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

The senate. Fall of 1998, the house of representatives taking up articles of impeachment against William Jefferson clinton. Well see some highlights but joining us in the studios is alexis simendinger. Lets begin with the political environment in 1998. What led to the impeachment of clinton . One of the interesting things we might forget all this time, forward, is that bill clinton was under investigation or almost his entire presidency. And ken starr became the counsel. Nt ken starr had begun to investigate the whitewater 1994. Ment deal back in so by the time were in the fall clinton and ident his entire 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. Fall of 1998, he was elected to a second term but into the midterm what ken starr as the independent counsel had of vered was a whole series alleged relationships that the president had had in the past, investigated, and then he had heard about an intern named Monica Lewinsky. So by the time that the impeachment inquiry was and in the house, 31 democrats went along with it really interesting, ken starr had a whole report to and turned over an entire investigation to the House Republicans who were in then. Jority so the background was fraught with politics. Doing very well. Bill clinton was actually very opular but republicans felt that they really were forced to act because of the nature and details in the starr report. The question that continued this e up, did relationship rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors . What was the republican argument from the rargument Clinton House . Remember, president clinton first so the defense evolved over time. He republicans, though, were asserting that the report required them to investigate. Not necessarily because this was sex or sexual contact, but because it was a violation of president s oath of office because the allegations were hide it, and to subsequently during a deposition a grand jury, the allegation was that he had lied that. Encourage others o lie for him, including his secretary at the time, white house secretary betty currie, tried to e had basically find a job for monica through a friend to keep her quiet so the whole inquiry n set in this suggested to republicans that they were compelled under the pursue this, and he president s denial was that this was a witchhunt. This was a political act. To these no substance allegations, and that this first. Or didnt exist at so to that point you mentioned witchhunt. What ere parallels to weve been seeing today here in washington and as you look at the investigation, is there a what we saward from in 1998 and what were seeing today . Interesting to hear the echo of some of the talkingms and words and points that we listen to in 1998 1999. President clinton at the time, as we remember vividly, did a his own defense. He came to his own defense. E actually spoke at the microphone and pointed his finger and said that he did not that exual relations with woman, Monica Lewinsky. 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 woman, ms. Monica lewinsky. I never told anybody to like, time. Single never. These allegations are false, and for d to go back to work the American People. Thank you. [applause] as a talked about it political coup detat. That it was a witchhunt, political act. Of the same words, the same actual concept of making a strong effort both in the clinton impeachment and in inquiry, have s been focused on trying to make it look as partisan as possible. Mentioned to you that when the house authorized the inquiry nder president clinton, remember, they voted to support 31 democrats iry, cross at the aisle and supported that. What weve seen with president really strong republican effort to stand with voted in republicans september for the inquiry. Lets talk about the timeline. Election year, 1998. Hat happened in november of 1998 . The republicans, of course, of the houseontrol of representatives. Speaker Newt Gingrich is the that time period. What happened . Gingrich had begun to outlive the patience of his midterm cause in the elections the democrats picked up seats which was considered really unusual. Elections usually the party in power in the white house loses seats and the effectively used impeachment as a weapon. Weapon, and speaker gingrich began to lose the confidence of his caucus and here was an internal effort to push him out and he realized hat his days were numbered as speaker. And then the Republican Caucus waiting, new speaker in Bob Livingston. Bob livingston initially had tremendous support, and then everyones shock and mazement, when they got ready to begin the impeachment discussion of articles of mpeachment, Bob Livingston to everyones shock really truly, it was a drama, said that he was going to resign. He was going said to resign is because he, too, in his past of xtramarital relations, and, at that time, larry flinch was offering big, big money to who would provide information about any of the republican impeachment managers those involved who were basically, had feet of clay that. In had had relationships the past, too, and it was surprising how many of them had, judiciary he committee chairman, henry hyde ho said an extramarital relationship that he had when he was 40 was a youthful indiscretion. Of impeachment in a moment. Well let our audience listen to debate of the house Judiciary Committee in september 1998. Lets talk about the proceedings and the hearings. Before the Judiciary Committee, were they televised . Did these f reaction hearings receive . They were televised. Clinton me that bill was facing this, cable existed and there was a lot of cable news coverage. Of course, a lot of basic mainstream news coverage. There was a lot of discussion among the house about how many articles of impeachment to actually put forward. It turned out that they ended up floating four of them. There was discussion internally about how many they were going actually have enough votes to proceed on, and there was back trading among the House Republican managers, and committee, it was Straight Party line vote to approve four of them but by the got to the house floor nly two of them actually were endorsed by the entire republican conference. By the time it went to the floor. Viewed as highly partisan . They were painted as being entirely partisan by certainly defenders of the president. Whether there was enough evidence to support what they were alleging so the articles of impeachment basically were perjury, lying was an th, there obstruction of justice, related describing, the president s efforts to hide his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Thats the debate well see in just a moment but please continue. There was a third article dealt with perjury but it had to do with written the paula jones civil litigation that the was being riginally accused of lying, ken starr was oath ine had lied under the civil litigation, and then the fourth was abuse of power. Basically there was an allegation that the president and his team had lied to abused his power as president. Nd the house Judiciary Committee passed all four. As i said, along party lines but time that it moved forward to the house, the full those loor, only two of survived and they were basically a perjury and an obstruction. Do you remember . Whats your overall takeaway of that time period more than 20 years ago . I was covering the white house, so my perspective talking to the president and his team, and there were a couple of things i remember vividly. Is, when the story about onica lewinsky broke, you may remember that this was an investigative story. To break was trying but actually there had been a pause to make sure the reporting it was ly