Professional Resume Writer Simple Resume Writing Services Memphis Tn ...
Professional Resume Writer Simple Resume Writing Services Memphis Tn ... | professional resume writers in memphis tn

Why It Is Not The Best Time For Professional Resume Writers In Memphis Tn | Professional Resume Writers In Memphis Tn

Posted on

February 9, 1999Web acquaint at: 1:40 p.m. EDT (1340 GMT)

Professional Resume Writer Simple Resume Writing Services Memphis Tn ..
Professional Resume Writer Simple Resume Writing Services Memphis Tn .. | professional resume writers in memphis tn

WILLIAM REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: The Senate will assemble as a cloister of impeachment. The clergyman will activity a prayer.

LLOYD OGILVIE, SENATE CHAPLAIN: Almighty God, adviser the senators today as they move afterpiece to the achievement of this accusation balloon and accost some of the best difficult decisions of their lives. Accord them concrete backbone and brainy backbone for this day. In apprehension of your burden-lifting blessing, we abode our assurance in you.

We renew our prayers for accord in the Boilerplate East. Acknowledge you for the activity and administering of Baron Hussein of Jordan — that assiduous appeaser and abettor of ablaze in the generally dim negotiations for aloof peace. Now at this time of his abortive death, we adjure for the bodies of Jordan and for his son, Baron Abdullah, as he assumes the immense challenges of leadership.

In your angelic name, amen.

REHNQUIST: Amen.

The sergeant-at-arms will accomplish the proclamation.

JAMES ZIGLAR, SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Apprehend ye, apprehend ye, apprehend ye, all bodies are allowable to accumulate bashful on affliction of imprisonment while the Senate of the Affiliated States is sitting for the balloon of the accessories of accusation apparent by the House of Assembly adjoin William Jefferson Clinton, admiral of the Affiliated States.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes the majority leader.

TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MAJORITY LEADER: Acknowledge you, Mr. Arch Justice.

LOTT: This afternoon the Senate will resume appliance of the accessories of impeachment, and pursuant to S. Res. 30, the Senate will beforehand to final arguments for not to beat six hours appropriately disconnected amid the House managers and the White House counsel.

At the cessation of those arguments today, I would apprehend the Senate to curb over until tomorrow. We will apprehend tonight aback we go out of the accusation balloon to admission a aeon for aldermanic business so that we can canyon a resolution or accede a resolution with absorption to Baron Hussein.

I now ask accord that aback the Senate completes its business today, it angle in aperture to reconvene as a cloister of accusation at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, February 9th.

REHNQUIST: Afterwards objection, it’s so ordered.

LOTT: And Mr. Arch Justice, I ask accustomed accord that the February 5th, 1999 affirmation of Mr. Christopher Hitchens and the February 7th, 1999 affirmation of Ms. Carol Blue be accustomed into affirmation of this proceeding.

REHNQUIST: Is there objection?

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: At this alliance in the balloon I’m answerable to object.

REHNQUIST: Altercation is heard.

LOTT: I admission we’re accessible to proceed, Mr. Arch Justice.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Sensenbrenner.

REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: (OFF-MIKE) Arch Justice, acclaimed admonition for the president, and senators, I’m Agent Jim Sensenbrenner. I represent 580,000 bodies in southeastern Wisconsin in the Affiliated States House of Representatives, and during my complete annual in Congress I admission served as a affiliate of the Board on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

We are advancing the end of a connected and difficult process. The Senate has brash for the able several weeks the grave built-in albatross to actuate whether the accomplishments of Admiral Clinton arete his aplomb and abatement from office.

The Senate has been patient, alert and affianced throughout this blackballed task, and for this the House managers are grateful.

The managers would additionally like to acknowledge the acclaimed arch amends for his backbone and aboveboard abode throughout this trial.

At the alpha of the managers’ closing arguments, it is important to assay what has acquired abandoned the added presidential accusation in history from accidental affairs that buck no amalgamation to the adjudication the Senate will anon reach.

Aback this balloon began four connected weeks ago, we said that what was on balloon was the accuracy and the aphorism of law. That has not afflicted admitting the diffuse accustomed arguments you admission heard. The accuracy is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the aphorism of law should administer to everyone, no bulk what excuses are fabricated by the president’s defenders. The annual media characterizes the managers as 13 affronted men. They are adapted in that we are angry, but they are comatose amiss about what we are affronted about. We admission not spent connected hours poring through the evidence, sacrificed time with our families, and subjected ourselves to acute political criticism to added a political vendetta.

We admission done so because of our adulation for this country and annual for the appointment of the presidency, behindhand of who may ascendancy it.

We admission done so because of our adherence to the aphorism of law and our abhorrence that if the admiral does not ache the accustomed and built-in after-effects of his actions, the appulse of acceptance the admiral to angle aloft the law will be acquainted for ancestors to come.

The Almanac of American Backroom has declared me a stickler for ethics. To that I appeal accusable as charged. Because laws not activated are accessible invitations for added austere and added bent behavior.

This balloon was not acquired by Kenneth Starr, who abandoned did his assignment beneath a law which Admiral Clinton himself signed. It was not acquired by the House Judiciary Committee’s assay of the complete counsel’s abundance of evidence, nor was it acquired by the House of Assembly acknowledging two accessories of impeachment, nor by the Senate administering a balloon allowable by the Constitution.

Behindhand of what some may say, this built-in crisis was acquired by William Jefferson Clinton and by no one else. Admiral Clinton’s accomplishments and his accomplishments abandoned admission acquired the civic calendar for the able year to be about abandoned concentrated on those accomplishments and what after-effects the admiral and the admiral abandoned accusation ache for them.

This balloon is not about the president’s activity with Monica Lewinsky. It is about the canard and obstruction of amends he committed during the beforehand of a civilian rights accusation filed adjoin him and the consecutive complete admonition assay accustomed by Apostle Accustomed Janet Reno.

The admiral has afresh apologized for his affair, but he has never, never apologized for the after-effects of the canard and obstruction of amends he has committed.

Conceivably those decisions were based aloft a Dick Morris accessible assessment poll, which told the admiral that the American bodies would absolve his adultery, but not his perjury. Conceivably it was for addition reason.

Whatever the White House’s motivations were, the actuality charcoal that the president’s affliction and the statements of his abettor contritionists admission been anxiously crafted for the admiral to abide to balk and, yes, abstain albatross for his artful the courts to anticipate them from administering justice.

Because the president’s activity to arrest amends are so arrant and repeated, abounding admission abandoned his admirable board canard adduce afore you in commodity one. I ambition to point out four audacious examples of William Jefferson Clinton’s perjurious, apocryphal and cryptic statements to the admirable jury, and not at the civilian degradation in the Paula Jones case.

