WRIGHT, MR. BENNETT STATED -- "I'M NOT COACHING THE WITNESS IN
           PREPARATION FOR THE WITNESS OF THIS DEPOSITION. THE WITNESS IS
           FULLAL WEAR OF MISS LEWINSKY'S -- FULLY AWARE OF MISS
           LEWINSKY'S AFFIDAVIT, SO I HAVE NOT TOLD HIM A SINGLE THING HE
           DOESN'T KNOW. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT SAY ANYTHING TO CORRECT MR.
           BENNETT BENNETT, EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FALSE.
           
           
           
           
           THE THE JUDGE ALLOWED THE QUESTIONING TO PROCEED. AND LATER MR.
           BENNETT READ TO THE PRESIDENT A PORTION OF PARAGRAPH 8 IN WHICH
           SHE DENIED HAVING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT AND

           ASKED HIM IF MS. LEWINSKY'S STATEMENT WAS TRUE AND ACCURATE, TO
           WHICH THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED, "THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE." I'M
           NOT GOING BACK OVER PUTTING THAT UP ON THE SCREEN AGAIN, BUT I
           DO WANT TO PUT UP HERE FOR YOU WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU,
           PARAGRAPH 8 OF MONICA LEWINSKY'S AFFIDAVIT. PARAGRAPH 8 OF HER
           AFFIDAVIT WAS ABSOLUTELY FALSE, AND THE PRESIDENT KNEW IT. I
           WANT TO GO OVER THAT A LITTLE BIT. WHAT IT SAYS UP HERE AT THE
           BEGINNING OF IT IS, "I HAVE NEVER HAD A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

           WITH THE PRESIDENT, HE DID NOT PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE A SEXUAL
           RELATIONSHIP," AND SO ON. WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT. BUT
           LOOK WHAT'S DOWN AT THE END OF THIS, WHAT'S DOWN AT THE END OF
           THIS. AND YOU'VE GOT IT IN FRONT OF YOU. IT SAYS DOWN HERE,
           "THE OCCASIONS THAT I SAW THE PRESIDENT AFTER I LEFT MY
           EMPLOYMENT AT THE WHITE HOUSE IN APRIL 1996 WERE OFFICIAL
           RECEPTIONS, FORMAL FUNCTIONS OR EVENTS RELATED TO THE U.S.
           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR I WAS WORKING AT THE TIME. THERE WERE

           OTHER PEOPLE PRESENT ON THOSE OCCASIONS." I JUST WANT TO POINT
           OUT TO YOU THAT PARAGRAPH 8, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LOT OF
           DISCUSSION WHICH THE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY WAS FULLY AWARE OF,
           WHICH YOU WATCHED HIM INTENSELY RESPONDING TO WITH REGARD TO
           MR. BENNETT YESTERDAY IN THAT DEPOSITION, DIDN'T JUST CONTAIN A
           LIE ABOUT A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WHERE YOU QUIBBLE OVER THE
           WORDS. IT IS A FULL-FLEDGED LIE, COVER STORY ABOUT THIS. NONE
           OF THAT'S TRUE. SHE SAW HIM A LOT OF OTHER TIMES AND THE

           PRESIDENT KNEW THAT. THEY WEREN'T ALL OFFICIAL EVENTS OR
           ANYTHING ELSE. THIS WAS A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD, PARAGRAPH 8, AND
           THE PRESIDENT KNEW IT. AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN HE ALLOWED
           HIS ATTORNEY ON THE DAY OF THE DEPOSITION TO MAKE A FALSE AND
           MISLEADING STATEMENT TO THE JUDGE -- THE ATTORNEY DIDN'T KNOW
           THAT BUT IT WAS A FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENT TO THE JUDGE
           -- CHARACTERIZING THIS AFFIDAVIT, HE KNEW BETTER. AND THE
           PRESIDENT AT THAT POINT IN TIME COMMITTED THE CRIME OF
           OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AND THAT IS COUNT 5 OF ARTICLE 2. NOW

           THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE GOING TO ARGUE THAT HE SAT SILENT
           BECAUSE HE WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION, THAT HE DIDN'T HEAR OR
           APPRECIATE WHAT MR. BENNETT WAS SAYING. YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THE
           VIDEO, YOU KNOW THAT HE WAS LOOKING SO INTENTLY. REMEMBER HE
           WAS INTENSELY FOLLOWING THE CONVERSATION WITH EYE. I DON'T KNOW
           IF YOU WATCHED THAT. I'M SURE YOU DID YESTERDAY, OBSERVED THAT.
           IT WAS PLAYED TWICE. I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN SAY THIS MAN
           WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. HE CERTAINLY WASN'T THINKING ABOUT
           ANYTHING ELSE. THAT WAS VERY OBVIOUS FROM LOOKING AT THAT
           VIDEO. THE PRESIDENT'S OTHER DEFENSE ALWAYS FALLS APART ON ITS

           FACE. DURING HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT ARGUED WHEN
           MR. BENNETT CHARACTERIZED THE LEWINSKY AFFIDAVIT AS INDICATING
           THERE WAS NO SEX OF ANY KIND, THAT IT WAS A COMPLETELY TRUE
           STATEMENT BECAUSE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, AT THAT MOMENT THAT
           THE STATEMENT WAS BEING MADE, ON JANUARY 17, 1998, THERE WAS NO
           SEX GOING ON. THAT'S WHEN THE PRESIDENT MADE HIS FAMOUS
           UTTERANCE TO THE JURY. IT DEPENDS ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD --
           WHAT THE WORD "IS" IS. THAT'S WHEN HE SAID THAT. OF COURSE THE

           PRESIDENT KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THE CONTEXT OF MR. BENNETT'S
           DISCUSSION WITH THE JUDGE AND THAT CHARACTER CHARACTERIZATION
           OF THE LEWINSKY AFFIDAVIT WAS REFERRING TO THE DENIAL IN
           PARAGRAPH 8 IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THERE HAD NEVER BEEN ANY
           SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP AT ANY TIME, NOT THAT THERE WAS NO SEX OR
           SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP GOING ON JANUARY 17, THE DAY OF THE
           DEPOSITION. I IMPLORE YOU NOT TO GET HUNG UP ON SOME OF THE
           DETAILS IN THIS. IT IS ABSURD, SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE
           BEING MADE BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ATTORNEYS TO TRY TO EXPLAIN

           THIS STUFF. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT. WE START LOOKING
           AROUND AT THIS, YOU CAN'T SEE THE FOREST SOMETIMES FOR THE
           TREES. THE BIG PICTURE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND, NOT
           THE COMPARTMENTALIZATION. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF EFFORT TO PICK
           AT ONE THING OR ANOTHER, BUT THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD
           EXAMPLE OF HOW AN ARGUMENT FAILS WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THAT
           SITUATION. WHEN MONICA LEWINSKY WAS SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFIED,
           SHE WAS SUBPOENAED TO PRODUCE GIFTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
           GIVEN HER. WHEN SHE MET WITH VERNON JORDAN THE DAY SHE RECEIVED

           THE SUBPOENA, SHE TOLD HIM OF HER CONCERNS ABOUT THE GIFTS AND
           SHE ASKED HIM TO TELL THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE SUBPOENA. EARLY
           IN THE MORNING ON DECEMBER 28, NEAR THE END OF THE YEAR, THEY
           MET, THE PRESIDENT AND MONICA, IN HIS OFFICE AND THEY EXCHANGED
           GIFTS AND DISCUSSED THE GIFTS BEING SUBPOENAED. ACCORDING TO
           MS. LEWINSKY, SHE SUGGESTED THAT MAYBE SHE SHOULD PUT THE GIFTS
           AWAY OUTSIDE OF HER HOUSE SOMEWHERE, GIVE THEM TO SOMEBODY LIKE
           BETTY CURRIE. SHE SAYS HE RESPONDED -- THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED
           WITH, "I DON'T KNOW, "OR "LET MEANING ABOUT THAT." SHE IS VERY

