Transcripts For CSPAN3 President Bill Clinton Impeachment - House Judiciary Commitee Debate 20240713

By the time we 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 related to his past in arkansas. Even his fundraising efforts, when he was president. In the fall of 1998, he was elected to a second term, but they were going into the Midterm Elections. What Kenneth Starr of the as the independent counsel had uncovered was a whole series of alleged relationships the president had had in the past that he had investigated. Then he heard about an intern named Monica Lewinsky. By the time the impeachment inquiry was authorized, and in the house, 31 democrats went along with it, which is really interesting, ken starr had a whole report to present and turned over an entire investigation to the House Republicans, who were in the majority then. The background was fought with politics, the economy was doing fraught with politics, the economy was doing very well, bill clinton was very popular, but republicans felt that they were really forced to act because of the nature and the explicit details in the report. Steve and the question that continues to come up, did the relationship rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors . What was the republican argument and counter argument from the Clinton White house . Alexis president clinton denied it at first. The defense evolved over time. The republicans were asserting that the report required them to investigate, not necessarily because this is about sex or sexual contact, but because it was a violation of the president s oath of office. The allegations were that he tried to hide it. Subsequently, during the deposition to a grand jury, the allegation was that he had lied, that he had tried to encourage others to lie for him, including the white house secretary at the time. And that he had tried to basically find a job for Monica Lewinsky through a friend to keep her quiet. The whole allegation set in this inquiry suggested to republicans that they were compelled under the institution to pursue this. Constitution to pursue this. The president s denial was that this was a witch hunt. This was a political act and there was no substance to these allegations and that this behavior did not exist at first. Steve to that point you mentioned witchhunt. Are there parallels to what we see today and washington . In washington . As you look at the investigation, is very double standard to what we saw in 1998 and what we have today . Alexis it is interesting to hear the echo of same terms, words and talking points we listen to in 1998 and 1999. President clinton, at the time, did a lot of his own defense. He came to his own defense. He spoke at the microphone, pointed his finger and said that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. President clinton i want to say one thing to the American People. I will say this again, i did not i want you to listen to me. I will say this again, i did not have sexual relations with that woman, miss lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false, and i need to go back to work for the American People. Thank you. Alexis he talked about it as a political coup detat. He said it was a witch hunt and a political act. The same words, the same actual concept of making a really strong effort. Both in the clinton impeachment and in President Trumps inquiry have been focused on trying to make it look as partisan as possible. I mentioned to you that when the house authorized the inquiry under president clinton, remember they voted to support an actual inquiry, 31 democratic my kratz crossed the aisle in support of 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 let us talk about the timeline. Its a Midterm Election year, 1998, what happened in november of 1998 . Republicans maintaining control of the house of representatives. Speaker Newt Gingrich is the speaker at this time period. Alexis what did not happen at that time . Speaker gingrich began to patience of his caucus. In the Midterm Election the democrats pick up seats. Which was really unusual. In Midterm Elections usually the party in power loses seats. The democrats used impeachment as a political weapon. Speaker gingrich began to lose the confidence of his caucus. There was an internal effort to push him out. He realized his days were numbered as speaker. As the Republican Caucus picked a new speaker in waiting. Bob livingston. Bob livingston initially had tremendous support. Much to everyones shock and amazement, when they got ready to begin the impeachment discussion of articles of impeachment, Bob Livingston really, trim a truly, it was a drama and he said he was going to resign. The reason he said he was going to resign was because he to had allegations in his past of extramarital relations. At that time, larry flynt was offering big, big money to anyone who would provide information about any of the republican impeachment manager managers or those involved were basically had had relationships in the past. It was surprising how many of them had, including the Judiciary Committee chairman, henry hyde, who said that an extramarital relationship he had when he was 40 was a useful youthful indiscretion. Steve we will let our audience listen into some of the debate of the house Judiciary Committee in december of 1998. Lets talk about the proceedings and the hearings. Were they televised . What kind of reaction did they receive . Alexis they were televised by the time that bill clinton was facing this. Table existed, and there was a lot of cable news coverage. A lot of basic mainstream news coverage. There was a lot of discussion among the House Republicans about how many articles of impeachment actually put forward. It turned out that they actually floated four of them. There was discussion internally about how they would have enough votes to proceed on. There was backandforth trading among the House Republican managers. The Judiciary Committee, it was straight partyline vote to approve four of them. By the time they got to the house floor, only two of them were endorsed by the entire republican conference. Steve were they viewed as highly partisan . Alexis they were painted as being partisan by defenders of the president. The concern was whether there was enough evidence to support what they were alleging. The four articles of impeachment were perjury, lying under oath. There was obstruction of justice, related to the president s efforts to hide his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. D and that is the debate steve , that is the debate we will see in a moment. Please continue. Alexis there was a third article that had to do with perjury. It had to do with answers written during the apology own civil litigation that the president was accused of lying. Kenneth starr was saying he had lied under oath in the civil litigation. The fourth with the abuse of power. Basically there was an out an allegation that president and his team had lied to congress and abused his power as president. The house Judiciary Committee passed all for along party all four along party lines. But by the time that it move forward to the house, the full house floor, only two of those survived and there were basically a perjury and of obstruction. Steve what do you remember . What was your take away of that time more than 20 years ago . Alexis i was covering the white house. My perspective was very much in talking to the president and his team. There were a couple of things i remember vividly. One is, when the story about Monica Lewinsky broke you may remember this was an investigative story that newsweek was trying to break, but there had been a pause to make sure the reporting was really complete it actually emerged on drudge, which was a brandnew website that opened the door to what we are seeing now about how many outlets are to publish. I can remember going upstairs to the press office, talking to the president senior staffers, i can remember asking a question to paul, who actually wish to shore that this had not happened. And he was frustrated that reporters were even willing to consider that this happened, this relationship with the intern happen. The president s top aides were furious, some never got over it and left after impeachment. Paul was one, the president s 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 actually helped him survive. Bill clinton was a big fighter and there was no question in his mind that he was going to resign. That was so clear. He was going to fight it till the end and he did. He was very proud of himself for doing it. He considered it defending the constitution. It was not certain how it would turn out. The televised hearings were about sex, but the president had unbelievable support. The time that he was impeached, his job approval was 73 . The American People made their judgment. They were past his reelection. They were heading to the end of his final two years and they just thought it was personal behavior and that it was too much. The republicans had gone too far. The economy was good and they were willing to look the other way. The other element that is so interesting, thinking about 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 that