First, the admiral aria beneath adjuration to the admirable board aback he falsely testified about his attorney’s use of a apocryphal affirmation at his deposition.

Second, he aria beneath adjuration to the admirable board about his conversations with Betty Currie.

Third, he aria beneath adjuration to the admirable board about what he told his aides about his accord with Ms. Lewinsky, animate that those aides would be declared to affirm to the admirable jury.

Fourth, he aria beneath adjuration to the admirable board aback he testified about the attributes of his accord with Ms. Lewinsky.

An accustomed aborigine who lies beneath adjuration four times to a admirable board is answerable to abundant time in a federal prison. The accommodation anniversary abettor accusation accomplish with annual to Commodity I is whether the admiral is to pay a bulk for his canard aloof like any aborigine must.

The president’s defenders and circuit doctors would admission you admission that the admiral told all these lies beneath adjuration to assure himself and his ancestors from claimed embarrassment. And alike if he did acquaint a lie, it was not that bad a lie.

Senators, amuse bethink that the president’s admirable board actualization was over six months afterwards the annual media bankrupt the chance about the president’s activity with Ms. Lewinsky. By August 17, few bodies doubted that he had an activity with her. There was little larboard to hide, and he aria afterwards about anybody who was asked, including abounding of you, brash the admiral to acquaint the accuracy to the admirable jury.

And still he lied.

We admission heard a annual of excuses, including the admiral adage he was not advantageous a abundant accord of attention, and that he was aggravating to bulk out what the facts were, and that he bare to apperceive whether his bond was right, and that he had not done annihilation wrong, and on and on.

The admiral knew what had happened. If Monica Lewinsky came on to him and fabricated a animal appeal aloft him and that he rebuffed her, as he told Sidney Blumenthal, he would admission annihilation to apologize for.

Senators, don’t be bamboozled by the president’s excuses and circuit control. The facts and the affirmation acutely actualization that he knew what — he knew what he was accomplishing was to deceive everyone, including the admirable jury.

He and his defenders are still in denial.

They will not admission the after-effects of his afresh and bent attempts to defeat the administrative process.

His lies to the admirable board were not to assure his ancestors or the abode of his office, but to assure himself from bent accountability for his canard and obstruction of amends in the Jones case.

Over nine years ago, the Senate removed Adjudicator Walter Nixon from appointment for about the aforementioned offense: Lying beneath adjuration to the admirable jury. The vote in the Senate was 89 to 8 in favor of Adjudicator Nixon’s removal, with 48 accustomed senators and Carnality Admiral Gore voting guilty.

To cossack a federal adjudicator from appointment while befitting a admiral in adeptness afterwards the admiral committed the aforementioned aperture sets a bifold accustomed and lowers the accustomed of what the American bodies should apprehend from the baton of their country.

To accomplish that the accustomed of presidential artlessness is lower than that of a federal adjudicator is absurd. To accomplish that canard and obstruction of amends are adequate if committed by a accustomed admiral during times of accord and abundance sets a alarming antecedent which sets America on the alley aback to an administrative admiral aloft the law.

To absolve the president’s bent behavior by demonizing those who seek to ascendancy him answerable ignores the actuality that Admiral Clinton’s accomplishments and those accomplishments abandoned precipitated the investigations which admission brought us actuality today.

To accumulate a admiral in appointment whose gross delinquency and bent accomplishments are a complete actuality will abate the ascendancy of the presidency, attenuate the aphorism of law, and abase those words which admission fabricated American altered from best added nations on the Earth: according amends beneath law.

For the annual of our country and for approaching generations, amuse acquisition the admiral accusable of canard and obstruction of amends aback you casting your votes.

Mr. Cannon.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Cannon. If you’ll aloof delay a moment, Mr. Administrator Cannon, if there’s no objection, the annual of affairs of the balloon are accustomed to date. Amuse go head.

REP. CHRISTOPHER CANNON (R-UT), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Acknowledge you, Mr. Arch Justice.

Admonition for the president, assembly of the Senate. My name is Chris Cannon. I represent over 600,000 bodies in the 3rd Commune of Utah. I’d like to activate today with a brace of acknowledge yous.

Aboriginal of all, I like to acknowledge you senators for your absorption during this alternation of presentations. I apperceive that you all admission abysmal conflicts over the bulk afore you. Some of you fabricated able accessible statements about it. But you admission all paid amazing attention, and for that I acknowledge you.

I’d additionally like to acknowledge the added assembly of the administering team. It has been a arresting acquaintance to admission been associated with them during the able bristles months — about as good, I adeptness say, as it would admission been home with my wife and accouchement and our new baby.

And if I might, I would like to allotment with you a contempo ancestors experience. I’ve been home aloof about a little over a day out of the aftermost three weeks, and it took my 10-month babyish — 10-month-old babyish about — a little while to balmy up to me aback I was home last. And afterwards as I started packing, she able that I was abrogation afresh and she insisted that I ascendancy her. I anticipate she acquainted that if she captivated on, I wouldn’t disappear.

Unfortunately for her, she fell comatose on the cruise to the airport. I apperceive that added managers admission had agnate disruptions in their families and their ancestors life. For instance, Charles Canady’s wife had a babyish during the trial. I would appropriately like to acknowledge my wife and my accouchement and the wives and accouchement of all the managers for their abstinence and abutment during this process.

Like us, they admission in the obligation we admission to assure adequate government. And I adeptness say like us, they are beholden that the managers’ role is ending.

For the managers, this activity is about done. I achievement that history will adjudicator that we admission done our assignment well. We admission been congratulated and condemned, but we are done.

And while our difficult role is ending, castigation is aloof beginning. While I’m assertive that sitting actuality silently has been difficult, the actually alarming assignment afore you now is to accomplish this balloon with some faculty of legitimacy. For America is acutely divided, and the end aftereffect of an accusation balloon was brash by the Founding Fathers to gesic these accommodation and wounds.

Traditionally, afterwards an airing of the facts and a vote by the Senate, either a admiral is removed or he is vindicated. In this case, it seems neither of those after-effects may be realized.

While the facts are ablaze that the admiral committed canard and obstruction of amends — and actuality I’d like to accessory myself with the comments of Mr. Administrator Sensenbrenner — it is appropriately ablaze that this anatomy may not aish him from office. And from this perception, you face the claiming of legitimizing the end result.

Your vote will end this matter, it is non-justifiable. Whatever your accommodation is, it cannot be undone. The aftereffect will be adapted by definition. But how able-bodied you do the assignment of divining that aftereffect will affect the way that we as a nation accord with the accommodation amid us.

To beforehand in a abode that will be trusted and beheld as accustomed by the American people, you accusation accord with the differences amid this proceeding and above-mentioned accusation trials. You accusation do this with an accessible accusation to your adjuration to do amends deservedly according to the Architecture and the law.

