SIDE, I WON'T SPEAK FOR WILL THE MANAGERS -- TO HAVE THE
           OPPORTUNITY FOR REASONABLE FAIR AND OPEN DISCUSSION VOLUNTARILY
           WITH ANY WITNESS WHO WILL TALK WITH US, NOT -- NOT TO BE TOO
           RHETORICAL ABOUT THIS -- WITH THE LOOMING PRESENCE OF THE
           PROSECUTORS SITTING IN THE ROOM WITH US. AS EVERYONE WHO
           PRACTICES IN THIS DISTRICT KNOWS, INDEED IT IS A MATTER OF LAW
           THAT A PROSECUTOR MAY NEVER INTERFERE WITH THE ACCESS OF ANY

           WITNESS TO DEFENSE COUNSEL. I CAN'T THINK OF MUCH MORE
           INTERFERENCE THAN BEING REQUIRED TO SIT IN THE ROOM WITH THE
           PROSECUTOR AND WITH ANOTHER PROSECUTOR, WHILE THAT KIND OF
           DISCUSSION GOES ON.
           
           SO THE ANSWER IS: FAIRNESS, NO. IF IT IS MY ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO
           MEET WITH MS. LEWINSKY, I'LL TAKE IT, BUT I TRUST AS A MATTER
           OF DREW PROCESS, IT WILL NOT BE. -- MATTER OF DUE PROCESS, IT

           WILL NOT BE.
           
           
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS IS A QUESTION FROM SENATORS DEWINE,
           COLLINS AND MURKOWSKI TO THE
           
           HOUSE MANAGERS: WITH ALL OF THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY THAT
           EXISTS ON THE RECORD BETWEEN MONICA LEWINSKY AND BETTY CURRIE,
           FOR EXAMPLE, HOW ARE WE TO RESOLVE THE QUESTIONS OF PERJURY AND
           OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITHOUT OBSERVING THE DEMEANOR OF
           WITNESSES?
           

           MR. HUTCHINSON: I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY WAY TO RESOLVE THE
           CONFLICTS IN THEIR TESTIMONY WITHOUT CALLING THE WITNESSES.
           NOW, YOU CAN READ THE TRANSCRIPTS, AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THOSE
           AND YOU CAN TRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS ANY CORROBORATING
           EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW HOW YOU CAN BELIEVE IT AND MAKE SOME OF
           THOSE KINDS OF EVALUATIONS, BUT PARTICULARLY WHENEVER YOU ARE
           LOOKING AT WHETHER IT IS MONICA LEWINSKY OR BETTY CURRIE, THERE
           IS THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, THERE IS THE DEMEANOR THAT ALLOWS
           YOU TO DETERMINE WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH AND WHO YOU BELIEVE.

           IN CONTRAST TO MR. RUFF, TRIES TO MAKE THE POINT THAT SOMEBODY
           IS LYING HERE, AND MAYBE SOMEBODY IS LYING, BUT A JURY, IN CASE
           THE SENATORS, CAN SAY SOMEONE IS NOT RECALLING THE SAME WAY,
           MEONE IS MORE BELIEVABLE BECAUSE THEIR RECOLLECTION IS BETTER,
           IT'S CORROBORATED, OR YOU COULD CONCLUDE THAT SOMEBODY IS
           LYING, BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS BREAKDOWN THAT SIMPLY. BUT YOU
           HAVE TO EVALUATE THAT AND THAT'S HOW YOU RESOLVE IT. LET ME
           COME BACK. I THINK WHAT WE SEE HERE TODAY IS THE WHITE HOUSE

           COUNSEL DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS, THEY DO NOT WANT
           TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE, THEY DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT
           OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, JUST LIKE IN THE HOUSE THEY WANT TO
           TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS. THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING
           THAT'S GOING ON EXCEPT FOR THE CASE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
           IT PROBABLY WILL BE THE NEWS STORY LATER ON TODAY THE QUESTIONS
           THAT THEY HAVE RAISED ABOUT THIS. BUT THE FACT IS THAT IT IS
           VERY SIMPLE THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO BETTY CURRIE. EVERY TIME
           THE PRESIDENT HAS TALKED AND TRIED TO COACH BETTY CURRIE, I
           DON'T THINK THE PRESIDENT INVITED THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL IN

