Transcripts For CSPAN President Bill Clinton Impeachment House Judiciary Committee 20240713

Lets begin with the political environment. What led to the impeachment of president clinton . Alexis one of the things we might forget all this time Going Forward was that bill clinton was under investigation for almost his entire presidency and ken starr became the independent counsel. He began to investigate the whitewater investment deal back in 1994. So, by the time were in the fall of 1998, president clinton and his entire white house were very used to being under investigation for a whole variety of allegations relating to his past in arkansas. And even his Fundraising Efforts when he was president. So in the fall of 1998, he was elected to a second term but they were going into the midterm starr as and what can the independent counsel uncovered was a whole series of alleged relationships that the president had had in the past, that he had investigated, and then he heard of an intern named Monica Lewinsky. So at the time the impeachment inquiry was authorized, and in the house, 31 democrats went along with it, it was really interesting, can starr had a whole report to present and turned over his entire presentation to the House Republicans, who were in the majority then. So the background was fraught with politics. The economy was doing very well. Bill clinton was very popular, but republicans felt they were forced to act because of the nature and the explicit details in the report. Steve the question that continued to come up, did this relationship rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors . What was the republican argument and what was the counterargument from the Clinton White house . Alexis well, remember president clinton denied it at first, so the defense evolved over time. The republicans were asserting the report required them to investigate, not necessarily because this was about sex or sexual contact, but because it was a violation of the president oath of office, because the allegations were he tried to during and subsequently a deposition to a grand jury, the allegation was that he had lied, that he had tried to encourage others to lie for him, including his secretary at the time, betty curry, and that he had tried to basically find a job for Monica Lewinsky through a friend to keep her quiet. So, the whole allegation in this inquiry suggested they were compelled to pursue this and the president s denial was a witchhunt. Steve as you look at the investigation, is there a double standard to what we saw in 1998 and what were seeing today . Alexis its so interesting to see the echo of some of the same terms and words and talking points that we listened to in 1998 and 1999. President clinton, at the time, as we remember vividly, did a lot of his own defense. He came to his own defense. He actually spoke at the microphone, pointed his finger, and said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. But i want to say one thing to the American People. I want you to listen to me. Im going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, miss is the minsky. Lewinsky. Mrs. I have never told anybody to lie. These allegations are false. Alexis he talked about it as a political coup detat. He said it was a witchhunt, that was a political act. Some of the same words, the same concept of making a really strong effort, both in the clinton impeachment and in President Trumps inquiry, had been focused on trying to make possible. Partisan as and i mentioned to you that when the house authorized the inquiry under president clinton, remember they voted to support an actual inquiry, 31 democrats across the aisle and supported that. What we have seen with President Trump is a really strong republican effort to stand with him and no republicans voted in september for the inquiry. Steve lets talk about the timeline. With the Midterm Election year, 1998. What happened in november of 1998, the republicans maintaining control of the house of representatives. Speaker Newt Gingrich is the speaker in this time period. Alexis speaker gingrich had begun to outlive his the patience of his caucus. Because in the Midterm Elections, the democrats picked up seats, which was considered unusual. Usually the party in power he loses seats. The democrats used impeachment as a political weapon. Speaker gingrich begin to lose the confidence of his caucus and there was an internal effort to push amount. And he real ash push him out. And he push him out. And then he realized his days were numbered. And then they picked a new speaker, bob livingston. He initially had tremendous support. And then to everyones shock and amazement, when they began to get ready for the impeachment discussion, bob livingston, to everyones shock, said that he was going to resign. And the reason he said he was going to resign was because he too had allegations in his past of extramarital relations. And at that time, larry flynt was offering big, big money to anyone who would provide information about any of the republican impeachment managers matters or those involved that they had had allegations in the past. It was surprising how many of them had, including the chairman, henry hyde, who said an extramarital relationship he had when he was 40 was a youthful indiscretion. Steve four articles of impeachment. In just a moment, were going to let lets talk about the proceedings and the hearings. Where they televised . What kind of reactions did they receive . Alexis they were televised. By the time bill clinton was ,acing this, cable existence the basic mainstream news coverage. There was a lot of discussion about how many articles if impeachment to put forward and it turns out they ended up voting for of them. There was discussion about how many would have enough votes to proceed on, and there was backandforth trading among the House Republican managers and the Judiciary Committee, Straight Party line vote to approve four of them. By the time it got to a house floor, only to them were endorsed by the entire rubble can conference. Steve where they viewed as highly partisan . Alexis they were painted as being highly partisan by defenders of the president. The concern was whether there was enough evidence to support what they were alleging. So, the four articles of impeachment were perjury, lying under of, obstruction of justice, related to what i was just describing, the president s effort to hide his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Steve thats the debate well see in a moment, but please continue. Alexis there was a third argument with perjury, but it had to do with written answers, civil litigation that the president was being accused of lying. Ken starr was saying he was lying under oath. In the fourth was abuse of power. There was an allegation the president and his team had like to congress and abused his power as president. That has Judiciary Committee passed all four along party lines. For the time it moved forward to of house floor, only two those survived, and it was basically a perjury and an obstruction. Steve what do you remember . What was your take away . Alexis i was covering the white house. My perspective was very much in talking to the president and his team. There were a couple things i remember vividly. One was when the story broke, you may remember this was an investigative story that newsweek was trying to break, but actually to make sure the reporting was complete. And it emerged on drudge, which was a brandnew website. It opened the door to help many outlets now are published. I remember going upstairs to the press office, talking to the president s senior staffers. I can remember asking a question depalma gala, who is absolutely just sure this did not happen and was frustrated reporters were willing to even consider that this had happened, this relationship with the intern. And the president s top aides were furious. Some of them never got over it and left after impeachment as soon as they could. The chief of staff was another. The other thing i remember about it from the perspective of the entire process is that president clinton believed that denying for as long as he did, seven months, and circling the wagons, getting his surrogates out there to defend him, actually helped him survive. There clinton was a big fighter and there is no question he was going to resign. That was so clear. He was going to fight it to the end, and he did, and felt very proud of himself for doing it. He considered it defending the constitution. It wasnt certain exactly how it was going to turn out. The televised hearings were salacious, but the thing remember is president clinton had unbelievable support. The time that he was actually impeached, his job approval was 73 . The American People had made their judgment. They were passed his reelection. They were heading to the end, his final two years, and they just thought it was personal behavior and that it was too much. The republicans had gone too far. And the economy was very good and they were willing to look the other way. The other element thats interesting, even of President Trump, the American People were not shocked that president clinton liked women, young women, any women. This was not a surprise to them. In some ways, the president profited not only by denying it, but also having a reputation the American People understood, that this was part of his past. Steve with that background from december 11, 1998 the has to do cheery committee taking up four articles of impeachment. The clip youre about to see dealing with one of those articles. The committee will now consider article three. Are there any amendments to article three . If not, i will mr. Chairman . The gentleman from virginia. Well you asking for just cycle that forward. