THE JONES DEPOSITION. AND HE SAID THE TWO DEFINITIONS THAT
           WOULD DESCRIBE ORAL SEX HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE
           FROM THE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL RELATIONS. AND I UNDERSTOOD THE
           DEFINITION TO MEAN SLEEPING WITH SOMEBODY. I DON'T WANT TO GET
           TOO PARTICULAR HERE.
           

           >> THANK YOU.
           

           MR. SULLIVAN: BUT THAT IS WHERE THIS CASE, IN MY OPINION,
           WOULDN'T GO FORWARD EVEN IF YOU FOUND AN AIRNT PROSECUTOR WHO
           WOULD WANT TO PROSECUTE SOMEBODY FOR BEING A PERIPHERAL WITNESS
           IN A CIVIL CASE THAT HAD BEEN SETTLED. SO THAT'S MY ANSWER TO
           THAT.
           

           MR. CRAIG: THE MANAGERS PLACE GREAT EMPHASIS AND WEIGHT ON THE
           CONFLICT IN THE TESTIMONY BETWEEN PRESIDENT CLINTON AND MS.
           LEWINSKY OVER SOME SPECIFIC INTIMATE DETAILS RELATING TO THEIR
           ACTIVITY. THERE'S A VARIANCE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY
           AND MS. LEWINSKY'S TESTIMONY. ABOUT THE DETAILS OF WHAT THEY
           DID. WHAT DO THEY DISAGREE ABOUT?
           NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT AND MS. LEWINSKY HAD A WRONGFUL

           RELATIONSHIP. THE PRESIDENT ADMITTED THAT BEFORE THE GRAND
           JURY. NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT AND MS. LEWINSKY WERE
           ALONE TOGETHER. THE PRESIDENT ADMITTED THAT BEFORE THE GRAND
           JURY. NOT ABOUT WHETHER, WHEN THEY WERE ALONE TOGETHER, THEIR
           RELATIONSHIP INCLUDED INAPPROPRIATE INTIMATE CONTACT CONTACT.
           THE PRESIDENT ADMITTED THAT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. NOT ABOUT
           WHETHER THEY ENGAGED IN TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS THAT INCLUDED
           SEXUAL BANTER. THE PRESIDENT ADMITTED THAT BEFORE THE GRAND

           JURY. NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT AND MISS LEWINSKY WANTED
           TO KEEP THEIR WRONGFUL RELATIONSHIP A SECRET. THE PRESIDENT
           ADMITTED THAT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. THE DIFFERENCE IN THEIR
           TESTIMONY ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP IS LIMITED TO SOME VERY
           SPECIFIC, VERY INTIMATE DETAILS. AND THIS IS THE HEART OF THE
           ENTIRE MATTER, THIS DISPARITY IN THEIR TESTIMONY. THE TRUE NUB
           OF THE MANAGERS' ALLEGATION THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED

           PERJURY IS THAT HE DESCRIBED SOME OF THE CONTACT ONE WAY AND
           SHE DESCRIBED IT ANOTHER. NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE MANAGERS CHOOSE
           TO BELIEVE MS. LEWINSKY'S DESCRIPTION OF THESE EVENTS. AND SO
           EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, OTHER THAN
           MS. LEWINSKY'S OWN RECOLLECTION OF THESE EVENTS, THE MANAGERS
           HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT LIED UNDER OATH ABOUT THE
           DETAILS OF HIS SEXUAL ACTIVITY. THAT HE SOMEHOW SHORTCHANGED

           THE GRAND JURY AND SHOULD BE HE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. THE
           POSSIBILITY THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE
           UNITED STATES SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM HIS OFFICE, THE FACT THAT
           THAT MIGHT HINGE ON WHETHER YOU BELIEVE HIM OR HER ON THIS
           ISSUE IS A STAGGERING THOUGHT. ORDINARILY WHEN DEALING WITH
           DISPARITY IN TESTIMONY SUCH AS THIS, PROSECUTORS WILL HAVE
           NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. ONLY TWO PEOPLE WERE THERE. AND IN
           TRUTH, THE REAL IMPORTANCE OF THE DISPARITY IN THEIR TESTIMONY

