnesses. When you have the votes and the independent counsel on your side, you don't need to independently develop the evidence.

Indeed, Sunday on CNN, Mr. Manager Cannon provided some insight into that...

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Chief Justice?

REHNQUIST: Yes, the chair recognizes the senator from Arkansas.

HUTCHINSON: I would object to the White House counsel's continual reference to comments made on television programs outside of the record that is before the Senate.

REHNQUIST: This on a motion to call additional witnesses and the argument has been very free form and kind of far ranging. I think this is permissible comment and so I overrule the objection.

KENDALL: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

I think Mr. Manager Cannon's comments did provide some insight into the need for witnesses for the justification for witnesses here. He noted that the Republicans had lost five seats in the November election and he went on to say accordingly the Republicans felt a need to speedily complete impeachment in the lame duck session before the 106th began its session.

He said that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were committed to be done by the time we got done and that's where we got on that track with no witnesses.

Now they're trying to take a different track. And I think it comes from desperation. You've had the case analyzed before you, you've had the case -- the evidence in the case assessed, and I think it's been demolished in an adversary proceeding.

The House managers are like the character in "David Copperfield," Mr. Macauber (ph), who was always hoping that something would turn up. They continue to hope that something will turn up for them. They don't know what it is, but they believe they'll know it when they see it and they hope for the first time in these proceedings they actually talk to the witnesses on whom they've relied they'll find something to persuade you to overcome the evidence in the record.

Now, the managers have said, well, we told the White House that it could have called witnesses. They could have called witnesses in the House if they want to, and they chose not to do so, so it's really their fault.

I respectfully submit to you, however, that only in the world of Franz Kafka do you have to present evidence of your own innocence before you even hear the charges or the allegations against you.

It was the burden of the House to establish by an adequate evidentiary basis a case for impeaching the president. They failed to do that, I submit, and they're a little like a blackjack player who sees 20 on the table and has 19 and is going to try to draw that two, hoping against the odds.

Here, they're simply gambling, and gambling may have its place as a recreation. I think it has no place in the impeachment trial here when the fate of the president is at stake.

Now, I don't want to be uncharitable ...


... to the House managers, and they are able. But I think it is perhaps appropriate to remind you, as my partner Ms. Seligman did in her argument yesterday, that in their own chamber -- in their own chamber -- the House managers sang a very different song about the need for witnesses.

And to be fair, this was not just one manager. They sang as kind of a barbershop chorus. Most of them are on the record to this effect, and I think the very best witnesses you have about the need for witnesses are the House managers themselves.

Let's listen to some of the comments of the managers on whether live witnesses needed to be heard to supplement the evidence in the many volumes already gathered by the independent counsel.

For example, on November the 5th, Mr. Manager Hyde said: "We believe the most relevant witnesses have already testified at length about the matters in issue and in the interest of finishing our expeditious inquiry we will not require most of them to come before us to repeat their testimony."

He added that "Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp have already testified under oath, we have their testimony. We don't need to reinvent the wheel."

The very next day, on November the 6th, Mr. Manager Gekas testified -- or stated: "Bringing in witnesses to rehash testimony that's already concretely in the record would be a waste of time and serve no purpose at all."

On December the first during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee at which the committee received testimony concerning the consequences of perjury and related crimes, Mr. Manager Chabot stated, "We could call more and more and more witnesses. We are trying to get this wrapped up as expeditiously as possible. I think both sides want to do that. If we call more witnesses and drag this on into next year, then they are going to scream because they say we are on a fishing expedition. We have already got enough evidence."

At that same hearing, Mr. Manager Canady said of the need for witnesses, "Now, we do have a responsibility to make certain we act on a solid basis."

"We should not move forward with articles of impeachment on the basis of insubstantial evidence. I think all of us agree on that. The fact of the matter is that we have a mountain of sworn testimony."

On December the 9th, Congressman Coble who was a member of the House Judiciary Committee told us during our presentation on behalf of the White House: "Mr. Ruff, I want to address a couple of myths, and one myth is that we have no evidence because there have been no fact witnesses called. Five volumes sit alongside me, and these are the same five volumes that are at our table -- that contain sworn testimony before a criminal grand jury, FBI interviews, depositions and other materials."

Mr. Manager Hyde made two statements on the floor of the House of Representatives during the debate over the articles of impeachment which I think bear quotation here.

On December the 18th, Mr. Manager Hyde stated: "We had the facts and we had them under oath. We had Ms. Lewinsky's heavily corroborated testimony under a grant of immunity that would be revoked if she lied. We accepted that."

And then the next day, on Saturday, December the 19th, Mr. Manager Hyde stated:

"No fact witnesses. I've heard that repeated again and again. Look, we had 60,000 pages of testimony from the grand jury, from depositions, from statements under oath. That is testimony that we can believe and accept. We chose to believe it and accept it. Why reinterview Betty Currie to take another statement when we already had her statement? Why interview Monica Lewinsky when we had her statement under oath and with a grant of impunity that if she lied, she would forfeit?"

Why interview Monica Lewinsky when we had her statement under oath and with a grant of immunity that if she lied, she would forfeit?

Now, after the House voted its two articles of impeachment, the House managers still saw no need for live witnesses. On December 29th, Mr. Manager Gekas stated:

"We're going to have to make the case that there is already enough testimony under oath in grand jury testimony and affidavits." And then again, a week later Mr. Manager Gekas stated: "In my judgment, there might not be any real rationale for calling Linda Tripp or Betty Currie or Vernon Jordan if the testimony of Monica Lewinsky is accepted as being what she offered on grand jury terms."

"Roll Call" reported on January the 7th that Mr. Manager Cannon stated regarding calling Ms. Currie as a witness in the Senate trial: "I am reluctant to call Ms. Currie because it's a rotten, nasty thing to do to a public servant."

When confronted with this inconsistency, the managers, who are talented attorneys and successful congressmen, have all argued: Well, the forum has changed.

As if it's no big deal for the House to impeach a president without witnesses, but it would be unconscionable for the Senate to acquit the president without first doing some rotten, nasty things, in Mr. Manager Cannon's phrase, to some witnesses.

How can you have a trial, they protest, without witnesses? One might ask: How can you have a hearing without witnesses? But the House did. How can you impeach a president without witnesses? Well, the House showed us.

Finally, it's instructive to note that when the managers were presenting their case in the House, when the Judiciary Committee did, they did not declare that they would insist on witnesses when they got to the Senate.