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Ok. Are there any minutes . There are no limits. It is the chairs intention, when we finish this article, to adjourn for the evening and come back at 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow morning. I just wanted to announce that, for scheduling purposes, now does anyone seek recognition . Was that mr. Scott . Yes. He is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, i think we ought to reflect a bit about this article. We have things like a false affidavit and false statements. The gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, spared me the necessity of quoting from the dictionary. Certain words but monica lubinski was not provided with lubinski Monica Lewinsky was not provided with the definitions. There was evidence that she didnt know she was being recorded. She said what she thought certain words meant. Knew they wereo being recorded, trying to get her to change her mind about the definition, but Monica Lewinsky didnt. We have to have a witness for there to be tampering. After you review that hearsay and dubious inferences, you still have to place the article allegations in the context of impeachment. Our authority to do what some wanted to do but couldnt do with the polls, that is defeat bill clinton, is related to treason and high crimes and misdemeanors. High is a word that isnt really used much in america because its an english word against the state. Us to pays also told close attention to another word in the phrase, and that is other. Its treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And is treason, bribery, stuff like that in effect against the government. It has to be a subversion of the constitution. There has to be a danger and the president staying in office. That is, the president must be removed because of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. He will later be subject to rule of law like everyone else. When we review these to see if they are Impeachable Offenses, we have to remember what impeachment is for. Its to protect our nation. We look at the history of impeachment and what kinds of offenses have been Impeachable Offenses. We look at watergate and the corrupt use of the cia, fbi, internal revenue, and lying about it have been Impeachable Offenses. But 500 million tax fraud, where the evidence was overwhelming, and certainly stronger than the hearsay and inferences were lying on today relying on today, they did not support a serious crime, but not a high crime. Furthermore, our experts unanimously agreed that the term treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors does not cover all felonies. So we cannot remove a president because he failed to faithfully execute the laws when we cant stand him being president anymore. The rule of lagos tricks our authority to act to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. So even if we believed the hearsay and inferences before us, there is been no showing the conduct constitutes a threat for our form of government, and thats what historians and legal scholars have told us that whether or not these allegations are true, they are not Impeachable Offenses. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I rise in support of the article of impeachment and recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, this article of impeachment is to one that relates to obstruction of justice by president clinton. There is seven specifically mentioned instances of alleged obstruction of justice that are contained in this article, and it does have the words one or more in that so we dont have the problem of making that interpretation. There will be members on the republican side of the aisle which will specifically address themselves to each of these instances of obstruction of justice. But i think that if we looked at it from the criminal context, which were not here, theres got to be three elephants of what means obstruction of justice. First, theres got to be a federal pending judiciary proceeding. There was in this case with the paula jones civilrights loss. Secondly, the defendants have to know of the proceeding. Mr. Clinton was the civil defendant in that lawsuit. Hed been served the papers on it. In third, that the defendant acted correctly in attempt to interfere with the proceeding. The first of the seven instances that are contained in article three states that on or about december 17, 1997, William Jefferson clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a fizzle civilRights Action brought against him, to execute a sworn affidavit in a proceeding he knew to be perjurious false and misleading. In his deposition testimony in january of this year, the president said he spoke with monica the whiskey before Christmas Monica lubinski before christmas, and would not be sure if she would testify, she might qualify or Something Like that. The president denied encouraging ms. Lewinsky, but in answer 18 to the 81 questions submitted to this committee, he did say that he told her that other witnesses had executed affidavits and there was a chance that they would not have to testify. Hint hint. Emphaticnski was more on the subject and her grand jury testimony. When she asked what she should do, maybe you can sign an affidavit. Be to prevent me from being disposed so they can range anywhere between just somehow mentioning innocuous things are going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of relationship. Thats what Monica Lewinsky told the grand jury. She further stated she was 100 sure, 100 sure the president suggested she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. That was to an independent counsel interview, false statements of which are a federal crime. Noted they also president never explicitly instructed her to lie about the matter, rather since the president never told her to file an affidavit, detailing the true nature of their sexual relationship, which would only invite humiliation and prove damage in the paula jones case, she contextually understood the president wanted her to live. That also is in the referral. Furthermore, attorneys for paula jones are seeking evidence for sexual relationships the president may have had with other state or federal employees. Such information is deemed irrelevant to help prove the underlying claim, the plaintiff. Judge susan weber ruled paula jones was entitled to this information for purposes of discovery. Encouragedesident Monica Lewinsky to fire an affidavit, he knew he would have to to be false. If she filed a truthful affidavit, acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president , she certainly would as a truthfuled witness and it would have looked damaging politically. I yield back the chairman of my time. For what purpose, the gentleman from michigan . I rise to strike the last words. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Three,eviewing article obstruction of justice, i review these seven causes and its almost like weve come here this evening and have never examined the facts of the matter. Throughve all been gone repeatedly. Each one can be very carefully answered. Affidavit by an anyonebinski, is there here who doesnt know that she swore that no one ever asked her to lie and the decision to what the affidavit should contain was a decision made by her alone . And the president said miss lubinski might avoid to testify by filing a limited but truthful affidavit, a perfectly legal activity on his part . And as a matter of fact, what her own lawyer ended up doing. In clause seven statement to aids, the president made statements to staff on january in order tod 26th, protect his family from discovering the lubinski relationship. He could not have known that his staff would be called at that time before the office of independent counsels grand jury. The president s denial of his relationship with miss lewinsky to his staff was after he had already made the same denial to the public. The president was not singling out his staff. He denied it to everyone. He was not denying that affair to his staff with the idea they would be called before the independent counsel grand jury. Because six, attempting to influence betty curry. We heard repeated testimony that the president of the United States did not attempt to influence that he currys testimony in any proceeding when he spoke with her on the sunday and the tuesday, january 18 and 20th, respectively, the news regarding miss lubinski miss lewinsky broke in the media. The president was concerned with what he knew to be a leak of his deposition testimony. He could not have known about the oic investigation, so therefore he could not have thought that ms. Curry was or could be on a witness list. With reference to statements by the president s lawyers, because five, there is no way they allowed him to make in fact, the president testified he was not focusing on his attorney when he made the statements. Instead, he was concentrating on his own testimony and his disposition deposition. There is no evidence the president encouraged his attorney to make those statements or even had any idea his attorney would make them for him. Four,e go with clause the job search. How many times has this been put into evidence, that there is nothing to connect the efforts to help miss lewinsky find a job with submission of an affidavit . Shes testified that no one ever promised her a job. That may be the 45th time that phrase has been uttered in this room. If the president were intent on getting her a job, he clearly would have done that and could have done that. The fact that he did not know shows that there was no linkage with her affidavit. And then, of course, we have the all situation in which witnesses agree the job search started long before Monica Lewinsky was named on the jones witness list. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent to put my statement into the record at this point. Without objection. I return anytime. Expired. Mens time has for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition . I seek to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. I wanted to address the second paragraph of this article of impeachment. December 17, 1997, William Jefferson clinton encouraged a witness in a civil rights allegation against him to give misleading testimony if and when called to testify in that proceeding. This has reference to a call that occurred on december 17 at a. M. M. Or 230 the president of the United States learns that Monica Linsky is on the witness list and he calls her first two reportedly advise betty currys brother had passed away. But the real purpose was to advise her that bad news, your name is on the witness list. They discussed this. He said if you are subpoenaed, contact betty. Then he told her you can always say you were coming to see betty or that you were bringing me letters, according to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. And this is very important because here you have a witness in a federal civil rights case. Civil rights suit. And in this case, the president personally calls this witness to let her know they are going to be subpoenaed, that you are on the witness list, and to tell them how to handle it and to encourage her not to provide truthful testimony, but to provide false testimony and to provide a cover story for her, suggesting you can always say. And this is confirmed. The president denies this in part. He admits the telephone conversation took place and theres corroboration to it. But he has no specific recollection. Monica linsky has a clear recollection. I think the weight of the evidence ghost the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. Second, it is consistent with pattern of deception. They had arranged the cover story. When it moved into the legal context, they continued that scheme in the legal context by suggesting the same cover story would apply in testimony, underwrote, in the civil rights case. And so theres no dispute about the call. It is consistent with a pattern of deceit. There is a motive for the president to encourage the perjury. And then it is also consistent with the false affidavit that is provided by Monica Lewinsky. Theuld also call upon testimony of mr. Jordan, who confirmed in this case in his testimony that president clinton lubinski Monica Monica lewinski. I believe you have clear testimony and because of the corroboration and because of the motivation behind it, the other testimony, the consistency, that this paragraph and this allegation does arise to obstruction of justice. I yield back. Gentlemens time has expired. For the purpose gentlemen of new york rise . I moved to strike the last word. Gentlemen is recognized for five minutes. I think the gentleman and let me say that, particularly on the second article, while i cer tainly believe that, even assuming the facts that mr. Starr presented in mr. Schippers reiterated, it doesnt rise to the level of impeachment. I can see the argument among my colleagues that, in a basic criminal context or a civil context, there is a strong argument on the other side. And in article one, to a somewhat lesser extent, i think the gentleman from massachusetts summed it up, as well. Yeah, its sort of trivial, but you might be able to make a legalistic argument, albeit one that doesnt come close to impeachment. But when we get to articles three and four, we really begin to reach. Article three reaches, article four reaches an almost gets into the theater of the observed. Absurd. But today, we are focusing on article three. Based on clear and convincing evidence, which the majority professes to use, were not even close. Yes, you can swing string together facts and surmise this is the motivation. But theres, at the very least, the plausible explanation there a different motivation and there is not one direct fact that shows that the motivation attributed by the gentleman from arkansas to the president is the motivation. How can we submit articles of impeachment based on surmise . Even mr. Starr admitted it was surmise. So take the job hunt. Yes, there was a job hunt. We all agree it started before there was any knowledge of a judicial process of a polident suit and continued after. We all agreed it was a very similar job search. We all agreed there were two very plausible explanations after it became clear that there was a paula jones lawsuit and a deposition. To get Monica Lewinsky away from the scene to prevent the continuation of an illicit affair. And two, to keep Monica Lewinsky quiet before a judicial proceeding. One explanation is as plausible as the next. In fact, the noncriminal explanation is more plausible because it began before we even knew there was a possible intervention, judicial intervention. And yet the majority has the by clearto say oh, no, and convincing evidence, that he was giving it to prevent her from testifying. I ask you, where is your direct evidence . Where is it more than surmise . And you have an obligation, in my judgment, to make sure its more than surmise if you are asking us to impeach, if you are asking america to impeach its president. Same thing with the Monica Lewinsky story. Yes, it is true, we all admit the president and Monica Lewinsky had a cover story. A story that was not truthful, that was of lies. Before, it once again before any knowledge of the grand jury, and a knowledge of a deposition. And again, just on the basis of surmise, the majority says oh yes they did it, to deceive. In the deposition and in the grand jury. Thats not good enough, ladies and gentlemen. You need more than that to be convincing in a court of law, and you certainly need more than that to impeach a president. And finally, because my time is ending, and finally, listen to this one, ladies and gentlemen. The president didnt tell the truth to his cabinet about Monica Lewinsky because he thought they might later be called into a grand jury, and he wanted to mislead them. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. Gentlemens time has expired. I ask for an additional minute. Consent, themous gentleman is granted another minute. I think you. To think the president would lie to his cabinet, not tell the truth when he had no idea there would be a deposition and no idea there would be a grand jury proceeding because he wanted them not to tell the truth. We can do a lot better. We must do a lot better than that. Put together,ng, piece by piece, that leads to a conclusion that is so demonstrably stretched, that when people ask why do some out there believe that the motivation here is more partisan than coming directly on the facts . I would not argue that on counts one and two. But when you look at count three and particularly count four, it is not logical, some people on the others are out to get the man, regardless of the facts. For what purpose the gentleman from South Carolina rise . Strike the last word. Gentlemen is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i think its important to bring up some facts about paragraph three in this part of this article. About thee talking scheme to conceal evidence that has been subpoenaed and civil Rights Action brought against the president. And, of course, we heard from minority counsel and the thisdents counsel that was not orchestrated by the president and therefore they would dispute this claim in this particular article. But i think that the evidence clearly indicates, clearly indicates, an ever hear, a scheme to effort here, a scheme. And it is evident by a telephone record. Its indicative of the excellent detective work done here. What happened, this testimony that she lewinskey, was concerned about the gifts, she raised the issue with the president. Her about thetold suggestion that possibly she should do something with gifts. The president , according to Monica Lewinsky, said i dont know. Let me think about that. And then later that day, miss lewinsky got a call from ms. Curry saying i understand you have something to give me or Something Like the president said you have something to give me. On this point, ms. Curry, as mr. Schippers pointed out, has a fuzzy memory. Actually,ported that, she couldnt remember, but the best she could remember, she thinks that Monica Lewinsky called her, that he curry. But that betty curry. But that is contradicted by a key piece of evidence. And that is the cell phone record of ms. Currys phone, showing that she placed a call within hours after she left the white house on that day to Monica Lewinsky. And with that evidence, its clear that the call was initiated by miss curry to Monica Lewinsky and, of course, that is further buttressed by the fact that why else would ms. Curry call miss lewinsky and ask if she had something for her to pick up . And why would she take that box of gifts and put it under her bed . These are not normal things that people do. You dont call up somebody, ask if you have something for me, and then takes the box and put it under your bed. It just defines defies common sense to think it was the other way around, in other words that ms. Curry, or that miss lewinsky was initiating the transfer here. Its pretty clear from this evidence, and i think clear and convincing from this evidence, that the president must have been involved in a scheme to get those gifts from Monica Lewinsky into the hands of his trusted secretary, betty curry, and that was part of a scheme to obstruct justice in this case, to stop the discovery of this information. Is so, mr. Chairman, i think clear that this particular paragraph of the articles of impeachment is clearly substantiated by the evidence. I yield back the balance of my time. Gentlemens time is expired. To what point the gentleman from massachusetts rise . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im really pleased that my friend has raised this particular evidence, because i would suggest that this is peril of this particular approach that this committee has adopted. Never hearing once from a witness. Never hearing from ms. Curry or miss lewinsky, verdant jordan, or anyone else. Shame on us. Just simply taking written documents and suggesting that that constitutes evidence totally unlike what occurred during the watergate inquiry, where, as charles wiggins, a republican member, in the minority, told us that they heard from john dean, from mr. Haldeman and mr. Eyre lytton, shame on us. We did have that responsibility and now we are doing it real sloppy. Let me tell you, i did my own homework on this particular inglis. Mr. Youre right, its undisputed that miss lewinsky returned the gifts to ms. Curry, and did so on the 28th. The key question is whether the president asked ms. Curry to retrieve the gifts or whether miss lewinsky made her own arrangements to return the gifts without clintons involvement. On wednesday, the impediment counsel released independent counsel released a statement to the press, which i would submit into the record, without objection. So ordered. Taking issue with the presentation to the committee and claiming the president s involvement is substantiated by the billing records for ms. Currys cellular telephone account, just as you mentioned. The records, and mr. Schippers, as you indicated, use them in the closing statement to the committee, indicated that the one minute call was placed from his currys cell phone to miss lewinskys telephone number at 3 30 p. M. In his press release, the independent counsel claims that ms. Curry placed this call for the purpose of arranging to pick up the gifts from miss lewinsky. In his closing statement to the committee, mr. Schippers made much of the document. Quote, that it, and i corroborates monica lubinski and proves conclusively that ms. Curry called monica from her cell phone several hours after she left the white house. Why did betty curry pick up the ,ifts from miss lewinsky mr. Schippers asked . And he answered, the facts are the facts. Oh, if we only had facts. The facts strongly suggest the president directed her to do so, and that his support for the charge is that the president saw to conceal evidence. But know what . Theres a problem with this socalled evidence. It is directly and explicitly contradicted by the fbi report of the interview with monica july,ky, taken this past on july 27 of this year. That report, which appears in the first appendix to the starr referral on page 1,396. As you know, there are 60,000 pages in their, so i dont blame mr. Schippers for missing it and i certainly dont suggest he would try to mislead the committee. Quoting. Lewinsky met curry on 28th street outside miss lewinskys apartment at about 2 00 p. M. And gave curry the box of gifts. But at 2 30 p. M. Was the transfer of those gifts, an hour and a half discrepancy. This raises the following question. If the Gift Exchange the gentlemans time expired. I ask unanimous consent for an additional two minutes. Without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This raises the following question. If the Gift Exchange had already taken place at 2 00 p. M. , how could the telephone call placed at 3 32 have been for the purpose of arranging it . This is what i would suggest some would conclude is a considerable inconsistency, one of the many troubling inconsistencies in the documents themselves. Yet this potentially expository materials, from sworn under 03 to, documents under both materials, documents, from the possession of mr. Starr, was never acknowledged by mar. Starr,nor unfortunately was acknowledged by mr. Schippers. And im not suggesting it was intentional, affirmatively left the committee to believe the call was for the purpose of arranging for miss lewinsky to pick up the gift. Now we are preparing to vote on an article of impeachment that is substantially based on that telephone call. What was the purpose of the call . We dont know. It appears that the investigators never asked and we have never had the opportunity to ask because we have not heard from the witnesses themselves. And this is no way to conduct an inquiry, mr. Chairman. Its a disgrace and its an insult to the rule of law. With the gentleman yield for a question of what the citation was on that . On page 1,300 something, as i recall. 1,396. I yield. Thank you. Gentlemens time has again expired. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Witnesses and defendants, witnesses who were targets of investigations and defendants in cases frequently have very clear motive to take steps to either ensure that adverse witnesses dont appear in court in order to testify against them, to provide testimony at other times and places, or to change, in some way, the testimony so it is not damaging or less damaging to the target or the defendant. That being a fact of human nature and the federal government for many years having knowledge of that characteristic of defendants and targets of investigations, its had on the books in title 18, the criminal code, provisions of our criminal laws that address that and seek to prevent or punish those who infect take steps to, what is termed in the eyes of the law, tamper with witnesses. Specifically mr. Chairman, that statute is found at huc, criminal code 1512. 1515, addition, section which contains definitions relevant to that code. In essence, mr. Chairman, and this is in large part the essence also of paragraph four of this third article of looking at, we are the provision of title 18, section 1512, which provides in part whoever knowingly engages in misleading conduct towards another person with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any official proceeding, causes or induces any person to be due the withhold testimony, evade legal process, or be absent from an official proceeding, or hinder, delay, or prevent communication, is guilty of a criminal offense. Turning to section 1515, one finds a commonsense definition of misleading conduct, as well as commonsense definitions of official proceedings, and to corruptly persuade. When one then turns to the evidence in this case, and the evidence regarding the socalled jobsearch, one fact that immediately jumps to mind is, why would the most powerful human being on the face of the earth, that is the president of the United States of america, and one of the most prominent, and in legal circles and washington, one of the most powerful private attorneys, dropped essentially everything they are doing, and the president consulate reminds us how important his work is, as indeed it is, and conduct a job search for what might be termed, at best, a second or third rate employee . Jordan testified that he had indeed conducted quite a few job searches for individuals of note to him. The former mayor of the city of new york, a talented attorney, one of the preeminent law firms in washington. A Harvard Business school graduate, Monica Lewinsky. Contrarynd of itself, to the pattern of activity this particular witness, and by the way that testimony was, controverted by the testimony of a ceo of a fortune five under said he mr. Berman, who had never called him about a job search, raises a legitimate presumption there was a reason other than a legitimate job search for Monica Lewinsky that occupied considerable attention of the president and Vernon Jordan, and one finds indeed that the president suggested to her that it might be appropriate if she took a job in new york and he would help her find that through Vernon Jordan, someone hereto for was unknown to miss lewinsky, that this might cause her to avoid being called as a witness or available as a witness, and indeed, that is what happened. Mission accomplished, in the words of mr. Jordan. I believe very clearly, mr. Chairman, that we have here a very substantial case involving a violation of title 18, the u. S. , code, section 1515, tampering with the witness. I would ask for unanimous consent for two additional minutes. Without objection. I think the chairman. Involving the effort, the willful effort on the part of the president to cause miss lewinsky or to take steps to cause miss lewinsky once it became known she would become a witness, that she had become subpoenaed. The other side might make some hay out of the fact that miss lewinsky had really been involved in a job search for quite some time. Indeed that has been the case since july of 1997. What certainly raises legitimate suspicions and fits within a pattern of activity here in the evidence, mr. Chairman, is the fact that this went from a back burner effort by a second or third rate employee of the government to a very accelerated effort involving a flurry of by they by mr. Jordan ceo of a major fortune 500 corporation, involving indeed the u. S. Ambassador to the united nations, all set into motion after it became known, not before, but after it became known, that miss lewinsky would indeed be a witness and provide testimony in the paula jones case. Appropriate, reasonable, common sense conclusions, which even in a criminal proceeding, would be instructed by a District Court judge they could properly conclude based on the evidence, which is very voluminous, set forward by mr. Schippers and uncontroverted. I believe there is more than a substantial basis, more than adequate basis for paragraph four of article three, involving tampering with a federal witness by the president of the United States of america. For what persons purpose does a gentleman arise . Mr. Chairman, the recklessness of the republican isority and its proceeding really illustrated by articles three and four. Have stated many times, the articles one into are not sufficient, they dont rise to the level of Impeachable Offenses, even if movable, and there is not sufficient evidence. But numbers three and four, frankly, dont pass the giggle test. They are quite simply laughable, as well as outrageous. The president encourage miss. Ewinsky she asked how she could avoid testifying and he said, well, other witnesses have been allowed to not testify in person by submitting an affidavit. Maybe they will let you do that as well. No evidence, no testimony from anybody that he asked her to follow a false affidavit as to suggesting she can file it as appearing in front of a grand jury, which she was understandably nervous about. She testifies he never asked her to lie. There is no contradictory testimony at all. Yet, there surmise, as mr. Is sufficient to make that part of an articles of impeachment. Search, helping