complete, and then fed to drudge, which was a randnew website which opened the door to what were seeing now. Actually remember going upstairs to the lower ress office talking to the president s senior staffers. A an remember asking question, paul, who was absolutely sure that this had ot happened and was absolutely so frustrated that reporters were willing to even consider that this had happened. Relationship with the intern. And they were furious. Top aides were furious and some actually left, never got over it. Thing i remember about t from the perspective of the entire process is that president linton 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 to survive. Clinton was a big fighter and there was no question in his ind that he was going to resign. That was so clear. He was going to fight it until did and felt proud of himself for doing it. He considered himself in the end defending the constitution but it wasnt certain how it would turn out and the televised were salacious and it was about sex but the thing i emember is that president clinton had unbelievable support. He was actually impeached his job approval was 73 . People had made their judgment. Hey had they were past his reelection. They were heading to the end of they nal two years and just thought it was personal behavior and that it was too much. Gone too icans had far, and the economy was very good and they were just willing to look the other way. It, i her element of think, thats so interesting, the about President Trump, American People were not shocked hat president clinton liked women. Young women, any women, right . This was not a surprise to them. Ways, the ome president profitted by not only it but also having a reputation that the American People understood that. This was part of his past. The ll continue conversation, but with that background, from december 11 of judiciary ouse committee taking up four articles of impeachment. To see te youre about including one of those articles dealing with obstruction of justice. Committee will now consider article 3. Amendments to article 3 . If not, i will chairman the gentleman from virginia. Well, asking for move to strike the last word. Recognized eman is minutes. Okay. Are there any amendments. No it is the chairs intention article to sh this adjourn for the evening. Does anybody else want to speak . At 9 00 a. M. Ck tomorrow morning. I just wanted to announce that scheduling purposes. Seek oes anyone recognition . Was that mr. Scott . Yes, mr. Scott. Word. E to strike the last recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, i ought to reflect a bit about the facts on this article. We have things like a false affidavit and false statements. The gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, has spared me the ecessity of quoting from the dictionary about certain words but Monica Lewinsky was not with a definition that the judges and lawyers argued over. She said what she believed and there ds to mean is evidence in this case, the tape recording, when she didnt recorded or being being set up by linda tripp , thought what she certain words meant and linda tripp , who knew they were being her to , tried to get change her mind about the definition but Monica Lewinsky wouldnt. We also in the witness there has to be a witness for there to be tampering, and after you review conflicting, uncrossexamined, hearsay and make s inferences used to the other elements of this to place u still have the articles, the allegations in impeachment. F our authority to do what some wanted to do but couldnt do at defeat bill at is, clinton, that authority is limited to treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Now how is a word that doesnt that isnt used very much in america, because its an english word against the state. The experts at our hearing also close attention to another word in the phrase, and that is other. Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanor. Treason, bribery and stuff like that, in its effect our government. That means it has to be a subversion of the constitution. Danger for the a president staying in office. That is, the president must be treason, cause of bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanor. Ell later be subject to the rule of law just like everybody else and when we review these they are s to see if Impeachable Offenses we have to remember what impeachment is for. Protect our nation. So we look at the history of impeachment and look at what offenses have been Impeachable Offenses and we look at watergate and see the corrupt irs, f the f. B. I. , c. I. A. , official use of those agencies and lying about it have been Impeachable Offenses in but 500 million tax fraud, where the evidence according to those who were overwhelming, and certainly stronger than the hearsay and inferences were they did today but not support the article involving half Million Dollar which was certainly a crime a serious crime but not a high crime. Furthermore, our experts unanimously agreed that the term other high ibery or crimes and misdemeanors, does not cover all felonies so we remove a president faithfullyfailed to execute the laws when we cant stand him being president anymore. The rule of law restricts our authority to act to treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. So even if we believe the that we nd inferences have before us there has been no showing that the conduct constitute as threat to our form of ional government and thats why historians and legal scholars told us that whether or not these allegations are true, they Impeachable Offenses. I yield back the balance of my time. Thehe gentleman yields back balance of his time. I rise in support of the article and recognize myself for five minutes. This article of impeachment, article 3, is the one that relates to obstruction by president clinton. There are seven specifically 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 of making that interpretation. There will be members on the of the aisle e that will specifically address hemselves to each of these instances of obstruction of justice. Looked atk that if we it from the criminal context, which were not here, there have to be three elements of what makes obstruction of justice. Be a pendinghas to federal judicial proceeding. In this case, with the paula jones civil rights lawsuit. Secondly, the defendant had to know of the proceeding. The civil was defendant in that lawsuit. He had been served the papers on third, that the defendant acted corruptly and with intent to obstruct and with the proceeding or the due administration of justice. Instancesof the seven that are contained in article 3 december 17, bit 1997, William Jefferson clinton encouraged a witness in a federal civil Rights Action execute aainst him to sworn affidavit in that roceeding that he knew to be precurious, false and misleading. In his deposition testimony in year, the this president said that he spoke with Monica Lewinsky before while he wasd that not sure that she would be alled to testify in the paula jones civil suit she might qualify or Something Like that. Encouragingt denied by Monica Lewinsky to lie falling a false affidavit but in nswer to the 81 questions submitted to this committee he id say that he told her other witnesses had executed affidavits and there was a chance they would not have to testify. Hinthint. Ms. Monica lewinsky was more her tic on the subject in grand jury testimony. When she asked the president what she should do, if she was testify, he said, well, maybe you can sign an affidavit. Would be to deter, to prevent me from being disposed could range anywhere between just somehow entioning innocuous things or going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of