They did not tell their colleagues "we won't need witnesses in the House because we'll have them in the Senate." Nope, they rushed this through the House because they had the votes. And now they want to delay in the Senate because they're afraid they don't have the votes.

There is no reason, we respectfully submit, to delay in this chamber; to drag out these proceedings and defer doing the business of the American people.

Now, I'd like to discuss each of the five categories, and I'll call them categories. There are three witnesses, and then there is the -- the two affidavits and then there are the telephone records. There are really six. I'd like to discuss these in terms of whether they add anything, or whether the managers have made a proffer that they add anything to the record which is now before you, because I think that's the question you've got to determine.

On this motion, you're not voting whether substantively to convict the president, you're simply determining is the record adequate.

Let's first take Ms. Lewinsky. On Sunday, the House managers, with the gentle assistance of the independent counsel prosecutors, were able to interview Ms. Lewinsky after schlepping her across the country from California.

They did so despite the fact that the Senate had established by a 100 to zero vote a procedure for the orderly calling of witnesses after discussion and debate.

They did so after declining to interview Ms. Lewinsky at any time during the House proceedings when they could have compelled her appearance by the House subpoena power. And they did so without providing us here any reliable record for what that talkfest on Sunday may have produced.

Now, newspaper reports indicate that the managers did not take notes. You will recall, of course, that during the questioning period on Saturday, they explicitly rejected a request they received during the question period that they provide either an unedited transcript or a videotape of that interview to be sure that the interview would be open to scrutiny for fairness, and ascertain whether Ms. Lewinsky in that interview really did add anything to the record.

They declined to do that, but when they emerged from the Mayflower Hotel on Sunday afternoon for their sidewalk press conference, we heard from them general statements generally commending Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Manager Bryant called her an impressive person. Mr. Manager Hutchinson praised her intelligence and poise.

And I thought to myself: Where have we heard that before about Ms. Lewinsky?

And it was deja vu all over again. Of course, we heard it from Mr. Jordan, from Ambassador Richardson, and from the people who interviewed Ms. Lewinsky for a job in New York. It's helpful that the House managers have now at least confirmed those observations in the record.

At their press conference, we heard the managers make some abstract pronouncements about what Ms. Lewinsky was going to add, that she'd be a valuable witness, she'd be a helpful witness, and it was a productive meeting of benefit to our case. That was what we heard.

But Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, Mr. Plato Cacheris, threw, if I may say, some cold water on those happy and optimistic pronouncements. It could have not been clearer in his comments that, not surprisingly, nothing new whatsoever had emerged from that session.

You really didn't hear that. I think the House managers were quite honest about the session, because you heard nothing about what had emerged from that today.

Mr. Cacheris told the press conference, and some of you may have seen it, Ms. Lewinsky answered all their questions. There was nothing new. She added nothing to the record that is already sitting before the Senate. She shouldn't be called to the Senate to testify.

The New York Times reported yesterday that after the interview, Ms. Lewinsky told a friend, it went really well, I feel positive about it, but I didn't have anything new to say.

Now, according to The Washington Post, the managers were focused on making sure Ms. Lewinsky had no intention of changing her testimony. The Washington Post went on to confirm that she did not indicate any desire to change her testimony in any way.

And the Post article continues that in fact Lewinsky reaffirmed her grand jury statement that no one ever asked her to lie or offered her a job in exchange for a false affidavit in the Jones case.

Now, as you are well aware, Ms. Lewinsky was interviewed extensively by the office of independent counsel. She testified twice before the grand jury. She gave a lengthy deposition to the prosecutors. She was extensively interviewed by the agents. There are over 20 interview reports. I should also add that a great deal of this comes after the president was examined in the grand jury on August the 17th.

Ms. Lewinsky has given detailed and explicit testimony, particularly in her August 26th deposition, as to her account of the physical relationship she had with the president. Nothing at all will be added by further interrogation of her. Nothing could be gained by repetition in a Senate deposition or in the well of this body by that -- a repetition of that testimony.

I confess I don't fully understand, I seem to hear Mr. Manager Bryant and Mr. Manager McCollum say slightly different things about what they intended to present in the way of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. The record on that is what it is.

But whenever I hear somebody tell me, as Mr., the very able Mr. Manager Bryant did, "You know, they don't need to cross-examine really," I'm reminded of what Senator Bumpers said, and he got it from H.L. Mencken (ph), who probably got it from somebody else, the more they say you don't have to cross-examine, the more need I feel to cross-examine.


I don't know what they intend to do there, but in the grand jury the president plainly acknowledged an improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

He declined to answer further questions about that.

The Office of Independent Counsel did not seek either to compel him, or it didn't seek to issue a new grand jury subpoena which would cause the president to come back and go through those explicit details.

The testimony is what it is, and I don't think anything further from Ms. Lewinsky is going to in any material way affect it or even add to it.

With regard to some of the conflicts that are there, I think we've addressed those in the question period. I'm not going to go over them again in full. Did the improper relationship begin in November, or did it begin six or seven weeks later? That conflict is utterly immaterial, I respectfully submit, in view of what the parties have acknowledged.

Mr. Manager Hyde indeed stated in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on December the first that that particular point did not strike him as a terribly serious count, and I agree with that.

The managers have claimed, and Mr. Manager Hutchinson claimed this morning, that there is a contradiction in the president -- in the testimony of the president and Ms. Lewinsky with regard to cover stories. This is not true. We've gone over that again and again. There's nothing that links this testimony to any deposition in the Jones case. These were discussed, the record shows, in a non- legal context.

I don't think that there is anything further to be gained from Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that is not already there in the record.

Now, Mr. Vernon Jordan. Let's take him.

Mr. Manager Hutchinson was kind enough to leave up here his copies of Mr. Vernon Jordan's five appearances before the grand jury. He held them up on a chart. And it's I think proper to point out that Mr. Jordan's testimony runs to over 900 pages.

On March 3rd, the transcript is 196 pages. Two days later on March 5th with the transcript running to 212 pages, Mr. Jordan emerged from the grand jury and he made the following statement, which I'd like to play for you.


VERNON JORDAN: First of all, it is a fact that I helped Monica Lewinsky find private employment in New York.

Secondly, it is a fact that I took Monica Lewinsky to a very competent lawyer, Frank Carter, here in Washington, D.C.. And thirdly, is the fact that I kept the president of the United States informed about my activities.

I want to say two further things. One is I did not in any way tell her, encourage her to lie. And secondly, that my efforts to find her a job were not a quid pro quo for the affidavit that she signed.