           WHEN THAT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION, OR THE PAULA JONES LAWYERS.
           I DON'T THINK THAT HAPPENED. I DON'T THINK THAT -- AT LEAST THE
           NEWS CLINICS -- WHEN I SAW BETTY CURRIE HUGGING THE PRESIDENT,
           I DON'T THINK HE INVITED THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN. AND I DIDN'T
           NECESSARILY EXPECTS HIM TO. BUT WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED, AND I
           WILL JUST TELL YOU RIGHT NOW SO NOBODY IS SURPRISED, IF WE GET
           TO CALL VERNON JORDAN I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THE UNITED STATES
           SENATE IN ORDER TO BE PREPARED TO THAT SO I CONFESS TODAY THAT

           I CALLED UP BILL HUNLEY THE LAWYER FOR VERNON JORDAN TO VISIT
           WITH HIM. I HOPE THAT IF YOU TALK TO ANY WITNESSES THAT IF YOU
           FEEL LIKE IT IS FAIR THAT YOU WILL GIVE USE CHANCE TO JOIN WITH
           YOU IN THAT. BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN ADVERSARY PROCESS WE ARE
           ENGAGED IN. I THINK THAT WE TODAY IN THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER
           SESSION THAT ALL SO GRACIOUSLY EXTENDED TO US, SHOULD FOCUS ON
           OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO
           DETERMINE. ON THE PERJURY ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE THAT THE WHAT WE
           HAVE TO DETERMINE TODAY, AND I THANK THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE
           SENATORS.
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS QUESTION IS FROM SENATORS KOHL AND
           EDWARDS. TO WHOM IS IT ADDRESSED?
           IT IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL BOTH SIDES
           HAVE SPOKEN IN ABSOLUTES; THAT IS IF THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN
           THIS CONDUCT, PROSECUTORS CLAIM THAT HE MUST BE CONVICT VICTED
           AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE WHILE THE PRESIDENT OFFICE LAWYERS
           ARGUE SUCH CONDUCT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RISE TO AN IMPEACHABLE
           OFFENSE. IT STRIKES TO TO. OF US AS A CLOSE ARE CALL.
           

           LET ME ASK YOU THIS: EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN THE
           ALLEGED CONDUCT CONTRIBUTION REASONABLE PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH
           THE CONCLUSION THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW HE MUST BE CONVICTED AND
           REMOVED FROM OFFICE, YEARN?
           -- YES OR NO?
           
           
           

           MR. GRAHAM: ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS A HARD CASE IN A COUPLE AREAS
           AND AN EASY CASE IN MANY AREAS. THE CONSTITUTION READS THAT
           UPON CONVICTION THE PERSON SHALL BE REMOVED, AND YOU HAVE GOT
           TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT OF THE JUDGE CASES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT
           GETS TO BE HARD FOR THIS BODY, BECAUSE THE PRECEDENTS. BODY
           WHEN YOU APPLY THE SAME LEGAL STANDARD OF HIGH CRIMES AND
           MISDEMEANORS TO THE FACT THAT A JUDGE WHO IS CONVICTED OF
           PERJURY BASS REMOVED BY THE BODY, AND YOU CONCDE IN YOUR MIND
           THAT THIS PRESIDENT COMMITTED PERJURY, YOU HAVE GOT A DYNAMIC

           YOU HAVE TO WORK THROUGH. MR. BUMPERS SAYS THERE IS PERJURY
           ENTHERE'S PERJURY. I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE ALLEGATIONS
           OF PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THIS CASE ARE NOT
           PRIVILEGE YAWL. IT IS NOT ABOUT A SPEEDING TICKET OR A TRIVIAL
           MATTER, IT'S ABOUT THE ACTIVITY OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE WAS
           DEFENDED IN A LAWSUIT IN A SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT, WHEN HE
           WAS TOLD BY THE SUPREME COURT YOU HAVE TO PLAY AND YOU HAVE TO
           PLAY FAIRLY. IF YOU DETERMINE THAT HE COMMITTED THE CRIME OF
           PERJURY, AND YOU DETERMINE THAT HE COMMITTED THE CRIME OF

           OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BASED ON THE PRECEDENT OF THE SENATE, I
           THINK YOU WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING UNDER THE SITUATION IN
           THIS CASE THAT THAT'S NOT A HIGH CRIME. BUT I WOULD BE THE
           FIRST TO ADMIT THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON THIS QUESTION
           ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT EVERY HIGH CRIME HAS TO RESULT IN REMOVAL.
           IF I WAS SITTING WHERE YOU ARE AT, I WOULD PROBABLY GET DOWN ON
           MY KNEES BEFORE I MADE THAT DECISION, BECAUSE THE IMPACT ON
           SOCIETY IS GOING TO BE REAL EITHER WAY. IF YOU FIND THIS

