THAT IS THE FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
           ACTED IN IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOW
           RESPECTFULLY URGES THIS BODY TO CALL THE PRESIDENT TO
           CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. THE KEY TO DERSTANDING THE FACTS
           OF THIS CASE IS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKED UNDER
           OATH QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS PRIVATE LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
           DESPITE THE POPULAR SPIN, IT WASN'T BECAUSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

           OR LAWYERS FROM THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OR A GAGGLE
           OF REPORTERS SUDDENLY DECIDED TO INVADE THE PRESIDENT'S
           PRIVACY. NO, THIS ALL CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE
           PRESIDENT FROM WHEN HE WAS THE GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS. DURING THE
           DISCOVERY PHASE OF THE PAULA JONES SEX HARASSMENT CASE AGAINST
           THE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT ORDERED HIM TO
           ANSWER QUESTIONS UNDER OATH RELATING TO ANY SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

           HE MAY HAVE HAD WHILE GOVERNOR AND PRESIDENT WITH SUBORDINATE
           FEMALE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. THESE ORDERS ARE COMMON IN SIMILAR
           CASES, AND THE QUESTIONS POSED TO PRESIDENT CLINTON ARE
           QUESTIONS ROUTINELY POSED TO DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL RIGHTS SEXUAL
           HARASSMENT CASES EVERY SINGLE DAY IN THIS COUNTRY IN
           COURTHOUSES THROUGHOUT THE LAND. DURING THE PRESIDENT'S
           DEPOSITION IN THE PAULA JONES CASE, HE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS
           ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MONICA LEWINSKY. THE JUDGE ALLOWED

           THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY POSSIBLY COULD LEAD MRS. JONES TO
           DISCOVER IF THERE WAS ANY PATTERN OF CONDUCT TO HELP PROVE HER
           CASE. THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY DENIED THAT HE HAD A SEXUAL
           RELATIONSHIP WITH MONICA LEWINSKY. A FEW DAYS LATER, THE STORY
           ABOUT HIS WIPP WITH MS. LEWINSKY BROKE IN THE -- ABOUT HIS

           RELATIONSHIP WITH MS. LEWINSKY BROKE IN THE PRESS. ON THE
           AFTERNOON OF AUGUST 17, 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON RAISED HIS
           RIGHT HAND AND TOOK AN OATH BEFORE THE GRAND JURY IN THEIR
           CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
           

           >> MR. PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. DO
           YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TURM EA ABOUT TO GIVE HAD THIS WILL
           BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD?
           
           

           >> I DO.
           

           MR. ROGAN: NOTE THE INCREDIBLE -- DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT
           THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER WILL BE THE
           TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO -- WHEN
           THE PRESIDENT MADE THAT SOLEMN PLEDGE, HE WAS NOT OBLIGING
           HIMSELF TO TELL THE GRAND JURY THE PARTIAL TRUTH. HE WAS NOT
           OBLIGING HIMSELF TO TELL THE "I DIDN'T WANT TO BE PARTICULARLY

           HELPFUL TRUTH." HE WAS NOT OBLIGING HIMSELF TO TELL THE "THIS
           IS EMBARRASSING, SO I THINK I'LL FUDGE ON IT A LITTLE BIT"
           TRUTH. HE WAS REQUIRED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND
           NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, AND HE MADE THAT PLEDGE IN THE NAME OF
           GOD. THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL SHOWED
           GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE PRESIDENT WHEN THEY QUESTIONED HIM THAT
           DAY. THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS WERE ALLOWED TO BE THERE WITH
           HIM DURING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING SO THAT HE COULD CONFER WITH

           THEM AT HIS LEE SURE IF HE WAS UNSURE OF HOW TO RESPOND TO A
           QUESTION. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ATTORNEY WHO QUESTIONED THE
           PRESIDENT ENCOURAGED HIM TO CONFER WITH HIS LAWYER IF THERE
           AROSE IN THE PRESIDENT'S MIND ANY REASON TO HESITATE BEFORE
           ANSWERING A QUESTION. THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE OCCURRED AT THE
           BEGINNING OF THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY. THE PRESIDENT WAS TOLD,
           "NORMALLY, GRAND JURY WITNESSES, WHILE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE
           ATTORNEYS IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM WITH THEM, CAN STOP AND