           CLEAR AT NO POINT DID HE EVER GIVE HER THE IMPRESSION THAT SHE
           SHOULD TURN THE GIFTS OVER TO THE JONES ATTORNEYS. THAT'S
           IMPORTANT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. THE ONE RIGHT HERE AND LATER
           IN THE PERJURY WHERE THE COUNT DISCUSSES HIS LYING TO THE GRAND
           JURY. CONSISTENT WITH HER COVER STORIES AND ALL THE PLANS FOR
           DENYING THE RELATIONSHIP, HER TESTIMONY IN THIS REGARD IS VERY
           BELIEVABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY IN
           FRONT OF THE GRAND JURY THAT ENCOURAGED HER TO TURN OVER THE
           GIFTS TO THE JONES ATTORNEYS IS NOT BELIEVABLE. HOW CAN ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT?

           WHEN HE SAID THAT TO THE GRAND JURY, HE COMMITTED PERJURY. WHEN
           A FEW HOURS LATER, ACCORDING TO MONICA LEWINSKY, BETTY CURRIE
           CALLED HER ON THE TELEPHONE AND SAID I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE
           SOMETHING TO HAVE GIVE ME, OR MAYBE SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT SAID
           YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO GIVE ME. AND BETTY CURRIE CAME OVER AND
           GOT THE GIFTS AND TOOK THEM BACK AND HID THEM UNDER HER BED, AT
           THAT MOMENT THE PRESIDENT'S CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS
           DESCRIBED IN COUNT 3 OF ARTICLE 2 WAS COMPLETE. REMEMBER BY
           THEIR NATURE, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES IN CRIMES ARE MOST

           FREQUENTLY PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AS SOMEBODY SAID
           HERE THE OTHER DAY, WE DON'T PELL PEOPLE WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT
           UNDER THE ELM TREE AND LIE AND OBSTRUCT THINGS. USUALLY IT'S A
           LOT MORE CIRCUITOUS THAN THAT. IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL THAT WAS
           GOING ON AT THE TIME AND THE GENERAL TRUTHFULNESS OF MONICA
           LEWINSKY'S TESTIMONY IN OTHER RESPECTS, HOW CAN ANYONE COME TO
           ANY OTHER CONCLUSION THAN THAT THE PRESIDENT COLLABORATED WITH
           MONICA AND BETTY TO HIDE THESE GIFTS ON DECEMBER 28?
           HOW CAN YOU?

           THE SEQUENCE IS THERE. NOW THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS MAY SPEND A
           LOT OF TIME ATTACKING THIS PARTICULAR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
           CHARGE. THEY MAY QUESTION WHY THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE GIVEN
           MONICA LEWINSKY MORE GIFTS ON DECEMBER 28 IF HE WAS EXPECT
           EXPECTING HER TO HIDE THE GIFTS?
           MONICA'S EXPLANATION IN HER TESTIMONY IS -- QUOTE -- "FROM
           EVERYTHING HE SAID TO ME, HE EXPECTED HER TO CONCEAL THE GIFTS
           INCLUDING THE ONES BEING GIVEN THAT DAY." WHEN MRS. CURRIE'S
           CALL CAME, WASN'T IT THE LOGICAL THING -- WASN'T IT THE LOGICAL
           THING FOR MONICA TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS WAS THE RESULT OF THE
           PRESIDENT'S HAVING THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE GIFTS,