KENDALL: Mr. Jordan testified a third time before the grand jury on May 5th, and that transcript runs to 285 pages.

Finally, he testified two more times, on May the 28th for 128 pages, and he observed as he exited the grand room. If we could have the video again.


JORDAN: For the fourth time I have answered every question over and over and over again. I suspect that I will have to answer the same questions over and over and over again.

KENDALL: And guess what? Mr. Jordan was clairvoyant, because he was called back to the grand jury for a fifth time on June 9, and he said as he exited:


JORDAN: When I came here on March -- early March, I said that I helped Ms. Lewinsky get a lawyer.

I helped her get a job. I had assurances that there was no sexual relationship, and I did not tell her to lie. That was the truth then, and that is the truth today, and I have testified five times over and over again to those truths.


KENDALL: One of the justifications Mr. Manager Hutchinson offered for calling Mr. Jordan was to explore an alleged conflict between Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky over whether Mr. Jordan had told her to go home and make sure that notes she had been keeping were not there.

Here I think Mr. Manager Hutchinson is referencing a statement that Ms. Lewinsky made in her proffer to the office of independent counsel describing her recollection of a breakfast she believed she had with Mr. Jordan. It's in the appendix volume at page 716.

Now, the thing to note, ladies and gentlemen, about this statement is its date. Ms. Lewinsky said this on February 1st, 1998. She'd written then that she'd expressed concern about Ms. Tripp to Mr. Jordan, and that Ms. Tripp may have seen notes when she was in Ms. Lewinsky's house.

According to the proffer, Mr. Jordan asked if the notes were from the president. Ms. Lewinsky said that they were notes to the president. Mr. Jordan suggested to Ms. Lewinsky, the proffer says, that she check to make sure they were not there, or something to that effect -- close quote -- for Ms. Lewinsky.

Now, contrary to this supposed conflict, Mr. Jordan was never asked in the grand jury on any of the five occasions he was there, all of which, I remind you, were after this February 1 proffer, about this matter. He wasn't asked about it. It doesn't concern the president in any event.

And I think most importantly it's nowhere alleged. If you look in the actual articles, if you look at Article II, nowhere is this conversation alleged in any way as a basis for impeachment, a basis for charging the president with obstruction.

I think in fact it is a gratuitous smear of Mr. Jordan and it certainly does not provide a basis for extending this proceeding to ask him questions about it.

Now, Mr. Manager Hutchinson also claimed that there is a conflict between the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan on the issue of whether they discussed specific changes that were subsequently made in her affidavit. He said to you that he thought that was a basis for calling them as witnesses.

However, the record is clear. It could not be clearer that the idea of certain deletions in the affidavit came from Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, Mr. Frank Carter. As I mentioned in my presentation on Thursday, Ms. Lewinsky discussed that she had talked to Mr. Jordan about some affidavit changes, and he told her, go talk to your lawyer.

In any event, Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer, Mr. Frank Carter, testified unequivocally to the grand jury, "I don't recall Vernon ever asking me the substance of what Monica told me or tried to talk about what the substance of what Monica told me. He clearly never told me how I should proceed or what I should do."

Mr. Carter further testified that paragraph 6 of the affidavit in its draft form as the last part of a sentence has certain words about a private meeting.

That paragraph, Mr. Carter, Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer testified, was modified when we sat down in my office on January 7th.

He further testified that it was his idea before that meeting to take it out because he didn't want to give Ms. Jones' lawyers any hint of a one-on-one meeting.

There is simply no basis to call Mr. Vernon Jordan once again to have him go through the things he's testified about a great many times already.

Now, we come to Sidney Blumenthal. Mr. Manager Rogan very ably argued that there was a need to call Mr. Blumenthal because of Mr. Blumenthal's testimony as to what the president had told him, Sidney Blumenthal, in the aftermath of the explosion of publicity over the Lewinsky matter in January a year ago.

Well first of all, there is no conflict here that is material because the president has never disputed Mr. Blumenthal or his aides' accounts of this conversation. The -- any dispute is wholly immaterial as to the two counts -- two articles of impeachment. The president was examined extensively about this subject in his own grand jury testimony. And he testified as to what he tried to say, but he also added that in this period, things were a blur. It's a term he used one time. A "blizzard" was a term he used another time.

That he'd had discussions with a number of his aides, including Mr. Blumenthal, he tried to be careful in what he said, he thought he was technically accurate, but he would not dispute and did not dispute their characterizations of what they recalled of the conversations with him.

Again, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Rogan pointed this out, testified three times before the grand jury. His recollection of his conversations with the president has been analyzed in detail. And a further round of deposition would add nothing of substance to that testimony.

Indeed, in the president's speech to the nation the day of his grand jury speech -- his grand jury testimony -- when he spoke to the nation the evening of August 17, also represented an acknowledgment by the president that he had misled his aides such as Sidney Blumenthal.

As I indicated last Thursday, however, any statements to the White House staff could have had no impact whatsoever on the Paula Jones case, as Article II alleges each of the seven grounds has, because Mr. Blumenthal had no firsthand knowledge of the president's relation with Ms. Lewinsky. He could only report to the grand jury what the president had told him, however misleading those statements of the president may been at the time.

There is no dispute here; there's no material reason to call Mr. Blumenthal except to try to embarrass the president by the presentation of testimony from a member of his senior staff.

Now, the next two things that the managers would seek to add to the record are not -- they tell you live witness testimony, but don't let that fool you.

They want to put in two sworn -- two sworn declarations. It's like an affidavit -- from two people. One of them is a Mr. Wesley Holmes (ph), a lawyer for Ms. Paula Jones. And the other is Mr. Barry Ward (ph).

Now, I don't have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Wesley Holmes, but I do know Mr. Barry Ward. He is a very intelligent, very hardworking and knowledgeable young lawyer in Little Rock, Arkansas who works as a law clerk for Chief Judge Wright. He's got an encyclopedic knowledge of Razorback athletic lore.

He has a lot of fine characteristics. He's very helpful as a law clerk. He gets information to you and back very efficiently. But there is one thing Mr. Ward is not, and I'm sure he would agree with that. He's not a mind reader. He's not a mind reader.

There were a number of people in the room at the deposition. None of them were mind readers. They can all give their testimony about what they thought was going through the president's mind.

The president has addressed that a number of times. You've seen the videotape.