someone find a job is not illegal. Generally considered praiseworthy. Connected tovident help miss lewinsky find a job with her submission of an affidavit or her testimony. She testified that no one ever promised her a job. The suggestion to tie them together we know came from linda tripp. We know that from the tapes. We know if the president were really intend content on getting a judge, he could have done that. He is a powerful person. The fact that he did not show there was linkage with her affidavit what linkage do we have with her affidavit . None at all, except surmise. The fact that it started before there was knowledge that she might be called as a witness, might have to file an affidavit or appear indicates there was no connection. Beyond which, even the surmise. There surmises, why else would or anyone be interested in helping this young woman . Must be a corrupt motive. Well, no it mustnt be. Betty currie was a friend. Betty currie asked for help. Why would betty currie astrid and taylor to help Monica Lewinsky find a job . Maybe because Monica Lewinsky was a friend of hers. That is as logical as any other explanation. Thats as logical as the for whichxplanation there was no evidence whatsoever. This is a classic example of a logical fallacy some of us learned in college. After this, therefore, because of this. After this, therefore because of a lot of different reasons. Gifts towinsky gave betty currie. It must be because the president was trying to hide the evidence. It must be because the president asked betty currie to retrieve the gifts. Except that betty currie said that was not the case. Betty currie testified Monica Lewinsky was the one who asked her to get the gift. But we are told there was this phone call. Now, there is no evidence of what was called what was said in that phone call. What is the difference . We can pretend it makes a difference. Though he destroyed that by showing he showed the phone call happen in our after. There is no evidence whatsoever. F evil motives we have been suggested to outrageous leaps of logic. Being givents were by Monica Lewinsky to betty currie because the president wanted to get evidence away from her, why would he be giving her additional gifts on the same day . If he is trying to get the evidence away from her, why is he giving more evidence . There are outrageous leaves of logic. We are told that he attempts to deal with it the gentlemans time has expired. Can i have an additional two minutes . Mrs. Lewinsky additional gifts after betty currie retrieved the gifts acting allegedly on the president s behalf. He says, he told his committee with a straight face, the only logical interest is at the gifts, including the bear symbolizing strength, were attached to remind missile linsky that they would deny the relationship, even in the face of a federal subpoena. Is he kidding . We aresense like this going to overturn the votes of the American People . A bear symbolizing strength was lewinsky, to monica and a secret code to continue to deny the relationship . I dont think so. I think the bear was a warning by the president the stock market was going to tank and she should put her money and bonds. It has as much evidence behind it. The fact is, this is a nonsense article. Finally, the fact that the president spoke to coworkers in his office, to people he works the every day and told them same cover story that he was presumably telling his wife and others to protect his family because he was ashamed of the relationship. Is evidence of the fact that he is having a cover story notsexual affair, he was proud of it and did not wanted to go public. And that becomes an Impeachable Offense . This is ludicrous, along with the rest of this article, mr. Chairman. The gentleman from utah, mr. Cannon. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. I think it is a compelling case mr. Nat there has made for a scheme. I would like to point out it does not have the weight he would suggest. 30 2, 1indicate, and a of the fbi reports, which was done on july 27, 1998, that on december 28, the document was done on the 27th. Monica lewinsky said that on december 28,s death so roughly december 28, so , hehly seven months earlier was outside of her apartment on 28th street to give those gifts to miss curry at about 2 00 p. M. You have a call at 3 32, which is fixed in the records of herself on. I suspect that there may have been a mistake by missile linsky of an hour and a half and that is not substantial. I would like to talk briefly the fact that mr. Clinton, president clinton allowed his attorney to make false statements. Affidavitacterized an in order to prevent questioning, the course of the question, the judges deemed relevant. On generate 15, the attorney for president clinton obtained a copy of the affidavit sat monica lewins you filed to avoid testifying by herself in the jones case. In this affidavit you l recall lewinsky related relayed she never had sexual relations with the president. Two days later, the president was asked questions about his relationship with miss lewinsky. We saw this on the video recently. Mr. Bennett objected to the innuendos of the questions. She signedout that an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the president. Asserted this indicated there was no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form. We all heard that being stated as the president sat there and nodded a couple of times. After a warning from judge wright he stated, i am not coaching the witness the witness is fully aware of miss jane does affidavit. Mr. Bennett used it an attempt to stop the questioning about missile linsky. He did not stop even though he knew it was false. Later in the deposition he read that the president , the portion of the affidavit in which he denied having a sexual relationship. He asked the president of missile linsky statement was true and accurate. The president responded it is absolutely true. The grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky given under oath and following immunity, confirmed that the contest of revenue for affidavit were not true. The affidavit, she says under questioning, i have never had a sexual relationship with the president , is that true . Her answer is, no, it is not true. When the president was asked how he could be backing off from the lewinsky testimony ended howimony to the grand jury, he couldve lawfully sat silent in the deposition about his attorney making a false , the president said he was not paying a great deal of attention. He also said, i did not Pay Attention to this call that went on. The videotape deposition said mr. Bennett was making a statement about no sex of any kind. The president then argued that when mr. Bennett made the assertion that there is no sex, he was speaking in the present tense. Therefore we get that famous is what question. The president stated it depends on what the medium is. If it means there is none, that is a true statement. President clinton suggestion that he mightve engaged in such in thens of the word deposition is our with his assertion. Umanas consent for two minutes to be yielded. Are you aware that the president s attorney has, since this time, sent a request or a letter to the court with formally roadrunner drop withdrawing that affidavit . I am aware and i think that is a remarkable stack. That, i understand as an officer of the court, do you understand the significance of that action and how that impacts the president . I do understand, but you are a federal prosecutor and it might be nice if you stated that. What do you think that is . Several on this panel, but my understanding of these facts were that mr. Bennett, the lawyer for the president , as any attorney would in any litigation, once they find out that there has been improper or false evidence submitted to the court, as an officer of the court, they have a duty to notify the judge of that and to take proper steps to disassociate themselves from their client, or withdraw that evidence from the court. I just wanted to point that out to you. Yield. Another great prosecutor over there, mr. Delahunt. Mr. Cannon alluded to the fact that you are a United States attorney and suggest that you respond to one of his questions. I see my friend from arkansas, mr. Hutchinson also. As former u. S. Attorneys, both of you, and for whom i truly have Great Respect for, let me pose a question. Clinton out of the deposition. Substitute ordinary citizen. When either one of you have brought a perjury case when you with the United States attorney . The context that i pose this is out we have five United States thatneys here, testifying in both the grand jury, as well as the deposition the gentlemans time has again expired. Allowing to speak out of turn for one minute. Be the want to appear to grinch who still christmas, but i want to tell my democrat and republican friends alike, i think five minutes are sufficient. If it does not annoy anybody to severely, i intend to subject object at the end of each fiveminute segment so we can go home and go to bed. The gentlemans time is expired. For what purpose do you seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized for five minutes exactly. You, mr. Chairman. I want to proceed very carefully and what i say here. I think of all the articles in this document. This is the one that is most troubling to me. When i hear mr. Cannon referred to a scheme, it troubles me even further. Because i really think there are article thatn this come dangerously close to mccarthyism. We went to red time in our when, behind every tree there was a communist. If you made a phone call to communist,o was a you became a communist. We assume the absolute worst. And what i see happening in some article, and when you do that, you start to presume things that just, they bad people behind every treaty and bad motivations for every phone call and bad motivations for every contacts, even when the contacts are completely innocent. Just want to specifically look at parts six and seven on page of