The law includes the rules and precedents of the Senate. Senate Resolution 16 fabricated this activity altered from all of the proceeding 13 Senate trials on impeachment, principally by removing from the managers the adapted to present our case as we see fit. I doubtable that the bawdy answerable bulk and the accessory activity in the House may admission afflicted your decision.

But there is an candor to the acclaimed rules and affirmation for them. For instance, the Senate by attributes will be disconnected in the accusation proceeding, while the managers are united. It is appropriately easier for the managers to adjudge on how to present their case than it is for the Senate.

There are added differences in this proceeding from acclaimed accusation convenance afore the Senate. May I annual the changes for you, with the absorbed to admonition you focus on the ambition of a cessation that we the bodies will feel legitimate?

Senate Resolution 16 declared for a 24 hour presentation or trial, as it was declared in the resolution, that mainly consisted of what the accessible saw as the yammering of lawyers. Time was appropriately divided, rather than sequenced as it is in a trial, breadth aperture statements are fabricated and afresh affirmation is put on through witnesses. In a trial, anniversary ancillary about takes the time all-important to accredit its case or to attenuate the attestant through cross-examination.

Afterwards the affective activity has fabricated its case, the responding activity makes its case. Time is dictated abandoned by what anniversary ancillary feels it needs. Anniversary attestant is answerable to whatever assay is appropriate. The case develops activated allotment by activated allotment and ultimately one ancillary prevails.

Actuality the managers had to cut complete important portions of our apprenticed case. We had a apprenticed cardinal of witnesses, apprenticed cine appearances, apprenticed to — had an approximate three-hour rule. That time was lessened because we had to assets time for real.

According to administrative traditions, defendants admission to claiming anniversary attestant as they appear, not blanket the believability of all in one complete response. In these proceedings, the Senate has not had the befalling to appraise the believability of assemblage as they case developed. The White House afresh acclimated its time with connected video portions and small, acerbic accusations. Who knows what the White House adeptness admission done if it had been able, or if it had activate it all-important to claiming the assemblage as they testified?

Addition aberration from adequate and Senate balloon antecedent was that the abandoned acknowledgment for the managers was that — was what we aloof afterwards our video presentation and abominably in the ytic period, breadth important, complicated issues were cut off by bogus time limits, while borderline issues got added time than they deserved. This ytic aeon had the adverse ancillary aftereffect of absorption the accessible on the partisanship of the Senate.

The botheration of the addition of the presentation architecture was affronted by the new media ambiance — the Internet with its complete and generally unvetted agreeable and cable television with its abiding talking heads, gave according time and adequation of weight to the managers and the White House, with no attestant affirmation at all to constrain them.

The activity gave acceleration to the acumen that the fix was in, abrogation some to celebrate at accepting scammed the situation, and others affronted at actuality unheard. And that is the ambience with which the Senate accusation — now finds itself, and accusation accompany a accustomed outcome.

Accustomed the complete options discussed, it is ablaze that this is no accessible task. Will it be aperture with condemnation? Accusation of actuality about the president’s behavior? A angled vote with the accessories of impeachment, but not removing the president? A simple up and bottomward vote on the accessories of impeachment? Or a vote for absolution followed by a admonishment vote?

I don’t apperceive which, if any, of these options actually accomplish sense. And I don’t apperceive of any added options. I do apperceive that the activity is grave, and that your albatross is great.

So I’m actuality today to ask you to set a some of your accustomed inclinations for the adequate of the country. I would appeal you, senators, both Republican and Democrat, to set a partisanship, politics, acclamation and personalities and barter them for aerial inclinations, those of procedure, activity and precedent. These are the abandoned guidelines this anatomy should have.

As the Senate deliberates this case, I would ask that a few key facts never be forgotten: That the admiral committed canard aback he aria beneath adjuration and he blocked justice. The Senate has historically accusable board for perjury, alike afresh by some of you accumulated here.

Any American watching these affairs who commits canard will be punished by the law.

If the Senate follows our nation’s precedents of backbreaking perjurers, and if the Senate follows its own precedents of convicting perjurers, afresh there is abandoned one ablaze cessation in this matter: conviction.

Senators, we as Americans and legislators admission never authentic a accustomed arrangement which has one set of laws for the adjudicator and addition for the ruled. Afterwards all, our complete acceding of adherence binds us calm with the accent “liberty and amends for all.”

If that is the case, if we intend to animate up to oaths and pledges we take, afresh our complete own admiral accusation be answerable to the precedents in our civic administrative arrangement and this Senate anatomy admission heretofore set.

Because I adulation this country and its institutions, I adjure for afflatus for anniversary of you as you seek the proper, accustomed outcome. May God absolve you in this process.

Acknowledge you.

I’d now about-face the time over to Mr. Gekas.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Gekas.

REP. GEORGE GEKAS (R-PA), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Arch Justice, colleagues on anniversary ancillary of the podium, assembly of the Senate. If I were to booty some time to acknowledge the arch amends for his backbone in all of this, would that be counted adjoin my time?

(LAUGHTER)

REHNQUIST: Yes.

GEKAS: It would? Afresh I’ll advance you a note.

(LAUGHTER)

And we do — we do activity our acknowledgment to the arch justice.

I appear from Pennsylvania, and the bodies in my commune and the complete accompaniment and in their 49 aggregation states aloft the nation — the bodies of our country admission that there’s actually abandoned one issue. With all the acerbity and the tumult and the shouting and the accusation and the accent and the aloof apparent shouting that has occurred aloft the halls of Congress and everyplace abroad in the country, it all swoops bottomward in his telescope to one issue: Did the admiral complete falsehoods beneath oath?

Anybody understands that. Anybody comes to the cessation that that’s a austere accusation that has been fabricated through the impeachment, and one which you accusation adjudicator in the final vote that you will be casting.

But why is it important about whether or not the admiral authentic falsehoods beneath oath? It is important not aloof to aggregate the abject of perjury, as is alleged, or — and/or obstruction of justice, which is alleged. But alike if those two were not accustomed in all their elements as crimes, you would still admission to accede a canard beneath adjuration as basal an amiss offense.

And I say that advisedly. It starts, my altercation does, with the assertions of our admired colleagues who represent the president. Time afterwards time, and in their briefs and in their statements on and off the floor, they admission declared you accusation not admission a bent aperture for it to aggregate an amiss offense.

And they’ve provided examples of that. And they said that all you admission to authenticate is that an amiss aperture is one that rocks adjoin the candor — the arrangement of government. I’m paraphrasing, of course.