Now, the second witness is exceedingly interesting, and that is Mr. Holmes. And Mr. Holmes would give a sworn declaration to, among other things, say what he had in mind when he issued the witness subpoena to Betty Currie, which was several days -- was days after the president's conversation with her on December the 18th.

Well, this would be -- he would be a very interesting witness to depose, let me tell you. This is one of Paula Jones' lawyers talking about offering a declaration about his litigation strategy, and I think that the opportunity to depose him would provide a great deal of information about what really motivated the events of January 1998.

I think we could show that there were a number of connections between the independent counsel, Linda Tripp, and the Paula Jones lawyers.

But I don't think you need to get into that briar patch because Mr. Holmes (ph) is not a mind reader any more than Mr. Ward (ph) is. You simply don't need that testimony to illuminate the record.

Now, the last category -- and let me -- let me just before I leave that make the point that while the managers would like very much to throw in a couple of sworn declarations, you be assured of our need to take discovery and in Mr. Holmes' (ph) case take comprehensive discovery.

I don't think anything in S. Res. 16 -- I don't know that you've gotten to this -- but I don't read the resolution as authorizing simple hearsay evidence.

We would need to depose the Paula Jones lawyers in some detail, and I think they've now waived significant legal protections that would make that possible.

Finally, there was a category of telephone records. It's a little hard to address that category. Those are just documents.

I don't think the record need be expanded by their addition, and I'll tell you why. Telephone records, as I said the other day, really tell you nothing, unless there is -- it's very important to time, to date, a particular call. They really are inscrutable. You've got to have the witness to testify about they mean.

I don't see anything in there that would justify opening the record to add certain telephone records.

Finally, I want to be candid with you. I don't want to be alarmist. I want to be honest, though, about what opening the door to discovery will mean for this process.

I said before that the Senate had been fair in these proceedings, and it has been fair. I think the identification of a specific record which the parties could agree on, have in the sunlight, talk about, argue about was the fair thing to do and the right thing to do.

I think if discovery is inevitable, we will anticipate and believe that you will be fair in allowing us the discovery we're going to need.

Now, I would ask you if you would to read our trial memorandum, because at pages 124 to 130, we've set forth there our need for discovery. It's not a new invention.

Should the Senate decide to authorize the House managers to call additional witnesses, live in this proceeding or have their depositions taken, we will be faced with a critical need for the discovery of evidence useful to our defense.

I made the point that the discovery of evidence in the Office of Independent Counsel proceeding was, not to put too find a point on it, not aimed at getting us exculpatory or helpful evidence.

We need to be able to do that. We've never had the kind of compulsory process, the kind of ability to subpoena documents and witnesses that you would have in an garden variety civil case. We have not had access to a great deal -- many thousands of pages -- of evidence which is first of all in the hands of the House managers that they got from the Office of Independent Counsel, but did not put into the public record; did not print up.

We also need discovery of those other documents, witness testimony transcripts, interview notes -- other materials which may be helpful or exculpatory that are in the hands of the independent counsel.

Our dilemma is this: we do not know what we do not know. That's what discovery means, you've got to get discovery so you can find out what is available. It may not necessarily prolong a trial, but it makes you available to defend your client in the way you've got to be able to do as a lawyer.

It doesn't turn on the number of witnesses. The calling of these witnesses, you know, produces a need in us to be ready to examine them, to cross-examine them. It initiates a process that leaves us unprepared and exposed unless we have adequate discovery.

This is a proceeding -- I need not remind you; I know everyone recognizes its gravity.

To remove the president of the United States you have got to give us -- and I believe you will -- the discovery that will enable us to represent the president adequately, competently and effectively.

Now, the sequence of discovery is also important. I want to be clear about that. It's all very well, and I recognize how it happens for one side to say, well, we're going to put on three witnesses and they can put on three witnesses. Well, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we don't know right now how to make a reasoned choice because we haven't had the discovery you would normally have to do that.

We would first need to obtain and review the relevant documents. And I've indicated where those are. We then need -- we would then need to be able to depose relevant witnesses. We'd need to know whether the witness depositions that the House managers had taken would need to lead to other depositions there.

Only at that point, when we've had discovery of our witnesses, will we be able to identify the witnesses we might want to call.

This is a logical procedure, and I think those of you who have tried cases will recognize it as such. It's simply impossible from where we now are to see how a witness designated by the House managers can be fairly rebutted, without ourselves having access to all the available evidence.

Given what is at stake, I think fundamental fairness requires fair discovery. We will be expeditious, but in the event the genie is out of the bottle, we need time; we need access to defend the president in the way any client ought to be defended.

Now, I think the Senate has wisely elected to proceed on a voluminous record, a record that is available for public scrutiny that was assembled by people not favorable to the president.

I think you have enough evidence to make your decision on the basis of that record.

But in the event you decide to expand it, affording us adequate discovery is essential if we're going to really practice the rule of law as I believe the Senate would intend for that rule of law to be practiced in its proceedings.

But let me conclude by saying that I don't think, and I respectfully submit to you, that there is a need to prolong this process. We hope that you will render your decision in a manner that is speedy, and we're confident that you'll decide, you'll make that decision in a manner that is fair. And this body will, as so often it's done in past times of crisis, be able to bring to the country both the closure and reconciliation that the country wants so very much.

Thank you.

REHNQUIST: Does counsel for the president have any more presentation?

KENDALL: (OFF-MIKE), Mr. Chief Justice, I would reserve the remainder of my time.

REHNQUIST: No, you can't reserve it. It's open respond and rebuttal.

KENDALL: I will then quick (ph) claim the rest of my time.

REHNQUIST: Very well.


BRYANT: Mr. Chief Justice, may I inquire as to how much rebuttal time we have remaining?

REHNQUIST: Thirty minutes.

BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I will be brief and ask other managers to come up to follow me.

I have four quick points to make. And before I get into that I want to thank my distinguished colleague from D.C. Mr. Kendall. Over my practice of law for several years I've received a number of jabs before in the courtroom but never so gentle and never so eloquently. And I thank you.

I think his presentation was very good but probably makes the best illustration of why witnesses are needed, in that he has chosen to use selective quotes.

He likes to use those quotes and point to the managers over there, where we were quoted, without a real context there. And certainly, that is what this hearing has been about so far -- both sides picking and choosing among quotes that best illustrate the point we want to make at the time, but really what we need is the big picture, the entire complete picture of witnesses that only witnesses can provide in this case.

But let me go back to a couple of the selective quotes, and that is the quotes that we made back in the House when we were involved in the proceedings, which I would remind each one of you, involved these very same stacks of books here, the record, that they have so shown you in the past in a very, I guess, very often forum that -- This is the record here. Why do we need to go outside the record?