           CONSULT WITH THEIR ATTORNEYS. UNDER OUR ARRANGEMENT TODAY, YOUR
           ATTORNEYS ARE HERE AND PRESENT FOR CONSULTATION AND YOU CAN
           BREAK TO CONSULT WITH THEM AS NECESSARY... DO YOU UNDERSTAND
           THAT?" THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED, "I DO UNDERSTAND THAT." HAS A
           PRACTICAL MATTER, THE PRESIDENT HAD THREE OPTIONS, AS HE
           APPEARED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY TO TESTIFY. FIRST, THE PRESIDENT
           COULD TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS TRUE RELATIONSHIP WITH MONICA
           LEWINSKY. HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE WILL CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE

           PRESIDENT REJECTED THE OPTION OF TELLING THE TRUTH. SECOND, THE
           PRESIDENT COULD INVOKE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST
           SELF-INCRIMINATION. THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL'S ATTORNEY
           EXPLICITLY REMINDED THE PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS RIGHT TO REFUSE TO
           ANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM. THE
           PRESIDENT WAS ASKED, "YOU HAVE A PRIVILEGE AGAINST
           SELF-INCRIMINATION. IF A TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO ANY QUESTION WOULD
           TEND TO INCRIMINATE YOU, YOU CAN INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE AND THAT

           INVOCATION WILL NOT BE USED AGAINST YOU. DO YOU UNDERSTAND
           THAT?" THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE WAS "I DO." THE PRESIDENT KNEW
           HE HAD THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ANSWER ANY INCRIMINATING
           QUESTIONS AND THAT NO LEGAL HARM WOULD COME TO HIM FOR DOING
           SO. BUT HE REJECTED THAT OPTION, JUST AS HE REJECTED THE OPTION
           OF TELLING THE TRUTH. INSTEAD, HE SELECTED A THIRD PATH. HE
           CONTINUED TO LIE ABOUT CORRUPT EFFORTS TO DESTROY PAULA JONES'S

           SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE AGAINST HIM. IF A TRIAL IS PERMITTED
           BEFORE THIS BODY WHERE LIVE WITNESSES CAN BE CALLED AND WHERE
           THEIR CREDIBILITY CAN BE SCRUTINIZED, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW
           THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY THAT THE CHART THE PRESIDENT -- THAT
           THE COURSE THE PRESIDENT CHARTED WAS A COURSE OF PERJURY.
           DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S UNIQUE LEVEL OF JUDICIAL SOPHISTICATION
           AND EXPERTISE, THE ATTORNEYS AT THE GRAND JURY WERE CAREFUL TO

           MAKE SURE THE PRESIDENT UNDERSTOOD THE RESPONSIBILITIES TO TELL
           THE TRUTH, THEHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THEY DID
           THIS AT THE OUTSET OF HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE ANY QUESTIONS WERE
           ASKED THAT MIGHT TEMPT THE PRESIDENT TO LIE UNDER OATH, AND
           THEY SPECIFICALLY WARNED HIM THAT IF HE WERE TO LIE OR
           INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD THE GRAND JURY, HE COULD FACE PERJURY AND
           OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES, BOTH OF WHICH ARE FELONIES

           UNDER FEDERAL LAW. THIS EXCHANGE OCCURRED BEFORE THE
           PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY. MR. PRESIDENT, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR
           TESTIMONY HERE TODAY IS UNDER OATH?
           ANSWER, "I DO." "AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE SWORN
           TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH,
           THAT IF YOU WERE TO LIE OR INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD THE GRAND
           JURY, YOU COULD BE PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY AND/OR OBSTRUCTION OF
           JUSTICE?" ANSWER, "I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT."
           
           QUESTION: "IS THERE ANYTHING THAT... I'VE STATED TO YOU

           REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE
           ME TO CLARIFY OR THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?"
           
