THE MOST MASS LIGANT IS A FELON THAT IS UNKNOWN TO ME, THAT IS
           OF VACATING RECORDS. NUMBER 6 IS RETURNING FROM TRANSPORTATION.
           ALSO AN OFFENSE RARELY SEEN IN OUR MODERN SOCIETY. NUMBERS 10
           TO 12 ARE BARATRY, MAINTENANCE AND CHAMETRY, ESPECIALLY DEAR TO
           ME BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE MY PROFESSION BUT RARELY PURSUED THESE
           DAY, I THIRL EA AGREEFMT AND AT NUMBER 15 IS PERJURY. IF, AS
           MADISON TOLD US, BLACK?

           STONE WAS IN THE HAND OF EVERY MAN WHAT DOES THAT TELL US ABOUT
           WHY THE FRAMERS CHOSE TREASON AND BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES
           AND MISDEMEANORS AS THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT?
           IT TELLS US THAT THEY FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE COMPARATIVE GRAPHIVE
           OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE AND, NONETHELESS, CHOSE ONLY
           THOSE THAT TRULY POSED THAT DANGER TO THE STATE. TREASON FOR
           OBVIOUS REASONS AND BRIBERY BECAUSE TO THEM THE RISK THAT THE
           EXETIVE WOULD SELL HIMSELF TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY, FOR EXAMPLE,

           WAS MUCH MORE THAN MERE SPECULATION, AND THEN OTHER -- OTHER --
           HIGH CRIMES OF SIMILAR SEVERITY. NOW, AS TO THE LESSONS TO B
           LEARNED FROM THE MORE MODERN DAY, THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES,
           MR. MANAGER MCCOLLUM ARGUED TO YOU A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT THOSE
           TO WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSESS THE
           COMPARATIVE SEVERITY OF CRIMES HAVE CONCLUDED THAT PERJURY IS
           AT LEAST AS SERIOUS A CRIME AS BRIBERY. THAT DECISION, HE TOLD
           YOU, IS EVIDENCED BY THE COMIGS DECISION TO ASSIGN TO PERJURY

           AN OFFENSE LEVEL OF 12 OR APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR IN PRISON AND
           TO BRIBERY, AN OFFENSE LEVEL SLIGHTLY BELOW AT. BUT EVEN TO THE
           EXTENT THAT SUCH AN ARGUMENT WERE TO BE WEIGHED IN THE
           CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE, MANAGER MCCOLLUM WAS SIMPLY NOT BEING
           CANDID WITH YOU, FOR HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT UNDER THESE SAME
           GUIDELINES, A BRIBE OF, LET'S SAY, $75,000 TAKEN BY AN ELECTED
           OFFICIAL OR A JUDGE, FOR THAT MATTER, AUTOMATICALLY CARRIES AN

           OFFENSE LEVEL OF 24 -- TWICE THAT OF PERJURY -- AND A PRISON
           SENTENCE FOUR TO FIVE TIMES LONGER. THE DRAFTERS OF OUR
           GUIDELINES TO THE EXTENT THAT MANAGER MCCOLLUM ASKED YOU TO
           LOOK AT THEM, FULL WELL UNDERSTAND THE SPECIAL GRAVITY OF
           BRIBES TAKEN BY THE COUNTRY'S LEADERS AND ARE PREPARED TO
           DISTINGUISH THAT OFFENSE FROM THE OFFENSES, EVEN AT BEST, THAT
           ARE BEFORE YOU NOW. AND LASTLY, THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE ARGUMENT.

           THE NOTION THAT SOMEHOW PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS UNDERMINED OUR
           CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. WELL, WHATEVER I MIGHT SAY COULD NOT MATCH
           THE ELOQUENCE OF MY COLLEAGUE, MS. MILLS AND, THEREFORE, I WILL
           NOT TEMPT FATE BY VENTURING FURTHER INTO THAT TERRITORY. I
           REALLY DON'T WANT TO BECOME FURTHER IMMERSED IN THE MINUTIA
           HERE. ON THIS I DO AGREE WITH THE MANAGERS. WE CANNOT LOSE
           SIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOREST FOR SOME OF THE ANALYTICAL

           TREES. THERE IS ONLY ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU, ALBEIT A
           DIFFICULT ONE, ONE THAT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW AND
           CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY. WOULD IT PUT AT RISK THE LIBERTIES OF
           THE PEOPLE TO RETAIN THE PRESIDENT IN OFFICE OFFICE?
           PUTTING ASIDE PARTISAN ANIMUS, IF YOU CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT IT
           WOULD NOT, THAT THOSE LIBERTIES ARE SAFE IN HIS HANDS, THEN YOU
           MUST VOTE TO ACQUIT. NOW, EACH OF YOU HAS A SENSE OF THIS IN