Well, that very same record was in the House, and it was at that time that Mr. Lowell, the minority counsel, was representing the president's interests, but also Mr. Kendall was there, and in fact, both examined Mr. Starr.

That was when they were making the request for the witnesses based on this very same record, notwithstanding that, we need witnesses. I simply point that out to you to show you that Mr. Kendall and his very talented staff do not have a monopoly on consistency.

Another example of selective quoting has to do with quotes made about our occasion to visit Ms. Lewinsky, to talk to her. This is the one witness we've not been able to talk to, and he pulled those quotes out as if we need to talk to all the witnesses. We don't need to talk to all the witnesses, but we needed to sit down and talk with her.

And I might tell you that she was very ably represented by three attorneys. She had as many lawyers there as we did and perhaps more, so she was not imposed upon.

And I think, in terms of my statement about discovery, I think perhaps was misunderstood, but I certainly conceded that the White House might want to discover, depose Ms. Lewinsky, but I still have a hard time determining why they would need to discover what Ms. Currie might want to say, who sits right outside the president's office every day, or what Mr. Jordan might say, who plays golf with Mr. Clinton practically every day, or Mr. Podesta, his former chief of staff.

I'm just trying to save this Senate some time and question why we would need to go through discovery of those types of people.

And my last point I'd like to make before I bring Mr. Hutchinson in, Mr. Kendall mentioned a point, and I'm not sure where was going in terms of perhaps trying to worst-case the situation in terms of it taking forever and a day to conclude discovery of all kinds of witnesses, and alluded to needing to take all the lawyers for Paula Jones and questioning her motivation.

I would suggest to you that a real clue to her motivation for this lawsuit was the -- we can say the 850,000 reasons motivation that she received the other day. But let me end with that note and bring up Mr. Hutchinson who will continue this process.

Thank you.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Hutchinson.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I'll just take a moment.

Mr. Kendall did an outstanding job, as he always does, in making his case for not calling witnesses. I thought the most compelling example as to why we need witnesses was the fact that he called a live witness, Vernon Jordan.

Mr. Jordan testified here in this chamber. Why did they not present a transcript? Why did he want to bring a live witness? Because it was real, it was alive, it was more meaningful than a transcript, he told the story in short, concise ways that I have not been able to do during my presentation during the last week.

We would like to have the same opportunity, not through video, but to present a live witness so that he could cross-examine, so that we could question. I think that is a fair proceeding.

Now, Mr. Kendall raised the point that the statements about the notes that Ms. Lewinsky testified she discussed with Mr. Jordan were referenced in her February '98 proffer.

When I was making my point, I was referencing her August grand jury testimony, not the February proffer, because my recollection is that that February proffer that was submitted by Mr. Ginsburg had subsequently become a subject of litigation because they were not able to reach an immunity agreement, and so perhaps that was the reason that that subject was not inquired into with -- by the independent counsel.

For whatever reason, my review of the transcripts is that that subject was never broached with Mr. Jordan. I don't profess perfect knowledge of it, but that is my understanding of it.

And then, finally, I want to also look at the discovery that Mr. Bryant referenced. There was a gambling illustration that Mr. Kendall used, about blackjack. Well, another part of poker is bluffs, and I don't know whether they're bluffing.

I don't know whether they're serious about all the discovery that they need to have. But I know that lawyers do that sometimes to intimidate, to scare you away. But I think even more importantly is that the House managers have submitted to the rules of the Senate. We weren't particularly happy about all of them, but we recognized it was important to have legitimacy of this process. We accept that. We move on.

I would hope that whatever rules on discovery; whatever limitations you wish to put; whatever timeframes you wish to put, that the White House counsel will be as amenable to the desire of this Senate and this nation to conclude this as we have been in adapting what our desires are to your schedule.

I yield to Mr. McCollum.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager McCollum.

MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chief Justice, thank you very much.

I want to make a couple of observations and one of them seems pretty apparent. Mr. Kendall says they're not afraid and that I was wrong in characterizing them as being afraid, the White House counsel, of calling witnesses. But I'm going to tell you, I can't rationalize any other way why he'd be out here making the pitch as hard as he is against witnesses, especially the sort of threat that this is going to go on and on and on if you open the door and we call three witnesses.

You know, we're down from thinking we ought to have ten, 12, maybe 15 witnesses to three: Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal. And we've introduced three or propose to introduce three very simple pieces of new evidence. That can't take a lot of discovery, the need to go further than that. You know, if he wants to produce witnesses that's fine, but I just can't imagine why that opens that door.

Mr. Holmes (ph) he talks about, the attorney. What's the significance of that declaration or affidavit, that sworn declaration that we'd like you to take in that he says, well, we've got to depose Mr. Holmes about?

That was put in very simply because the counsel on the other side, I don't accuse them of doing it intentionally, but the other day they misled us, I think unintentionally misled you, on the idea that the president at the time that he left the deposition in the Jones case and went over to talk to Betty Currie the next day, didn't and couldn't have had any idea that -- that she was going to be called as a witness. In fact, I think they said there -- she never was on a witness list and she never was subpoenaed.

What Mr. Holmes' declaration does, as I said earlier, is bring into the record the subpoena that in fact was issued within a day or so of that time of when Betty Currie was talked to. Remember, he talked to her twice; the notice about it and her name being put on the witness list. That's what that's all about, and a general explanation of why they chose, as attorneys, to make that case; why they chose to put her name out there and subpoena her so that it's clear on the record.

Very simple. If you look at it, and I'm sure you'll have it before you to consider, his declaration is very short. It's like three paragraphs, and it goes straight to the point, and it encloses these accompanying documents. So, I don't think you should for one minute think that opens the door to some great big, gigantic, long new discovery period.

That is simply an idle threat to intimidate, in my judgment, with a proper intimidation effort, proper tactic -- I don't accuse them of anything improper -- you, to try to discourage you from letting us have these three witnesses.

Second, I want to point out that with respect to some of the things that I said, and one thing I did say earlier is I don't know what all the witnesses would say if we call them. And I don't know what they all will say, certainly. But I would expect them all to be consistent with what they've already said in their sworn testimony. And there's nothing inconsistent with my expecting them to be consistent on the facts we already know, since that sworn testimony in the case of Monica Lewinsky, she has immunity that, if she deviates and goes off of it, she could get herself in trouble.