And I abide — and I feel this so acerb that it bothers me that I can’t accomplish it ablaze — that to aperture the adjuration as a attestant in a civilian case or a bent case, in the Jones bulk or in the admirable jury, smashes adjoin the candor of our arrangement of government and our assorted affirmation for that.

And in this case, if you chase the argumentation and the acute bookish presentation fabricated by White House admonition that refutes every annual that — or attempts to refute, not refutes — attempts to abnegate every annual asserted by the managers — if you admission all of that afresh are abashed or in agnosticism about the Jones case and whether lies beneath adjuration were committed, or at the admirable jury, you accusation anticipate about this.

This is, to me, affirmation complete that the admiral authentic falsehoods beneath adjuration in all his accessible stances.

On December the 23rd, the admiral beneath adjuration answered interrogatories that were beatific to him by the cloister in the Jones case in which he said, in the — in acknowledgment to the question: Admission you anytime had animal relations with anyone in a accessory role while you were governor of Arkansas or admiral of the Affiliated States?

Now, this is important. At that time — and the almanac will acknowledge all this — at that time, there was no ogue in avant-garde of him, no army of attorneys aggravating to altercation what chat meant what, no adjudicator there to adjudge the accustomed standards that should be employed, but rather, the d-faced, naked byword of animal relations that anybody in the able apple understands to be what it is. And the admiral answered beneath oath, “None.”

Now, I abide to the assembly of the Senate, if he answered then, on December the 23rd, afore anytime dispatch bottom in the degradation of the Paula Jones case; he never appeared there.

Or, if whatever he said there was so atramentous that you can’t draw a conclusion, actually you can accredit aback to December 23 and see a starting point of a arrangement of conduct on the allotment of the admiral that proves aloft all agnosticism that he committed a arrangement and complete falsehoods beneath adjuration time and time again.

And if that’s not enough, on January the 15th, as the almanac will disclose, he answered beneath adjuration requests for abstracts in which the catechism is asked beneath oath, and which the admiral responded, “Have you anytime accustomed any adeptness or abstracts from,” and it mentions, amid others, Monica Lewinsky. And the admiral beneath adjuration animate no or none. The almanac will actualization for abiding actually what he said, but he denied that any adeptness were transferred from or any abstracts or any items of personality from Lewinsky to the president.

I abide to you that if you’re abashed about, because of the abundant presentation fabricated by the admonition for the president, about the caliginosity and black of the Jones deposition, the maddening after-effects of the president’s testimony, maddening they said, afresh you can backslide aback to January the 15th afore the degradation and December the 23rd and acquisition affirmation complete in the documents, already a allotment of the case that you admission to decide, that actually a arrangement of falsehoods beneath adjuration was able and conducted by the admiral of the Affiliated States.

That’s complete important. And those allegations, by the way, admission gone actually uncontradicted by the admiral of the Affiliated States. I anticipate they took abundant delight, these colleagues of abundance on annual of the president, abundant comfort in adage at one point — and they put in the covering in the sky that, in so abounding altered agency — aback Monica Lewinsky said: Cipher told me to lie.

That was the case for them. What a case they made. “Nobody told me to lie.” They won the case adapted afresh and there in their minds. But because that was exculpatory and that was brandishing this case already and for all. Monica said “nobody told me to lie.”

Well, I’m activity to booty some liberties with the Latin that I abstruse aback I was in school, breadth we all abstruse in academy and in law academy falsam in unum is falsam in toto acceptation if you say commodity apocryphal in one actualization of your testimony, added than adequate the triers of actuality can acquisition that you were apocryphal in all of it.

Well, I’m activity to change that.

Well, I’m activity to change that. I anticipate I’m adapted aback I say, veritas in unum is veritas in toto. So aback Monica Lewinsky says, I — cipher told me to lie — and that’s the indomitable, abiding accuracy that the White House admonition say — that’s the case — afresh it additionally accusation be veritas in totem, because aback she says, aback she said that she gave adeptness to the president, afresh you accusation admission that. Veritas in unum is veritas in toto. And that goes on and on and on.

Somebody’s waving, cut this short.

(LAUGHTER)

Complete boxy for me to do that, but I will comply.

I admission a witness. I alarm a attestant to ster my allotment of this summation. The attestant is the American people.

Mr. Craig in his aftermost actualization on this belvedere was captivated to be able to adduce a poll that showed that 75 percent of the bodies of our country acquainted that there was no accusation to present videotapes to the Senate in the trial. “Seventy-five percent,” he said with abundant gusto, “of the American people.”

And of course, the acclamation of all types were quoted time and time afresh by the supporters of the admiral as assuming why you should vote to absolve — the polls, the polls, the polls. I now alarm the American people’s poll on whether or not the admiral — do they admission that they admiral committed falsehoods beneath oath? Eighty percent of the American bodies — I alarm them to my ancillary actuality at the belvedere to verify to you that the admiral committed falsehoods beneath oath.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Chabot.

REP. STEVE CHABOT (R-OH), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: I’m Steve Chabot and I represent the 1st Commune of Ohio, which is Cincinnati. This anniversary we will adequate assuredly accomplish this trial. Has it been difficult? Yes. Would we all admission adopted that none of this anytime happened? Of course.

But the admiral has put our nation through a abhorrent ordeal, and it has been our assignment to accompany this case to its conclusion. And admitting the acute warnings and alarm approach and heavy-handed threats by those who would abstain the austere built-in activity that we’re all affianced in, our abundant country has survived. We admission able this balloon in aloof a few weeks. The abridgement continues to be strong. And the nation’s business is accepting done.

But senators, afore you about-face out the lights and arch home, you accusation accomplish one final decision. It’s a accommodation that should not be afflicted by activity amalgamation or by backroom or by claimed ties. It’s a accommodation that should be guided by our Constitution, by our laws, and by your own moral compass.

A few months ago I stood in your shoes, as did all the colleagues actuality and the colleagues in the House, in advancing to accomplish what would adequate be the best important vote of our careers. Throughout the process, I did my best to be fair and to accumulate an accessible mind, and I listened anxiously to the angle of my accommodation — the bodies that beatific me to Congress.

I brash the affirmation in acute detail. Ultimately, for me the best was clear. I came to the cessation that it was my assignment to abutment impeachment. Now it’s your about-face to casting what could be the best important vote of your political careers.

The catechism is, will moral backbone or political advantage aphorism the day?

This able weekend I had the befalling to absorb a brace of hours at my academy alma mater, William and Mary, not too far from here, bottomward at Williamsburg, Virginia. As I absolved about the campus, I couldn’t admonition but anticipate aback to my academy canicule and what motivated me to seek accessible appointment in the aboriginal place.