the American People understood, that this was part of his past. Steve with that background, from december 11 of 1998, the house Judiciary Committee taking up four articles of impeachment. The debate you are about to see including one of those articles dealing with the obstruction of justice. [video clip] the committee will now consider article three. Are there any amendments to article three . If not, i will mr. Chairman. The gentleman from virginia. I look to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Ok. There are no amendments. It is the chair intention when we finish this to adjourn for the evening and come back at 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow morning. I just wanted to state that. I wanted to announce that for scheduling purposes. Does anyone seek recognition . Was that mr. Scott . You are recognized for five minutes. Mr. Scott mr. Chairman, i think we are to reflect about the facts on this article. We have things like a false affidavit and a false statement. Mr. Nadler has spared me that necessity of quoting from the dictionary about certain words. But Monica Lewinsky was not provided with the deposition definition that the judges and lawyers argued over. She said what she believed certain words mean. There is evidence of the tape recording when she does not know she was being recorded or set up by linda tripp. She said what she thought certain words meant. Linda tripp tried to get her to change her mind about the deposition, but Monica Lewinsky definition but monica , lewinsky would not. Also in the witness tampering, there has to be a witness for there to be tampering. After you review the conflicting hearsay and dubious instances inferences used to make the other elements of this article, you still have to place the allegations in the context of impeachment. Our authority to do what some wanted to do but cannot do at the polls, that is to defeat bill clinton, that is with is limited to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. How is a world that is not really used much in america because it is an english word against the state . Our experts at our hearings also told us to pay close attention to another word and phrase, and that is other. Its treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Its in the effect against our it is stuff like that in its effect against the government. Has to be a suburban subversion of the constitution. There has to be a danger of the president staying in office. The president must be removed because of treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. He will be subject to the rules of laws like everyone else. When we review these allegations to see if they are Impeachable Offenses, we have to remember what impeachment is for. It is to protect our nation. We look at the history of impeachment and all kinds of offenses that have been Impeachable Offenses. We look at watergate and see the corrupt units of the fbi and the use of the fbi, cia, and internal revenue, and official use of those agencies and lying about it have been a defensible Impeachable Offenses. But 500 million tax fraud with , the evidence according to those who were there is overwhelming. Certainly stronger than the hearsay we are relying on today. They did not support the article involving halfmillion dollar tax fraud, which is a crime. A serious crime, but not a high crime. Our experts unanimously agreed that the term treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors does not cover all felonies. We cannot remove a president because he failed to faithfully because he failed to faithfully execute the laws or we cannot stand him being president. The rule of our authority to act to treason, bribery or other high crimes of misdemeanor. You been if we believe the hearsay before us. There has been no show that it is a threat to our government, and that is why 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 articles of impeachment and recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, this article of impeachment, article three is to one that relates to abstraction is the one that relates to obstruction of of justice by president clinton. There are seven specifically mentioned instances of alleged obstruction of justice that are contained in this article. It does have the words one or more. If we dont have the problems of making that interpretation. There will be members on the republican side of the aisle that will specifically address themselves to each of these instances of a section of obstruction of justice. But i think that if we looked at it from the criminal context, which we are not, there has to be three elements of what means it makes obstruction of justice. First a has to be a pending federal judicial agreement. Reseeding. There was in the case with the paula jones lawsuit. Secondly, the defendants have to know of the proceedings. Mr. Clinton was the civil defendant in that lawsuit he had and serve the papers on it. Third, the defendant acted corruptly with intent to of or interfere with the preceding or administration of justice. 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 witnesses and a civil Rights Action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in the preceding that he knew to be false and misleading. In his deposition testimony in january of this year, the president said he spoke with Monica Lewinsky before christmas. While he was not sure that she would because to testify and be called to testify in the paula jones civil suit she might , qualify, or Something Like that. The president denied encouraging miss lewinsky by filing a false affidavit. But in answer 18 to the 81 questions, he did say that he told her that other witnesses had executed affidavits and there was not a chance that she would not has to testify. Lewinsky was more empathetic. She asked what she would do and he said maybe you could sign an affidavit. The point would be to deter me from being disposed so they could range anywhere from between just somehow mentioning innocuous things, or going as far as may be having to deny any kind of relationship. That is what Monica Lewinsky told the grand jury. She stated she was 100 sure, 100 sure that the president suggested she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. That was through an independent counsel interview, false statements of which are federal crimes. Ms. Lewinsky noted that the president never explicitly instructed her to lie about the matter, 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 damaging to the president. She contextually understood that the president wanted her to live. That is in the oic referral. Attorneys for paula jones were seeking evidence of sexual relationships. And that was with the president that the president might have had with other state such employees. Information is deemed relevant in Sexual Harassment lawsuits to help prove the underlying claim. Judge susan webber wrights, wright ruled that paula jones was entitled this information. Consequently when the president encourage Monica Lewinsky to file an affidavit, he knew that it would have to be falls from false for her to avoid testifying. If she filed the truthful affidavit when a neurology the acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president , she certainly would have been called as a deposition witness and are truthful testimony would have been damaging both politically and legally. I yield back the balance of my time. For what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise . I wish to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. In reviewing article three, obstruction of justice, i reviewed the seven causes. It is almost like we have come here this evening and have never examined the facts in the matter. These have all been gone through repeatedly. Each one could be very carefully can be very cans carefully answered. The filing of an affidavit by miss lewinsky is there anyone that doesnt know that she swore that no one asked her to lie and the decision as to what the affidavit should contain was a decision made by her alone, and that the president said that miss lewinsky might be able to avoid testifying by filing a limited or truthful affidavit, a but truthful affidavit, a perfectly legal activity on his part. As a matter of fact, what her ended up doing in the clause seven statements. The president made statements to his staff on january 21, 23rd and 26 in order to protect his family from discovering the lewinsky 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 then singling out his staff. He denied the affair to everyone. He was not denying the affair to his staff with the idea that they would be called before the independent counsel grand jury. Clause six, attempting to influence betty currie. We have heard repeated testimony that the president of the United States did not attempt to influence betty curries testimony in any proceeding when he spoke with her on the sunday and the tuesday of january 18 and 20th, respectively before the news regarding miss lewinsky broke in the media. The president was concerned about what he knew would be a leak of his deposition testimony. He cannot have known about the oic investigation, therefore he cannot