But does by no means my expectation that the testimony you already have will remain true mean that I don't think there are new things to be brought out, or that you shouldn't have live witnesses here.

And I thought it interesting that Mr. Kendall totally ignored the one thing was most significant in my mind. And that is the whole idea that there is a need for witnesses out here to determine their credibility, to check their demeanor, to see how they respond to questioning, to do all of those things that I described earlier that any reasonable attorney in any court room setting in this country in a criminal case -- and you do have to decide whether the crimes are committed or not -- would expect to do, so you can, as my colleagues have said, look 'em in the eye and make that determination yourself. He didn't even address that.

And I think that that alone is sufficiently good reason to have a live witness here, as I said before to you.

So with that in mind I will yield to Mr. Rogan.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Rogan.

ROGAN: Mr. Chief Justice.

Members of the Senate, Mr. Kendall made a very able and strong presentation. It was particularly effective when he brought up a series of quotations from House members and House managers talking about the need for witnesses or the lack thereof.

It would be more effective if it were presented in context, but it could not be, because the context of every single one of those quotations was in reference to the distinction between the House's function as the accusatory body versus the Senate's constitutional function of being the body where an impeachment case is tried. There he blurs the distinctions.

That's why in the Constitution a president is impeached solely on a majority vote but removal requires at the trial a two-thirds vote.

Now Mr. Kendall's presentation begs the question, did the founders get it wrong when they designed this process? Did the founders simply intend for us to waste our resources rather than conserve them, and simply do the very same thing, first in one body and then in the other, with the sole distinction that the only difference would be the ultimate vote.

That was not their intent. That was not the procedure established by the Constitution, and it is not the procedure recognized throughout the country in court proceedings.

There is a reason why courts of inferior jurisdiction will be able to hold a defendant in a criminal case to answer for trial at a preliminary hearing based on hearsay testimony, based on transcripts, based solely on police reports.

But that defendant at a trial has a constitutional right to come forward, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is supreme and guaranteed in the Constitution because the framers understood the difference, even if White House counsel refuses to acknowledge the difference.

Now the argument they have really isn't with the House managers. Their argument is with the precedents of the House. Their argument in fact is with people like the venerable Barbara Jordan, our late distinguished former colleague. She understood the difference between the House's function in an impeachment role versus the Senate's function. She said during the Rodino hearings: "In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge. The framers of the Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person."

Now, in the words of Yogi Berra, I feel that we're going through deja vu all over again with Mr. Kendall's able proceeding.

Because what he has accentuated in this presentation has been accentuated by White House counsel ever since they first rose to address this body at the lectern.

And that is the complaint that no witnesses were called before the House Judiciary Committee, and how wrong it is for members of the House managers now to assert the need and the right to have witnesses before this body, when in fact no witnesses were called before the Judiciary Committee. Once again, he mistakes the function of the two houses.

But I would invite the members of this body, if that is an issue concerning them, to go back and review the voluminous transcripts during the Judiciary Committee, where Chairman Hyde did everything but get on his knees and beg the members of the president's defense team, beg our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to identify for us which witnesses they wished to dispute; what facts they wanted to challenge. Let us know who the witnesses are, where there is a contention in the evidence.

And despite their complaining and despite their griping and despite their anger over a supposedly unfair process, they never once identified in the factual record whose testimony they wished to challenge.

What we heard repeatedly, day after day, in the hearing and outside before the cameras, was an attack upon the process rather than an identification of the issues where there are factual disputes.

In fact, they refuse to identify, despite the repeated pleas of Chairman Hyde, who those witnesses are that they felt were appropriately, because the chairman said: tell us who they are, we will call them.

They champion the cause of witnesses in word, but they do not champion the cause of witnesses in deed, at least not in the House, because the same people who were complaining of the unfairness in the House for not having witnesses suddenly have an allergic reaction to the concept of witnesses being called before this where it counts the most, where the ultimate decision is to be made, where the triers of fact have to make the constitutional decision whether the case is sufficient for removal of the president.

And Mr. Kendall's repeated hints and statements that somehow they were denied some form of due process in the House by not being able to call witnesses is patently unfair and does not withstand the test of the record.

Chairman Hyde alluded to it a couple of days ago and, based upon Mr. Kendall's presentation, I feel it is worth a minute or two of this body's time. Mr. Kendall has stated in these proceedings, and I am quoting, "We have never had the chance to call witnesses ourselves, to examine them, to cross-examine them, to subpoena documentary evidence at no point in this process."

The record is to the contrary. On October 5th, the House passed a procedure by voice vote, which included the right to call witnesses.

On October 21st, the House Judiciary Committee staff met with Mr. Ruff, Kendall, and Craig. At that time, Judiciary Committee staff asked the White House to provide any exculpatory information and provide a list of any witnesses the president wished to call.

On November 9th, the House Judiciary Committee staff wrote to Mssrs. Ruff, Kendall, and Craig and again informed them of the president's right to call witnesses. On November 19th, Independent Counsel Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee. The president's counsel was given the opportunity to question the independent counsel. The president's counsel did not ask a question relating to the facts of the independent counsel's report and allegations against the president.

On November 25th, Chairman Hyde wrote a letter to the president asking the president, among other things, to provide any exculpatory information and inform the committee of any witnesses he wished to call. On December 4th, two working days before the presentation of the president to the Judiciary Committee, counsel for the president requested to put on 15 witnesses. The White House was allowed to present all 15 witnesses and not a single one of the 15 witnesses that they wished to call, that they asked to call, were factual witnesses.

And so the complaints of unfairness are unfair.

One other point I want to make, because again I see a reversal in roles, is that Mr. Kendall can't seem to decide what type of ogre role he wants to portray us. Because he said in his presentation, just a few minutes ago, that we were somehow, at least he alluded to the fact that we were somehow tools of Judge Starr and the Office of Independent Counsel.

And I was a little surprised to hear him suggest that Judge Starr spoon fed us the charges. And that Judge Starr spoon fed them to us to the point where he didn't know whether Judge Starr should be deemed an honorary member of the House management team.

Well, that's an interesting proposition, because it seemed to me just a day or two ago, the same lawyers who are now making this allegation were claiming constitutional unfairness before this body and asking that this body dismiss the articles of impeachment. Why? Because the House Judiciary Committee and the managers didn't present the exact same charges that the independent counsel suggested.

You can't have it both ways. You can't fashion the argument depending on what the result is being sought, and yet that is exactly what the White House counsel are attempting to do.

