Lets begin with the political environment. What led to the impeachment of president clinton . Alexis one of the things we might forget all this time Going Forward was that bill clinton was under investigation for almost his entire presidency and ken starr became the independent counsel. He began to investigate the whitewater investment deal back in 1994. So, by the time were in the fall of 1998, president clinton and his entire white house were very used to being under investigation for a whole variety of allegations relating to his past in arkansas. And even his Fundraising Efforts when he was president. So in the fall of 1998, he was elected to a second term but they were going into the midterm starr as and what can the independent counsel uncovered was a whole series of alleged relationships that the president had had in the past, that he had investigated, and then he heard of an intern named Monica Lewinsky. So at the time the impeachment inquiry was authorized, and in the house, 31 democrats went along with it, it was really interesting, can starr had a whole report to present and turned over his entire presentation to the House Republicans, who were in the majority then. So the background was fraught with politics. The economy was doing very well. Bill clinton was very popular, but republicans felt they were forced to act because of the nature and the explicit details in the report. Steve the question that continued to come up, did this relationship rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors . What was the republican argument and what was the counterargument from the Clinton White house . Alexis well, remember president clinton denied it at first, so the defense evolved over time. The republicans were asserting the report required them to investigate, not necessarily because this was about sex or sexual contact, but because it was a violation of the president oath of office, because the allegations were he tried to during and subsequently a deposition to a grand jury, the allegation was that he had lied, that he had tried to encourage others to lie for him, including his secretary at the time, betty curry, and that he had tried to basically find a job for Monica Lewinsky through a friend to keep her quiet. So, the whole allegation in this inquiry suggested they were compelled to pursue this and the president s denial was a witchhunt. Steve as you look at the investigation, is there a double standard to what we saw in 1998 and what were seeing today . Alexis its so interesting to see the echo of some of the same terms and words and talking points that we listened to in 1998 and 1999. President clinton, at the time, as we remember vividly, did a lot of his own defense. He came to his own defense. He actually spoke at the microphone, pointed his finger, and said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. But i want to say one thing to the American People. I want you to listen to me. Im going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, miss is the minsky. Lewinsky. Mrs. I have never told anybody to lie. These allegations are false. Alexis he talked about it as a political coup detat. He said it was a witchhunt, that was a political act. Some of the same words, the same concept of making a really strong effort, both in the clinton impeachment and in President Trumps inquiry, had been focused on trying to make possible. Partisan as and i mentioned to you that when the house authorized the inquiry under president clinton, remember they voted to support an actual inquiry, 31 democrats across the aisle and supported that. What we have seen with President Trump is a really strong republican effort to stand with him and no republicans voted in september for the inquiry. Steve lets talk about the timeline. With the Midterm Election year, 1998. What happened in november of 1998, the republicans maintaining control of the house of representatives. Speaker Newt Gingrich is the speaker in this time period. Alexis speaker gingrich had begun to outlive his the patience of his caucus. Because in the Midterm Elections, the democrats picked up seats, which was considered unusual. Usually the party in power he loses seats. The democrats used impeachment as a political weapon. Speaker gingrich begin to lose the confidence of his caucus and there was an internal effort to push amount. And he real ash push him out. And he push him out. And then he realized his days were numbered. And then they picked a new speaker, bob livingston. He initially had tremendous support. And then to everyones shock and amazement, when they began to get ready for the impeachment discussion, bob livingston, to everyones shock, said that he was going to resign. And the reason he said he was going to resign was because he too had allegations in his past of extramarital relations. And at that time, larry flynt was offering big, big money to anyone who would provide information about any of the republican impeachment managers matters or those involved that they had had allegations in the past. It was surprising how many of them had, including the chairman, henry hyde, who said an extramarital relationship he had when he was 40 was a youthful indiscretion. Steve four articles of impeachment. In just a moment, were going to let lets talk about the proceedings and the hearings. Where they televised . What kind of reactions did they receive . Alexis they were televised. By the time bill clinton was ,acing this, cable existence the basic mainstream news coverage. There was a lot of discussion about how many articles if impeachment to put forward and it turns out they ended up voting for of them. There was discussion about how many would have enough votes to proceed on, and there was backandforth trading among the House Republican managers and the Judiciary Committee, Straight Party line vote to approve four of them. By the time it got to a house floor, only to them were endorsed by the entire rubble can conference. Steve