relationship. Tolds what Monica Lewinsky the grand jury. She further stated that she was sure, a percent hundred percent sure that the president suggested she might sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. An independent counsel interview, false a tements of which are federal crime. Also noted ewinsky that the president never instructed her to lie about the matter. Her to he never told file an affidavit detailing the true nature of their sexual only onship which would invite humiliation and prove damaging to the president in the case. Jones she contextually understood that the president wanted her to lie. In the oic referral. Furthermore, attorneys for paula evidence of eking sexual relationships the president may have had with or federal employees. Such information is often deemed harassment sexual lawsuits to help prove the plaintiff. Claim, the it was ruled that paula jones was entitled to this Information Purposes of discovery. Consequently, when the president ncouraged Monica Lewinsky to file an affidavit, he knew that it would have to be false for lewinsky to avoid testifying. If she filed a truthful acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president , she certainly would as a deposition witness and her subsequent ruthful testimony would have been damaging to the president both politically as well as legally. Of i yield back the balance my time. Mr. Chairman . For what purpose, the gentleman from michigan rise. I rise to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized five minutes. In reviewing article 3 thats us, obstruction of the seven review clauses and its almost like weve come here this evening and have never examined the facts in the matter. These have all been gone through repeatedly. Carefully n be very answered. By filing of an affidavit miss lewinsky. Is there anyone here who doesnt she swore that no one ever asked her to lie and that as to what the affidavit should contain was a by her alone, and that the president said that lewinsky might be able to avoid testifying by filing a affidavit. T truthful a perfectly legal activity on his part. As a matter of fact, what her own lawyer ended up doing. In clause 7, statements to ides, the president made statements to his staff on 26, in order23, and to protect his family from the Monica Lewinsky relationship. He could not have known that his would be called at that time before the office of counsels grand jury. Of his idents denial relationship with miss Monica Lewinsky to his staff was after the same eady made denial to the public. Not then ent was singling out his staff. E denied the affair to everyone. 6. Was not denying clause attempting to influence betty currie. Weve heard repeated testimony of the uniteddent states did not attempt to influence betty curries in any proceeding when he spoke with her on the sunday the tuesday, january 18 and respectively before the news regarding miss Monica Lewinsky. The president was concerned about the media reaction to what of his would be a leak deposition testimony. E could not have known about the oic investigation, so therefore, he could not have curry was or s. Could be on a witness list. To statements by the president s lawyers, clause 5, there is no evidence that the president knowingly allowed his false to make representations in the jones deposition. In fact, the president testified he was not focusing on his ttorney when he made the statements. Instead, he was concentrating on his wn testimony in deposition. There is no evidence, none, that encouraged his attorney to make those tatements or even had any idea that his attorney would make them for him. With clause 4. The job search. This been put has into evidence . There is nothing connecting the to help miss Monica Lewinsky find a job with miss lewinskys submission of an afterward. Ever testified that no one promised her a job. That may be the 45th time that has been uttered in this room. If the president were intent on he clearly a job, would have done that and could have done that. Not know hat he did shows that there was no linkage affidavit. Thethen, of course, we have gift situation in which all itnesses agree the job search started long before Monica Lewinsky was named on the jones witness list. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous to put my statement into the record at this point. Without objection. So ordered. And i return any time the gentlemans time has expired. What purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek registration . Move to strike the last word. Is recognized n for five minutes. To r. Chairman, i wanted address the second paragraph of this article of impeachment. On second paragraph provides december 17 encouraged someone to give false misleading testimony. His has reference to a call that occurred on december 17 at 2 00 a. M. Or 2 30 a. M. In the by the president of the United States. He learns that Monica Lewinsky witness list and he calls her first to purportedly betty curries brother had passed away, but, of course, real purpose was to news, your hat bad name is on the witness list, and they discuss this. If youre ad to say subpoenaed, which, he knew was coming, you should contact betty. Then he told her, you can always say youre coming to see that youre bringing me letters. End quote. Ccording to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. This is very important because without have a witness any question is going to be a witness in a federal civil rights suit. This case, the president personally calls this witness to let them know that they are subpoenaed, that youre on the witness list, and to tell them how to handle it, to encourage her not to provide truthful testimony, but provide false testimony, and to provide a cover story for her. Suggesting, you can always say, and this is confirmed in the monica ry testimony of lewinsky, now, the president denies this in part. Admits that that telephone conversation took place and so there is some corroboration to he has no specific recollection. When Monica Lewinsky has a clear the president d has no specific recollection, i think that the weight of the to the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. Secondly, its consistent with a of deception. Prior to this, they had arranged the cover story. An i understand thats not illegal context, but when it moved into the legal context that scheme to cover up, in the legal context, by cover story e same would apply in testimony under civil rights case. And so there is no dispute about the call. Its consistent with a pattern deceit. For the a motive president to encourage perjury, and its also consistent with a alse affidavit thats ultimately provided by Monica Lewinsky. Would also call upon the testimony of mr. Jordan who confirmed in this case, in his grand jury, the that president clinton knew that Monica Lewinsky was going to the false affidavit and he kept the president very to every prised as development of that affidavit. So when i look at this matter from the standpoint of clear and evidence, i believe that you have clear testimony, of the use of the ation, because motivation behind it, the testimony, the consistency that this paragraph and this rise to n does obstruction of justice by clear and convincing evidence. Back. Ld the gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose, the gentleman from new york rise. Move to strike the last word. Recognized eman is for five minutes. I thank the gentleman. That, particularly on article, while i certainly believe that even facts that mr. Presented, and thats been reiterated. T doesnt rise to the level of impeachment. I can see the argument among my colleagues, in a basic criminal or a civil context, argument on rong the other side. Article 1, to a