           IS QUESTIONABLE QUESTIONABLE. NOT ALL DISPARITIES OR
           DISCREPANCIES IN TESTIMONY ARE NECESSARILY APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS
           FOR PERJURY APPROXIMATIONS. ACCORDING TO THOSE EXPERIENCED
           PROSECUTORS WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THERE
           ARE TWO MORE POINTS TO BE MADE ABOUT THIS. FIRST, THIS IS A
           CLASSIC OATH OATH-ON-OATH. HE SAYS/SHE SAYS SWEARING MATCH THAT
           UNDER ORDINARY CUSTOM AND PRACTICE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

           NEVER WOULD BE PROSECUTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CORROBORATIVE
           PROOF. SUCH PROOF, SAY THESE EXPERIENCED PROSECUTORS, DOES NOT
           CONSIST OF THE TESTIMONY OF FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES OF MS.
           LEWINSKY, WHO TELL THE F.B.I. THAT MS. LEWINSKY
           CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TOLD THEM ABOUT THE ACTIVITY AT THE TIME IT
           WAS GOING ON. BUT THE MANAGERS CLAIM THAT THESE CONTEMPORANEOUS
           STATEMENTS CORROBORATE MRS. LEWINSKY'S TESTIMONY. THAT CLAIM IS
           SPECIOUS. STATEMENTS THAT MS. LEWINSKY MAKES TO OTHER PEOPLE

           ARE NOT VIEWED AS INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THEY COME
           FROM THE SAME SOURCE SOURCE. THEY COME FROM MS. LEWINSKY. AS
           THE SOURCE THAT GAVE THAT TESTIMONY TO THE GRAND JURY. AND NO
           COURT AND NO PROSECUTOR WOULD ACCEPT THE NOTION THAT SUCH
           STATEMENTS STANDING ALONE SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF
           SUBSTANTIAL CORROBORATIVE PROOF WHEN THERE IS A SWEARING MATCH.
           LET'S SEE WHAT THE EXPERIENCED PROSECUTORS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT
           THIS ISSUE AND THAT CLAIM.
           

           >> WHAT IS THE FALSE STATEMENT STATEMENT?
           
           

           MR. SULLIVAN: WELL, IF YOU -- IT COULD BE ONE OF TWO. IT COULD
           BE WHEN HE DENIED HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS -- AND I'VE ALREADY
           ADDRESSED THAT, BECAUSE HE SAID I WAS DEFINING THE TERM AS THE
           JUDGE TOLD NOTICE DEFINE IT AND AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, WHICH I
           THINK IS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION. THE OTHER IS WHETHER OR NOT
           HE TOUCHED HER OR TOUCHED HER BREAST OR SOME OTHER PART OF HER
           BODY NOT THROUGH HER CLOTHING BUT DIRECTLY. AND HE SAYS I
           DIDN'T. AND SHE SAID I DID. SO IT'S WHO SHOT JOHN?

           IT'S -- YOU KNOW, IT'S A ONE-ON-ONE. THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
           THAT THE PROSECUTOR WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THERE -- WHICH IS
           REQUIRED IN A PERJURY CASE, YOU CAN'T DO IT ONE-ON-ONE, AND NO
           GOOD PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING A CASE WITH, YOU KNOW, "I SAY
           BLACK, YOU SAY WHITE" -- WOULD BE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE
           TOGETHER ALONE AND SHE PERFORMED ORAL SEX ON HIM. I THINK THAT
           IS NOT SUFFICIENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE TO
           DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS ANY OTHER TOUCHING BY THE PRESIDENT
           AND, THEREFORE, HE COMMITTED THIS -- YOU KNOW, HE VIOLATED THIS

           AND COMMITTED PERJURY.
           