Yesterday we were renegades who didn't follow the strict rules of Judge Starr, and didn't give them proper notice. Now, of course, he is the marionette and we are the puppets doing his will.

Members of this body, it is the job of the House of Representatives, it is the constitutional obligation of the House of Representatives, to act as the accusatory body in an impeachment proceeding. The Constitution gives the authority to this body the right to try that case. This is the place for trial. This is the place to determine guilt. This is the place to determine credibility. This is the place for witnesses.

Mr. Chief Justice, I yield the balance of our time to our distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hyde.

(OFF-MIKE) Mr. Hyde.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HENRY J. HYDE (R-IL): Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, I won't use the entire nine minutes.

Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished counsel and senators, I'll be very brief. Just that Mr. Rogan and my colleagues have handled this very well, but just a couple of things I want to talk about.

It is disturbing, it's annoying, it's irritating when I hear that the counsel for the president had been cut off from information and data; we've sequestered things on them. I pleaded with them to produce witnesses, made the subpoenas available to them. They have a positive allergy to fact witnesses.

Oh, they'll come up with academics. We saw a parade of professors. You know what an intellectual is? It's someone who's educated beyond their intelligence.


And I certainly don't mean that if some of those Harvard professors that they paraded out, even though we disagreed with them, but you would get eye strain looking for a fact witness.

And it is remarkable the flexibility they have. They complained that we called no witnesses in the House. Now they're complaining that we're calling witnesses in the Senate, as though they don't understand the difference in the threshold.

There we had to prove we had enough to submit to the Senate for a trial, but not try it over there. And a majority vote prevails over there.

Here, you have an extraordinary mountain to climb, a two-thirds vote, and the trial is here. And that's the difference. And witnesses help you. They won't help me. I know the record. I'm satisfied a compelling case is here for removal of the president. But they will help you, and we aren't dragging this out. We have been as swift as decency will let us be throughout this entire situation.

Their defense has never been on the facts. If they can come up with a good fact witness that has something to say, we will see a reenactment of the Indian rope trick, it seems to me. We will see professors, though, if past is prologue. I don't know.

But the threat of -- the threat of prolonged hearings, I supposed is supposed to make you tremble. It doesn't to me, but then different things -- different strokes, I guess, for different folks. But their defense has been to demonize Mr. Starr to a fare-thee-well, and to yell about the process. That has been their defense. And I'll be frank with you, I'm not sure I could stand a lot more of that, but that's what they will do.

As far as the information not available to them, maybe not. Maybe some of the stuff we got from the independent counsel was held in executive session. But it was available to Mr. Conyers. It was available to Abbe Lowell. It was available to every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. And they went through it.

I wrote with Mr. Conyers to Mr. Starr a letter saying: Show us what you didn't send us, let's look at what you've got over there, there might be some exculpatory material. And Mr. Conyers sent his people over and they looked and they looked and they looked. And I would assume they were in touch with you folks, I would assume they were. If they weren't they should have been. That's a breakdown in communication.

Now, we can -- we have a good case, we have an excellent case without the witnesses, but the witnesses help you. We have narrowed it down to three, a pitiful three.

And I should think you would want to proceed with that minimum testimony, and Mr. Kendall can try his cross-examination skills on them, and that I want to watch.

Thank you.


REHNQUIST: The time of both sides has now expired. The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, in view of the time that we've been in without a break, the next pending business is that we would -- it would be in order to have a motion by Senator Harkin or Senator Wellstone. But before we do that, I would suggest that, without objection, we take a 15-minute break.

REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it's so ordered.

LOTT: Would the senators please stand and wait until the chief justice leaves the chamber.


LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that during each day that Senate sits as a court of impeachment, it be in order for senators to submit to the desk statements and introduce legislation.

REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it's so ordered.

LOTT: Now, Mr. Chief Justice, I believe at this point it would be in order for a motion to be made that we go into open debate, if any, and then when that is dispensed with, we would go to the move to close and would deal with that issue. And then we would begin the closed session. And so I believe we're ready for a motion to be offered, if any, at this time.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IOWA): Mr. Chief Justice, in according with rule -- accordance with rule five of the Senate standing rules, I filed a motion of intent to move to suspend the rules, to open debate on this motion to subpoena witnesses. The motion is at the desk and it's numbered number five, I believe.

REHNQUIST: The clerk will report the motion.

CLERK: The senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for himself and Mr. Wellstone moves to suspend the following portions of the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials in regard to debate by senators on a motion to subpoena witnesses during the trial of President William Jefferson Clinton.

The senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for himself and Mr. Wellstone, moves to suspend the -- to suspend the following portions of the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials in regard to debate by senators on a motion to subpoena witnesses during the trial of President William Jefferson Clinton.

One, the phrase "without debate" in rule 7.

Two, the following portion of rule 20: "Unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon its decision, a motion to close the doors may be acted upon without objection or if objection is heard the motion shall be voted on without debate and by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record."

And three, in rule 24, the phrases "without debate except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation and in that that case" and "to be had without debate."

REHNQUIST: The senator from Iowa.

HARKIN: I ask for the yeas and nays.

REHNQUIST: Is there sufficient second? There is. The clerk will call the role.

CLERK: Mr. Abraham.


CLERK: Mr. Abraham, no.

Mr. Akaka.


CLERK: Mr. Akaka, aye.

Mr. Allard.


CLERK: Mr. Allard, no.

Mr. Ashcroft.


CLERK: Mr. Ashcroft, no.

Mr. Baucus.


CLERK: Mr. Baucus, no.

CLERK: Mr. Bayh.

BAYH: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Bayh, aye.

Mr. Bennett.


CLERK: Mr. Bennett, no.

Mr. Biden.


CLERK: Mr. Biden, aye.

Mr. Bingaman.


CLERK: Mr. Bingaman, aye.

Mr. Bond.

CLERK: Mr. Bond, no.

Mrs. Boxer.


CLERK: Mrs. Boxer, aye.

Mr. Breaux.


CLERK: Mr. Breaux, aye.

Mr. Brownback.


CLERK: Mr. Brownback, no.

Mr. Bryan.


CLERK: Mr. Bryan, aye.

Mr. Bunning.


CLERK: Mr. Bunning, no.

Mr. Burns.


CLERK: Mr. Burns, no.

Mr. Byrd.

Mr. Campbell.


CLERK: Mr. Campbell, no.

Mr. Chafee.


CLERK: Mr. Chafee, no.

Mr. Cleland.