somewhat lesser the gentleman from massachusetts summed that up as well, yeah, its sort of might be able u to make a very legalistic that nt albeit one wouldnt come close to the level of impeachment. But when we get to articles four, we really begin to reach. Article 3 reaches. Reaches, and almost gets into the theater of the absurd. Were here to address article 3. Based on a it that convincing clear and professes toch the use were not even close. Yes, you can string together surmise, this was the motivation but there is at the very least an equally plausible a lanation that there was different motivation and there not one direct fact that hows that the motivation attributed, for instance, by the gentleman from arkansas, to the president , is the motivation. Ow can we submit articles of impeachment based on surmise . Here r. Starr when he was admitted it was surmise so take the job hunt. Yes, there was a job hunt. All agree there was a job hunt. E all agree it started before there was any knowledge of a judicial process or later ajones suit grand jury and continued after. We all agree it was a very all ar job search and we agree there are two plausible after the job after it became clear that there in a paula jones lawsuit deposition. Monica lewinsky away rom the scene to prevent the continuation of an illicit affair. And two, to keep Monica Lewinsky before a judicial proceeding. One explanation i would argue is plausible as the next. N fact, the noncriminal explanation is more plausible we even t began before knew there was a possible intervention, judicial intervention. The et, the majority has say, oh, no, we know by clear and convincing evidence that he was doing to it prevent her from testifying. I ask you, where is your direct evidence . More than surmise . And you have an obligation, in to make sure that its more than surmise if youre youre s to impeach, if asking america to impeach its president. Monica ng with the lewinsky story. Yes. Its true, we all admit, that and monica t story. Ky had a cover a story that was not truthful. That was of lies. Before, it once again before any knowledge of a grand jury. Of a deposition. Basis of just on the surmise, the majority says, oh, did it, to deceive in the deposition and in the grand jury. Thats not good enough, ladies and gentlemen. Be need more than that to clear and convincing in a court of law and you certainly need a e than that to impeach president , and finally, because ending, and finally, ladies and is one, gentlemen. The president didnt tell the cabinet about because he sky thought they might later be alled into a grand jury and he wanted to mislead them. I ask unanimous consent for an minute. Nal the gentlemans time has expired. Objection, the gentleman will be granted an additional minute. Ordered. Thank you. Imagine putting a count in here well, we somehow think that the president would not o his cabinet, would tell the truth to his cabinet, when he had no idea there would idea eposition, and no that there would be a grand jury proceeding, because he wanted not to tell the truth. We can do a lot better. A lot better than that. This is a string put together piece that leads to a that is so demonstrably stretched that when people ask, why do some out there believe that the here is more partisan than coming directly on the facts, i would not argue that about counts one and two but and you look at count 3 particularly count 4, it is logical, not provable, but say some people on the other side are out to get man regardless of the facts. For what purpose, gentleman from South Carolina rise. Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized minutes. Mr. Chairman. Rep. Schiff think its important to bring out some about paragraph three in this article. The were talking about scheme to conceal evidence in brought Rights Action against the president. We heard from minority counsel and the this ents counsel that was not orchestrated by the therefore, they would dispute this claim in this article. Ar ut i think that the evidence clearly indicates, clearly indicates an effort here, a cheme, to conceal this evidence, and in this case, its supported by a telephone record. Course, this is indicative, i think, of the excellent nvestigative work thats been done here. So what happened, there is ms. Lewinsky that gifts, she ut the the d the issue with president. The president told her about the uggestion that possibly she should do something with the gifts. To president , according Monica Lewinsky, said i dont know, let me think about that. Ms. Lewinsky got a call from ms. Curry, according ms. Lewinsky saying, i understand you have something to Something Like the president said you may have something to give me. Point, ms. Curry, as it was pointed out, has a memory, and she reported couldnt lly, she remember, but the best she can thinks that monica called her, betty currie. Contradicted by a key piece of evidence. Of evidence piece is the cell phone record of ms. That she one showing within hours after she left the white house on that lewinsky. Nica with that evidence, its clear the call was initiated by Monica Lewinsky, nd, of course, that is further buttressed by the fact, why else miss monicarry call lewinsky and ask if she had something for her to pick up . And why would she take that box f gifts and put it under her bed . These are not normal things that people do. Dont call up somebody, ask if you have something for me, the box and put it under your bed. Sense to fies common think that it was the other way around. Curry was that initiating theas transfer here. Its pretty clear from this vidence, and i think clear and convincing from this evidence, must have esident been involved in a scheme to get Monica Lewinsky into the hands of his trusted currie, and etty that was part of a scheme to this case. Stice in to stop the discovery of this information. So, mr. Chairman, i think its clear that this particular articles of the impeachment is clearly by the evidence. Ill yield back the balance of my time. Has expired, gentleman from massachusetts. Recognized for five minutes. Really pleased that my has raised english, this particular evidence because that this is t the peril of this articular approach that this committee has adopted. Never hearing once from a itness, never hearing from ms. Curry or ms. Lewinsky, vernon or anyone else. Shame on us. Simply taking written suggesting that that constitutes evidence unlike what occurred during the watergate inquiry, where, as charles wiggins, a republican member in the that they old us, mr. From john dean, from ehrlichman, shame on us. We did have that responsibility and now were doing it real sloppy. Let me tell you, i did my own omework on this particular inglis. Mr. Youre right. Its undisputed that ms. Monica lewinsky returned the gifts to curry and she did so on december 28. Is whether the president asked ms. Curry to etrieve the gifts or whether Monica Lewinsky paid her own arrangements to return the gifts mr. Clintons involvement. Independent the counsel released a statement to press, which i would submit into the record without objection. So ordered. Taking issue with mr. Rupps presentation to this committee and claiming the president s is substantiated by the billing records for ms. Cellular or telephone account, just as you mentioned, records, and mr. Shipp, as you indicated, used these in his state to the committee, indicated that one minute call currys cellrom ms. Phone to ms. Lewinskys p. M. , ne number at 3 32 on december 28. His press release, the independent counsel claims that ms. Curry placed this call for purpose of arranging to pick lewinsky. Fts from ms. In his closing statement to the ommittee, mr. Shipp has made much of the document. E said that it, and i quote corroborates Monica Lewinsky and proves conclusively that ms. Called monica from her cell phone several hours after left the white house. Why did betty currie pick up the from ms. Lewinsky . And the is asked, answer, its the facts. Had facts. The facts strongly suggest the to do so. Directed her and that his support for the harge is that the president sought to conceal evidence. But, you know what . Problem with this socalled evidence. Explicitly ly and contradicted by the f. B. I. Interview of Monica Lewinsky taken this past july. Of this year. In report, which appears the first appendix to the starr 1,396, as you ge in , there are 60,000 pages there. So i dont blame mr. Shipp for i certainly dont suggest he would try to mislead committee. Nd im quoting, lewinsky met curry on 28th street outside Monica Lewinskys apartment at and gave curry the box of gifts. 