           YOUR MIND AND YOUR HEART BETTER THAN ANYTHING I COULD CONVEY OR
           I SUSPECT ANYTHING BETTER THAN MY COLLEAGUES COULD CONVEY TO
           YOU. AND I WON'T UNDERTAKE TO INSTRUCT YOU FURTHER ON THIS
           ISSUE. AND JUST AS WE ULTIMATELY LEAVE THAT QUESTION IN YOUR
           HANDS, WE LEAVE TO THE CONSCIENCE OF EACH MEMBER THE QUESTION
           OF WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF TO APPLY. DESPITE CONGRESSMAN

           BUREAU'S EXORATION -- DESPITE CONGRESSMAN BUYER'S EXORATION TO
           THE BODY, THIS HAS NOT BEEN SUGGESTED WHAT'S STANDARD
           INAPPROPRIATE. EACH SENATOR IS LEFT TO HIS OR HER OWN BEST
           JUDGMENT. I SUGGESTED TO YOU WHEN I LAST SPOKE TO YOU THAT I
           BELIEVE YOU MUST APPLY A STANDARD SUFFICIENTLY STRINGENT TO
           ENABLE YOU TO MAKE THIS MOST IMPORTANT DECISION WITH CERTAINTY
           AND IN A MANNER THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
           UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS BEEN MADE WITH THAT CERTAINTY. THIS IS

           NOT AN ISSUE AS TO WHICH WE PASS A PEOPLE AND WE AS A REPUBLIC
           CAN BE IN DOUBT. LET ME MOVE TO THE ARTICLES. JUST AS YOU HAVE
           LISTENED PATIENTLY TO OUR DEBATE ABOUT THE MEANING OF HIGH
           CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, YOU HAVE AS WELL HEARD SEEMINGLY
           ENDLESS DISCOURSE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS
           MATTERS THAT THE MANAGERS ALLEGE CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR
           REMOVAL. I WILL SCRTIFEBE THEREFORE NOT TO BE UNDULY

           REPETITIVE, MORE THAN IS AT LEAST ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. MY
           COLLEAGUES LAST SATURDAY AND IN THEIR EARLIER PRESENTATIONS
           HAVE DONE MY WORK FOR ME, BUT I WANT TO FOCUS FOR JUST A LITTLE
           WHILE ON THOSE ASPECTS OF THE MANAGERS' PRESENTATION THAT MERIT
           YOUR SPECIAL ATTENTION OR THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY
           ELUCIDATED OR FOR THAT MATTER A BIT CLOUDED BY THE TESTIMONY
           YOU HEARD AND WATCHED ON SATURDAY. AS WE START THIS DISCUSSION,

           LET ME OFFER YOU A PHRASE THAT I HOPE YOU WILL REMEMBER AS I
           MOVE THROUGH THE ARTICLES WITH YOU. THAT PHRASE IS "MOVING
           TARGETS AND EMPTY POTS." "MOVING TARGETS, EVER-SHIFTING
           THEORIES, EACH ONE ADVANCED TO REPLACE THE LAST AS IT HAS
           FALLEN, FALLEN VICTIM TO FACTS FACTS." EMPTY POTS, ATTRACTIVE
           CONTAINERS, BUT WHEN YOU TAKE THE LID OF COURSE, YOU FIND

           NOTHING TO SUSTAIN YOU. NOW, I USE THE TERM "EMPTY VESSELS" IN
           MY OPENING PRESENTATION BUT IT SINCE STRUCK ME THAT THAT WAS
           MUCH TOO FLATTERING AND MIGHT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THEY HAD THE
           CAPACITY TO FLOAT, WHICH THEY DON'T.
           
           ARTICLE 1: THE FIRST MOVING TARGET. AS WE'VE SAID REPEATEDLY,
           WE'VE BEEN MORE THAN A LITTLE PUZZLED AS TO THE EXACT NATURE OF
           THE CHARGES ADVANCED BY THE MANAGERS UNDER THE RUBRIC OF
           ARTICLE 1, AND OUR PUZZLEMENT HAS ONLY INCREASED, I MUST TELL

           YOU, SINCE THIS TRIAL BEGAN. WE'VE ARGUED, I THINK WITH
           INDISPUTABLE FORCE, THAT BOTH ARTICLES ARE SO DEFICIENT THAT
           THEY WOULD NOT SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS IN ANY COURT IN THE
           LAND. AND WE'RE NOT INSENSITIVE TO THE CLAIM THAT WE ARE
           ADVANCING SOME LAWYER'S ARGUMENT, WE'RE SEEKING SOME TECHNICAL
           ESCAPE. BUT I URGE YOU NOT TO TREAT THIS ISSUE SO LIGHTLY. AS
           YOU LOOK TO ARTICLE ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, ASK YOURSELVES WHETHER
           YOU CAN AT THIS LATE MOMENT IN THE TRIAL IDENTIFY FOR