           MR. CRAIG: AND NOW THE TESTIMONY FROM RICHARD DAVIS ON THIS
           SAME POINT. AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO SUBPART 2.
           
           
           

           MR. DAVIS: I WILL NOW TURN TO THE ISSUE WHETHER FROM THE
           PERSPECTIVE OF A PROSECUTOR THERE EXISTS A PROSECUTEABLE CASE
           FOR PERJURY IN FRONT OF THE GRAND JURY, THE ANSWER TO ME IS
           CLEARLY NO. THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AN INTIMATE IMPROPER
           RELATIONSHIP WITH MS. LEWINSKY BUT ARGUED WITH THE PROSECUTORS
           QUESTIONING HIM THAT HIS ACKNOWLEDGED CONDUCT WAS NOT A SEXUAL
           RELATIONSHIP AS HE UNDERSTOOD THE DEFINITION OF THAT TERM BEING
           USED IN THE JONES DEPOSITION. ENGAGING IN SUCH A DEBATE WITH --
           WHETHER WISE OR UNWISE POLITICALLY, SIMPLY DOES NOT FORM THE
           BASIS FOR PERJURY PROSECUTION. INDEED, IN THE END, THE ENTIRE

           BASIS FOR A GRAND JURY PERJURY PROSECUTION COMES DOWN TO MONICA
           LEWINSKY'S ASSERTION THAT THERE WAS A RECIPROCAL NATURE TO THE
           RELATIONSHIP AND THAT THE PRESIDENT TOUCHED HER PRIVATE PARTS
           WITH THE INTENT TO AROUSE OR GRATIFY HER AND THE PRESIDENT'S
           DENIAL THAT HE DID SO. PUTTING ASIDE WHETHER THIS IS THE TYPE
           OF DIFFERENCE OF TESTIMONY WHICH SHOULD JUSTIFY AN IMPEACHMENT
           OF A PRESIDENT, I DO NOT BELIEF THAT A CASE INVOLVING --
           BELIEVE THAT A CASE INVOLVING THIS KIND OF CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO
           WITNESSES WOULD BE BROUGHT BY A PROSECUTOR SINCE IT WOULD NOT
           BE WON AT TRIAL. A PROSECUTOR WOULD UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM
           CREATED BY THE FACT THAT BOTH INDIVIDUALS HAD AN INCENTIVE TO

           LIE. THE PRESIDENT, TO AVOID ACKNOWLEDGING A FALSE STATEMENT IN
           HIS CIVIL DEPOSITION. AND MS. LEWINSKY, TO AVOID THE DEMEANING
           NATURE OF PROVIDING WHOLLY UNRECIPROCATED SEX. INDEED, THIS
           INCENTIVE EXISTED WHEN MS. LEWINSKY DESCRIBED THE INFORMATION
           TO THE CONFIDANTS DESCRIBED IN THE REFERRAL. EQUALLY IMPORTANT,
           HOWEVER, IS MR. STARR HAS HIMSELF QUESTIONED THE VERACITY OF
           HIS ONE WITNESS, MS. LEWINSKY, BY QUESTIONING HER TESTIMONY
           THAT HIS OFFICE SUGGESTED SHE TAPE TAPERECORD MISS CURRIE, MR.

           JORDAN AND POTENTIALLY THE PRESIDENT, AND AT ANY TRIAL, THE
           INDEPENDENT COUNSEL WOULD ALSO BE ARGUING THAT OTHER KEY POINTS
           OF MS. LEWINSKY'S TESTIMONY ARE FALSE, INCLUDING WHERE SHE
           EXPLICITLY REJECTS THE NOTION THAT SHE WAS ASKED TO LIE AND
           THAT ASSISTANCE IN HER JOB SEARCH WAS AN INDUCEMENT FOR HER TO
           DO SO.
           

