Coming up in just a couple of minutes, we will show you some of the highlights of that debate. You are covering this for national journal. Lets begin with the political environment in 1998. What led to the impeachment of president clinton . Alexis one of the interesting things we might forget, all this time, going forward, bill clinton was under investigation for almost his entire presidency. Ken starr had begun to investigate the whitewater investment deal back in 1994. By the time we were in the fall of 1998, president clinton and his entire white house were very used to being under investigation for a whole variety of allegations related to his past in arkansas. Even his fundraising efforts, when he was prident. In the fall of 1998, he was elected to a second term, but they were going into the Midterm Elections. What Kenneth Starr as the independent counsel had uncovered was a whole series of alleged relationships the president had had in the past that he had investigated. Then he heard about an intern named Monica Lewinsky. By the time the impeachment inquiry was authorized, and in the house, 31 democrats went along with it, which is really interesting, ken starr had a whole report to present and turned over an entire investigation to the House Republicans, who were in the majority then. The background was fraught with politics, the economy was doing very well, bill clinton was very popular, but republicans felt that they were really forced to act because of the nature and the explicit details in the report. Steve and the question that continues to come up, did the relationship rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors . What was the republican argument and counter argument from the Clinton White house . Alexis president clinton denied it at first. The defense evolved over time. As we recall. The republicans were asserting that the report required them to investigate, not necessarily because this is about sex or sexual contact, but because it was a violation of the president s oath of office. The allegations were that he tried to hide it. Subsequently, during the deposition to a grand jury, the allegation was that he had lied, that he had tried to encourage others to lie for him, including his secretary at the time, the white house secretary betty currie. And that he had tried to basically find a job for Monica Lewinsky through a friend to keep her quiet. The whole allegation set in this inquiry suggested to republicans that they were compelled under the constitution to pursue this. The president s denial was that this was a witch hunt. This was a political act and there was no substance to these allegations and that this behavior did not exist at first. Steve to that point you mentioned witchhunt. Are there parallels to what we see here today, here in washington . As you look at the investigation, is very double standard to what we saw in 1998 and what we are seeing today . Alexis it is interesting to hear the echo of same terms, words and talking points we listened to in 1998 and 1999. President clinton, at the time, did a lot of his own defense. He came to his own defense. He spoke at the microphone, pointed his finger and said that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. President clinton i want to say one thing to the American People. I want you to listen to me. I will say this again, i did not have sexual relations with that woman, ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false, and i need to go back to work for the American People. Thank you. Alexis he talked about it as a political coup detat. He said it was a witch hunt and a political act. The same words, the same actual concept of making a really strong effort. Both in the clinton impeachment and in President Trumps inquiry have been focused on trying to make it look as partisan as possible. I mentioned to you that when the house authorized the inquiry under president clinton, remember they voted to support an actual inquiry, 31 democrats crossed the aisle in support of that. What we have seen with President Trump is a really strong republican effort to stand with him, and no republicans voted in september for the inquiry. Steve let us talk about the timeline. Its a Midterm Election year, 1998, what happened in november of 1998 . Republicans maintaining control of the house of representatives. Speaker Newt Gingrich is the speaker at this time period. Alexis what did not happen at that time . Speaker gingrich began to outlive the patience of his caucus. In the Midterm Election the democrats pick up seats. Which was really unusual. In Midterm Elections usually the party in power loses seats. The democrats used impeachment as a political weapon. Speaker gingrich began to lose the confidence of his caucus. There was an internal effort to push him out. He realized his days were numbered as speaker. As the Republican Caucus picked a new speaker in waiting, Bob Livingston. Bob livingston initially had tremendous support. Much to everyones shock and amazement, when they got ready to begin the impeachment discussion of articles of impeachment, Bob Livingston really, truly, it was a drama and he said he was going to resign. The reason he said he was going to resign was because he to had allegations in his past of extramarital relations. At that time, larry flynt was offering big, big money to anyone who would provide information about any of the republican impeachment managers or those involved were basically had had relationships in the past too. It was surprising how many of them had, including the Judiciary Committee chairman, henry hyde, who said that an extramarital relationship he had when he was 40 was a youthful indiscretion. Steve we will let our audience listen into some of the debate of the house Judiciary Committee in december of 1998. Lets talk about the proceedings