where they viewed as highly partisan . Alexis they were painted as being highly partisan by defenders of the president. The concern was whether there was enough evidence to support what they were alleging. So, the four articles of impeachment were perjury, lying under of, obstruction of justice, related to what i was just describing, the president s effort to hide his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Steve thats the debate well see in a moment, but please continue. Alexis there was a third argument with perjury, but it had to do with written answers, civil litigation that the president was being accused of lying. Ken starr was saying he was lying under oath. In the fourth was abuse of power. There was an allegation the president and his team had like to congress and abused his power as president. That has Judiciary Committee passed all four along party lines. For the time it moved forward to of house floor, only two those survived, and it was basically a perjury and an obstruction. Steve what do you remember . What was your take away . Alexis i was covering the white house. My perspective was very much in talking to the president and his team. There were a couple things i remember vividly. One was when the story broke, you may remember this was an investigative story that newsweek was trying to break, but actually to make sure the reporting was complete. And it emerged on drudge, which was a brandnew website. It opened the door to help many outlets now are published. I remember going upstairs to the press office, talking to the president s senior staffers. I can remember asking a question depalma gala, who is absolutely just sure this did not happen and was frustrated reporters were willing to even consider that this had happened, this relationship with the intern. And the president s top aides were furious. Some of them never got over it and left after impeachment as soon as they could. The chief of staff was another. The other thing i remember about it from the perspective of the entire process is that president clinton believed that denying for as long as he did, seven months, and circling the wagons, getting his surrogates out there to defend him, actually helped him survive. There clinton was a big fighter and there is no question he was going to resign. That was so clear. He was going to fight it to the end, and he did, and felt very proud of himself for doing it. He considered it defending the constitution. It wasnt certain exactly how it was going to turn out. The televised hearings were salacious, but the thing remember is president clinton had unbelievable support. The time that he was actually impeached, his job approval was 73 . The American People had made their judgment. They were passed his reelection. They were heading to the end, his final two years, and they just thought it was personal behavior and that it was too much. The republicans had gone too far. And the economy was very good and they were willing to look the other way. The other element thats interesting, even of President Trump, the American People were not shocked that president clinton liked women, young women, any women. This was not a surprise to them. In some ways, the president profited not only by denying it, but also having a reputation the American People understood, that this was part of his past. Steve with that background from december 11, 1998 the has to do cheery committee taking up four articles of impeachment. The clip youre about to see dealing with one of those articles. The committee will now consider article three. Are there any amendments to article three . If not, i will mr. Chairman . The gentleman from virginia. Well you asking for just cycle that forward. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Ok. Are there any minutes . There are no limits. It is the chairs intention, when we finish this article, to adjourn for the evening and come back at 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow morning. I just wanted to announce that, for scheduling purposes, now does anyone seek recognition . Was that mr. Scott . Yes. He is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, i think we ought to reflect a bit about this article. We have things like a false affidavit and false statements. The gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, spared me the necessity of quoting from the dictionary. Certain words but monica lubinski was not provided with lubinski Monica Lewinsky was not provided with the definitions. There was evidence that she didnt know she was being recorded. She said what she thought certain words meant. Knew they wereo being recorded, trying to get her to change her mind about the definition, but Monica Lewinsky didnt. We have to have a witness for there to be tampering. After you review that hearsay and dubious inferences, you still have to place the article allegations in the context of impeachment. Our authority to do what some wanted to do but couldnt do with the polls, that is defeat bill clinton, is related to treason and high crimes and misdemeanors. High is a word that isnt really used much in america because its an english word against the state. Us to pays also told close attention to another word in the phrase, and that is other. Its treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And is treason, bribery, stuff like that in effect against the government. It has to be a subversion of the constitution. There has to be a danger and the president staying in office. That is, the president must be removed because of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. He will later be subject to rule of law like everyone else. When we review these to see if they are Impeachable Offenses, we have to remember what impeachment is for. Its to protect our nation. We look at the history of impeachment and what kinds of offenses have been Impeachable Offenses. We look at watergate and the corrupt use of the cia, fbi, internal