have thought that ms. Currie was or could be on a witness list. With reference to statements by the president s lawyers, clause five. There is no evidence that the president knowingly allowed his lawyer to make false representations in the jones deposition. In fact, the president testified that he was not focusing on his attorney when he made the statements. Instead, he was concentrating on his own testimony in his deposition. There is no evidence, none that the president encouraged his attorney to make those statements, or even had any idea that his attorney would make them for him. Here we go with calls for the the cause for the job search. How many times has this been put into evidence . There is nothing connecting the efforts to help ms. Lewinsky finding a job with ms. Lewinskys submission to an of an affidavit. She testified 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. Then we have the gift situation in which all witnesses agree the job search started long before Monica Lewinsky was named on the jones witness list. Unanimousan, i ask consent my statement into the record at this point. And i return anytime. Chairman hyde gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas tuesday seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. I wanted to address the second paragraph of this article of impeachment. The second paragraph provided on or about december 17, 1997, William Jefferson clinton corruptly encouraged a witness to give her jurists, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. This has reference to a call that occurred on december 17 at 2 00 a. M. Or 2 30 a. M. By the president of the United States. The president of the United States learns that Monica Lewinsky is on the witness list any calls or first to purportedly advise betty curries brother had passed away. Of course the real purpose was to advise her that, bad news, your name is on the witness list. He went on to say if you are subpoenaed, you should contact betty. Then he told her you could always say you are coming to see betty, or that you are bringing me letters. This is very important. Here you have a witness and a without any question a witness in a federal civil rights case, civil rights suit. The president personally cause this witness to let them know they will be subpoenaed and that you are on the witness list and to tell them have the handle it and to not to provide truthful testimony, but to provide false testimony and a cover story for her. This is confirmed and the grand suggesting you can always say. This is confirmed in the grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky. The president denies this in part. He admits that the telephone conversation took place, so there is some cooperation. Corroboration. He has no specific recollections. Monica lewinsky has a clear recollection and the president has no recollection. I think that the weight of the evidence goes to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. Secondly, it is consistent with their pattern of deception. Prior to this they arrange the they had arranged the cover story. I understand it sign a legal context. They continued that scheme to cover up in the legal context by suggesting the same cover story would apply in testimony under oath in the civil rights case. There is no dispute about the call, it is consistent with the pattern. There is a motive for the president to encourage the perjury. Then it is also consistent with a false affidavit that is ultimately provided by Monica Lewinsky. I would also call upon the testimony of mr. Jordan, who confirmed, in this case, in his testimony that president clinton knew that Monica Lewinsky was going to execute the false affidavit. He kept the president very closely apprised in every development with the affidavit. When i look at this matter from a standpoint of clear and convincing evidence i believe , you have clear testimony. Because of the cooperation and and theboration motivation behind it, the other testimony of Vernon Jordan, the consistency that this paragraph in this allegation does rise to abstraction of justice by clear obstruction of justice by clear and convincing evidence. I yield back. Moved to strike the last is expired. s time moved to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Sen. Schumer let me say, particularly on the second article, while i certainly believe that even assuming the facts that mr. Starr presented and he reiterated, it does not rise to the letters of level of impeachment. I can see this among my colleagues at, and a basic that in a basic criminal context, or a civil context, there is a strong argument on the other side. In article one, to a somewhat lesser extent, i think the gentleman from massachusetts summed that up as well. It sort of trivial, but you might be able to make a very legalistic argument. One that would not become close to impeachment. When we get to articles three and four we really begin to reach. Article three reaches, article four reaches and almost gets into the theater of the absurd. Today, we are here to address article three. I would submit that based on a standard of clear and convincing evidence, which the majority professes to use, we are not even close. Yes, you can string together facts. By surmise, say, this was the motivation. There was an equally plausible explanation and there was a different motivation and not one direct fact that shows that the motivation attributed by the gentleman from arkansas to the president , is the motivation. How can i submit articles of how can we submit articles of impeachment based on surmise, even mr. Starr admitted that it was surmise. Take the job hunt, we all agree that there was one. We agree that it started before, there was before there was any knowledge of a judicial process and continued after. We agree was a similar job search, and we agree that there are two plausible explanations after the job search, and after it became clear that there was a Pollard Jones lawsuit and deposition. One, to get Monica Lewinsky away from the scene to prevent the continuation of an illicit affair. And number two, to keep Monica Lewinsky quiet before a judicial proceeding. One is as possible 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. Yes, the majority has the temerity to say, oh no, we know by clear and convincing evidence that he was doing it to prevent her from testifying. I ask you where is your direct evidence . Where is it more than surmise . You have an obligation in my judgment to make sure there is more in surmise to make sure you are asking america to impeach this president. Same thing with the Monica Lewinsky story. Its true, we all admit that the president and Monica Lewinsky had a cover story. A story that was not truthful, that was lies. They had it once again before any knowledge of a grand jury. Any knowledge of the deposition. 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. That is not good enough ladies and gentlemen. You need more than that to be clear and 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 did not 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. Gentlemans time has expired. Without objection the gentleman will be granted it additional minute. Sen. Schumer i think the gentleman. And imagine putting a count in here that says, we somehow think that the president would buy to would like to his cabinet and not tell the truth and had no idea of the deposition and no idea that there would be a grand jury proceeding. Because he wanted them not to tell the truth. We must do a lot better than that. This is a string, put together piece by piece of this that leads to a conclusion that is so demonstrably stretched that when people ask, why do some out there believe that the motivation is more partisan incoming directly on they incoming directly on the facts, i would not argue that about counts one and two. When you look at count three and particularly count for, it is four, it is logical, not provable, but logical to people on the other side were out to get the man, regardless of the facts. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina rise . Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i think it is important to bring out facts about paragraph three and part of this article. Here we are talking about the scheme to conceal evidence that has been subpoenaed in that civil Rights Action brought against the president. And, of course we heard from minority counsel and the president s counsel that this was not orchestrated by the president , therefore, they would dispute this claim in this particular article. I think this indicates an effort to conceal this evidence. In this case it is supported by a telephone record. This is indicative of the accident excellent investigative work. What happened is the testimony from ms. Lewinsky was that she was concerned about the gift, she raised the concern. The president told her about the suggestion that she should possibly do something. The president said i do not know or let me think about that. Later that day ms. Lewinsky got a call from ms. Currie, according to ms. Lewinsky saying, i understand you have something to give me. Or Something Like the president said you may have something to give me. On this point, ms. Currie has a fuzzy memory. As she reported that she could not remember, but the best she could remember, she thinks that Monica Lewinsky called her, betty currie. But that is contradicted by a key piece of evidence. That key piece of evidence is the cell phone record of ms. Curries phone showing that she placed a call within hours after she left the white house on that day. Monica lewinsky. With that evidence is clear that the call was initiated by ms. Currie to Monica Lewinsky. That furthers by the fact that that is further buttressed by the fact that why else would ms. Curry call miss linsky and ask if she had something for her to pick up . Why would she take that box of gifts and put it under her bed . These are not normal things that people do. You do not call up somebody, ask if you have something for me, then take the box and put it under your bed. It just defies common sense to think that it was the other way around. In other words, that ms. Currie was or that ms. Lewinsky was initiating the transfer here. Its pretty clear from this evidence. I think clear and convincing from this evidence, that the president must of been involved in a scheme to get those gifts from Monica Lewinsky into the hands of his trusted secretary betty currie. That was part of a scheme to obstruct justice in this case. To stop the discovery of this information. So, mr. Chairman, i think its clear that this particular paragraph of the articles of impeachment is clearly substantiated by the evidence. I will yield back the balance of my time. Chairman hyde what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise . The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. I am really pleased that my friend raised this particular evidence. I would suggest this is exactly the peril of this particular approach that this committee has adopted. Never hearing once from a witness. Never hearing from miss lewinsky 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, 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 in this particular point. You are right. T is undisputed that miss lewinsky returned the gifts to ms. Currie and did so on december 28. The key question is whether the president asked ms. Currie to retrieve the gifts or whether ms. Lewinsky made her own arrangements to return the gifts without mr. Clintons involvement. On wednesday the independent counsel released a statement to the press, which i would submit into the record without objection. So ordered. Taking issue and claiming taking taking issue with a presentation to this committee and claiming that the president s involvement is substantiated by the records for miss currys cellular telephone account. Just as you mentioned, the records, and as you have indicated use these in his closing statement to the committee. They indicated that the one minute call was placed from ms. Currie cell phone to ms. Lewinskys telephone number at 3 32 p. M. In his press release, the independent counsel claims that ms. Currie placed this call for the purpose of arranging to pick up the gifts from ms. Lewinsky. In his closing statement to the committee, he did much of the made much of the document. It that it cooperates corroborates Monica Lewinsky, and proves conclusively that ms. Currie called monica from herself on several hours after she left the white house. Why did betty currie pick up the gifts from ms. Lewinsky . He answered, the facts. If we only had facts. The facts strongly suggest the president directed her to do so. That the supports for the judge his support for the charge is that the president sought to conceal evidence. But there is a problem with this socalled evidence. It is directly and explicitly contradicted by the fbi report of the interview with Monica Lewinsky taken this past july. On july 27 of this year. That report, which appears in the first appendix to the starr referral on page 1396, as you know, there are 60,000 pages in there, so i do not blame him for missing him missing it and i , certainly dont suggest that he would try to mislead the committee. And i am quoting, lewinsky met currie on 20 eight st outside of 28th street outside of her apartment at about 2 00 p. M. And gave currie the box of gifts. At 3 32, but at 2 00 p. M. Was the transfer of those gifts. An hour and a half discrepancy. This raises the following question of the Gift Exchange that had already taken place. Gentlemans time has expired. I ask unanimous consent for an additional two minutes. Chairman hyde 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 . 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 exculpatory fact taken from materials, sworn under oath materials, documents, 50,000 pages of them, from the 60,000 possession of mr. Starr, was never out knowledge by mr. Never acknowledged by mr. Starr, nor was it acknowledge by schifferledged by mr. S. Both of them, and i am not suggesting it is intentional, affirmatively led the committee to believe the call was for the purpose of arranging for ms. Currie to pick up the gifts. 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. We have never had the opportunity to ask the coast we because we have not heard from the witnesses themselves. This is no way to conduct an inquiry, mr. Chairman. Its a disgrace and insult to the rule of law. Would the gentleman yield for a question to what the citation was on that . Page 1300on the something. Page 1396. I yield. Chairman hyde for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise . The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 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 and other times, places, or to change and subway in some way their testimony so it is not damaging or less damaging to the target or 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 have 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 take steps to what is termed in the eyes of the law, tamper with witnesses. Specifically, mr. Chairman, that statute is founded 18 usc, that found that 18 usc, that is the criminal code section 1512. In addition, section 1516, which in addition section 1515, which contains definitions relevant to that provision of the code. In essence, mr. Chairman, and this is in large part in essence the essence of paragraph four of this third article of impeachment, we are looking up at the provision of title 18, section 1512, that provides whoever knowingly engages in misleading conduct which delayed or prevent the testimony of any persian in official proceeding, causes or induces any person from more testimony, evade Legal Process or be absent from a professional official proceeding or prevent the communication of information is guilty of a criminal offense. Turning to section 1515. 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 in washington, most powerful and private attorneys drop essentially everything they are doing and the president constantly remind 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. Vernon 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, from one of the preeminent law firms in washington. A Harvard Business school graduate. Monica lewinsky. That in it of itself, contrary to the pattern of activity that this particular witness. By the way, that testimony was controverted by the testimony of a ceo of a fortune 500 company. Mr. Perlman who said mr. Jordan had never called him about a job search, raises a very legitimate presumption, that there were was some reason other than a legitimate jobsearch for Monica Lewinsky that occupied considerable attention of the president. One finds it in the testimony of ms. Lewinsky 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 somebody that was here and unknown to ms. Lewinsky, that this might cause her to avoid being called as 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. Criminal code, section 1512. Tampering with a witness. Clearly involving. I would ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. Chairman hyde without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Involving an effort, deliberate effort, willful effort on the part of the president to cause ms. Lewinsky, or to take steps to cause ms. Lewinsky once it became known that she would be a witness and had in fact been subpoenaed. The other side might make some hay out of the fact that ms. Lewinsky really had been involved in a job search for some time. That is the case, since july of 1997. What certainly raises legitimate suspicions and sits within the fits within the pattern of activity and the evidence 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 activity by mr. Jordan, by the ceo of a major fortune 500 corporation, involving the ambassador, the u. S. Ambassador to the united nations. All set into motion after he became known, not before, but after it became known that ms. Lewinsky would indeed be a witness and provide testimony in the paula jones case. These are appropriate, reasonable, common sense conclusions, which even in a criminal proceeding would be instructed by a United States District Court judge. They could properly conclude based on the evidence, which is set forward and summarized yesterday and uncontroverted. I believe mr. Chairman there was a more than substantial basis and more than adequate basis for paragraph four of article three involving tampering with a federal witness by the president. Chairman hyde time has again expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise . Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Nadler mr. Chairman, the recklessness of the republican majority and its proceeding is really illustrated by articles three and four. I believe, as i have stated many times, that articles one and two are not sufficient, they dont rise to the level of Impeachable Offenses, even if provable. Numbers three and four frankly do not pass the giggle test. They are laughable. As well as outrageous. What is number three, article three . A grab bag of different allegations. The president encouraged ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. A fair reading of the evidence says only one thing. 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. May be they will let you do that as well. There is no evidence, no testimony from anybody that he asked her to file a false affidavit as opposed to simply suggesting she could file an affidavit instead of appealing in front of a grand jury. Appearing in front of the grand jury, which she was understandably nervous about. Indeed, she testified he never asked her to lie. There is no contradict every contradictory testimony at all. Yet the surmise is sufficient to make that part of an article of impeachment. The jobsearch, helping someone find a job is not illegal. It is generally considered praiseworthy. There is no evidence connecting the efforts to help ms. Lewinsky find a job with her submission of an affidavit or testimony. She testified when no one promised her a job. The suggestion to tie them together came from linda tripp. We know that from the tapes. We know if the president were really intent on getting her a job, he could have done that. He is quite a powerful person. The fact that he did not shows that there was no linkage with her affidavit. What linkage do we have with the affidavit . None at all, except surmise. And the fact that the effort started well before there was any knowledge that she might have to file an affidavit or appear indicate that there was no connection beyond which, even the surmise, the surmises, why else would betty currie be interested in helping this young woman . It must be a corrupt motive. No it mustnt be. Betty currie was a friend we know of Vernon Jordan. But curran asked vern Vernon Jordan to help her. Why would betty currie asked Vernon Jordan to help Monica Lewinsky find a job . Maybe because Monica Lewinsky asked her to and betty currie was a friend. Thats as logical as any other explanation. Thats as logical as the sinister explanation you gentlemen posit, for which 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. Then we have the gifts. Monica lewinsky gave gifts to 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 says that was not the case. Betty currie testified Monica Lewinsky was the one who asked her to get the gift. But were told there was this phone call. Now, theres no evidence of what was said in that phone call. Whats the difference . We can pretend it makes a difference. We can show the phone call came in an hour and a half after the gifts were recieved. Though he destroyed that by showing he showed the phone call happen in our after. So there is no evidence whatsoever of evil motives. Weve also been suggested to outrageous leaps of logic. If these gifts were being given 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 hes trying to get the evidence away from her, why is he giving her more evidence . Well, there are outrageous leaps of logic there. Were told that he attempts to deal with it the gentlemans time has expired. Can i have an additional two minutes . Without objection. Thank you. He gave mrs. Lewinsky additional gifts after betty currie retrieved the gifts acting allegedly on the president s behalf, conceal those on the jones case. He says, he told his committee with a straight face, the only logical inference is that the gifts, including the bear symbolizing strength, were attached to remind miss lewinsky that they would deny the relationship, even in the face of a federal subpoena. Is he kidding . For nonsense like this, were going to overturn the votes of the American People . A bear symbolizing strength was a reminder to Monica Lewinsky, 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 in bonds. Its as logical and inference, it has as much evidence behind it. The fact is, this is a nonsense article. And finally, the fact that the president spoke to coworkers in his office, to people he works with every day and told them the same cover story that he was presumably telling his wife and others to protect his family because he was ashamed of the relationship. Its evidence of the fact that hes having a cover story for sexual affair. He wasnt proud of it and didnt want it 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 its a compelling case mr. Nat there has made for a scheme here. Id like to point out it does not have the weight he would suggest. It does indicate, in a 302, 1 of the fbi reports, which was done on july 27, 1998, that on december 28, the document was done on the 27th. Monica lewinsky says that on december 28, so roughly seven months earlier, he was outside of her apartment on 28th street to give those gifts to miss currie at about 2 00 p. M. You have a call at 3 32, which is fixed in the records of her cell phone. I suspect that there may have been a mistake by miss lewinsky of an hour and a half and that is not substantial. I would like to talk briefly about the fact that mr. Clinton, president clinton allowed his attorney to make false statements. As he characterized an affidavit in order to prevent questioning, which during the course of the question, the judges deemed relevant. On january 15, the attorney for president clinton obtained a copy of the affidavit Monica Lewinsky filed to avoid testifying by herself in the jones case. And then in this affidavit you 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. He pointed out that she signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the president. Mr. Bennett 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, im not coaching the witness is fully aware of miss jane does affidavit. Mr. Bennett used it an attempt to stop the questioning about miss lewinsky. He didnt 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 miss lewinskys 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, its not true. When president clinton was asked during his grand jury how he could be backing off from the lewinsky testimony ended testimony to the grand jury, how he couldve lawfully sat silent in the deposition about his attorney making a false statement, the president first said he was not paying a great deal of attention. He also said, i didnt pay any colliquy to this as it went on. The videotape deposition shows mr. President looking in the direction and 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, mr. Bennett was speaking only in the present tense. Therefore we get that famous is what question. The president stated it depends on what the meaning of the word is is. If it means there is none, that is a true statement. President clinton suggestion that he mightve engaged in such a parsing of the word in the deposition is our with his assertion. The gentlemans time has expired. I ask for unanimous consent to yield for two minutes. Without objection, of course. Are you aware that the president s attorney has, since this time, sent a request or a letter to the court with formally withdrawing that affidavit . I am aware and i think that is a remarkable stack. As he did 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 . Well, weve got 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. And i just wanted to point that out to you. Will my friend yield . Id be happy to. Another great prosecutor over there, mr. Delahunt. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Bryant. Mr. Cannon alluded to the fact that you are a United States attorney and suggested that you respond to one of his questions. And i see my friend from arkansas, mr. Hutchinson, here also. As former u. S. Attorneys, both of you, and for whom i truly have Great Respect for both of you, let me pose a question. Take bill clinton out of the deposition. Substitute ordinary citizen. Would either one of you have brought a perjury case when you were the United States attorney . And the context that i pose this is that we have five United States attorneys here, testifying that in both the grand jury, as well as the deposition gentlemans time has again expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina rise . Allowing to speak out of turn for one minute. Mr. Chairman, i dont want to appear to be the grinch who stole christmas, but i want to tell my democrat and republican friends alike, i think five minutes are sufficient. If it doesnt annoy anybody to o severely, i intend to object at the end of each five minute segment so we can go home and go to bed. The gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose do you seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized for five minutes exactly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to proceed very carefully and what i say here because i think of all the articles in this document, this is the one thats most troubling to me because when i hear mr. Cannon referred to a scheme, it troubles me even further. Because i really think there are some things in this article that come dangerously close to just, to mccarthyism. We went through a period in our history where behind every tree there was a communist. If you made a phone call to somebody who was a communist, you became a communist. We assume the absolute worst. And what i see happening in some parts of this article, and when you do that, you start to presume things that just, i mean theyre like bad people behind every tree and bad motivations for every phone call and bad motivations for every contact, even when the contacts are completely innocent. Now, i just want to specifically look at parts six and seven on page seven of the articles where, when the president is having a conversation with ms. Currie, you say that, i presume youre talking about ms. Currie, on or about january 18, january 20, 21, they created a misleading cause of events relevant to a federal civil Rights Action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. Now, we know that in the paula jones case, when the president had a conversation with ms. Currie, that conversation the discovery period was almost over. It was within a few days of being over. And ms. Curries name had never appeared on a witness list. So, this notion that she is somehow a potential witness, i dont know where it comes from. And then you go back later and you do the same thing. Now, let me show you where this leads, finally, in mr. Schiffers presentation yesterday and show you how sinister it becomes. Mr. Schippers then says, when he called ms. Currie, he made sure that this was a facetoface meeting, not an impersonal 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 power and prestige 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, thats fine if thats what happened, but look at what the actual statements were that the president made. They are, one page before mr. Schippers has given us this declarative statement, hes told us what the statements were. Number one, i was never really alone with monica, right . Is that a declarative statement . Two, you were always there when monica was there, right . Is that a declarative statement . Monica came on to me and i never touched her, right . The gentlemans time has expired. I ask for two additional minutes. The objection is heard. If you set the precedent and youre going to be the beneficiary of it, to. May i respond to that . The objection is heard. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina is expired. Will the gentleman from North Carolina like to strike the last word and get five minutes . I will strike the last word and use one minute. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 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. You made the declarative statement. I yield back my time. Ok, the time from the gentleman from North Carolina has expired. Strike the last word. The gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on comments made. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Point of order is it should be a democrat now. Mr. Coble having been the last. [talking over each other] i think the chairman made the right call. Ok, the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. May i have the full five minutes . Yes. Its ok with us. Check with coble. [laughter] i want to follow up on the issues raised by the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Watt, about paragraph six in this article, concerning the conversations that the president had with ms. Currie on january 18 and january 20 and 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 this shortly after he was deposed in this case, 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, in part, 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 very logical for the president to assume that jones lawyers might call her as a witness. Thats right there. Thats 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, 1998, he met with ms. Currie and asked her certain questions in an effort to get as much information in as quickly as he could, and made certain statements, although, i dont remember what i said. Thats what the president contends. The president added that he 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. Youve 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. You were always there when she was there, right . We were never really alone. You could see, hear and hear everything. Monica came on to me and i never 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. That her characterization of it. Based 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 thought 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 miss lewinsky 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 21, ms. Currie stated it was a recapitulation of what we talked about on sunday. Now, 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. Thats 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. And 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. For what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition . To strike the last words. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is a very shoddy effort. I agree again that the central fact of this case remains central to this. Bill clinton had a consensual sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky and sought to conceal that fact. We remember that all of the other issues that have been raised from the fbi files, etc. , etc. Are simply absent. Then the question is, did the president obstruct justice . 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. And the whole premise of this is is that Monica Lewinsky is being preyed upon, suborned, persuaded by this combination of bill clinton not to tell the truth. It is in this context that it is very relevant that Monica Lewinsky volunteered because the prosecutors knew enough from their case and standpoint not to ask her. She volunteered. No asked me to lie and no one promised me a job. I noticed my colleagues have developed a very peculiar verbal tic. Monica lewinsky said no one asked me to lie. They are incapable of repeating that without adding the word explicitly. It is a form of verbal disease. Monica lewinsky said no one asked her to lie. They all say, including Kenneth Starr, no one 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 recognition of the power of her denial. Its also interesting that Monica Lewinsky is a woman of absolute perfect memory in ken starrs version, except she had a terrible story of losing hours. They said she mustve thought it was 2 00 but it was really 4 00 because the call came at 3 30. 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. But she also said, betty currie said, Monica Lewinsky initiated the gift transfer. So we have your acknowledgment that betty currie was prepared to 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 . The fact is that the most sensible explanation here is that both bill clinton and Monica Lewinsky wanted to withhold the truth of this. Neither one of them wanted to do it. Monica lewinsky and bill clinton worked together. They agreed long before paula jones was on anybodys horizon for Monica Lewinsky that they would not tell the truth. But you have to change the facts. You have to assume that there was this Monica Lewinsky dying to tell everybody. As a matter of fact, lets be very clear. Even after all of this, what got Monica Lewinsky to talk with was Kenneth Starr threatening to hold just throw her and her mother in prison. Monica lewinsky had to be threatened by Kenneth Starr with imprisonment and have her mother be threatened before she would say it. And thats relevant because you r portrayal of 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 prison. You are accusing bill clinton and Vernon Jordan and betty currie have all denied they did this. You are saying that they did this, to persuade Monica Lewinsky to doing something which she wanted to do. She did not have to be restrained from testifying. She didnt want to testify. Quite the contrary is the case. First, linda tripp tried to get her to do it and then Kenneth Starr threatened her with it. I think this family to recognize Monica Lewinsky testifying as a central problem and thats why you have so much trouble explaining that no one asked her to lie and no one promised her a job. Chair yields himself two minutes. I just want to say, people watching this on television, they might get the wrong idea if we pass these articles of impeachment, were throwing the president out of office. That is completely not true. Point of interruption. Once impeachment, trial and removal. You understand we dont do the trial in the house . You understand the trial occurs in the 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. Thats the process. And 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 . What is it . I dont want you to be frightened when i engage you. I want you to stand up