the articles where, when the president is having a ,onversation with ms. Currie you say that, i presume you are talking about ms. Currie, on our about january 18, january of 20, dennis 21. They created a misleading cause of events relevant to a federal civil Rights Action brought against him to a potential inness in that proceeding order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. Now we know that in the apologetic case, when the president had a conversation with ms. Currie, that conversation the discovery was almost over. It was within a few days of being over and ms. Curries name had never appeared on a witness list. She iss notion that somehow a potential witness, i dont know where it comes from. And then you go back later and you do the same thing. Let me show you where this leads in mr. Schiffers presentation yesterday and show you how sinister it becomes. Says, when he called ms. Currie, he made sure that this was a facetoface meeting, not in personal telephone call. He made sure that no one else was present when he spoke to her. He made sure that he had the meeting in his office, an area where he was comfortable and could utilize his hour and pressed each to influence future testimony. Once these controls were established, the president made short, clear understandable declarative statements telling ms. Currie what his testimony was. Now, that is fine if thats what at what thet look actual statements were that the president may. They are, one page before he has given us this declarative statement, he has told us what the statements were. One, i was never really alone with Monica Wright . Is that a declarative statement . There two, you are always when monica was there, right . Is that a declarative statement . And i neveron to me touched her, right . The gentlemans time has expired. I ask for two additional minutes. The objection is heard. Andf you set the precedent you will be the beneficiary of it as well. Heard, the time of the gentleman from North Carolina is expired. With the gentleman from North Carolina like to strike the last word and get five minutes . I will strike the last word in use one minute. I did that to put everybody on notice. Will the gentleman yield two minutes to me . No. I think five minutes are adequate. I always finish before that red light illuminates. Made the declarative statement. Yield back my time. The time from the gentleman from North Carolina has expired. Shrike the last word. The gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. I want to follow up on comments made. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Point of order is it should be a democrat now. I think the chairman made the right call. The gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. May i have the full five minutes . Yes. Its ok with us, check with cold. [laughter] the want to follow up on issues raised by the gentleman from North Carolina about paragraph six in this article concerning the conversations that the president had with ms. Currie on january 18 then january 28 in january 21. The record reflects that president clinton tried to influence the testimony of his personal secretary by coaching her to recite in accurate answers to possible questions that might be asked if her if called to testify in the case of jones versus clinton. The president did the shortly after he was deposed, as we all know. In his deposition, when asked about being extraordinary for betty currie to be in the white house between midnight and 6 00 a. M. , the president answered, those are questions you would have to ask her. Furthermore, the president invokes betty curries name multiple times throughout the deposition. Saying that she talked about Vernon Jordan helping mr. Linsky and talking about the move to new york. After mentioning betty currie so often and answering questions in the deposition, it was logical for the president to assume the jones lawyers might call her as a witness. Right there. That is for all of us to see and the president s own words. This is why the president called her about two hours after the completion of his deposition and asked her to come to the office the next day, which was a sunday. Now, the president has stated that on january 18, 19 98, he met with ms. Currie and astor searching questions in an effort to get as much information in as quickly as good, and made certain statements. Although, i do not remember what i said. He president added that urged ms. Currie to tell the truth after learning that the office of independent counsel might subpoena her to testify. Let me go on and tell you what ms. Currie said. You have gone through it, but i think it bears repeating. While testifying before the grand jury, ms. Currie said this. When an oic attorney asked if the president made a series of leading statements in question similar to the following. When shealways there was there, right . We were never really alone. You could see, hear and hear everything. And i neveron to me touched her, right . She wanted to have sex at me and i cannot do that. In her testimony she indicated that the president s remarks were, like statements and questions. On his demeanor and the manner in which he asked the question, she concluded that the president wanted her to agree with them. Ms. Currie that the president was attempting to gauge the reaction and appeared concerned. She also acknowledged that while she indicated that she agreed with the president , she knew he was alone with mr. Linsky and that she could not, or did not hear or see the two of them while they were alone. At the subsequent meeting on january 20 and 2021, ms. Currie stated it was a recapitulation of what we talked about on sunday. The president s response, that he was trying to ascertain what the facts were, or trying to ascertain what bettys perception was is simply not credible. The president knew the facts about what had happened with ms. Lewinsky. Betty currie was not his source of information about the details of that relationship. That is ridiculous on its face. The only reason he had to pose that series of socalled questions, or statements to her was to corruptly influence her testimony. I think that is clear on the face of the record and any contrary interpretation suggests the willful disregard of all the circumstances. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentlemans time has expired. To what purpose does the gentleman from reckitt massachusetts seek recognition . This is a very shoddy effort i agree again that the central fact of this case remains central to this. Consensualn had a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky and thought to consider that desk and feel that. And soughtly to conceal that fact. Theemember that all of other issues that have been raised from the fbi files, etc. , etc. I simply absent. Then the question is, did the president of structure this . There are a number of very strained efforts to prove that. One central fact has been missing. Monica lewinsky is treated here as if she was just bursting to get to that deposition and tell all. The whole premise of this is is at Monica Lewinsky is being preyed upon, suborned, persuaded by this combination of bill clinton not to tell the truth. It isin this context that very relevant that Monica Lewinsky volunteered because the prosecutors knew enough from their case not to ask her. No asked me to, lie and no one promised me a job. I notice my colleagues have developed a very peculiar verbal tic. Monica lewinsky said no when asked me to lie. They are incapable of repeating that without adding the word explicitly. No whenewinsky said asked her to lie. They all say, including Kenneth Starr, owen explicitly asked her to lie. There is an enormous difference between the two. The very fact that my colleagues on the other side almost always at that word explicitly indicates the power of her denial. It is also interesting that Monica Lewinsky is a woman of in 10te perfect memory starrs version, except she had a terrible story of losing hours. Said, she mustve thought it was 2 00 when it was 4 00. This there was nothing to promote that. Betty currie goes through the same thing. We are told that she was willing to give testimony to the grand jury that the majority finds damaging. Betty currie said, Monica Lewinsky initiated the gift transfer. Toty currie was prepared tell the truth, even if it was somewhat damaging to bill clinton. Your siding one of her statements is damaging to bill clinton. When did she become a liar and schemer when she volunteers it . Is most sensible explanation that both bill clinton and Monica Lewinsky wanted to withhold the truth. Neither one of them wanted to do it. Monica lewinsky and bill clinton worked together. They agreed long before apologize was on anybodys horizon for Monica Lewinsky that they would not tell the truth. You have to change the facts. You have to assume that there was this Monica Lewinsky dying to tell everybody. Lets be very clear. Even after all of this, what got Monica Lewinsky to talk with Kenneth Starr threatening to hold just throw her and her mother in prison. Monica lewinsky had a be threatened by Kenneth Starr with imprisonment and have her mother be threatened before she would say it. That is relevant because you are per train this notion that it took all of bill clintons wiles and jordans and betty currie to keep her from doing this. The truth is, she never wanted to do it. She was resisting and vigorously doing it on her own. This young woman only told these facts when she was threatened with risen. That destroys the case. You are accusing bill clinton and betty jordan currie have all denied they did this. You are saying that they did this, to persuade Monica Lewinsky to doing something wanted to do. She did not have to be restrained from testifying. She did not want to testify. Quite the contrary is the case. First, linda tripp tried to get her to do it and Kenneth Starr threats and turned. I think this family to recognize Monica Lewinsky testifying as a central problem and that is