           MR. CRAIG: THE CONCLUSION IS CLEAR. TO MAKE THIS CASE IN ANY
           COURTROOM WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR A PROSECUTOR. THEY POINT
           OUT THAT IT IS DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT ON A
           SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION IF THE CHIEF WITNESS IS DEEMED BY THE
           PROSECUTORS TO BE UNRELIABLE ON SOME ISSUES BUT PRESENTED AS
           TOTALLY TRUTHFUL ON OTHERS. NOW LET'S MOVE TO SUBPART 2 AND
           IT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 18. THE ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY HERE ARE

           HAVE TO DO WITH TESTIMONY THAT HE GAVE IN THE GRAND JURY ABOUT
           HIS DEPOSITION IN THE JONES CASE. AND I BEGIN BY REPEATING A
           POINT THAT I MADE A LITTLE EARLIER, THAT THE HOUSE OF
           REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT DEVOTE -- DID NOT VOTE TO APPROVE THE
           ARTICLE THAT ALLEGED THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON COMMITTED PERJURY
           DURING HIS DEPOSITION IN THE JONES DEPOSITION. AND AS I SAID
           BEFORE, THERE WAS GOOD REASON FOR THAT. WHAT ARE THE REASONS?
           THE PRESIDENT'S -- THERE ARE MANY REASONS. THE PRESIDENT'S

           TESTIMONY IN THE JONES DEPOSITION INVOLVED HIS RELATIONSHIP
           WITH A WITNESS WHO WAS ANCILLARY TO THE CORE ISSUES OF THE
           JONES CASE. SHE WAS A WITNESS IN THE CASE. SHE WASN'T THE
           PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE. AND SHE WAS ANCILLARY TO THE CORE ISSUES
           IN THE CASE. SOMEONE WHOSE TESTIMONY WAS THEREAFTER HELD TO BE
           UNNECESSARY AND PERHAPS INADMISSIBLE BY JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER
           WRIGHT, SOMEONE WHOSE TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN ANY

           EVENT OF MARGINAL RELEVANCE, SINCE HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
           PRESIDENT WAS ENTIRELY CONSENSUAL. AND AS YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A
           CASE THAT ULTIMATELY WAS FOUND TO HAVE NO LEGAL OR FACTUAL
           MERIT, AND IT WAS DISMISSED BY THE JUDGE. AND IT HAS NOW BEEN
           SETTLED BY THE PARTIES. MOREOVER, THE PRESIDENT WAS CAUGHT BY
           SURPRISE IN THAT DEPOSITION AND ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT MATTERS
           THAT THE JONES LAWYERS ALREADY KNEW THE ANSWERS TO. AS YOU
           HEARD YESTERDAY, THE JONES LAWYERS HAD BEEN BRIEFED THE NIGHT

           BEFORE BY LINDA TRIPP TRIPP, SO THEY WERE ASKING QUESTIONS OF
           PRESIDENT CLINTON IN THE COURSE OF THIS DEPOSITION ABOUT THE
           RELATIONSHIP TO WHICH THEY ALREADY HAD THE ANSWERS. THAT KIND
           OF AMBUSH IS PROFOUNDLY UNFAIR, AND IT IS ONE REASON THAT
           CONGRESSMAN GRAHAM SAID THAT HE VOTED AGAINST THIS ARTICLE IN
           COMMITTEE. THE SURPRISE. HE WAS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN TO DO SO.
           HE WAS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN TO VOTE AGAINST ANY ARTICLE. AND THE

           DECISION OF THE HOUSE TO FOLLOW CONGRESSMAN GRAHAM'S LEADERSHIP
           AND TO REJECT THIS ARTICLE SHOWED GREAT WISDOM AND JUDGMENT.
           BUT APPARENTLY THAT IS NOT TO BE THE ANSWER WHEN IT COMES --
           THE END OF THE MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY
           IN THE JONES DEPOSITION. IN SUBPART 2 OF ARTICLE 1, THE
           MANAGERS SEEK TO REINTRODUCE THE ISSUE OF THE PRESIDENT'S
           TESTIMONY IN THE CASE BY ALLEGING THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT
           TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, HE HE TESTIFIED -- HE