a and the hearings. A for the Judiciary Committee, where they televised . What kind of reaction did they receive . Alexis they were televised by the time that bill clinton was facing this. Cable existed, and there was a lot of cable news coverage. A lot of basic mainstream news coverage. There was a lot of discussion among the House Republicans about how many articles of impeachment actually put forward. It turned out that they actually floated four of them. There was discussion internally about how many they would have enough votes to proceed on. There was backandforth trading among the House Republican managers. The Judiciary Committee, it was straight partyline vote to approve four of them. By the time they got to the house floor, only two of them were endorsed by the entire republican conference. By the time it went to the floor. Steve were they viewed as highly partisan . Alexis they were painted as entirely partisan by, certainly defenders of the president. The concern was whether there was enough evidence to support what they were alleging. The four articles of impeachment basically were perjury, lying under oath. There was obstruction of justice, related to the president s efforts to hide his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Steve that is the debate we will see in a moment. Please continue. Alexis there was a third article that also dont with perjury, but it had to do with written answers during the apollo jones civil litigation that the president was being accused of lying. Kenneth starr was saying he had lied under oath in the civil litigation. The fourth with the abuse of power. Basically there was an allegation that president and his team had lied to congress and abused his power as president. The house Judiciary Committee passed all four along party lines. But by the time that it move forward to the house, the full house floor, only two of those survived and there were they were basically a perjury and obstruction. Steve what do you remember . What was your take away of that time period more than 20 years ago . Alexis i was covering the white house. My perspective was very much in talking to the president and his team. There were a couple of things i remember vividly. One is, when the story about Monica Lewinsky broke you may remember this was an investigative story that newsweek was trying to break, but there had been a pause to make sure the reporting was really complete it actually emerged on drudge, which was a brandnew website that opened the door to what we are seeing now about how many outlets are to publish. I can remember going upstairs to the lower press office, talking to the president s senior staffers. I can remember asking a question to paul, who actually was sure that this had not happened. And was absolutely so frustrated that reporters were even willing to consider that this happened, this relationship with the intern happen. They were furious. The president s top aides were furious, some never got over it and left after impeachment. Paul was one, the president s chief of staff was another. The other thing i remember about it from the perspective of the entire process is that president clinton believed that denying, for as long as he did, seven months, and circling the wagons , getting his surrogates out there to defend him, actually helped him survive. Bill clinton was a big fighter and there was no question in his mind that he was going to resign. That was so clear. He was going to fight it till the end and he did. He was very proud of himself for doing it. He considered it, at the end, defending the constitution. It was not certain how it would turn out. The televised hearings were salacious and it was about sex. But the thing i remember is that president clinton had unbelievable support. The time that he was impeached, his job approval was 73 . The American People made their judgment. They were past his reelection. They were heading to the end of his final two years and they just thought it was personal behavior and that it was too much. The republicans had gone too far. The economy was good and they were willing to look the other way. The other element that is so interesting, thinking about President Trump, the American People were not shocked that president clinton liked women, young women, any women. This was not a surprise to them. In some ways the president profited not only by denying it, but also having a reputation that the American People understood, that this was part of his past. Steve we will continue to conversation, but with that background, from december 11 of 1998, the house Judiciary Committee taking up four articles of impeachment. The debate you are about to see including one of those articles dealing with the obstruction of justice. [video clip] the committee will now consider article three. Are there any amendments to article three . If not, i will mr. Chairman. The gentleman from virginia. Are you asking for i moved to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Ok. Are there any amendments . There are no amendments. It is the chair intention when we finish this article to adjourn for the evening and come back at 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow morning. I wanted to announce that for scheduling purposes. Does anyone seek recognition . Was that mr. Scott . You are recognized for five minutes. Mr. Scott mr. Chairman, i think we are to reflect about the facts on this article. We have things like a false affidavit and a false statement. The gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, has spared me that necessity of quoting from the dictionary about certain words. But Monica Lewinsky was not provided with the definition that the judges and lawyers argued over. She said what she believed certain words mean. There is evidence of the tape recording when she does not