           PRESIDENT GUILTY IN YOUR MIND, FROM THE FACTS, THAT HE IS A
           PERJURY ROR AND HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, YOU HAVE GOT TO
           RECONCILE CONTINUED SERVICE IN LIGHT OF THAT EVENT. AND I THINK
           IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS BODY TO NOT HAVE A DISPOSITION PLAN
           THAT DOESN'T TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THE GOOD OF THIS NATION. I

           HAVE ARGUED TO YOU THAT WHEN YOU FOUND THAT A JUDGE WAS A
           PERJEROR YOU COULDN'T PUT HIM BACK IN THAT COURTROOM, BECAUSE
           EVERYBODY THAT CAME IN THAT COURTROOM THEREAFTER WOULD HAVE A
           REAL SERIOUS DOUBT. I WILL ARGUE WHEN YOU FIND THIS PRESIDENT
           GUILTY OF PERJURY, IF YOU DO, THAT HE HAS VIOLATED HIS OATH,
           AND THAT BY A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT, SOME PUBLIC TRUST HAS BEEN
           LOST, AND I WOULD SHOW TO YOU THE BODY OF EVIDENCE FROM THIS
           QUESTION, DO YOU TRUST WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON?
           THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU THREE OUT OF FOUFER SAY NO.

           BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ALSO TELL YOU -- THREE OUT OF FOUR
           SAY NO. BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ALSO TELL YOU I UNDERSTAND
           WHAT HAPPENED HERE, AND SOME WANT HIM REMOVED AND SOME DON'T,
           AND YOU GOT TO CONSIDER WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS NATION. I WILL
           YIELD TO MR. BUYER IN A SECOND, BUT THE POINT IS THAT I AM
           TRYING TO MAKE IS NOT ARTICULATELY AS I CAN IS THAT I KNOW HOW
           HARD THAT DECISION IS. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HARD FOR ME. IT'S
           NEVER BEEN HARD TO FIND OUT WHETHER BILL CLINTON COMMITTED

           PERJURY OR OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. THAT AIN'T A HARD BUN FOR ME.
           BUT WHEN YOU TAKE THE GOOD OF THIS NATION, THE UPSIDE AND THE
           DOWNSIDE, REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE ON WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
           

           MR. BUYER: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REMIND ALL OF YOU THAT THE
           IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS INTENDED TO CLEANSE THE EXECUTIVE OR THE
           JUDICIAL OFFICE WHEN IT IS PLAGUED WITH SUCH A CANCER AS
           PERJURY OR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WHICH VIOLATES THE OATH
           REQUIRED TO HOLD THOSE HIGH OFFICES. NOW, WHAT MAY BE TURNING
           IN THE GUT OF SOME OF YOU IS, ARE THE PRECEDENTS OF THE SENATE,
           WHEN IN FACT YOU HAVE TURNED OUT OF OFFICE, YOU HAVE EXERCISED

           YOUR JUDGMENTS OF PROPORTIONATE. WHEN THESE JUDGES VIOLATED
           THEIR OATHS AND HAD PERJURY, YOU SAID, THEY SHALL BE REMOVED
           FROM OFFICE. NOW THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE GOING, WELL, I'M
           UNEASY IN THIS CASE WITH THE PRESIDENT. THAT'S WHAT MAY CREATE
           A LITTLE PROBLEM HERE. I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU ACTUALLY
           HAVE FINDINGS OF FACT. THAT THE SENATE HAS FINDINGS OF FACT.
           THAT THE PRESIDENT IN FACT, HE LIED OR HE DID NOT LIE, OR HE
           COMMITTED ON AN OBSTRUCTION, THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE FINDINGS OF

           FACT, THEN YOU CAN MOVE BEYOND THE QUESTIONS OF APPLICATION OF
           THE -- BEYOND TO FLIKSS APPLICATIONS OF THE LAW. WHEN THE
           SENATE PERFORMED THIS CLEANSING, AND REMOVED THE JUDGES, ALL
           THREE IMPEACHED FOR PERJURY IN SOME FORM, AND IN JUDGE HAY
           STINGS CASE, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CRIMINAL
           CASE, THE CONGRESS, IN PARTICULAR THE SENATE, YOU HAVE A DUTY
           TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF PUBLIC OFFICE, AND THAT IS WHAT I
           AM E. IMPEACHMENT WAS DESIGNED PRECISELY TO DO.
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS IS A QUESTION FROM SENATORS VOINOVICH,
           JEFFORDS AND CHAFEE
           
           TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS: IN OUR INTERVIEW WITH THE OFFICE OF THE
           INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, MS. LEWINSKY STATED THAT ON JANUARY 5,
           1998, THE PRESIDENT TOLD HER NOT TO WORRY ABOUT THE -- WORRY
           ABOUT THE AFFIDAVIT, BECAUSE HE HAD SEEN 15 OTHERS. DID THE
           PRESIDENT MEAN THAT HE HAD SEEN PREVIOUS DRAFTS OF MS.
           LEWINSKY'S AFFIDAVIT, OR DID THE PRESIDENT MEAN HE HAD SEEN
           DRAFTS OF OTHER AFFIDAVITS THAT WERE IN SOME WAY CONNECTED TO

           THE PAULA JONES MATTER?
           
           

           MR. MCCOLLUM: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. YOU CAN TAKE THAT
           EITHER WAY. I BELIEVE IN THE CONTEXT AND I PRESENTED THIS TO
           YOU THE OTHER DAY THAT IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT UTTERED THOSE
           WORDS IS THAT THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS HE HAD SEEN 15 OTHER
           DRAFTS OF HERS. IF YOU REMEMBER HE WAS DISCUSSING WITH HIM THE
           ISSUE OF WHETHER HE WANTED TO SEE THIS PARTICULAR DRAFT OF HER
           AFFIDAVIT, AND THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT HE SAID NO, I DON'T WANT
           TO, I HAVE SEEN 15 OTHERS. WELL, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

           HE COULD HAVE SEEN 15 OTHER AFFIDAVITS IN HIS LIFE SOMEWHERE
           BACK IN ARKANSAS -- WHO KNOWS -- BUT IT STRIKES ME THE LOGICAL
           CONCLUSION IN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SEE THIS
           PRESIDENT WAS INTENT ON AND HAD INS HIS MIND AND THE INTEREST
           HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN FROM ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS HE HAD HAD
           WITH VERNON JORDAN AND OTHERS TO MAKE SURE THIS AFFIDAVIT WAS
           ON TRACK, AND KNOWING HE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY IN A FEW DAYS
           HIMSELF IN THE JONES CASE, AND RELY ON IT AND IN FACT DID GO IN
           AND TELL THE SAME COVER STORIES THAT WERE IN THAT THIS

           AFFIDAVIT TO THE COURT, UNTRUTHFULLY, THAT THE PROBABILITIES
           ARE GOOD THAT COMMON SENSE SAYS HE HAD SEEN 15 OTHER DRAFTS OF
           THIS VERSION OF THIS AFFIDAVIT. BUT THAT'S FOR YOU ARE TO
           DECIDE. THAT'S A JUDGMENT CALL FOR THE TRIERS OF FACT. THANK
           YOU.
           
           
           

           MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS IS A QUESTION FROM SENATOR LEAHY TO
           

           COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT: COULD YOU REPLY TO THE STATEMENT
           JUST MADE BY MANAGER MCCOLLUM?
           
           

           MR. KENDALL: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ON THURSDAY AFTERNOON I WENT
           OVER IN PERHAPS TEDIOUS DETAIL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE
           AFFIDAVITS. I POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO WAY IN WHICH --
           THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AT THAT TIME PRESIDENT SAW ANY AFFIDAVIT
           DRAFT. MR. MANAGER MCCOLLUM JUST NOW I THINK ADMITTED THAT HE
           HAS ONLY SPECULATION, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF EVIDENCE
           THAT THE PRESIDENT DENIED SEEING ANY AFFIDAVIT DRAFT. I POINTED

           OUT IN THE MANAGERS' CHART 7 THAT THEIR THEORY ABOUT WHEN MS.
           LEWINSKY COULD HAVE GOTTEN AND AFFIDAVIT WAS SIMPLY WRONG,
           BECAUSE THEIR THEORY WAS HE SHE GOT IT ON JANUARY 5 -- THIS IS
           A SINGLE AFFIDAVIT DRAFT -- THE EVIDENCE PLAINLY SHOWS SHE
           COULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN IT UNTIL JANUARY 6. THERE IS SIMPLY
           NOTHING IN THE RECORD. AND THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL INTERVIEW
           MS. LEWINSKY EXTENSIVELY, BOTH IN INTERVIEWS AND BEFORE THE
           GRAND JURY. THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE

           PRESIDENT SAW ANY DRAFTS OR INDEED THAT THERE WERE 15 DRAFTS.
           LET ME SAY A WORD ABOUT
{END: 1999/01/23 TIME: 11-00 , Sat.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}