           TESTIFIED FALSELY WHEN HE SAID THAT HE TRIED TO TESTIFY
           TRUTHFULLY IN THE JONES DEPOSITION. CONGRESSMAN ROGAN -- MR.
           MANAGER ROGAN HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS RATIFIED
           AND REAFFIRMED AND PUT AT ISSUE ALL OF HIS ANSWERS IN THE JONES
           DEPOSITION WHEN HE TESTIFIED THAT HE BELIEVED HE DID NOT
           VIOLATE THE LAW IN THE JONES DEPOSITION. THIS IS PERJURIOUS
           TESTIMONY, SAID MANY ROGAN, BECAUSE THE RECORD IS CLEAR -- AND

           I'M QUOTING -- "THAT HE DID NOT TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY IN THE
           DEPOSITION." AND BY THAT BOOTSTRAPPING MECHANISM, WE ARE NOW IN
           A LITIGATION ABOUT WHETHER EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT THAT THE
           PRESIDENT MADE IN THE JONES DEPOSITION WAS OR WAS NOT TRUTHFUL
           TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY THAT HE
           WAS TRUTHFUL IS OR IS NOT TRUTHFUL. BUT, IN FACT, PRESIDENT
           CLINTON DID NOT RATIFY, HE DID NOT REAFFIRM HIS JONES TESTIMONY
           WHEN HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT
           WHEN YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TESTIMONY. QUITE THE

           CONTRARY IS TRUE. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT TRANSCRIPT CAREFULLY, YOU
           WILL FIND THAT WITHOUT ADMITTING WRONGDOING, THE PRESIDENT
           ELABORATED, HE MODIFIED, HE AMENDED AND HE CLARIFIED HIS
           TESTIMONY IN JONES. AND WHEN MR. SHIPPERS MADE HIS CLOSING
           ARGUMENT TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, I THINK HE USED THE
           TRUTHFULNESS ON ONE OCCASION OF THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY
           BEFORE THE GRAND JURY TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE
           PRESIDENT LIED IN JONES. BUT ACTUALLY, THE SPECIFIC WORDING OF

           SUBPART 2 GIVES US NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND IS NOT
           ILLUMINATING AND WE TURN TO THE MANAGERS' TRIAL BRIEF TO
           ASCERTAIN PRECISELY WHAT THEIR ARGUMENT IS. THERE, THE MANAGERS
           ALLEGE THAT THE PRESIDENT FALSELY TESTIFIED THAT HE ANSWERED
           QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY AT HIS DEPOSITION CONCERNING, AMONG OTHER
           THINGS, WHETHER HE HAD BEEN ALONE WITH MS. LEWINSKY. I BEGIN BY
           SAYING, AGAIN, THAT THIS ALLEGATION WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
           STARR REFERRAL REFERRAL. WHY?
           BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON A TOTAL MISCONCEPTION OF THE PRESIDENT'

           PRESIDENT'S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. AS I REFERRED TO EARLIER,
           THIS IS EXHIBIT NUMBER 7, I BELIEVE BELIEVE. IT SHOWS YOU SOME
           EVIDENCE -- THIS IS NOT THE COMPLETE EVIDENCE OF HIS TESTIMONY
           ABOUT BEING ALONE -- BUT THE PROSECUTORS ASKED THE PRESIDENT
           MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING ALONE WITH MRS. LEWINSKY, BUT THEY
           NEVER ASKED HIM ABOUT THE JONES TESTIMONY. THEY ASKED HIM ABOUT
           WHETHER HE WAS ALONE.
{END: 1999/01/20 TIME: 15-00 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}