3 32. T ut at 2 00 p. M. , was the transfer of those gifts, mr. Inglis. An hour and a half discrepancy. This raises the following question. Exchange had already taken place time has expired. Consent for imous an additional two minutes. Without objection. You, mr. Chairman. This raises the following question. The Gift Exchange had already taken place at 2 00 p. M. How could the telephone call placed 3 32 have been for the it . Pose of arranging this is what i would suggest is a ould conclude considerable inconsistency. Troubling many inconsistencies in the documents themselves. Yet, this potentially taken from fact materials sworn under oath 60,000 ls, documents, pages of them, from the possession of mr. Starr, was acknowledged by mr. Starr, it unfortunately was acknowledged by mr. Shipp. Oth of them, and im not suggesting it was intentional, affirmatively led the committee was for the e call purpose of arranging for ms. Gifts. To pick up the and now, now were preparing to an article of impeachment thats substantially call. On that telephone what was the purpose of the call . Know. t it appears that the investigators never asked, and e have never had the opportunity to ask because we have not heard from the witnesses themselves, and this no way to conduct an inquiry, mr. Chairman. An a disgrace and its insult to the rule of law. Would the gentleman yield a question as to what citation was on that . On page 1,300 something as i recall. Page 1,396. I yield. Thank you. The gentlemans time has again expired. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise . Last word. He rise. Thank you. Witnesses and defendants, targets of o are investigations and defendants in very frequently have clear motive to take steps to ither ensure that adverse witnesses dont appear in court against to testify them, to provide testimony in other times and places, or to in some way their testimony so it is either not damaging or less damaging to the target or the defendant. That being fact of human nature, and the federal government for any years having knowledge of that characteristic of defendants and targets of had on the ns, has books in title 18, the criminal criminalvisions of our law that is address that, and eek to prevent or punish those who, in fact, take steps to, whats termed in the eyes of the with witnesses. Specifically thats found at us csection 1512. 1515 n addition section which contains definitions that are relevant to that provision of the code. Chairman. E, mr. This is, in essence, in large in paragraph 4, the third article of impeachment, were provision of title 18 section 1512 that provides in part, whoever engages in misleading conduct towards another person influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official induces g, causes or any person to withhold testimony, evade legal process, r be absent from an official proceeding, or hinder, delay or prevent the communication of guilty of a is criminal offense. 1515, one section finds a common sense definition misleading conduct, as well definitions of official proceedings and to persuade. When one then turns to the evidence in this case and the regarding the socalled ob search, one fact that immediately jumps to mind is, hy would the most powerful human being on the face of the earth, that is, the president of he United States of america, and one of the most prominent and, in legal circles in washington, most powerful private attorneys, drop sexually and thing they are doing, the president constantly reminds s how important his work is as indeed it is, and conduct a job search for what might be termed best a second or third rate employee. Vernon jordan testified that he had indeed conducted quite a few for individuals of note to him. New ormer mayor of city of york, a talented attorney one of the preeminent law firms in washington, a School Business graduate. Monica lewinsky. Of itself, contrary to the pattern of activity of and by ticular witness, the way that testimony was controverted by the testimony of of a fortune 500 company, mr. Pearlman, who said called him ad never about a job search, raises a very legitimate presumption that other thanome reason a legitimate job search for that occupied , considerable attention of the president and Vernon Jordan and indeed, in the testimony of ms. Lewinsky, that to her, dent suggested that it might be appropriate if she took a job in new york and find that lp her through Vernon Jordan, somebody heretofore was unknown to ms. Lewinsky, that this might cause er to avoid being called as a witness or available as a witness, and, indeed, thats happened. Mission accomplished, in the words of mr. Jordan. I believe very clearly, mr. A irman, that we have here very substantial case involving a violation of title 18, the section inal code, 1512, tampering with a witness, chairman,volving, mr. I would ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. Without objection. The chairman, involving an effort, a deliberate effort, a knowing willful effort, on the part of the president , to cause or take ica lewinsky steps, once it became known that would be a witness and that the ad been subpoenaed, other side might make some hay out of the fact that ms. Lewinsky really had been involved in a job search for quite some time. Thats the case, since july 1997. Legitimatenly raises suspicions and fits within the pattern of activity here and if though, mr. Chairman, is the fact that this went from burner effort by a second rate employee of the government to a very accelerated flurry of lving a activity by mr. Jordan, by the major fortune 500 corporation, involving the ambassador the u. S. To the united nations. All set into motion after it not before, but after it became known, that ms. Would, indeed be a inness and provide testimony case. Aula jones these are appropriate, reasonable, common sense which even in a criminal proceeding, a trier of fact would be instructed by a District Court judge, they could properly conclude. The evidence, which is ery voluminous set forward and summarized yesterday, and uncontroverted. I believe, mr. Chairman, there more than a substantial basis, a more than adequate paragraph four of rticle three involving tampering with a federal witness by the president of the United States of america. Expired. Has for what purpose does the gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, rise. Gentleman is recognized minutes. Mr. Chairman, the recklessness of the republican in this proceeding is by articles rated three and four. I believe as ive stated many articles one and two are not sufficient, they dont rise to the level of Impeachable Offenses, even if provable. Sufficient not evidence but numbers three and four, frankly, dont pass the giggle test. Quite simply laughable. What is number three, article three. A grab bag of different allegations. He president encouraged ms. Monica