           YOURSELVES WITH ANY REMOTE SENSE OF CERTAINTY THE STATEMENTS
           THAT THE MANAGERS CLAIM WERE PERJURIOUS. I SUSPECT YOU'LL HEAR
           A LOT ABOUT THAT IN THE TWO HOURS FOLLOWING MY PRESENTATION.
           BUT I'LL TRY TO LOOK AHEAD JUST A BIT. ASK YOURSELVES WHETHER
           YOU ARE COMFORTABLE IN THIS GRAVEST OF PROCEEDINGS, THAT WHEN
           YOU RETIRE TO YOUR DELIBERATIONS YOU COULD EVER KNOW THAT THE

           CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A TWO-THIRDS VOTE IS PRESENT ON ANY ONE
           CHARGE. NOW, WE'VE BEEN MAKING THIS ARGUMENT FOR SOME TIME AND
           WITH SOME FREQUENCY. AND SO YOU WOULD THINK THAT AT LEAST WHEN
           THE TRIAL BEGAN, THE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE FIXED ON SOME
           DEFINABLE SET OF CHARGES. BUT, NO. INDEED IT STRUCK ME EVEN
           EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON THAT WHEN MANAGER SENSENBRENNER ROSE TO
           SPEAK TO YOU, HE WAS PREPARED TO GIVE YOU FOUR EXAMPLES OF
           PERJURY. YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF EXAMPLES. WE HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH

           CERTAINTY. NOW, JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW RAPIDLY THE
           TARGET CAN MOVE, YOU'LL RECALL THAT IN DESCRIBING THE INCIDENTS
           OF PERJURY ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY THE PRERXZ THE MANAGERS MADE
           MUCH OF THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT HE READ TO THE GRAND JURY,
           INCLUDING THE USE OF THE WORDS "OCCASIONALLY" AND "ON CERTAIN
           OWE KAGSS" TO DESCRIBE THE FREQUENCY OF CERTAIN CONDUCT AND
           MADE THE GENERAL ALLEGATION THAT THE STATEMENT WAS ITSELF PART

           OF THE SCHEME TO DECEIVE THE GRAND JURY. YET STRANGELY, WHEN
           MR. MANAGER ROGAN WAS ASKED ABOUT THESE VERY CHARGES AS LATE AS
           JANUARY 20, HE QUITE CLEARLY ABANDONED THEM. I DIRECT YOUR
           ATTENTION TO THE EXHIBITS BEFORE YOU AND TO THE CHART.
           APPEARING ON TELEVISION ONEL JANUARY 20 WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS
           MATTHEWS, THIS IS WHAT TRANSPIRED.
           
           MR. MATTHEWS:... NOW DEFEND THESE ELEMENTS, ONE THAT THE

           PRESIDENT LIED WHEN HE SAID HE HAD THESE RELATIONSHIPS WITH HER
           ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS. IS THAT THE LANGUAGE?
           
           
           REPRESENTATIVE ROGAN: THAT IS THE DOT MR. MATTHEWS AND WHY IS
           THAT PERJURIOUS -- PERJURIOUS?
           
           
           REPRESENTATIVE ROGAN: IN FACT, I AM NEAT -- I DON'T THINK IT'S
           NECESSARILY PERJURIOUS. THAT IS -- THAT'S ONE LITTLE PIECE OF
           THIS ANSWER THAT HE GAVE AT THE GRAND JURY...
           

           MR. MATTHEWS: WELL, ANOTHER TIME HE USE ADD PHRASE WITH REGARD
           TO THIS RIDICULOUS THING CALLED PHONE SEX, HE REFERRED TO IT AS
           OCCASIONAL OR ON OCCASION. DO YOU ADD THEM IN AS PART OF THE
           PERJURY INDICTMENT?
           
           
           REPRESENTATIVE ROGAN: THAT'S NOT ADDED IN AS PARLT OF THE
           PERJURY INDICTMENT IN ARTICLE 1. I SIMPLY RAISED THAT ISSUE
           WHEN I ADDRESSED THE SENATE.
           