Aback in 1972, I was a 19-year-old academy apprentice casting my aboriginal acclamation in a presidential election. Like a majority of Americans that year, I voted for a Republican, Richard Nixon, for president. Four years later, however, I voted for a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. This accommodation stemmed my — from my abstruse disappointment over Watergate and a able aplomb that Admiral Nixon should not admission accustomed amnesty for his actions.

Now, aloof as in college, I acquisition myself acutely afflicted by the accomplishments of a president.

In fact, as I started to anticipate about what I would say today, I wasn’t abiding breadth to begin. How actually do you blanket up in 10 annual or beneath aggregate we’ve witnessed in the aftermost year? We’ve apparent Bill Clinton’s finger-waving abnegation to the American people. We’ve apparent the admiral lie afore a federal admirable jury. We’ve apparent the admiral arrest justice. We’ve apparent the admiral ascendancy a accessible anniversary anon afterward the House accusation vote.

We all apperceive the president’s behavior has been reprehensible. Admiral Clinton, however, refuses to admission what all of us apperceive is true. To this day, he continues to abjure and distort. He continues to altercation the actual facts that are afore the Senate and afore the American people.

The president’s attorneys admission done their best to beard the accuracy as well.

At the alpha of this trial, I predicted in my presentation that they would use accustomed smokescreens to affectation the law and the facts. To their credit, they produced smoke so blubbery that it continues to billow this debate.

But if you attending through the smoke and the mirrors animate by these complete able lawyers, you will see the truth. The accuracy is that Admiral Clinton aria to a federal admirable jury. He aria about whether or not he had committed canard in a civilian deposition, about the admeasurement of his accord with a accessory federal employee, about his apprenticeship of his secretary, Betty Currie, and about the amaranthine added matters.

In my aperture annual afore this body, I categorical the four elements of perjury: an oath, intent, falsity, materiality. In this case, all those elements admission been met.

Admiral Clinton additionally blocked amends and encouraged others to lie in administrative proceedings. He accustomed to admission the affirmation of a potentially adverse attestant with job assistance, and he attempted to burrow affirmation that was beneath subpoena. These truths cannot be ignored, adulterated or swept beneath the rug.

Some of the president’s accessory defenders appetite you to do aloof that, but it would be wrong. It would be amiss for you to advance the bulletin to every American that it’s adequate to lie beneath adjuration and arrest justice.

It would be amiss for you to acquaint America’s accouchement that some lies are all right. It would be amiss to actualization the blow of the apple that some of our laws don’t actually matter.

I accusation accede with Phyllis and Jack Stanley, accommodation of abundance who animate in my district, who wrote me a letter saying, and I quote, “We admission that admiral Bill Clinton should actually be accusable for the annual of country. If he is not impeached, will not the aphorism of law in this country be weakened? We do not feel blitheness over the apprehension of Admiral Clinton’s impeachment, however. For the annual of advancing generations, acknowledging that integrity, annual and appropriateness bulk abundantly is complete important, abnormally in the able appointment of the land,” unquote.

Like best of you, I admission spent amaranthine hours at grocery stores, arcade malls and at schools and at my church, talking to my constituents. I’ve additionally apprehend bags of belletrist that admission been beatific to my office, aloof as we all have. What I’ve heard and apprehend doesn’t abruptness me. Bodies in Cincinnati, Ohio admission a array of angle on what the ultimate adjudication should be by this body.

Abounding appetite the admiral removed from office. Others appetite a censure. Still others would aloof like to see the activity end. But behindhand of their views, they’re atonement bodies who affliction about our country and our future.

Now I apperceive that throughout the process, some of the president’s added accessory defenders admission agonizingly criticized the managers, the House of Representatives, and anyone who would cartel admission that the admiral committed any crimes. These accessory attacks admission been unfortunate, because I anticipate we all apperceive that these issues are austere and that they deserve austere consideration.

I apperceive it. The American bodies apperceive it. And I anticipate you all apperceive it too.

But admitting the accessory and abode attacks, I admission that already this balloon ends, we accusation assignment together.

So I would ask anybody actuality today to accomplish a commitment, a accusation to every American, that behindhand of the trial’s aftereffect we will accompany calm to about-face the folio on this adverse affiliate that Admiral Clinton has accounting into our nation’s history.

The catechism afore you now is, how will this affiliate end? Will the final affiliate say that the Affiliated States Senate angry its aback on canard and obstruction of amends by the admiral of the Affiliated States? Or will it say that the Senate took a conscionable angle and told the apple that no person, not alike the president, stands aloft the law? That all Americans, no bulk how rich, how powerful, or how able-bodied connected, are answerable for their actions, alike the president?

As the ancestor of two children, and a aloft abecedary myself, at an burghal academy in Cincinnati, I admission that it is complete important that we advise our accouchement that honesty, integrity, and the aphorism of law do matter.

Aback I’m in Cincinnati, I absorb a lot of time visiting schools throughout my community. I able the seventh and eighth brand aback in Cincinnati. And aback I go there, I go to elementary schools, I go to inferior highs, I go to aerial schools. And I’ve been accomplishing this for a cardinal of years.

And do you apperceive what is appropriately one of the questions that the kids will ask me? About every time it’s: Admission you anytime met the admiral of the Affiliated States?

Now, why do the kids ask that question? Because our kids admission how important the appointment of the admiral is. The actuality who occupies that appointment owes it to the accouchement of this nation to amusement the appointment with respect.

In the past, aback those kids asked me that question, they asked me that catechism out of pride and respect. They looked up to the office, they looked up to aggregate the appointment represents. Bill Clinton has let our accouchement down, and that’s one of the greatest things that bothers me, as to the aftereffect that this will admission the accouchement of this nation.

Let me accomplish with a annual that I accustomed from a student, Juliette Ascension (ph), who is a apprentice at Mother of Mercy Aerial School, who wrote to me recently.

And she said, “I’m autograph to authentic my acrimony on the atrocious bearings that has taken over the White House for the able brace of months. Aboriginal I’d like to accompaniment the qualities that should be activate in the admiral of the Affiliated States. Aback the admiral is the official adumbrative of the Affiliated States, he should apostle the acceptance and acceptance captivated by the bodies of this country.

“The admiral should be honest and a authentic person. He should be a adequate decisionmaker, admission adequate morals, and admission his priorities straight. He should be allot his time to the country and set a adequate archetype for the bodies of this nation.

“I feel that Admiral Clinton does not admeasurement up to these standards. He’s aria to the American people. He’s committed perjury. For addition in his position this is unforgivable act, and he should not be accustomed to aloof airing abroad anguish a punishment. He’s apparent that he feels he can go aloft the law, and I acerb admission the admiral should be impeached.”

And I’ll accomplish by cogent you that aback you casting your vote, I would ask that you bethink — and you bethink that by your vote, you’re chargeless the assignment that Juliette that your accouchement and your grandchildren will learn.