lewinsky to file a false affidavit. Fair reading of the evidence says only one thing. She asked how she could avoid said, well, d he ther witnesses have been allowed to not testify in person by submitting an affidavit. Maybe they will let do you that, too. There is no evidence, no from anybody, that he asked her to file a false affidavit instead of appearing grand jury which was nerve ndably about. Here is no contradictory testimony at all, yet, to schumer put mr. Make that icient to an article of impeachment. The job search, helping someone is not illegal. Ts generally considered praiseworthy. There is no effort whatsoever in with her find a job submission for an affidavit or her testimony. She testified that no one ever job. Ed her a the suggestion to tie them together, we know came from tripp. We know that from the tapes. E know if the president were really intent on getting her a job he clearly could have done that. All, quite a powerful person. The fact that he did not shows with her no linkage affidavit. What linkage do we have with her affidavit . Except surmise, and the fact that the effort started well before there was any might be that she called as a witness, that she might have to file an affidavit appear indicates that there was no connection. Surmise, ch, even the the surmise is, why else would betty currie or Vernon Jordan be interested in helping this young woman . Corrupt motive. It must not be. Asked jordan to help her. Why would she asked vernon to Monica Lewinsky find a job . Maybe because Monica Lewinsky asked and betty was a friend of hers. As logical as any other explanation. Thats as logical 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 thats not the case. Betty currie testifies 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. But whats the difference . We can surmise what we want to surmise. We can pretend it makes a difference. It was destroyed. 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 theres no evidence whatsoever of evil motives. But weve also been suggested to outrageous leaps of logic. Because, if in fact, 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, whys he giving her more evidence . Well, theres outrageous leaps of logic to enter this. Tells us that he attempts to deal with it the gentlemans times 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 tacit reminder to Monica Lewinsky, and a secret code, i suppose, to continue to deny the relationship . I dont think so. I think the bear was a warning by the president that 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. What is that evidence of . A conspiracy against justice . No. Its evidence of the fact that hes having a cover story for a 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. Time has expired. The gentleman from utah, mr. Cannon. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Corks let me just say i think its a compelling case mr. Nat mr. Nadler has made for a scheme here. Id like to point out it does i dont think it has the weight he would suggest. In the documents, it does indicate, in a 302, one of the fbi reports, which was done on july 27, 1998, that on december 28, the document was done on the 27th of july. Monica lewinsky says that on december 28, so roughly seven months earlier, she had a phone call and met or was outside of her apartment on 28th street to give those gifts to miss currie at about 2 00 p. M. Thats a fair statement. It does say about. On the other hand, 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 there and that 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 to the federal judge as he characterized an affidavit , in order to prevent questioning, which during the course of the question, the judges deemed relevant. On generally 15th, robert bennett, who was 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 youll recall that 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 innuendo of the questions and 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. Now, we all heard that being stated as the president sat there and nodded a couple of times in assent. After a warning from judge wright he stated, im 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 miss lewinsky. The president did not say anything to correct mr. Bennett even though he knew the affidavit was false. Later in the deposition, mr. Bennett 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 that 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 testimony how he could be backing off from the lewinsky testimony ended testimony to the grand jury, how he couldve lawfully sat silent at the deposition when his attorney making a false statement, the president first said he was not paying a great deal of attention to mr. Bennett. Mr. President also said i didnt pay any attention to this colliquy as it went on. We saw that as the colloquy happened. 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 of any kind, 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 completely true statement. President clintons 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 to be yielding. 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 of that and i think thats a remarkable stack. My question is, 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 the significance, 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. And i dont know if will my friend yield . Id be happy to. Another great prosecutor over there, mr. Delahunt. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Bryant. And, you know, 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. And 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. Mr. Chairman . For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina rise . Unanimous consent to speak out of turn for one minute. Without objection. 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 too severely, i intend to object at the end of each five minute segment so we can go home and go to bed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose the gentleman from north of North Carolina, mr. Watt, seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes exactly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to proceed very carefully in what i say here because i think of all the articles in this document, this is the one that is most troubling to me and when i hear of 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 when behind every tree there was a communist. You know, 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 that youre talking about ms. Currie, on or about january 18, january 20, 21, they William Jefferson clinton related a false and misleading account 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 with ms. Curry, 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 unanimous consent for two additional minutes. Objection is heard. If you set the precedent then youre going to be the beneficiary of it, to. May i respond to that . 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 . Ill strike the last word and use one minute, folks. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. I did that to put everybody on notice earlier. Will the gentleman yield two minutes to me . No. Not yet. Ive done my best. 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. For what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . 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. Gentleman will state his point of order. 