for what you believe in, mr. Chairman. I do not want you to use your awesome power 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 here in this committee. I would like to take back my time and i get the gentleladys message. I am not saying what we do is insignificant. I think it is highly significant and requires great care, great study, great analysis, but i am suggesting to the gentle lady we do not conduct the trial. We merely decide whether there is enough evidence now. We get on the question of evidence, and i have heard repeatedly, especially from the gentleman near the end of the first row, they didnt have a chance to test the credibility of any of the witnesses. Well, we accepted 60,000 pages of transcripts, grand jury transcripts, depositions, statements under oath, all under oath. We accepted Monica Lewinskys testimony because it was given under a grant of immunity that would be declared null and void if she lied. So, we were willing to accept all of that testimony under oath. And if the democrats wanted to question it, why in the world didnt they invite these people up to testify under oath . And undergo the withering crossexamination of several of your lawyers . Please, let me finish. Im on a roll now. [laughter] why didnt you call them in for deposition . Why didnt you put them to the crucible of cross examination . You had that opportunity, but you chose to bring us professors, historians, and law deans, which is wonderful and entertaining and illuminating. But when you say that you didnt have a chance to test their credibility, that rings a little hollow. Point of personal privilege . Chairman hyde ill let you stretch it that far, but i didnt mention your name. Well, you meant me. Chairman hyde i did mean you. All right. [laughter] thank you, mr. Chairman, for personal privilege. First of all, you keep saying 60,000 documents. 60,000 documents were about civil deposition in grand jury testimony work nobody was crossexamined. Im allowed to finish my point of personal privilege, if i may. Chairman hyde were nearing the end, folks. Lets take a deep breath. Thank you very much. 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 starr and mr. Schippers arguing from portions of transcripts of deposition and grand jury deposition. Chairman hyde may i regain my time . Thats 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 with some of us, but we think the oath is 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. Thats your opinion. The gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, i appreciate your swinging my way. [laughter] chairman said he would swing to me. Chairman hyde regular order. [laughter] mr. Chairman, i do now, and i do want to take serious issue with a profound point. I really do think we have a series of issues here. We will rejoin later, but i do not want to let it go undiscussed now. I was struck by your statement that were not here throwing the president out. I must say, to the extent that i wasnt clear what the Public Perception was of what we are doing, i am inferring from your disavowal that, as much as any member of the house could do to get that president out of office, that there is some uneasiness about it. And i think it is a grave error, constitutionally, 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 the only basis for which members can honestly vote for these articles, is that conviction for the president ought to be thrown out of office. And i think there is a tendency that we have seen to try to lighten up impeachment and to take as profound an instrument as can exist in a democratic society, the cancellation of an election by people not the electorate. And it has to be there from time to time. But to reduce its impact, or to reduce our part in it, that i think is the most philosophical differences between us. Chairman hyde i hear the gentleman and its a thorough point of view, 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. And then our Founding Fathers made it extraordinarily difficult to eliminate the president from office by requiring a two thirds vote. And that is why i have always said, unless that is done bipartisan, and 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 doesnt want to denigrate the senate more than anybody else on this committee. I think its a sad greeting to you as you come over there to a denigrated body. Let me just say and i appreciate the chairman yielding. I would like to slash the last word. My one minute. I do want to say, if this, by god, 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 somebody who has such respect for you, i was just shocked almost that you would, as we close this hearing, say, dont worry, folks. Were not getting rid of the president right here, when it seems that the majority, and all of these hearings and with these articles has endeavored 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 clear, i hope, that should the mechanism, the very serious mechanism, the used only twice in 200 years mechanism, that the chairman and his colleagues seek to unleash if it rolls in the direction they seek, the president will be gone. And thats what they want. That is indeed what they want. I yield back. Chairman hyde i have been very indulgent. Weve had a seminar here. I think its important for the public to understand the constitutional provisions of the house and the function of the senate, which has been blurred over. That is my point. Now, the gentleman from ok, mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, i move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, echoing the comments of the chair talking about the importance of the public to understand the constitutional public, i too think that is important. I think that is something that has been somewhat misconstrued. In fact, greatly misconstrued over these last days. We keep hearing about the sanctity of the election process to the constitution. And i have no quarrel with that. But the election is not the only constitutional process that guarantees us having a president taking office and serving office. The fact that a person is 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. The constitution requires that before the elected person may become the president , they must take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. And 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. And it gives us the process of replacing that president with another popularly elected official, in this case, the Vice President. Dr. Larry arne has written on the subject and id like to read for the record, briefly, an excerpt of his latest open letter to congress, which addresses this point directly. A point has been made and it is a serious matter to overturn an election. True enough, but elections have no higher standings under our constitutions in the impeachment process. Both stem from provisions of the constitution. The people elect the president to do a constitutional job. They 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. Everyone concerned is acting in 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 betrayed 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 given the president are abused, and then impeach him 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 thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, i have a request for unanimous consent. Yes . I request unanimous consent to submit an article from a magazine entitled, sydney strikes again. It was an article about Sidney Blumenthal and 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. Now, im going to go down the line. Mr. Berman. This is for unanimous consent request. What purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last word. Chairman hyde youve already spoken, im told. Not for two articles. Article one i spoke. Chairman hyde we have it down that you spoke on article three. Well, those are our records. Do you want to tell me . Id like to see clear and convincing evidence. [laughter] who else . For what purpose does mr. Berman seek recognition . To strike the last word. Chairman hyde im 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 havent spoken. Chairman hyde we have mooted that question. Go ahead. The chairman said it like he was giving me a second five minutes. I just wanted to make sure we understand. My only point here is, i think if the chairman had said people understand, by the result of the action we are doing today, the president will not be removed from office, but, i and all the others who are voting for these articles of impeachment want the president removed from office are voting for a resolution which says that these articles warrant impeachment and trial and removal from office and a bar to office in the future. That would have been a more accurate statement. I just think that we should get away from the notion that this is some kind of prosecutorial probable cause and that we are kicking it over to the senate for a trial. I have heard a number of my colleagues on the other say very sincerely 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 believe that if it justifies the impeachment, the conviction, the removal from office, thats what the Resolution Says and i think thats the accurate conclusion to conclude from people support of these articles of impeachment. I yield back. Chairman hyde i thank the gentleman. 