So how will this affiliate end? The accommodation is yours.

I now crop to the admirer from Georgia, Mr. Administrator Barr.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Barr.

REP. BOB BARR (R-GA), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Acknowledge you, Mr. Arch Justice.

Acclaimed and aces adversaries, admonition for the president, including my adequate acquaintance and aloft Georgetown law assistant Charles Ruff, gentlemen and ladies of the Senate.

My name is Bob Barr.

I represent the 7th Commune of Georgia. But in a broader sense, I represent the country because I admission been directed as every one of the added 12 managers of the House admission been directed by the American people, by majority vote of the House of Representatives, to appetite you to assay the affirmation and activity a adjudication of aplomb on two accessories of accusation anesthetized by the House of Representatives.

Two canicule ago all of us acclaimed the altogether of aloft Admiral Ronald Reagan. During his aboriginal year in appointment on may 17th, 1982 — ’81 — this president, accustomed for accepting accustomed articulation to America’s best adapted and atonement instincts, batten to American bodies from Notre Dame University. Admitting announced about 18 years ago acutely not in ambition of an impeachment, the aloft president’s words accommodate admonition for you actuality today. It was on that date that Admiral Reagan batten of a assertive principle, and in so doing, he quoted addition behemothic of the 20th century, Winston Churchill.

Specifically, Admiral Reagan afresh batten of those who derided simple, aboveboard answers to the problems adjoin our country, those who corruption accuracy and authoritativeness of assumption in favor of vagueness and relativism. He said: They say the apple has become too circuitous for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no accessible answers, but there are simple answers. We accusation admission the adventuresomeness to do what is about right. Winston Churchill said that the afterlife of man is not abstinent by actual computation. Aback abundant armament are on the move in the world, we accusation apprentice we are spirits, not animals.

And he said: There is commodity activity in time and space, and aloft time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.

Duty, a clear, simple concept, a basal principle. Your assignment is acutely set alternating in your oath, your adjuration to do aboveboard amends according to the Architecture and the law.

In the able ages you admission heard abundant about the Architecture and alike added about the law — allegedly added than you prefer. In a boundless abode of the U.S. bent cipher — 18 U.S.C., 1503, 1512, 1621, 1623 — tampering, perjury, obstruction.

Now that’s a lot to digest, but these are complete laws and they are applicative to these affairs and to this president. Affirmation and law, you’ve apparent it and you’ve heard it.

Now, you’ve additionally apparent and heard about harbinger men, aloft up by the White House’s attorneys and afresh stricken bottomward mightily. You’ve heard them about alarm the admiral alternatively as victim or saint.

You’ve heard alike his staun allies alarm his conduct as reprehensible. Alike some of you on the president’s ancillary of the alley admission assured there’s no catechism about his accepting accustomed apocryphal affirmation beneath oath, and he did that added than once.

There has additionally been abundant smoke aerated up by the defense.

Men and women of the Senate, Monica Lewinsky is not on trial. Her conduct and her intentions are not at activity here. Vernon Jordan is not on trial, and his conduct and his intentions are not at activity here. William Jefferson Clinton is on balloon here. His behavior, his intentions, his actions, these and abandoned these are the issues afore you.

Aback the White House attorneys accession up as a harbinger man that Vernon Jordan adeptness not admission had an abnormal motive in gluttonous a job for Ms. Lewinsky, or that there was no academic cabal accustomed amid the admiral and Vernon Jordan, or that Ms. Lewinsky says she did not draw a complete articulation amid the president’s adopting the activity of a apocryphal affirmation and the awning food — accumulate in mind, these are extraneous issues.

Aback the White House attorneys bang these theories down, alike if you were to accomplish that they did, they are arresting bottomward annihilation added than extraneous harbinger men.

What stands today, as it has throughout these proceedings, are facts — a apocryphal affirmation that allowances the president; the apprenticeship of assemblage by the president; the secreting of subpoenaed affirmation that would admission afflicted the president; lies beneath adjuration by the president.

These reflect Admiral Clinton’s behavior, Admiral Clinton’s intentions, Admiral Clinton’s accomplishments and Admiral Clinton’s benefit, not through the eyes of apocryphal theories, but by the affirmation through the lens of accustomed sense.

You’ve heard tapes and apprehend volumes of affirmation not pursuant to the complete activity we, as House managers, would admission preferred, but abundant affirmation nonetheless has been presented.

Abounding are adage with a bulk of authoritativeness that usually comes abandoned from ignorance, that there’s annihilation I or any of us can say to you today on the eve of your deliberations to amplitude your minds. I beg to alter with them.

Moreover, we admission been directed by the bodies of this country, by majority vote of the House of Representatives, to accomplish and acknowledge a activity and to present affirmation to you and to altercate this case to you.

There is abundant in advancement a vote for aplomb that can be acquired by axis to and befitting in apperception Admiral Reagan’s words to America to do assignment — assignment clement by relativism, complete by artificiality; assignment that lives on afterwards your vote, aloof as America will animate on and beforehand afterwards a vote to convict; assignment admirable by polls.

Acclamation — the country’s allure with acclamation wormed its way alike into these affairs aback aloof a few canicule ago we heard one of the White House attorneys adduce acclamation as a acumen not to absolution the videotapes. Acclamation played no role in the abundant and august decisions — complete decisions — that fabricated American a nation and kept it chargeless and strong. Actually the adverse was true.

Polls, likewise, played no role in the abundant trials of our nation’s history that opened schools appropriately to all of America’s children, or that provided due activity and according aegis of the laws for all Americans, behindhand of bark blush or bread-and-er adeptness or political power.

Yet it is now in abounding respects acclamation that corruption to become the bill of political discourse, and alike of administrative activity as we a to admission the 21st century.

Your duty, as I apperceive you recognize, is and accusation be based on acclamation — not on acclamation or politics, but on law and the Constitution. In added words, principle. What you adjudge in this case, the case now afore you, will acquaint America and the apple what it is we admission as a foundation for our nation, not aloof today, but for ages to come. It will acquaint us in this nation whether these seats actuality today will abide to be animate by authentic statesmen, whether these seats in this alcove will abide to acknowledgment with the booming principles, adeptness and faculty of assignment of Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, Everett Dirksen, Robert Byrd.

I would add to that annual of statesmen my adolescent Georgian and your aloft abettor Sam Nunn, whose activity for assignment and our civic aegis acquired him afresh on CNN to accession grave apropos over our nation’s aegis because of the adventuresome conduct of this president.

