WOULDN'T ONE THINK THAT IF THE PRESIDENT WAS IN FACT ENGAGEED
           IN SOME SCHEME TO USE A JOB IN NEW YORK TO INFLUENCE MS.
           LEWINSKY'S TESTIMONY, THAT THIS WOULD BE THE CRITICAL MOMENT?
           THAT SOME IMMEDIATE STEPS WOULD BE TAKEN TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE
           THAT THERE WAS A JOB FOR HER?
           BUT WHAT DO WE STPHIND -- WHAT DO WE FIND?
           MR. JORDAN TAKES NO FURTHER ACTION ON THE JOB FRONT UNTIL

           JANUARY 8. NOW THERE WAS NEVER SO MUCH AS A PASSING REFERENCE
           CONCERNING ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE JOB SEARCH AND THE
           AFFIDAVIT AMONG ANY OF THE THREE PARTICIPANTS -- ANY OF THE
           THREE PARTICIPANTS. THERE'S NOT ONE CONVERSATION THAT ANYONE
           COULD CONCLUDE WAS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THIS NEFARIOUS SCHEME
           THAT THE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE YOU FIND. AND SO NOW WE HAVE AN
           ENTIRELY NEW THEORY. A ONE-MAN CONSPIRACY, A BEAST UNKNOWN, I

           THINK, TO ANGLO-AMERICAN JURIS PRUDENCE. NOW, FACT THAT MS.
           LEWINSKY DIDN'T -- THIS IS ON THE MANAGERS' THEORY. THE FACT
           THAT MS. LEWINSKY DIDN'T KNOW SHE WAS ON THE WITNESS LIST UNTIL
           DECEMBER 17 AND MR. JORDAN DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL SHE WAS
           SUBPOENAED ON THE 19TH, AND MR. PERELMAN NEVER KNEW IT, ALL ARE
           PROOF POSITIVE THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF WAS THE MASTERMIND,
           PULLING ON UNSEEN STRINGS AND INFLUENCING THE PARTICIPANTS IN
           THIS DRAMA WITHOUT THEIR EVEN KNOWING THAT THEY WERE BEING

           INFLUENCED INFLUENCED. UNDER THIS THEORY, THE LATEST IN THE
           LONG LINE, MS. LEWINSKY'S DENIAL THAT SHE EVER DISCUSSED THE
           CONTENTS OF HER AFFIDAVIT WITH THE PRESIDENT, HER DENIAL THAT
           THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE JOB AND HER TESTIMONY, MR.
           JORDAN DENIAL THAT THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN HIS EFFORTS
           TO FIND THE JOB AND THE AFFIDAVIT AND FACT THAT MR. JORDAN
           NEVER DISCUSSED ANY SUCH CONNECTION WITH THE PRESIDENT, ARE
           SIMPLY EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SUCH A
           CONNECTION. THAT UNBEKNOWNST TO MS. LEWINSKY, SHE WAS BEING

           CORRUPTLY ENCOURAGED TO FILE A FALSE AFFIDAVIT. WITH ALL DUE
           RESPECT, SOMEBODY'S BEEN WATCHING TOO MANY RERUNS OF "THE X
           FILES." CONFRONTED WITH THIS PROBLEM THE MANAGERS NOW OFFER YOU
           ONE LAST THEORY WITH EVER INCREASING DIRECTNESS, THEY NOW
           ACCUSE MR. JORDAN HIMSELF OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE BY URGING MS.
           LEWINSKY TO DESTROY HER NOTES. SEEMINGLY THEY ASK YOU TO FIND

           THAT ONE WHO WOULD FORGET A BREAKFAST AT THE PARK HYATT UNTIL
           REMINDED OF IT BY BEING SHOWN THE RECEIPT AND WOULD THEN ADMIT
           THAT HIS RECOLLECTION WAS REFRESHED AND WHO WOULD ADMIT THEARMD
           A DISCUSSION OF THE NOTES MUST HAVE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE HIMSELF.
           AND, OF COURSE, MUST HAVE BEEN ENGAGED ALL ALONG WITH AN EFFORT
           TO INFLUENCE MS. LEWINSKY'S TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE

           PRESIDENT. NONSENSE. NONSENSE. AND SO THIS PILLAR RETURNS TO
           THE DUST FROM WHICH IT CAME. NEXT, THE CHARGE THAT THE EVENTS
           SURROUNDING MR. BENNETT'S STATEMENT TO JUDGE WRIGHT DURING THE
           JONES DEPOSITION FORMED THE BASIS FOR TWO CHARGES. THEY FORM
           THE BASIS FOR TWO CHGES. FIRST, THAT THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED
           JUSTICE IN THE JONES CASE. AND, SECOND, THAT HE COMMITTED
           PERJURY BY TELLING THE GRAND JURY THAT HE REALLY WASN'T PAYING
           ATTENTION AT THE CRITICAL MOMENT. BOTH CHARGES DEPEND ON THE
           MANAGERS' ABILITY TO PROVE THAT INDEED THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN

           PAYING ATTENTION. TO DO THAT, THEY HAD ALWAYS RELIED ON THE
           VIDEOTAPE OF THE DEPOSITION IN WHICH IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE
           PRESIDENT WAS LOOKING IN THE DIRECTION OF HIS LAWYER WHILE MR.
           BENNETT WAS TALKING. BUT TWO WEEKS AGO -- TWO WEEKS AGO -- THEY
           CAME TO YOU AND THEY PRODUCED THE MODEST FLOURISH A NEW BIT OF
           EVIDENCE. AN AFFIDAVIT FROM MR. BARRY WARD, CLERK TO JUDGE
           WRIGHT, TRUMPETED, IN THEIR WORDS, AS -- QUOTE -- "LENDING EVEN
           GREATER CREDENCE TO THEIR CLAIM CLAIM." IN THEIR MEMORANDUM IN

           SUPPORT OF THEIR REQUEST TO EXPAND THE RECORD BY INCLUDING MR.
           WARD'S AFFIDAVIT, THE MANAGERS TOLD YOU THE FOLLOWING. THIS IS
           THE MANAGERS' OWN LANGUAGE, "FROM HIS SEAT AT CONFERENCE TABLE
           NEXT TO THE JUDGE, HE SAW PRESIDENT CLINTON LISTENING
           ATTENTIVELY TO MR. BENNETT'S REMARKS WHILE THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN
           MR. BENNETT AND THE JUDGE OCCURRED." FURTR, THE MANAGERS SAID,
           "MR. WARD'S DECLARATION WOULD LEND EVEN GREATER CREDENCE TO THE
           ARGUMENT THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON LIED ON THIS POINT DURING HIS

           GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE BY ALLOWING HIS
           ATTORNEY TO UTILIZE A FALSE AFFIDAVIT IN ORDER TO CUT OFF A
           LEGITIMATE LINE OF QUESTIONING. MR. WARD'S DECLARATION PROVES
           THAT MR. WARD SAW PRESIDENT CLINTON LISTENING ATTENTIVELY WHILE
           THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN MR. BENNETT AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE
           OCCURRED." BUT THIS IS WHAT MR. WARD'S AFFIDAVIT ACTUALLY SAYS.
           THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE VERY MOTION, THE LANK

           RAJ FROM WHICH I JUST READ TO YOU -- THE LANGUAGE FROM WHICH I
           JUST READ TO YOU. I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION ONLY TO THE LAST
           SENTENCE BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY ONE OF ANY MOMENT. "FROM MY
           POSITION AT THE CONFERENCE TABLE, I OBSERVED PRESIDENT CLINTON
           LOOKING DIRECTLY AT MR. BENNETT WHILE THIS STATEMENT WAS BEING
           MADE MADE." SEARCH, IF YOU WILL, FOR ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO

           WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WAS LOOKING ATTENTIVELY OR NOT. THERE IS
           NOT ONE EYE I DON'T SEE AT THAT OF EVIDENCE ADD -- IOTA OF
           EVIDENCE ADDED TO THE VIDEOTAPE. INDEED, MR. WARD SAID TO THE
           "LEGAL TIMES" ON FEBRUARY 1, 1999, "I HAVE NO IDEA IF HE WAS
           PAYING ATTENTION. HE COULD HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT POLICY
           INITIATIVES, FOR ALL I KNOW." YOU WERE MISLED. THE RECORD

           BEFORE THE AFFIDAVIT IS THE RECORD AFTER THE AFFIDAVIT. THE
           MANAGERS ASK THAT YOU REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
           ON THE BASIS OF A VIDEOTAPE SHOWING THAT HE WAS LOOKING IN THE
           DIRECTION OF HIS LAWYER. WELL, IT WASN'T MUCH OF A PILLAR TO
           START WITH. THERE IS NO DISPUTE -- AND WE MOVE NOW TO THE

           CONVERSATION OF JANUARY 18 WITH -- BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND
           MISS CURRIE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON CALLED
           MISS CURRIE INTO THE WHITE HOUSE ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 18, THE DAY
           AFTER HIS DEPOSITION, AND ASKED HER CERTAIN QUESTIONS AND MADE
           CERTAIN STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MS. LEWINSKY.
           THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER IN DOING SO THE PRESIDENT INTENDED
           TO TAMPER WITH A WITNESS. THE MANAGERS CONTEND THAT HE WAS
           CORRUPTLY ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE MISS CURRIE'S TESTIMONY. THE

           PRESIDENT DENIES IT. SINCE WE KNOW THAT MISS CURRIE WAS NOT ON
           THE JONES WITNESS LIST AT THE TIME OF THE PRESIDENT'S
           DEPOSITION OR AT THE TIME OF EITHER OF HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH
           MISS CURRIE, AND WE KNOW THAT DISCOVERY WAS ABOUT TO END, THE
           MANAGERS HAVE ARGUED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S OWN REFERENCES TO HER
           IN THE JONES DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED AN INVITATION TO THE JONES
           THRURESE SUBPOENA HER. THEY ARGUE THAT PROOF OF THAT INVITATION
           CAN BE FOUND IN A WITNESS LIST SIGNED BY THE JONES LAWYERS ON

           JANUARY 22 KHRX LISTED MISS CURRIE AND 17 OTHER POTENTIAL
           WITNESSES. WHEN I SPOKE TO YOU ON JANUARY 19, I TOLD YOU THAT
           MISS CURRIE HAD NEVER BEEN PLACED ON A WITNESS LIST. I WAS
           WRONG. MANAGER HUTCHINSON HAS QUITE PROPERLY TAKEN ME TO TASK
           FOR IT. BUT I FEAR THAT HE'S BECOME SO CAUGHT UP IN THIS NEW
           INFORMATION THAT HE HAS LOT SIGHT OF ITS TRUE SIGNIFICANCE, OR
           RATHER LACK THEREOF. IN ORDER TO CONVINCE YOU THAT BETTY CURRIE
           WAS GOING TO BE CALLED BY THE JONES LAWYERS WHEN THE PRESIDENT

           SPOKE TO HER ON JANUARY 18, THE MANAGERS, SOMEWHAT LIKE
           DIAGONESE, LIT THEIR LANN TERN AND SOUGHT OUT THE MOST RELIABLE
           WITNESS THEY COULD FIND, A WITNESS WHOSE CREDIBILITY WAS BEYOND
           QUESTION, WHO HAD NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE, NO BIAS -- PAULA JONES'S
           LAWYER. AND THEY BROUGHT IN TO YOU IN A FORM THAT THEY HOPE
           WOULD ALLOW HIS MOTIVE AND BIAS TO GO UNTESTED. REMEMBER HOW
           THE MANAGERS HAVE TOLD YOU THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO
           LOOK A WITNESS IN THE EYE, TEST HIS DEMEANOR?