           WHICH HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO, ACCORDING TO HER, AND
           DECIDING TO HAVE MRS. CURRIE HIDE THEM?
           THAT'S THE LOGICAL THING. THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS NO DOUBT
           WILL ALSO QUESTION THE VERACITY OF MS. MONICA LEWINSKY WITH
           REGARD TO WHO MADE THE PHONE CALL SINCE MRS. CURRIE'S
           RECOLLECTION IS NOT VERY GOOD. SHE AT FIRST SAYS SHE RECALLS
           THAT MONICA MADE IT. THE PHONE RECORDS INDICATE THAT MRS.
           CURRIE CALLED MS. LEWINSKY. AND THAT'S THE MUCH MORE LOGICAL
           CONSEQUENCE AND SEQUENCE. ALSO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT THE
           PRESIDENT'S SECRETARY, WHO IS SO CLOSE TO HIM -- THINK ABOUT

           THIS -- IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE SHE WOULD HAVE TAKEN THESE GIFTS
           AND HIDDEN THEM UNDER HER BED AND NEVER TALK WITH THE PRESIDENT
           ABOUT DOING SO BEFORE OR AFTER SHE DID SO. THAT JUST DOESN'T
           MAKE SENSE. IT'S ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT THE PRESIDENT DID
           EVERYTHING HE COULD IN HIS JANUARY 17 DEPOSITION TO CONCEAL THE
           TRUE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MONICA LEWINSKY. THIS IS
           CONSISTENT WITH THE ARGUMENTS THAT HE NEVER INTENDED THE GIFTS
           TO BE KEPT FROM THE JONES ATTORNEYS. HE NEVER INTENDED THEM TO
           BE GIVEN TO THE JONES ATTORNEYS. IF HE HAD INTENDED TO GIVE

           THESE GIFTS TO THE JONES ATTORNEYS WHY WOULD HE HAVE GONE THERE
           THIS SERIES OF LIES IN THAT DEPOSITION?
           COMMON SENSE TELLS US IF HE KNEW THESE GIFTS WOULD BE REVEALED,
           THE QUEZ WOULD BE RAISED AND HIS RELATIONSHIP REVEALED. ALL THE
           LOGIC IS THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU REFUTE IT. ANOTHER
           OBSTRUCTION COUNT THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS ARE LIKELY TO SPEND
           TIME ON IS ONE CONCERNING THE JOB SEARCH. THERE IS NO QUESTION
           THAT MONICA LEWINSKY WAS LOOKING FOR A JOB IN NEW YORK ALONG --
           A LONG TIME BEFORE WE GET TO DECEMBER 1997 WHEN THE AFFIDAVIT
           AND ALL OF THIS TOOK PLACE. LONG BEFORE THE PRESIDENT HAD

           REASON TO BE CONCERNED THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO TESTIFY OR HE'D
           HAVE TO TESTIFY IN THE CASE. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
           THE QUESTION -- THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
           OR NOT THE PRESIDENT INTENSIFIED HIS EFFORTS TO GET HER A JOB
           AND MADE SURE SHE GOT ONE AFTER IT BECAME CLEAR TO HIM THAT HE
           WOULD NEED HER TO LIE. SIGN A FALSE AFFIDAVIT AND STICK WITH
           HER LIES IN ANY QUESTIONING. THAT'S WHAT COUNTS. THAT'S WHAT
           IMPORTANT. DID HE INTENSIFY HIS EFFORTS AND REALLY GO AFTER IT?

           WAS IT PART OF THAT PATTERN I DESCRIBED TO YOU EARLIER, THAT
           MR. HUTCHINSON DESCRIBED YESTERDAY?
           THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT. IN OTHER WORDS, AS COUNT 4 OF ARTICLE
           2 ALLEGES DID HE MAKE SURE SHE WAS AWARDED FOR STICKING WITH
           HIM IN HIS SCHEME OF CONCEALMENT IN ANTICIPATION THAT THIS
           REWARD WOULD KEEP HER HAPPY AND KEEP HER FROM TURNING ON HIM?
           DID THE PRESIDENT MAKE SURE MONICA LEWINSKY SIGNED THE FALSE
           AFFIDAVIT BY GETTING HER A JOB?
           THE RECORD SHOWS THAT WHILE SHE DID GET SOME INTERVIEWS FROM
           EARLIER CONTACTS, INCLUDING ONE INVOLVING A JOB WITH THE UNITED

           STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N., NO ONE OF REAL INFLUENCE AROUND
           THE PRESIDENT PUT ON A FULL-COURT PRESS TO GET HER A JOB, AND
           SHE HADN'T HAD ANY SUCCESS AS OF DECEMBER 6. SHE HAD NOT BEEN
           ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH VERNON JORDAN IN HER RECENT EFFORTS
           HE HAD MET WITH HER ONCE IN NOVEMBER, BUT AS YOU RECALL FROM
           YESTERDAY'S DISCUSSIONS, SOMETHING HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A GOOD
           MEMORY OF. HE CERTAINLY WASN'T VERY FOCUSED ON IT AND SHE
           WASN'T GETTING WHERE SHE WANTED TO GET. ON DECEMBER 6 SHE
           MENTION THAT HAD FACT TO THE PRESIDENT. YOU REMEMBER THAT'S ONE

           DAY AFTER SHE WAS NAMED ON THE WITNESS LIST. IN FACT, THAT'S
           THE DAY THAT HE LEARNED OR MAY HAVE LEARNED -- WE KNOW HE
           LEARNED OF HER BEING ON THAT WITNESS LIST. THE PRESIDENT MET
           WITH VERNON JORDAN THE NEXT DAY, BUT HE APPARENTLY DIDN'T
           MENTION MS. LEWINSKY'S ACCORDING TO MR. JORDAN'S TESTIMONY. THE
           RECORD SHOWS NOT UNTIL DECEMBER 11 DID MR. JORDAN ACT TO HELP
           MS. LEWINSKY FIND A JOB WHEN HE MET WITH HER AND GAVE HER A
           LIST OF CONTACT NAMES ON DECEMBER 11. MR. JORDAN THAT SAME DAY
           MADE CALLS TO KONEL TAKST AT MACANDREWS AND FORBES, THE PARENT

           CORPORATION OF REVLON AND TWO OTHER NEW YORK COMPANIES. HE ALSO
           TELEPHONED THE PRESIDENT TO KEEP HIM INFORMED OF HIS EFFORTS.
           KEEP IN MIND THAT ON THIS DAY, THIS VERY SAME DAY, DECEMBER 11,
           JUDGE WRIGHT ISSUED HER ORDER IN THE JONES CASE ENTITLING
           JONES' LAWYERS TO DISCOVER THE PRESIDENT'S SEXUAL RELATIONS. IS THAT A MERE COINCIDENCE?
           LATER IN DECEMBER MONICA LEWINSKY INTERVIEWED WITH NEW
           YORK-BASED COMPANIES THAT HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY MR. JORDAN. SHE

           DISCUSSED HER MOVE TO NEW YORK WITH THE PRESIDENT DURING HER
           MEETING ON DECEMBER 28. ON JANUARY 5 SHE DECLINED A UNITED
           NATIONS OFFER. ON JANUARY 7 MS. LEWINSKY SIGNED THE FALSE
           AFFIDAVIT. THE NEXT DAY, ON JANUARY 8, SHE INTERVIEWED IN NEW
           YORK WITH MACANDREWS AND FORBES BUT THE INTERVIEW WENT VERY
           POORLY. LEARNING OF THIS VERNON JORDAN THAT VERY DAY CALLED
           RONALD PERELMAN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AT MACANDREWS AND
           FORBES. SHE WAS INTERVIEWED THE NEXT MORNING AGAIN. A FEW HOURS