revenue, and lying about it have been Impeachable Offenses. But 500 million tax fraud, where the evidence was overwhelming, and certainly stronger than the hearsay and inferences were lying on today relying on today, they did not support a serious crime, but not a high crime. Furthermore, our experts unanimously agreed that the term treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors does not cover all felonies. So we cannot remove a president because he failed to faithfully execute the laws when we cant stand him being president anymore. The rule of lagos tricks our authority to act to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. So even if we believed the hearsay and inferences before us, there is been no showing the conduct constitutes a threat for our form of government, and thats what historians and legal scholars have told us that whether or not these allegations are true, they are not Impeachable Offenses. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I rise in support of the article of impeachment and recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, this article of impeachment is to one that relates to obstruction of justice by president clinton. There is seven specifically mentioned instances of alleged obstruction of justice that are contained in this article, and it does have the words one or more in that so we dont have the problem of making that interpretation. There will be members on the republican side of the aisle which will specifically address themselves to each of these instances of obstruction of justice. But i think that if we looked at it from the criminal context, which were not here, theres got to be three elephants of what means obstruction of justice. First, theres got to be a federal pending judiciary proceeding. There was in this case with the paula jones civilrights loss. Secondly, the defendants have to know of the proceeding. Mr. Clinton was the civil defendant in that lawsuit. Hed been served the papers on it. In third, that the defendant acted correctly in attempt to interfere with the proceeding. The first of the seven instances that are contained in article three states that on or about december 17, 1997, William Jefferson clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a fizzle civilRights Action brought against him, to execute a sworn affidavit in a proceeding he knew to be perjurious false and misleading. In his deposition testimony in january of this year, the president said he spoke with monica the whiskey before Christmas Monica lubinski before christmas, and would not be sure if she would testify, she might qualify or Something Like that. The president denied encouraging ms. Lewinsky, but in answer 18 to the 81 questions submitted to this committee, he did say that he told her that other witnesses had executed affidavits and there was a chance that they would not have to testify. Hint hint. Emphaticnski was more on the subject and her grand jury testimony. When she asked what she should do, maybe you can sign an affidavit. Be to prevent me from being disposed so they can range anywhere between just somehow mentioning innocuous things are going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of relationship. Thats what Monica Lewinsky told the grand jury. She further stated she was 100 sure, 100 sure the president suggested she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. That was to an independent counsel interview, false statements of which are a federal crime. Noted they also president never explicitly instructed her to lie about the matter, rather since the president never told her to file an affidavit, detailing the true nature of their sexual relationship, which would only invite humiliation and prove damage in the paula jones case, she contextually understood the president wanted her to live. That also is in the referral. Furthermore, attorneys for paula jones are seeking evidence for sexual relationships the president may have had with other state or federal employees. Such information is deemed irrelevant to help prove the underlying claim, the plaintiff. Judge susan weber ruled paula jones was entitled to this information for purposes of discovery. Encouragedesident Monica Lewinsky to fire an affidavit, he knew he would have to to be false. If she filed a truthful affidavit, acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president , she certainly would as a truthfuled witness and it would have looked damaging politically. I yield back the chairman of my time. For what purpose, the gentleman from michigan . I rise to strike the last words. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Three,eviewing article obstruction of justice, i review these seven causes and its almost like weve come here this evening and have never examined the facts of the matter. Throughve all been gone repeatedly. Each one can be very carefully answered. Affidavit by an anyonebinski, is there here who doesnt know that she swore that no one ever asked her to lie and the decision to what the affidavit should contain was a decision made by her alone . And the president said miss lubinski might avoid to testify by filing a limited but truthful affidavit, a perfectly legal activity on his part . And as a matter of fact, what her own lawyer ended up doing. In clause seven statement to aids, the president made statements to staff on january in order tod 26th, protect his family from discovering the lubinski relationship. He could not have known that his staff would be called at that time before the office of independent counsels grand jury. The president s denial of his relationship with miss lewinsky to his staff was after he had already made the same denial to the public. The president was not singling out his staff. He denied it to everyone. He was not denying that affair to his staff with the idea they would be called before the independent counsel grand jury. Because six, attempting to influence betty curry. We