           I DOUBT THAT YOU NEED TO DO THAT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MIGHT COLOR
           MR. HOLMES' VIEW OF THE WORLD. LET'S LOOK AT HE WHAT HE HAS TO
           SAY. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AN UNREDACTED WITNESS LIST ATTACHED TO
           MR. HOLMES' AFFIDAVIT. I PUT UP ON THE EASELS THE REDACTED LIST
           THAT WAS ORIGINALLY USED BY THE MANAGERS A FEW WEEKS AGO,
           BECAUSE I REALLY SEE FLO PURPOSE IN UNDULY EXPOSING THE NAMES
           OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THAT WITNESS LIST. LET ME DIRECT YOU

           TO THESE WORDS JUST AS A SIDE LIGHT. UNDER SEAL.
           
           YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR
           VIOLATING THE GAG ORDER WHEN HE SPOKE TO HIS OWN SECRETARY
           ABOUT HIS DEPOSITION. WHAT THEN DO WE SAY WHEN THE MANAGERS
           PRODUCE A DOCUMENT FROM A LAWYER FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES THAT IS
           STILL UNDER SEAL, NOT YET RELEASED BY THE COURT, AND REVEALS
           THE NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NO PART OF THESE PROCEEDINGS?

           SURELY THE MANAGERS COULD HAVE MADE THEIR POINT JUST AS WELL
           WITHOUT SUCH A REVELATION. NOW, MR. HOLMES' STATE THAT THE
           JONES LAWYERS HAD TWO REASONS FOR PUTTING MISS CURRIE'S NAME ON
           THE WITNESS LIST. ONE, BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
           DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. AND, TWO, BECAUSE THEY HAD -- QUOTE --
           "RECEIVED WHAT THEY CONSIDERED TO BE RELIABLE INFORMATION THAT
           MISS CURRIE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN FACILITATING MONICA LEWINSKY'S
           MEETINGS WITH MR. CLINTON AND THAT MISS CURRIE WAS CENTRAL TO
           THE COVER STORY." MR. CLINTON AND MISS LEWINSKY HAD DEVELOPED

           TO USE IN ANY EVENT THEIR AFFAIR WAS DISCOVERED." THEY DON'T
           TELL US WHERE HE GOT THIS RELIABLE INFORMATION BUT OF COURSE WE
           KNOW IT'S MS. TRIPP. BUT LET'S FIGURE OUT WHETHER IN FACT BETTY
           CURRIE REALLY MADE IT ON THE LIST BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S
           TESTIMONY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT SHE'S
           MENTIONED IN THE DEPOSITION, IT'S BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
           THAT THE PRESIDENT INSERTED HER NAME INTO HIS TESTIMONY SO
           FREQUENTLY AND SO GRATUITOUSLY THAT HE DID IN FACT INVITE THE
           JONES LAWYERS TO CALL HER. AND, THUS, MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT SHE
           WAS GOING TO BE A WITNESS WHEN HE SPOKE TO HER ON JANUARY 18.

           BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEPOSITION, YOU'LL FIND THAT THE FIRST
           TIME HER NAME IS MENTIONED, THE PRESIDENT IS SIMPLY RESPONDING
           TO A QUESTION ABOUT HIS EARLY MEETINGS WITH MS. LEWINSKY AND
           STATES THAT BETTY WAS PRESENT. THE LAWYERS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
           THEN ASK 13 QUESTIONS, GIVE OR TAKE A FEW, ABOUT MISS CURRIE.
           AND WE KNOW THERE'S NO SECRET HERE. THEY GOT THEIR INFORMATION
           FROM LINDA TRIPP, AND LINDA TRIPP SURELY TOLD THEM ABOUT MS.