           LATER SHE RECEIVED AN INFORMAL OFFER. SHE TOLD JORDAN. HE TOLD
           BETTY CURRIE AND SHE PERSONALLY TOLD THE PRESIDENT ABOUT IT
           LATER. ON JANUARY 13 HER JOB OFFER AT REVLON WAS FORMALIZED.
           WITHIN A DAY OR SO PRESIDENT CLINTON TOLD ERSKINE BOWLES MS.
           LEWINSKY FOUND A JOB IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. IT WAS A BIG RELIEF
           TO HIM. THEN HER FALSE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED. ON JANUARY 17 THE
           PRESIDENT GAVE HIS DEPOSITION RELYING ON THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT
           AND USING THEIR COVERTOR RIS TO CONCEAL THE RELATIONSHIP. WAS
           THIS FULL-COURT PRESS IN DECEMBER AND EARLY JANUARY TO ENSURE
           MONICA LEWINSKY HAD A JOB JUST A COINCIDENCE?

           LOGICAL COMMON SENSE SAYS NO. THE PRESIDENT NEEDED HER TO
           CONTINUE TO COOPERATE IN HIS SCHEME TO HIDE THE RELATIONSHIP.
           KEEPING HER HAPPY SO HE COULD CONTROL HER AND SHE WOULD BE --
           HE WOULD BE ASSURED THAT SHE FILED THIS FALSE AFFIDAVIT AND
           TESTIFY UNTRUTHFULLY IF SHE WAS CALLED. IT'S THE ONLY PLAUSIBLE
           RATIONALE FOR THIS STEPPED-UP JOB ASSISTANCE EFFORT AT THIS
           PARTICULAR TIME. IN DOING SO, THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE
           CRIMES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND WITNESS TAMPERING AS SET

           FORTH IN THE COUNT 4 OF ARTICLE 2. WE'VE GONE THROUGH QUITE A
           FEW OF THESE. I'M TRYING TO BE BRIEF WITH YOU ON IT, BUT I
           THINK EACH ONE OF THEM IS IMPORTANT. EACH ONE OF THEM ENTANGLES
           THE PRESIDENT FURTHER IN A WEB THAT FITS TOGETHER. AND IT'S
           KIND OF STICKY, JUST LIKE THE SPIDER WEAVES. DURING HIS
           DEPOSITION IN THE JONES CASE, THE PRESIDENT REFERRED TO BETTY
           CURRIE SEVERAL TIMES. AND SUGGESTED THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE ANSWERS
           TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. HE USED THE COVER STORIES, THE SAME

           ONES HE AND MONICA TALKED ABOUT, AND HE TALKED ABOUT BETTY
           CURRIE A GOOD DEAL BECAUSE SHE WAS A PART OF THOSE COVER
           STORIES. WHEN HE FINISHED THE DEPOSITION, HE TELEPHONED MS.
           CURRIE AND ASKED HER TO COME TO HIS OFFICE THE NEXT DAY AND
           TALK WITH HIM. BETTY CURRIE TOLD THE GRAND JURY WHEN SHE CAME
           IN THE NEXT DAY THE PRESIDENT RAISED HIS DEPOSITION WITH HER
           AND SAID THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS HE WANTED TO KNOW. HE THEN
           RATTLED OFF WHAT YOU HEARD YESTERDAY IN SUCCESSION. YOU WERE
           ALWAYS THERE WHEN SHE WAS THERE; RIGHT?
           WE NEVER WERE REALLY ALONE?
           YOU COULD SEE AND HEAR EVERYTHING?
           MONICA CAME ON TO MEAN AND I NEVER TOUCHED HER; RIGHT?

           SHE WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH ME AND I CAN'T DO THAT. ALL OF
           THOSE WEREN'T TRUE. THEY WERE ALL FALSE HOODS. THEY WERE ALL
           DECLARATORY STATEMENTS. THEY WEREN'T QUESTIONS. IT'S CLEAR FROM
           THE RECORD THAT MRS. CURRIE ALWAYS TRIED HER BEST TO BE LOYAL
           TO THE
{END: 1999/01/15 TIME: 13-45 , Fri.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}