Will the advance embodied in our Architecture and our laws be reaffirmed, wrested from the bloodless easily of pollsters and pundits and from the army of theorists surrounding these proceedings? Will they be taken up by you and reaffirmed into the easily of Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and so abounding added authentic statesmen of America’s heritage? Advance that admission stricken bottomward bigotry, tyrants and demagogues. Advance that through accessible and fair trials admission adored the innocent from the hangman’s asphyxiate and additionally admission beatific the guilty, clothed in due process, to the nether regions.

It is principle, founded and able in our Architecture and law, that you are declared aloft now to both use and reaffirm. Not abandoned America is watching, but the apple is, too.

And for those who say bodies from adopted acreage and in adopted acreage banter this activity and attending bottomward it, I say not so. Let me adduce briefly of a man not built-in in this country, but a man who has fabricated this his country; a man built-in not in Atlanta, Georgia, admitting Atlanta is now his home; a man built-in bags of afar abroad in Eritrea, a man who Admiral Reagan actually was in a faculty speaking both in 1981, aback he batten of America’s duty, and in January 1985 aback he batten of the American complete that echoes still through the ages and aloft the continents.

The man whose words I adduce is a man who watches this activity through the eyes of immigrant — Mr. Seyoum Tesfaye. Now I’ve never met Mr. Tesfaue, but I’ve apprehend his words.

In the February 5th “Atlanta Annual and Constitution,” aloof three canicule ago, he wrote that this accusation activity is an archetype of America at its best; a bulk built-in assumption that greatly distinguishes America from about all added nations. He noted, afterwards hypere, that this process, far from actuality the apologetic comedy that abounding of the president’s defenders admission accustomed to accomplish it, actually is a authentication of adumbrative democracy, reaffirming the assumption that no man is aloft the law, not alike the president.

These are not the words of the House managers, admitting they acknowledgment ours. These are not the words of a partisan. They’re the words of an immigrant — a man who came to America to abstraction and who has backward to assignment and pay taxes aloof as amaranthine millions of us do every day. Men and women of the Affiliated States, you must, by reaffirming your assignment to cede aboveboard amends based on the Architecture and the law, acknowledge those aforementioned laws and that complete aforementioned Architecture which drew Mr. Tesfaye and millions of added immigrants to our shores over the ages.

Now this is not a adequate assignment for any of us, but as Martin Luther King, Jr., accurately noted, in words that adhere on my appointment bank and conceivably on some of yours: “It is not in times of abundance and accessibility that we acquisition the admeasurement of a man’s character, but in times of action and controversy.” This is such a defining time.

Obstruction of amends and canard accusation not be accustomed to stand. Canard and obstruction cannot angle alongside the laws and the Constitution. By your oath, you must, like it or not, admission one over the other, up or down, answerability or acquittal.

I respectfully submit, on annual of the House of Assembly and on annual of my accommodation in the 7th commune of Georgia, that the affirmation acutely establishes guilt, and that the Architecture and laws of this acreage appeal it.

I acknowledge the assembly of the Senate and crop to Mr. Administrator Buyer.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Buyer.

REP. STEVE BUYER (R-IN), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Acknowledge you, Mr. Arch Justice.

Mr. Arch Justice, acclaimed counsel, and senators, my name is Steve Buyer, House administrator from Monticello, Indiana. I represent 20 counties amid South Bend and Indianapolis.

I will not try to affirmation the cornerstone of Hoosier accustomed sense. Mr. Kendall would action me for that cornerstone. But as a aloft bent aegis attorney, I appetite to booty a moment and acclaim the White House admonition and Mr. Kendall for accomplishing your best to avoid your applicant in the face of cutting facts and acute evidence.

(LAUGHTER)

Your role actuality — this is array of a ancillary compliment, do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

Your role actuality is abundant easier, though, in a cloister of accusation as adjoin to a bent cloister of law. As a aloft federal prosecutor, I acclaim Chairman Henry Hyde and my colleagues, the House managers, who’ve accustomed and accustomed activity acceptation to the aphorism of law and presented this case to the Senate in a professional, complete and aristocratic manner.

I assure that you the House managers would not admission prosecuted the accessories of accusation afore the bar of the Senate had we not had the able bulk of faith, acceptance and aplomb that based on the evidence, the admiral committed aerial crimes and misdemeanors which accreditation his abatement from office.

As you appear to judgment, I would acclaim you aboveboard yourself with your assignment first. On January 7th, I witnessed as the arch amends administered your adjuration to do aboveboard amends according to the Architecture and the laws. You should chase this prescription, chase the accuracy — bang that — chase this prescription: Acquisition the truth, ascertain the facts, administer the law, accord admiration to the Senate precedents while arresting the Constitution.

But I submit, it is the candor of your adjuration in which you accusation adapt to apostle the assumption of according amends beneath the law.

During the catechism and acknowledgment actualization with the arch amends on Saturday, January 23, I stood actuality in the able-bodied of the Senate and recommended that you vote on accusation of fact.

Now, I appetite to ablaze the almanac of my absorbed of the advocacy aback it has been grossly distorted. It is not to accredit the guilt, as some has alleged. A award of actuality is not a award of fiction.

On the contrary, it is to anticipate decisions by triers of actuality from basing their acumen on fiction or adventitious or politics.

The arch amends disqualified that you are triers of fact. And aback this built-in proceeding of accusation is added like a civilian proceeding than a bent trial, I accompany your absorption to Aphorism 52 of the Federal Rules of Civilian Activity that provides in pertinent allotment that aback board sit abandoned as a trier of fact, he or she is adapted to set bottomward in complete words the facts as he or she finds them.

Now this affirmation is binding and cannot be waived by the parties in federal practice. A announcement of award of facts is not a aitionist abstraction to American jurisprudence. It is accustomed and commonly acclimated in accompaniment and federal courts all aloft this land. Aback you sit collectively as a cloister of impeachment, as triers of fact, I recommended the accusation of actuality to acceding that you admission anxiously brash the affirmation and admission a rational of abject for your final judgment.

To affirmation that accusation of actuality is actionable is false. The Absolute Cloister has consistently acceptable the Senate to appearance the contours and the due activity of an accusation trial. The Senate owes the American bodies and history an accounting of the adamant facts.

I’d like to animadversion on some statements. I’ve heard some senators accompaniment about that they are appliance the accustomed of aloft a reasonable doubt. But the Senate has captivated consistently that the bent accustomed of affirmation is inappropriate for accusation trials. The aftereffect of aplomb in an accusation balloon is abatement from office. It is not meant to punish. You are to be guided by your own conscience, not by the bent accustomed of affirmation of aloft a reasonable doubt.

I admission additionally heard some senators from both abandon of the alley accompaniment publicly: I anticipate these offenses acceleration to the akin of aerial crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to accompaniment about that you admission that aerial crimes and misdemeanors admission occurred but for some acumen you admission this admiration not to aish the admiral — that desire, though, does not aboveboard with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate’s precedents for removing federal board for agnate offenses.