           LEWINSKY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH MISS CURRIE. IT WAS ONLY IN
           RESPONSE TO A COUPLE OF THEIR QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER LETTERS
           HAD EVER BEEN DELIFERDS TO MISS CURRIE AND WHETHER SHE STAYED
           AT SOME EXTRAORDINARILY LATE HOUR, THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID,
           "YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK HER." HE DIDN'T INVITE. HE DIDN'T SUGGEST
           TO THEM THAT THEY CALL IN MISS CURRIE. THEY KNEW WHATEVER THEY
           NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT MISS CURRIE TO PUT HER OWN THEIR WITNESS

           LIST. NOW TO JUDGE FURTHER WHETHER MISS CURRIE MADE IT ON TO
           THE LIST AT THE PRESIDENT'S INVITATION OR BECAUSE THEY ALREADY
           KNEW ABOUT WITNESSES FROM MS. TRIPP, LET ME DIRECT YOUR
           ATTENTION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT IN FRONT OF YOU RATHER
           THAN THE REDACTED VERSION HERE, THE PERSON LISTED ON THE
           WITNESS LIST, NUMBER 165, HER NAME DOES NOT COME UP AT ALL IN
           THE DEPOSITION. BUT WE KNOW THAT SHE WAS IN FACT THE SUBJECT OF

           CONVERSATION SURRUP TISHSLY RECORDED BETWEEN MS. TRIPP AND MS.
           LEWINSKY. KNOW TOO THE NAME OF MR. JORDAN THAT IS ON THIS LIST.
           THE JONES LAWYERS ARE THE ONES THAT FIRST BRING THEM UP, AND WE
           KNOW, OF COURSE, THAT THEY KNEW FROM MS. TRIPP THAT HE WAS
           ALREADY INVOLVED IN THIS SCENARIO. THUS, NEITHER THE JANUARY 22
           WITNESS LIST NOR MR. HOLMES' AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTS THE MANAGERS'
           THEORY. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT KNOW MISS CURRIE WOULD BE A
           WITNESS WHEN HE SPOKE TO HER AFTER HER DEPOSITION. HE COULD

           NOT, THEREFORE, HAVE TAMPERED WITH A WITNESS. WELL, BEYOND
           THEIR STATEMENT ABOUT HOW THEY GOT THIS INFORMATION, MR. HOLMES
           VOLUNTEERS THAT THEY DIDN'T GET IT FROM "THE WASHINGTON POST."
           WELL PERHAPS NOT, BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT IN THE DAYS AFTER THE
           "POST" STORY BROKE, WE KNOW THAT SOME OF THE NAMES ON THE LIST
           CAME FROM THE PRESS REPORTS. WE KNOW THAT THE JONES LAWYERS
           BEGAN TRACKING THE NEWLY PUBLIC ACTIVITIES OF THE INDEPENDENT
           COUNSEL, WHICH WAS ISSUING ITS OWN SUBPOENAS IN THE HOURS AND
           DAYS FOLLOWING THE STORY'S RELEASE. AND FOR SOME INSIGHT INTO

           WHAT AT LEAST THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL THOUGHT WAS GOING ON,
           LOOK AT THE PLEADING THEY FILED WITH JUDGE WRIGHT ON WEDNESDAY,
           JANUARY 28, TO PREVENT THE JONES LAWYERS FROM CONTINUING TO USE
           THEIR INVESTIGATION AS AN AID -- THAT IS THE I.C.'S
           INVESTIGATION -- AS AN AID TO CIVIL DISCOVERY. THAT PLEADING
           SAID, "AS RECENTLY AS THIS AFTERNOON, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL
           CAUSED PROCESS TO BE SERVED ON BETTY CURRIE, WHO APPEARED BEFORE
{END: 1999/02/08 TIME: 16-00 , Mon.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}