know she was being recorded or set up by linda tripp. She said what she thought certain words meant. Linda tripp, who knew they were being recorded, tried to get her to change her mind about the definition, but Monica Lewinsky would not. Also in the witness tampering, there has to be a witness for there to be tampering. After you review the conflicting uncrossed example, here say and dubious inferences used to make the other elements of this article, you still have to place the allegations in the context of impeachment. Our authority to do what some wanted to do but could not do at the polls, that is to defeat bill clinton, that authority is limited to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Hi is not a word that is not really used much in america because it is an english word against the state . Our experts at our hearings also told us to pay close attention to another word and phrase, and that is other. Its treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That is treason, bribery and stuff like that in its effect against our government. It has to be a subversion of the constitution. There has to be the danger of the president staying in office. The president must be removed because of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. He will be subject to the rules of laws like everyone else. When we review these allegations to see if they are impeachable offenses, we have to remember what impeachment is for. It is to protect our nation. We look at the history of impeachment and all kinds of offenses that have been impeachable offenses. We look at watergate and see the corrupt use of the fbi, cia, and internal revenue, and official use of those agencies and lying about it have been impeachable offenses. But, 500 million tax fraud with the evidence according to those who were there is overwhelming. Certainly stronger than the hearsay we are relying on today. They did not support the article involving halfmillion dollar tax fraud, which is a crime. A serious crime, but not a high crime. Furthermore, our experts unanimously agreed that the term treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors does not cover all felonies. We cannot remove a president because he failed to faithfully execute the laws or we cannot stand him being president. The rule of law that restricts our authority to act to treason, bribery or other high crimes of misdemeanor. So even if we believe the hearsay before us. Showing thatn no it is a threat to our government, and that is why historians and legal scholars have told us that whether or not these allegations are true, they are not impeachable offenses. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I rise in support of the articles of impeachment and recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, this article of impeachment, article three is the one that relates to obstruction of of justice by president clinton. There are seven specifically mentioned instances of alleged obstruction of justice that are contained in this article. It does have the words one or more. If we dont have the problems of making that interpretation. There will be members on the republican side of the aisle that will specifically address themselves to each of these instances of obstruction of justice. But i think that if we looked at it from the criminal context, which we are not, there has to be three elements of what means it makes obstruction of justice. First a has to be a pending federal judicial proceeding. There was in the case with the paula jones lawsuit. Secondly, the defendants have to know of the proceedings. Mr. Clinton was the civil defendant in that lawsuit he had and serve the papers on it. Third, the defendant acted corruptly with intent to of or interfere with the preceding or administration of justice. The first of the seven instances that are contained in article three states that on or about december 17, 1997, William Jefferson clinton corruptly encouraged witnesses and a civil Rights Action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in the preceding that he knew to be false and misleading. In his deposition testimony in january of this year, the president said he spoke with Monica Lewinsky before christmas. While he was not sure that she would be called to testify in the paula jones civil suit, she might qualify, or Something Like that. The president denied encouraging ms. Lewinsky by filing a false affidavit. But in answer 18 to the 81 questions, he did say that he told her that other witnesses had executed affidavits and there was not a chance that she would not has to testify. Ms. Lewinsky was more empathetic. Emphatic on the subject in her grand jury testimony. She asked what she would do and he said maybe you could sign an affidavit. The point would be to deter me from being disposed so they could range anywhere from between just somehow mentioning innocuous things, or going as far as may be having to deny any kind of relationship. That is what Monica Lewinsky told the grand jury. She stated she was 100 sure, 100 sure that the president suggested she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. That was through an independent counsel interview, false statements of which are federal crimes. Ms. Lewinsky noted that the president never explicitly instructed her to lie about the matter, since the president never told her to file an affidavit, detailing the true nature of their sexual relationship, which would only invite humiliation and prove damaging to the president in the apology owns case. Paula jones case. She contextually understood that the president wanted her to live. That is in the oic referral. Attorneys for paula jones were seeking evidence of sexual relationships. And that the president might have had with other state such state in state employees. Information is deemed relevant i