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 floridas 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 the 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 attempted to influence the testimony of his his personalurrie, 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 whether it 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 numerous times throughout the sayingion, oftentimes she talked about Vernon Jordan ski andms. Lewin 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 not a leap. Thats right there. Thats for all of us to see and in 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 exactly 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. The president also stated that he could not recall how many times he had talked to ms. Cur rie or when. Let me go on and tell you what ms. Currie said. And 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 her if the president made a series of leading statements or questions, it was 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 with me and i couldnt do that. In her testimony, she indicated that the president s remarks were like statements and questions. Thats 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. Ms. Currie 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. And 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. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is a very shoddy effort to me. 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. That is the only fact that we have at the central. Thats the cause. We again remember that all of the other issues that have been raised, from the fbi files, files, etc. , etc. Are simply etc. , etc. Are simply absent from this. 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 et al 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. Now, 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. Its a form of verbal disease. Monica lewinsky said no one asked her to lie. They all say, including Kenneth Starr, no one explicitly asked me to lie. There is an enormous difference between the two. And the very fact that my colleagues on the other side almost always at that word explicitly indicates their 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 just had a terrible story of losing hours of her life. The gentleman from utah said she mustve thought it was 2 00 but it was really 4 00 because the call came at 3 30. There is nothing remotely to suggest that. Betty currie goes through the same transmogrifications. 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. Youre citing 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. Gentleman from florida said they had 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 was Kenneth Starr threatening to 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. Now thats relevant because your your 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. The truth is this young woman only told these facts when she was threatened with prison. And that destroys the whole case. You are accusing bill clinton and Vernon Jordan and betty currie are doing something they have all denied. And they have all denied they did this. Youre 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. She had to be first, linda tripp tried to get her to do it and then Kenneth Starr threatened her with it. And i think this failure to recognize Monica Lewinsky s reluctance to testify is 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 might get the wrong idea if we pass these articles of impeachment, were throwing the president out of office. Thats exactly not true. Point of interruption. Go ahead. Point of interruption. It warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. You understand we dont do the trial in the house . I understand that. You understand the trial occurs in the other body . What we do is we find whether theres 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 you may leave the room. [laughter] yes, miss waters . What is it . I dont want you to be frightened when i want to engage you. I want you to stand up for what you believe in, so lets talk. Mr. Chairman, i do not want you to use your awesome power to send a message to the citizen of citizens of this country that were 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. Id like to take back my time and i get the gentleladys message. Im not saying what we do is insignificant. I think it is highly significant and portentous and requires great care and great study, and 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 ive heard repeatedly, especially from the gentleman near the end of the first row, that 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 . Mr. Chairman . Please, let me finish. Im on a roll now. As soon as im through. [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 well, ill let you stretch it that far, but i didnt mention your name. Well, you meant me. Chairman hyde well, i did mean you. All right. [laughter] thank you, mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak on personal privilege. First of all, you keep saying 60,000 documents. Well, these 60,000 documents were about civil deposition in grand jury testimony work nobody where 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. Go ahead. Thank you very much. My judgment, 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, judge starr and mr. Schippers arguing from portions of transcripts of depositions and grand jury testimony. 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. And we were willing to accept that, and if you questioned it, you had every opportunity to do that. I would say that you unreasonably accepted a low burden of proof that do not constitute. Thats your opinion. Thats your opinion. The gentleman from massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, i appreciate you swinging my way. [laughter] chairman said he would swing to me. Chairman hyde regular order. [laughter] chairman hyde regular order. [laughter] mr. Chairman, i do now, and i do want to take serious issue with a profound point. And i really do think we have a series of issues here. We will rejoin it later, but i didnt 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 is of what were doing, i am inferring from your disavowal that, as much as any member of the house could do to get the president out of office, that there is some uneasiness about it. And i think there 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 the past few months 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 themselves the electorate. And it has to be there from time to time. But to reduce its impact, or to reduce our part in it, thats i think one of 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 thats why i have always said, unless this is done bipartisanly, 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 probably 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 strike the last word. He has, you may. You may. Yes. 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 for 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 in 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 no, senator, 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, and that is my point. Now, the gentleman from ok, mr. Rogan. Mr. Chairman, i move to strike the last word. Gentlemans recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, echoing the comments of the chair a moment ago 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 this subject and id like to just 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 standing under our constitution than 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 impeachments, then he, not the congress, will have overturned the election. He will have acted in ways that betray 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, then to 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 into the record an article from a magazine entitled, sydney strikes again. This is an article about sidney blumenthal, who has 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 in two articles. Article one i spoke. Chairman hyde we have it down that you spoke on article three. Well, those are our records. 