           MR. MATTHEWS: YOU BETTER GET TO THOSE SENATORS BECAUSE I THINK
           THEY MADE THE MISTAKE I DID OF THINKING THAT WAS ONE OF THE
           ELEMENTS IN THE PERJURY CHARGE. " AND SIMILARLY OVER HERE, LOIF
           EA REVERSED THE ORDER A BIT. GO THROUGH WHAT YOU THINK ARE THE
           MAIN ELEMENTS,
           
           REPRESENTATIVE ROGAN: ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WERE FOCUSING ON
           IS A POINT I MADE LAST WEEK WHEN I WAS PRESENTING THE CHASE FOR
           PERJURY DEALING WITH THAT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT THAT THE
           PRESIDENT READ THAT JUST REALLY GAVE THE GRAND JURY A
           MISPERCEPTION OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S RELATIONSHIP WAS WITH
           MONICA LEWINSKY. NOW I NEVER SAID THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE

           PERJURY CHARGE. IN FACT, THAT'S NOT EVEN ONE OF THE FOUR AREAS
           THAT'S ALLEGED, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO PICK THESE LITTLE DOTS
           OUT OF THE MATRIX AND TRY TO HANG THEIR HAT ON THAT..."
           
           
           

           MR. RUFF: WELL, I HAVE TO TILL, AS DID MR. MATH THURX I MADE
           THE SAME MISTAKE. I HEARD MANAGER ROGAN SAY, "THIS PREPARED
           STATEMENT HE READ TO THE GRAND JURY ON AUGUST 17, 1998, WAS THE
           LINCHPIN IN HIS PLAN TO 'WIN 'WIN.'" I HEARD HIM SAY "IT IS
           OBVIOUS THAT THE REFERENCE IN THE PRESIDENT'S PREPARED
           STATEMENT TO THE GRAND JURY THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP BEGAN IN
           1996 WAS INTENTIONALLY FALSE. I HEARD HIM SAY, THE PRESIDENT'S
           STATEMENT WAS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING WHEN HE DESCRIBED BEING

           ALONE WITH MS. LEWINSKY ONLY ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS." AND I HEARD
           HIM SAY, "THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT WAS INTENTIONALLY
           MISLEADING WHEN HE DESCRIBED HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH
           MONICA LEWINSKY AS OCCASIONAL." THAT'S WHAT I HEARD WHEN
           MANAGER ROGAN SPOKE TO YOU A FEW WEEKS AGO. NOW, I KNOW IT'S
           UNUSUAL TO BE GIVEN A BILL OF PARTICULARS ON TELEVISION, BUT

           MAYBE THAT'S PART OF THE MODERN LITIGATION AGE. AND SO AS TO
           ARTICLE 1'S CHARGE THAT THE PRESIDENT PERJURED HIMSELF
           CONCERNING HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MS. LEWINSKY, WE ARE ONCE
           AGAIN LEFT WITH THE CLAIM THAT HE LIED ABOUT TOUCHING, ABOUT
           HIS DENIAL THAT HE ENGAGED IN CONDUCT THAT FELL WITHIN HIS
           SUBJECTIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEFINITION USED IN THE JONES
           DEPOSITION. THIS IN THE COURSE OF TESTIMONY, MEMBERS OF THE
           SENATE, IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY MADE THE SINGLE-MOST

           DEVASTATING ADMISSION THAT ANY OF US CAN CONCEIVE OF. IT DEFIES
           COMMAND SENSE AND AS ANY EXPERIENCED PROSECUTOR -- AND FIVE
           EXPERIENCED PROSECUTORS SAID THIS TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE --
           WILL TELL YOU, IT DEFIES REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE TO CHARGE
           ANYONE, PRESIDENT OR NOT, WITH PERJURY ON THE GROUND THAT YOU
           DISBELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS OWN SUBJECTIVE BELIEF IN A
           DEFINITION OF A TERM USED IN A CIVIL DEPOSITION. NOTHING IN THE
           EVIDENCE SHARE RECORD HAS CHANGED. SIMPLY O.I.C. REFERRED THIS

           MATTER TO THE HOUSE SIX MONTHS AGO. INDEED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
           CONCEIVE WHAT COULD CHANGE IN THE EVIDENCE SHARI RECORD. AND
           THE MANAGERS HAVE OFFERED THIS CHARGE AND PERSIST IN IT FOR
           REASONS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR TO ME BUT SOME BLIND FAITH THAT THEY
           MUST GO FORWARD, FACTS OR NOT. NOW, THERE ARE THREE OTHER
           ELEMENTS TO ARTICLE 1. FIRST, THAT THE ALLEGATION -- FIRST, THE
           ALLEGATION THAT THE PRESIDENT LIED WHEN HE CLAIMED THAT HE DID

           NOT PERJURE HIMSELF IN THE JONES DEPOSITION. THE PRESIDENT OF
           COURSE MADE NO SUCH REPRESENTATION IN THE GRAND JURY. AND THE
           MANAGERS CANNOT, NO MATTER HOW THEY TRY, RESURRECT THE CHARGES.
           ARTICLE, THEN ARTICLE 2, THAT WAS SO CLEARLY REJECTED BY THE
           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. YET IF YOU LISTEN TO THEIR
           PRESENTATIONS OVER THE PAST
{END: 1999/02/08 TIME: 15-00 , Mon.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}