CLERK: Mr. Cleland, aye.

Mr. Cochran.


CLERK: Mr. Cochran, no.

Ms. Collins.


CLERK: Ms. Collins, aye.

Mr. Conrad.


CLERK: Mr. Conrad, aye.

Mr. Coverdell. COVERDELL: No.

CLERK: Mr. Coverdell, no.

Mr. Craig


CLERK: Mr. Craig, no.

Mr. Crapo.


CLERK: Mr. Crapo, no.

Mr. Daschle.


CLERK: Mr. Daschle, aye.

Mr. DeWine.


CLERK: Mr. DeWine, no.

Mr. Dodd.

DODD: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Dodd, aye.

Mr. Domenici.


CLERK: Mr. Domenici, no.

Mr. Dorgan.


CLERK: Mr. Dorgan, aye.

Mr. Durbin.


CLERK: Mr. Durbin, aye.

Mr. Edwards.


CLERK: Mr. Edwards, aye.

Mr. Enzi.


CLERK: Mr. Enzi, no.

Mr. Feingold.


CLERK: Mr. Feingold, aye.

Mrs. Feinstein.


CLERK: Mrs. Feinstein, aye.

Mr. Fitzgerald.


CLERK: Mr. Fitzgerald, no.

Mr. Frist.


CLERK: Mr. Frist, no.

Mr. Gorton.


CLERK: Mr. Gorton, no.

Mr. Graham of Florida.


CLERK: Mr. Graham of Florida, aye.

Mr. Gramm of Texas.

Mr. Grams of Minnesota.


CLERK: Mr. Grams of Minnesota, no.

Mr. Grassley


CLERK: Mr. Grassley, no. Mr. Gregg.


CLERK: Mr. Gregg, no.

Mr. Hagel.


CLERK: Mr. Hagel, no.

Mr. Harkin.


CLERK: Mr. Harkin, aye.

Mr. Hatch.


CLERK: Mr. Hatch, no.

Mr. Helms.

Mr. Hollings.


CLERK: Mr. Hollings, aye.

Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas.


CLERK: Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, no.

Mrs. Hutchison of Texas.


CLERK: Mrs. Hutchison of Texas, aye.

Mr. Inhofe.


CLERK: Mr. Inhofe, no.

Mr. Inouye.


CLERK: Mr. Inouye, aye.

Mr. Jeffords.


CLERK: Mr. Jeffords, no.

Mr. Johnson.


CLERK: Mr. Johnson, aye.

Mr. Kennedy.


CLERK: Mr. Kennedy, aye.

Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska.


CLERK: Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, aye.

Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mr. Kohl.

KOHL: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Kohl, aye.

Mr. Kyl.


Mr. Kyl, no.

Ms. Landrieu.


CLERK: Ms. Landrieu, no.

Mr. Lautenberg.


CLERK: Mr. Lautenberg, aye.

Mr. Leahy.


CLERK: Mr. Leahy, aye.

Mr. Levin. LEVIN: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Levin, aye.

Mr. Lieberman.


CLERK: Mr. Lieberman, aye.

Mrs. Lincoln.


CLERK: Mrs. Lincoln, no.

Mr. Lott.


CLERK: Mr. Lott, no.

Mr. Lugar.


CLERK: Mr. Lugar, no.

Mr. Mack.


CLERK: Mr. Mack, no.

Mr. McCain.


CLERK: Mr. McCain, no.

Mr. McConnell.


CLERK: Mr. McConnell, no.

Ms. Mikulski.

Mr. Moynihan.


CLERK: Mr. Moynihan, aye.

Mr. Murkowski.


CLERK: Mr. Murkowski, no.

Mrs. Murray.


CLERK: Mrs. Murray, aye.

Mr. Nickles.


CLERK: Mr. Nickles, no.

Mr. Reed of Rhode Island.

REED: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, aye.

Mr. Reid of Nevada.

REID: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Reid of Nevada, aye.

Mr. Robb.

ROBB: Aye.

CLERK: Mr. Robb, aye.

Mr. Roberts.


CLERK: Mr. Roberts, no.

Mr. Rockefeller.


CLERK: Mr. Rockefeller, no.

Mr. Roth.


CLERK: Mr. Roth, no.

Mr. Santorum.


CLERK: Mr. Santorum, no. Mr. Sarbanes.


CLERK: Mr. Sarbanes, aye.

Mr. Schumer.


CLERK: Mr. Schumer, aye.

Mr. Sessions.


CLERK: Mr. Sessions, no.

Mr. Shelby.


CLERK: Mr. Shelby, no.

Mr. Smith of New Hampshire.


CLERK: Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, no.

Mr. Smith of Oregon.


CLERK: Mr. Smith of Oregon, no.

Ms. Snowe.


CLERK: Ms. Snowe, no.

Mr. Specter.


CLERK: Mr. Specter, aye.

Mr. Stevens.


CLERK: Mr. Stevens, no.

Mr. Thomas.


CLERK: Mr. Thomas, no.

Mr. Thompson.


CLERK: Mr. Thompson, no.

Mr. Thurmond.


CLERK: Mr. Thurmond, no.

Mr. Torricelli.


CLERK: Mr. Torricelli, aye.

Mr. Voinovich.


CLERK: Mr. Voinovich, no.

Mr. Warner.


CLERK: Mr. Warner, no.

Mr. Wellstone.


CLERK: Mr. Wellstone, aye.

Mr. Wyden.


CLERK: Mr. Wyden, aye.

Mr. Helms.


CLERK: Mr. Helms, no.

Mr. Byrd.


CLERK: Mr. Byrd, no. Mr. Gramm of Texas.


CLERK: Mr. Gramm of Texas, no.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the senator from Massachusetts.

CLERK: Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, no.

CLERK: On this vote, the yea's are 41, the nay's are 58. Two- thirds of those senators voting, a quorum being present, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.

REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, that motion being defeated, I believe it's now in order to move to close the session so that we can have debate on the question of the motion to subpoena witnesses.

REHNQUIST: The majority leader is correct.

LOTT: I so move, Mr. Chief Justice.

REHNQUIST: The question is on the motion. All in favor say "aye."


REHNQUIST: Those opposed, "no."


REHNQUIST: The motion carries.

LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I'd like to ask that the senators remain at their place, but I will put in a request for a quorum just momentarily so the appropriate arrangements can be made for the closed session.

And Mr. Chief Justice, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

REHNQUIST: The clerk will call the roll.


Investigating the President


Tuesday, January 26, 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.