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 no, im sorry. No, im sorry, this is a factual dispute, but im willing to go under oath. Chairman hyde go ahead, take your five minutes. But i havent spoken. Chairman hyde weve mooted that question. Weve mooted that. 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. Were just kicking it over to the senate for a trial. Ive 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 of evidence 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 peoples support of these articles of impeachment. I yield back. Chairman hyde i thank the gentleman. Who else is seeking . Mr. Scott. For what purpose this the gentleman seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for two minutes . Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I was astounded about some of what was said by our role. The gentleman from new jersey wasnt the only one whos been insisting on fact witnesses. We couldnt, in fact, call witnesses because we didnt know the 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 youre trying to do here by trying to remove the president from office. Most of the debate that the Founding Fathers participated in in setting the impeachment article of the constitution, most of the debate was how to Keep Congress from doing it. It wasnt how to get the president out of office. You had this provision, it would be too easy. That provision would not be 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. So, mr. Chairman, we are removing the president from office. The resolution is clear that wherefore, William Jefferson clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and removal. Thats what were voting on and people ought to be exactly clear about whats going on. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. 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 are going to have a roll call. Clerk will call the 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 votes 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. [inaudible] steve youve been watching some of the debate from december 11, 1998, at the house Judiciary Committee. You covered all of this in 1998 and 1999 for National Journal. The final vote in the house was what . For the house Judiciary Committee . 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 of illinois . 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 in some ways, 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, right . 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 in the first part of our conversation. You can call it hypocrisy. You can call it everest entered call it double standard 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. And Lindsey Graham gave a very compelling floor speech at the time. And one of the things he talked about with bill clinton is that 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 now in the senate be questioned about his disinterest, in fact, 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. Before an inquiry was authorized and he described the circumstances under president clinton as different than what were seeing with President Trump. And hes tried to make light of the idea that anything untoward occurred with President Trump. The republican defense has been, from the beginning, that the 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 earlier, 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. And so, you know, the articles moved from committee to the floor. Two 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 actually 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. And rehnquist wore his robes and they gave him the president s office, 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 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. 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. And they told chief justice rehnquist, you know, 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 well 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. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the impeachment of President Trump. Continue to follow the process on cspan, leading to a trial. Live unfiltered coverage on cspan, on demand at cspan. Org impeachment, and listen on the free cspan radio app. American history tv is on cspan3 every weekend, featuring museum tours, archival films, and programs on the presidency, the civil war, and more. Heres a clip from a recent program. Although the resolution was never in jeopardy, johnson told senator fulbright, a fellow democrat from arkansas, and the chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, to secure passage of the resolution as fast as possible and by the largest possible vote, not enough for me to get a win here. I need an overwhelming when. Nf possible, i need a unanimous when. Anything less would tarnish the unity so important to the reputation. So fulbright, later a critic of the vietnam war, he pretrade the resolution as a moderate measure calculated to prevent the spread of war. As fulbright went to work on debtors like senator George Mcgovern of south dakota, and John Sherman Cooper of kentucky, he laid their fears that the president would be given excessive power, in particular, fulbright went to work on senator Gaylord Nelson of wisconsin. He wanted to introduce an amendment calling for efforts to avoid direct military involvement in southeast asia. He told nelson that such a counsel is superfluous since the last thing we want is to become involved in a land war in asia. So nason nelson, through his everlasting regret, dropped his amendment. Representatives passed unanimously. And the language of the resolution granted the president extraordinary latitude. The Congress Approves and support of the termination of the president as commanderinchief to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the United States and prevent further aggression. Wayne morris, again, my hero in this episode, stated afterwards to a virtually empty hall all of his colleagues had basically gone home. He said we are in effect giving the president were making powers in the absence of a declaration of war. I believe this to be an historic mistake. The other guy who voted against the resolution said, all vietnam is not worth the life of a single american boy. Johnson said of the resolution, its like grandmas 90. It covers everything. And it totally demolished. Goldwater on the Foreign Policy front. If the president was a tenderfoot amateur at Foreign Policy, my with the congress, of which the water was a member, voted virtually unanimously to give him the power of war . He must have an admirals grasp or the congress wouldnt have advocated his own response ability and allow this one man to decide what was militarily appropriate in southeast asia. You can watch this and other American History programs on our website, where all our video is archived. Thats cspan. Org history. In the second of a threepart program, we look to the 19981999 impeachment of bill clinton with alexis, digger. She covered the impeachment for the National Journal and is now National Political correspondent for the hill newspaper. We then show a portion of the u. S. House floor debate from december 19, on four articles of impeachment. Approve twoted to of those articles. The made donald trump only second president be impeached since Andrew Johnson in 1868. The house of representatives taking up articles of impeachment. We will show you some of the highlights. Moved how these articles from the committee to the floor in just a week. They passed out of the house Judiciary Committee. There was lots of discussion about what the rules would be