why you have so much trouble explaining that no one asked her to lie and no one promised her a job. Yields himself two minutes. I just want to say to the people watching this on television, they might get the wrong idea if we pass these articles of impeachment that we are throwing the president out of office. That is not true. Point of interruption. Once impeachment, trial and removal. You understand we dont do the trial and the house . You understand the trial occurs any other body. What we do is we find whether there is enough evidence to warrant submission to the senate for them to conduct a trial and for them to impose whatever sanction they choose by a two thirds vote. That is the process. Our Founding Fathers were very wise to have the accusatory body not be the adjudicatory body. So all of you may leave the room. [laughter] yes, miss waters . Waters i dont want you to be frightened, i want you to stand up for what you believe in , mr. Chairman. Alsonot want you to user empowered to send a message to the citizen of this country that we are not involved in the most extraordinary effort that leads to the impeachment of the president of the United States of america. This is the significant part. You are getting the ball rolling. I would like to take that my time. I get the gentle ladies message. I am not saying what we do is insignificant. I think it is highly significant greatquires great care, study, great analysis, but i am suggesting to the gentle lady we do not conduct the trial. We merrily decide whether there is enough evidence now. We get on the question of evidence, and i have heard repeatedly, especially from the gentleman you the end of the first row, they did not have a chance to test the credibility of any witnesses. Pageswe excepted 60,000 , grand juryts transcripts, depositions, statements under oath, all under oath. We excepted Monica Lewinskys testimony because it was given under a grand grant of immunity that would be cleared declared null and void if she lied. We were willing to accept all of that testimony under oath. And if the democrats wanted to question it, why in the world in a day and fight these people up to testify under oath . And undergo the withering crossexamination of several of your lawyers . Please, let me finish. I am on a roll now. [laughter] why didnt you call them and for deposition . Why didnt you put them to the crucible of cross examination . Buthad that opportunity, you chose to bring us professors, historians and law deans, which is wonderful and entertaining and illuminating. That you did say not have a chance to test their credibility, that rings a little hollow. Point of personal privilege . Let you hyde i will stretch it that far, but i did not mention your name. Well, you meant me. Chairman hyde i did mean you. [laughter] you keep saying 60,000 documents. They were about civil deposition in grand jury testimony work nobody was crossexamined. My pointwed to finish of personal privilege. Chairman hyde we are nearing the end, lets take a deep breath. What the republican majority would have us do is turn american fairness and due process on its head. They want the accused, president clinton, to prove his innocence. What they brought forth to prove the case against him are two lawyers, judges star and mr. Schiffer arguing from portions of transcripts of deposition and jan grand jury deposition. May i regain my time. That is really not so. That testimony has been taken, its under oath under penalty of perjury. I know the oath may be a matter of some question what some of oath ist we think the significant. We were willing to accept that. If you questioned it, you had every opportunity to do that. I would say to you unreasonably accepted a low burden of proof that do not constitute. That is your opinion. I appreciate your swinging my way. [laughter] the chairman said he would swing to me. Chairman hyde regular order. [laughter] chairman, i do want to take serious issue with the profound point. I really do think we have a series of issues. We will rejoin later, but i do not want to let it go undiscussed. I was struck by your statement that we are not here throwing the president out. I must say, to the extent that i was not clear what the Public Perception was of what we are doing, i am inferring for your , asvow that this is not much as any member of the house could do to get that president out of office, that there is some uneasiness. To denigrate what we are doing. It is true that as a consequence of this the president will not be instantly thrown out of office. It is also true that the only basis for this proceeding and basis for which members can vote for these articles, is that conviction for the president ought to be thrown out of office. There is a tendency that we have seen to try to lighten up impeachment and to take as profound an instrument that can exist in a democratic society. The cancellation of an election by people not the electric electorate. And it has to be there to reduce its impact, or to reduce our apartment is the most philosophical differences between us. Chairman hyde i hear the gentleman, but i thoroughly disagree. I think you denigrate the role of the senate, which has the important adjudicatory role to weigh the evidence, to study what it wants and agree and disagree. Then, our Founding Fathers made it extraordinary difficult to eliminate the president from office by requiring a two thirds vote. That is why i have always said, unless that is done bipartisan leanne tragically, there is no bipartisanship here, but i am hopeful if he gets to the senate, there would be bipartisanship. After that there would be no. God help other president s. As somebody who does not want to denigrate the senate more than anybody else on this committee. I think it is a sad greeting to you as you come over there today denigrated body. Let me just say i would like to snack slas h the last word. Schumer if this gets to the senate, it will be bipartisan. There will be bipartisan against the president. There will be a small number of republicans voting against it. I was sitting in the antiroom. As someone who has such respect thatou, i wish a shocked you would, as we close this hearing, say, dont worry, folks, we are not getting rid of the president right here, when it seems that the majority, and all of these hearings and with these articles hasnt ever to do everything you can to get rid of the president. Because you have a few more hurdles to overcome, please, to the public, it is perfectly should thepe that mechanism, the very serious mechanism, the used only twice in 200 years mechanism that the chairman and his colleagues seek to unleash if it roles in the direction they seek, the president will be gone. That is what they want. That is indeed what they want. I yield back. Been veryyde i have indulgent. We have had a seminar here. For theit is important public to understand the constitutional provisions of the function of the house and the function of the senate, which has been blurred over. That is my point. Ok,e gentleman from mr. Rogan. I moved to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Of theing the comments chair talking abo the importance of the public to understand the constitutional public, i too think that is important. I think that is something that somewhat misconstrued. In fact, greatly misconstrued over these last days. We keep hearing about the sanctity of the election process to the constitution. I have no quarrel with that. But the election is not the only constitutional process that guarantees us having a president taking office in serving office. Is fact that a person elected to the office of the presidency of the United States does not allow them to take the office of the presidency and to assume those powers. There is a prerequisite. Even after an election. Thatonstitution requires before the elected person may become the president , they must take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Even after that oath is taken, they still are not allowed to remain in office if that oath is violated and the Congress Finds that Impeachable Offenses have occurred. The same constitution that gives us the electoral process, that gives us the oath also gives us the process for removal of a president when they violate that oath. It gives us the process of replacing that president with another popularly elected official. In this case, the Vice President. Dr. Larry has written on the subject. I would like to read for the record, briefly, an excerpt of his latest open letter to congress. Which addresses this point directly. Made and it isn a serious matter to overturn an election. Enough, but elections have no higher standings under our constitutions in the impeachment process. Pulled stem from provisions of the constitution. The people elect the president to do a constitutional job. The act under the constitution when they do it. At the same time they elected congress to do a different constitutional job. The president swears an oath to uphold the constitution, so does the congress. Inryone concerned is acting ways subordinate to the constitution. Both in elections and in the impeachment process. If a president is guilty of acts justifying the impeachment, then he, not the congress will have overturned the election. He will have acted in ways that the trade the purpose of the election. He will have acted not as a constitutional representative, but as a monarch, subversive of or above the law. If the great powers giving the president are abused, and then to impeach and defends only the results of the election, but the higher thing of which elections are in service. Namely the preeminence of the constitution as the institution under which we pursue the security of our rights. We are all subordinate to that. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Chairman hyde i think the gentleman. I have a request. I request unanimous consent to submit an article from a magazine entitled sydney strikes again. It was an article about sidney a controversial representation for planting favorable clinton stories in the press and helped historians create the ad that recently got some publicity. Chairman hyde without objection, so ordered. I am going to go down the line. This is for unanimous consent request, what purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last word. Chairman hyde you have already spoken, i am told. Not for you articles. Article one i spoke. It down hyde we have that you spoke on article three. Those are our records. Do you want to tell me . I would like to see clear and convincing evidence. [laughter] who else . Purposes do you seek recognition . To strike the last word. Chairman hyde i am sorry. No, this is a factual dispute, but i am willing to go under oath. Chairman hyde go ahead, take your five minutes. But i have not spoken. Mootedn hyde we have that question. Go ahead. It like heman said was giving me a second five minutes. I just wanted to make sure we understand. My only point here is, i think peoplechairman had said understanding, by the result of the action we are doing today, the president will not be removed from office. Others whoall the are voting for these articles of impeachment want the president remove from office are voting for a resolution which says that these articles warrant impeachment, and trial, and removal from office and a bar from office in the future. That would have been a more accurate statement. I think we should get away from the notion that this is some kind of prostitutes prosecutorial, probable cause and that we are kicking it over to the senate for a trial. I have heard a number of my colleagues say that they are not taking their role as a grand jury, they are seeking they are applying standards that are clear and convincing and they if it justifies the impeachment, the conviction, the removal from office, that is what the Resolution Says and i think that is the accurate conclusion to conclude from people support of these articles of impeachment. I yield back. Chairman hyde who else is seeking . For what purpose this the gentleman seek recognition . I ask consent to speak out of order for two minutes . Without objection, so ordered. About some ofnded what was said by the role. The gentleman from new jersey was not the only one who has been insisting on fact witnesses. We could not call fact witnesses because we did not know the allegations, and the out a geisha and the allegations that we knew were not impeachable. The record reflects that a motion was defeated on a partyline vote that would have provided for fact witnesses to be called after the allegations had been ascertained. That motion was defeated on a partyline vote. Look at the evidence we have got. It is under oath. Reflectsnder ozone answers to questions reflected by prosecutors not a crossexamination, nor answers which were subject to any refuting by others. The rule of law prevents us from doing what you are trying to do hereby trying to remove the president from office. That thehe debate Founding Fathers participated in and setting the impeachment article of the constitution, most of it was how to Keep Congress from doing it. It was not how to get the president out of office. That provision not too easy. They ended up with treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. A very High Standard in the words of the council. Its with traders and felons. Not all felons would even qualify for that. Mr. Chairman, we are removing the president from office. Clear thation is William Jefferson clinton warrants impeachment and trial, that is what we are voting on and people ought to be exactly clear about what is going on. The question occurs on article three. All those in favor signify by say no. Ye, all opposed in the opinion of the chair, we will have a rollcall. Clerk will call a role. Mr. Maccallum votes aye. Mr. Geekiest votes aye. Mr. Coble votes aye. Mr. Smith votes aye. Aye. Allegly votes mr. Canady votes aye. Mr. English votes aye. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye. Mr. Bowyer votes aye. Mr. Brian votes aye. Ye. Shouted votes a mr. Barr votes aye. Mr. Jenkins votes aye. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye. Mr. Peas votes aye. Mr. Cannon votes aye. Mr. Rogan votes aye. Mr. Graham votes aye. Miss mono votes aye. Mr. Conyers votes no. Mr. Frank votes no. Mr. Schumer votes no. Mr. Berman votes no. Mr. Boucher votes no. Mr. Nadler votes no. No. Scott votes no. Watt votes ms. Lofgren votes no. Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Miss waters votes no. Mr. Meehan votes no. Mr. Vet mr. Delahunt votes no. Mr. Wexler votes no. No. Rothman both mr. Barrett votes no. Mr. Hyde votes aye. Chairman hyde the clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 no. Thearticle is agree to and committee stands at recess until 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow morning. You have been watching some of the debate from december 11, 1998 with the house Judiciary Committee. In 1998red all of this and 1999 for National Journal. The final vote in the house was what . The house Judiciary Committee voted 2116 to embrace the idea of impeachment. That was a partyline vote on the committee. Centerpiece of the debate among House Republicans and among members led by henry hyde. The center of the discussion was how the president of the United States violated his oath oathfice by lying under and obstructing justice. The basically violated honor of his office. Henrye of the things that hyde was talking about was, should we look away or look forward. He was trying to say, through his rhetoric, that the house was really under the constitution to look into this. That this report had been handed to them. It was so detailed from the independent counsel, and that they could not just look away. That they had to look deeply into it and explore and investigate it. Whatis interesting about we are watching with President Trump is that there was no specific report handed to President Trump. In this case, the Justice Department received information about the whistleblowers report and about ukraine and decided not to investigate. What we are watching from the beginning of the trump inquiry is that congress itself has become the investigative body. Which is different than what we saw under bill clinton. I want to go back to something we talked about. You can call it hypocrisy or double standards. On both sides of the aisle, where democrats were in 1998 versus them today, and where the republicans were in 1998 verses were they are now with senator Lindsey Graham. There is a republican senator defending the president. You mentioned Lindsey Graham. He is the senator from South Carolina. At the time he was one of the house managers. There were 13 managers in the house managing the impeachment inquiry. Lindsey graham gave a very compelling speech at the time. One of the things he talked about with ill clinton was the need to cleanse the office. That you did not need to commit a crime to be impeached. But if congress, the legislative branch, in its wisdom decided the office needed to be cleansed, that is the word he used. We have seen Lindsey Graham in the senate be questioned about to explore ast trial or to see President Trump impeached. Senator graham maintains that he has been very consistent, but the facts have been so consistent that nancy pelosi waited as speaker for a long period of time. He described the circumstances under president lincoln as different than what we are ing with President Trump. President clinton as different than what we are seeing with President Trump. The republican defense has been from the beginning, then nearly 400 million in military aid to ukraine did flow, and that no investigation related to former Vice President joe biden ever occurred. Make ais trying to distinction for why there should not be this impeachment exploration now. A proponentrcefully of it during president clintons administration. With regards to the house Judiciary Committee in 1998, there are four articles of impeachment to pass. What happened after the Committee Boat . Vote . Articles under the constitution, and literally in 1998, were handed over to the senate. Physically handed over to the senate. The articles moved from committee, to the floor, few were embraced by the entire house. With enough votes, in the house you just need a majority. When it goes to the senate, the Senate Finally becomes the jurors. The articles are physically presented to the senate, and under the constitution, the is under the, who trial in 1999 was chief justice rehnquist. They gave him the president s office. The special office in the senate to work from. He provided over a trial that lasted 36 days. All of this happening right before and rightfter christmas of 1998, early 1999. Absolutely. People talk at the time about how odd it was to see the capital decorated for the holidays, for christmas, and to actually see the grip of this trial, and the seriousness with which it was undertaken. I remember that the house managers some of them had practiced law and somewhere in front of a jury before, but they were to present the case to the senate as the jury. They told chief justice rehnquist, go easy on us. The chief justice told them, dont worry about it, i havent practiced before the jury in 30 years so we will be doing this together. You covered all of this for the National Journal in the late 1990s, we thank you for your perspective. Thank you. As House Democrats began drafting articles of impeachment on President Trump and ukraine, the house Judiciary Committee at 8 00 a. M. Nday eastern with democratic and republican counsel presenting findings from the impeachment inquiry. Cspan, online at cspan. Org, or listen with the free cspan radio the house Judiciary Committee has announced the witnesses for mondays hearing. The committees will testify, barry burke and Daniel Goldman for the democrats and stephen kastor for the republicans. Six 2020 democratic president ial candidates spoke at a forum on labor issues hosted by the International Brotherhood of