           ANSWER:, "NO, SIR." DESPITE THIS OMINOUS WARNING, THE
           PROSECUTORS FIN EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR THE PRESIDENT TO
           RESIST LYING TO THE GRAND JURY. STILL INTENT ON MAKING SURE THE
           PRESIDENT UNDERSTOOD HIS OBLIGATIONS, THE ATTORNEYS FURTHER
           ADVISED HIM, "MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO READ FOR A PORTION

           OF FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 603, WHICH DISCUSSES THE IMPORTANT
           FUNCTION THE OATH HAS IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. IT SAYS THAT THE
           PURPOSE OF THE OATH IS CALCULATED TO AWAKEN THE WITNESS'S
           CONSCIENCE AND IMPRESS THE WITNESS'S MIND WITH THE DUTY TO TELL
           THE TRUTH. COULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE GRAND JURY WHAT THAT OATH
           MEANS TO YOU FOR TODAY'S TESTIMONY." THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED,
           "I HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL THE GRAND JURY THE TRUTH, AND
           THAT'S WHAT I INTEND TO DO." WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID IN THAT

           VERY LAST ANSWER, "I JUST -- I JUST READ THAT HE SWORE AN OATH
           TO TELL THE GRAND JURY THE TRUTH, THE PROSECUTOR IMMEDIATELY
           FOLLOWED UP WITH ANOTHER QUESTION. HERE IS WHAT HE WAS TD.
           

           QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT: "YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE OATH
           REQUIRES YOU TO GIVE THE WHOLE TRUTH?
           THAT IS, A COMPLETE ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION, SIR?"
           

           ANSWER BY THE PRESIDENT: "I WILL ANSWER EACH QUESTION AS
           ACCURATELY AND FULLY AS I CAN." NOW, ONE WOULD THINK THAT THESE
           REPETITIVE EXPLANATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
           WOULD BE ENOUGH TO WARN EVEN THE MOST LEGALLY UNSOPHISTICATED
           WITNESS ABOUT THE NEED TO TREAT A GRAND JURY CRIMINAL
           INVESTIGATION SERIOUSLY AND THE NEED TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH AT
           ANY COST. NO REASONABLE PERSON COULD BELIEVE AT THIS POINT THAT

           THE PRESIDENT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HIS OBLIGATIONS. YET, JUST TO
           BE SURE, THE ATTORNEYS IMPRESSED ON THE PRESIDENT HIS SOLEMN
           DUTY TO TELL THE TRUTH.
           

           QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT: "NOW YOU TOOK THE SAME OATH TO
           TELLHE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH ON
           JANUARY 17, 1998 IN A DEPOSITION IN THE PAULA JONES LITIGATION;
           IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
           
           

           ANSWER BY THE PRESIDENT: "I DID TAKE AN OATH THEN."
           
           QUESTION: "DID THE OATH YOU TOOK ON THAT OCCASION MEAN THE SAME
           TO YOU THEN AS IT DOES TODAY?"
           
           ANSWER: "I BELIEVED THEN THAT I HAD TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
           TRUTHFULLY; THAT IS CORRECT."
           
           QUESTION: "AND IT MEANT THE SAME TO YOU THEN AS IT DOES TODAY?"
           
           ANSWER: "WELL, NO ONE READ ME A DEFINITION THEN, AND WE DIDN'T
           GO THROUGH THIS EXERCISE THEN. I SWORE AN OATH TO TELL THE

           TRUTH, AND I BELIEVED I WAS BOUND TO BE TRUTHFUL AND I TRIED TO
           BE." HAVING JUST RECEIVED HIS REFRESHER COURSE ON EITHER TAKING
           THE FIFTH AND REMAINING SILENT OR TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH AND
           NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH TRUTH, THE PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGED HE WAS
           REQUIRED TO TELL THE TRUTH WHEN HE GAVE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
           EIGHT MONTHS EARLIER IN THE PAULA JONES SEXUAL HARASSMENT CIVIL
           RIGHTS LAWSUIT.
           

           QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT: "AT THE PAULA JONES DEPOSITION, YOU
           WERE REPRESENTED BY MR. ROBERT BENNETT, YOUR COUNSEL; IS THAT
           CORRECT IN"
           
           ANSWER: "THAT IS CORRECT."
           
           QUESTION: "HE WAS AUTHORIZED BY YOU TO BE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE
           THERE, YOUR ATTORNEY, IS THAT CORRECT?"
           
           ANSWER: "THAT IS CORRECT."
           
           QUESTION: "YOUR COUNSEL, MR. BENNETT, INDICATED -- AND I'M
           QUOTING 'THE PRESIDENT INTENDS TO GIVE FULL AND COMPLETE
           ANSWERS AS MS. JONES IS ENTITLED TO HAVE?'" "MY QUESTION TO YOU

           IS, DO YOU AGREE WITH YOUR COUNSEL THAT A PLAINTIFF IN A SEXUAL
           HARASSMENT CASE IS, TO USE HIS WORDS, ENTITLED TO HAVE THE
           TRUTH?"
           

           ANSWER BY THE PRESIDENT: "I BELIEVE THAT I WAS BOUND TO GIVE
           TRUTHFUL ANSWERS, YES, SIR."
           
           QUESTION: "BUT THE QUESTION IS, SIR, DO YOU AGREE WITH YOUR
           COUNSEL THAT A PLAINTIFF IN A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE IS
           ENTITLED TO HAVE THE TRUTH?"
           

           ANSWER BY THE PRESIDENT: "I BELIEVE WHEN A WITNESS IS UNDER
           OATH IN A CIVIL CASE OR OTHERWISE UNDER OATH, THE WITNESS
           SHOULD DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
           TRUTHFULLY." THUS, THE GROUNDWORK WAS LAID FOR THE PRESIDENT TO
           TESTIFY UNDER OATH BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. HE KNEW HOW THE RULES
           WORKED, RESPECTING TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. IF A
           QUESTION WAS VAGUE OR AMBIGUOUS, THE PRESIDENT COULD ASK FOR A
           CLARIFICATION. IF HE WAS UNSURE HOW TO ANSWER OR INDEED WHETHER

           TO ANSWER A QUESTION, HE COULD STOP THE QUESTIONING, TAKE A
           BREAK AND CONSULT PRIVATELY WITH HIS ATTORNEYS WHO WERE PRESENT
           WITH HIM. IF GIVING AN ANSWER WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM, HE
           COULD REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BY CLAIMING HIS FIFTH
           AMENDMENT RIGHTS. BUT IF, AFTER ALL OF THIS, HE DECIDED TO GIVE
           AN ANSWER, THE ANSWER HE GAVE WAS REQUIRED TO BE THE TRUTH, THE
           WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. AND IT WAS NO DIFFERENT
           THAN THE OBLIGATION WHEN HE TESTIFIED IN THE PAULA JONES

           DEPOSITION. SAME OATH, SAME OBLIGATION. LET'S LOOK AT HOW THE
           PRESIDENT CHOSE TO MEET HIS OBLIGATION. AS NOTED IN MY OPENING
           REMARKS, THE PRESIDENT'S GRAND JURY PERJURY IS THE BASIS FOR
           ARTICLE 1 OF THE IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS AND
           LIVE WITNESSES CLEARLY WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESIDENT
           REPEATEDLY COMMITTED PERJURY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WHEN HE
           TESTIFIED AS A DEFENDANT IN THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CIVIL RIGHTS
           LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM. HE INTENTIONALLY FAILED IN HIS LAWFUL

           OBLIGATION TO TELL THE TRUTH IN FOUR GENERAL AREAS. FIRST, THE
           PRESIDENT COMMITTED PERJURY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WHEN HE
           TESTIFIED ABOUT THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MONICA
           LEWINSKY, A 21-YEAR-OLD WHITE HOUSE INTERN WHO, BY DEFINITION,
           WAS A SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. ON DECEMBER 5, 1997,
           MONICA
{END: 1999/01/14 TIME: 17-30 , Thu.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}