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. Mr. Chairman, i was astounded about some of what was said by our role. The gentleman from new jersey was not the only one who has been insisting on fact witnesses. We couldnt, in fact, call witnesses because we didnt know allegations, 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. And look at the evidence weve got. Its under oath. But the under oath reflects answers to questions reflected by prosecutors not a crossexamination, nor answers which were subject to any refuting by others. Mr. Chariman, the rule of law prevents us from doing exactly what you are trying to do hereby trying to remove the president from office. Most of the debate that the Founding Fathers participated in setting the impeachment article of the constitution, most of it was how to Keep Congress from doing it. It wasnt 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 for traitors and felons. And not all felons would even qualify for that. Mr. Chairman, we are removing the president from office. The resolution is clear that therefore, William Jefferson clinton warrants impeachment and removal. Thats what were voting on and people ought to be exactly clear about whats going on. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chairman hyde the question occurs on article three. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, we will have a rollcall. Clerk will call a roll. Mr. Maccallum votes aye. Mr. Geekus votes aye. Mr. Coble votes aye. Mr. Smith votes aye. Mr. Gallegly votes aye. Mr. Canady votes aye. Mr. Inglis votes aye. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye. Mr. Bowyer votes aye. Mr. Bryant votes aye. Mr. Shabbat votes aye. 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 bono 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. Mr. Scott votes no. Mr. Watt votes no. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Miss waters votes no. Mr. Meehan votes no. Mr. Delahunt votes no. Mr. Wexler votes no. Mr. Rothman both no. Mr. Barrett votes no. Mr. Hyde votes aye. Chairman hyde the clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 nos. And the article is agree to and the committee stands at recess until 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow morning. Steve youve been watching some of the debate from december 11, 1998 with the house Judiciary Committee. You covered all of this in 1998 and 1999 for National Journal. The final vote in the house was was what . Alexis the house Judiciary Committee voted 2116 to embrace the idea of impeachment. And that was a partyline vote on the committee. Steve what was the centerpiece of the debate among House Republicans and among members led by henry hyde. Alexis the centerpiece of their discussion was, had the president of the United States really violated his oath of office by lying under oath and obstructing justice . And basically violated the honor of his office. And so, one of the things that henry hyde was talking about was should we look away or look forward . Should we look into this . And he was trying to say, through his rhetoric, that the house was really under the constitution, compelled to look into this, that this report had been handed to them. It was so detailed from the independent counsel, and that they couldnt just look away. That they had to look deeply into it and explore and investigate it. Whats interesting about what were 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. So what were watching from the beginning of the trump inquiry is that the congress itself has become the investigative body, which is different than what we saw under bill clinton. Steve 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. And where he is today as a republican senator defending the president. Alexis you mentioned Lindsey Graham. He is now a senator from South Carolina. Thats how we know him. But 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 floor speech at the time. And one of the things he talked about was how bill clinton was needed to cleanse the office. That you didnt need to commit a crime to be impeached. But if congress, the legislative branch, in its wisdom, decided the office needed to be cleansed. Thats the word he used. Weve seen Lindsey Graham in the senate be questioned about his disinterest to explore a trial or to see President Trump impeached. And senator graham maintains that hes been very consistent, that the facts have been so different, that nancy pelosi waited as speaker for a long period of time. An inquiry was authorized and he described the circumstances under president clinton as different than what were 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. So, hes trying to make a distinction why there should not be this impeachment exploration now. But he was so forcefully a proponent of it during president clintons administration. Steve so with regard to the house Judiciary Committee in 1998, as you mentioned, there are four articles of impeachment , two passed. What happened after the Committee Vote . Alexis well, after the Committee Vote, there was a lot of theater related to it, but the actual articles under the constitution, and literally in 1998, were handed over to the senate, physically handed over to the senate. So, the articles moved from committee to the floor, few were embraced by the entire house. And with enough votes, in the house you just need a majority. But when it goes to the senate, the senate then becomes the trial, the jurors. They become the jurors. And so the articles are physically presented to the senate, and under the constitution, the chief justice, who in this period of time, under the trial in 1999, was chief Justice Rehnquist. Rehnquist gave him the president s office. The special office in the senate to work from. And he presided over a trial that lasted 36 days. Steve again, all of this happening right before and right after christmas of 1998, early 1999. Alexis absolutely. And people talked all 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. And i remember that the house managers, who some of them had practiced law and some had been 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. We might be a little rusty on this. And 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. Steve alexis covered all of this for the National Journal in the late 1990s. We thank you for your perspective. Alexis thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] American History tv looks back at the impeachment of bill clinton. Republicans and a handful of democrats will vote to impeach president clinton because we believe he committed crimes resulting in cheating our legal system. We believe he lied under oath numerous times. He tampered with evidence, conspired to present false testimony. We believe he assaulted our legal system in every way. Let it be said any president who cheats our institutions shall be impeached. Impeachment clinton sunday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv. Weekend on lectures in history, Professor William thomas teaches a class on some of the lawsuits brought by slaves who sued for their freedom. He outlines the different legal arguments they used and emphasizes how most affected entire families. Here is a preview. Childrennd most of the were taken to baltimore for sale. Saw is the scene you just in the short film. They were taken from the railroad station to baltimore. Daniel is desperate trying to stop the and possibly sale of mary and the children. Daniel isment, bludgeoned by the train conductor. The train pulls away. Saw andlitionists helped daniel intervene. What happens to mary and daniel eventually with help from some abolitionists, local abolitionists, daniel is able to raise 400. Hes able to purchase marys freedom. He only has enough money to purchase two of the children. Ok . Decideand mary have to which children will be saved. Children three or four will be gone and sold. They do that. After the civil war, some of the children are able to reunite. , we dont know what happened to them. We dont know. They are sold and taken away. At age 8, 9, 10. Marybelle and daniel, like he purchased his own freedom, has to purchase marys freedom. So while they win their freedom in court, this is what happens two marybelle. At 8 00 p. M. Today and midnight eastern on lectures in history. Join the classroom on American History tv. 24, 1971, an estimated 5000 protesters gathered on the vietnam war and opposition 45,000 testers gathered in opposition to the vietnam war. About 4000 activists stayed in the city to be in a series of mayday actions blocking access to government buildings and disrupting traffic. As stated in their widely circulate a tactical manual, their goal was to shut down the federal government. Whole world is film by, a halfhour the Washington Dc Metropolitan Police department these events, including the may 3, 1971 arrest , the largest mass arrest in u. S. History. Crackling]udio blocking the street, 1700 block of massachusetts avenue northwest. We have a wagon headed up that way. [radio chatter] [sirens] we have two cars headed that way