Now, so connected as William Jefferson Clinton is president, the abandoned apparatus to ascendancy him answerable for his aerial crimes and misdemeanors is the adeptness of accusation and removal. The Architecture is complete clear. You cannot absolve the aphorism of law by advertence aerial crimes and misdemeanors admission occurred but leave the admiral in appointment answerable to approaching case afterwards his appellation has expired.

Afterwards annual for the law, the foundation of our Architecture is not secure. Afterwards annual for the law, our abandon is at risk.

Now, the admiral is answerable his declared crimes to the Senate actuality and now. Moreover, if bent case and not accusation is the way to absolve the aphorism of law, afresh the Senate would never admission removed added civilian officers, such as the federal judges, who are not cloistral from bent case while captivation office.

Thus, in accouterment for bent corruption afterwards aplomb and abatement from office, it was the framers who ensured that the aphorism of law would be vindicated both in cleansing the appointment and in backbreaking the abandoned for the bent act.

Now I admission asked myself abounding times how a admiral can abide in appointment while accepting committed canard and obstruction of amends is fair to those aloft the country who are sitting in bastille for accepting committed the aforementioned crimes. I admission had the candor altercation befuddled into my face consistently. Now candor is important. Candor is commodity that’s simple in its attributes and it’s able in the annual that it makes. A annual which you advance carries us into tomorrow and becomes the approaching legacy.

If you vote to acquit, anticipate for a moment about what you would say to those who admission been bedevilled of the aforementioned crimes as the president. What would you say to the 182 Americans who are bedevilled in federal cloister in 1997 for committing perjury? What would you say to the 144 Americans who were bedevilled in federal cloister for obstruction of amends and attestant tampering? Would you advance to blab the affirmation and say this was — this case was abandoned lying about ?

I appetite to adduce the affirmation afore the House Judiciary Board of one woman who able the administrative arrangement in the best claimed sense, and that was the affirmation of Dr. Barbara Battalino. I anticipate it’s compelling.

Now she — she captivated degrees in anesthetic and law, and Administrator Rogan showed some of the affirmation aloof the added day. You see, she was prosecuted by the Clinton Amends Department and bedevilled for obstruction of amends because of her lie beneath adjuration about one act of consensual bright with a accommodating on VA premises. BUYER: Her base acknowledgment was fabricated in a civilian clothing which was afterwards dismissed. In a accustomed proceeding, Dr. Battalino was asked beneath oath, quote, “Did annihilation of a animal attributes booty abode in your appointment on June 27th, 1991?” end quote. Her one chat reply, “No,” bedevilled her and consistently afflicted her life.

Her punishment? She was bedevilled of a felony, affected to abrasion an cyberbanking ecology device, and is anon on probation. She absent her authorization to convenance law and her adeptness — she absent her authorization to convenance anesthetic and her adeptness to convenance law.

Now, our prisons ascendancy abounding who are actually contrite. They’re sorry. They feel affliction for their bent offenses; and some whose victims admission alike forgiven them. Others were complete accustomed citizens, had abounding friends, and apologized profusely. But they were still captivated answerable beneath the law.

Aloof like the admiral is acclaimed to be accomplishing a adequate job, abounding in bastille today were accomplishing a adequate job in their declared professions.

None of our laws accommodate for adequate job performance, contrition, absolution or acceptance acclamation as a antidote for bent conduct.

These were the closing curve of Dr. Battalino’s aperture annual afore the House Judiciary Committee, quote, “We all accomplish mistakes in life, but accustomed blemish does not abate us from the albatross to apostle the aphorism of law. Regardless, this nation accusation never let any actuality or bodies attenuate the aphorism of law. If alternative and amends for all does not reign, we like abundant civilizations afore us will actually perish from the face of the Earth.”

What would you say to Dr. Battalino and others ogously anchored is complete important, because candor is important. Alexander Hamilton, autograph not connected afterwards the Architecture was adopted, able-bodied bidding the corruption that would appear to our republic from those who, by example, debilitated the annual for the law.

In a annual that bears repeating, Hamilton wrote, quote, “If it were to be asked what is the best angelic assignment and the greatest antecedent of aegis in a republic, the acknowledgment would be, an adored annual for the Architecture and the laws, the aboriginal growing out of the last.”

Those, therefore, who set examples which attenuate or capsize the ascendancy of the laws beforehand us from abandon to , they incapacitate us for a government of laws.

Admiral Clinton, by his assiduous and affected delinquency and actionable acts, has set a pernicious archetype of lawlessness, an archetype which by its complete attributes subverts annual for the law. His abnormal archetype appropriately undermines the candor of both the appointment of the admiral and the administrative process.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, afterwards choice, we were all built-in free. And we affiliated a bequest of alternative at abundant cede by abounding who’ve appear afore us. We cannot collectively as a chargeless bodies adore the liberties afterwards abstinent claimed restraint. And that’s the purpose of the aphorism of law. It’s the functions of the courts to apostle the abode of that decree and the God-given liberties to all of us. That’s how we are able to backpack this nation avant-garde into approaching generations.

So in ablaze of the acclaimed advance apropos impeachment, the cutting evidence, the offenses as alleged, the appliance of the Senate precedents, I admission it makes it complete ablaze that our president, whose apparent such antipathy for the law, the abode and the candor of the appointment of the admiral that was entrusted to him, accusation be captivated to account, and it can abandoned be his abatement from office.

The House managers assets the antithesis of our time.

REHNQUIST: Complete well. The armchair recognizes the White House counsel.

RUFF: Mr. Arch Justice, acknowledge you.

I wonder, Mr. Majority Leader, whether we adeptness booty a abrupt aperture because there’s activity to accusation to be some barter of appliance here.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: I was abashed to beforehand it too aboriginal today, Mr. Arch Justice, but on appeal of counsel, I ask that we booty a 10-minute recess, and amuse acknowledgment apprenticed to the alcove so we can get aback to business.

REHNQUIST: Afterwards objection, it’s so ordered.

(RECESS)

REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order. The armchair recognizes Mr. White House Admonition Ruff.

CHARLES RUFF, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Acknowledge you, Mr. Arch Justice.

How’s the complete arrangement today? Good.

Mr. Arch Justice, managers for the House, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I can’t abide beginning, afterward the beforehand of my colleagues aloft the able-bodied here, by cogent you that my name is Charles Ruff and I’m from the Commune of Columbia, and we don’t admission a vote in the Congress of the Affiliated States.

(LAUGHTER)

I actually did not intend to activate actually this way, but I — I must. I don’t anticipate there is a cloister in the acreage breadth a prosecutor would be able to angle up for one-third of his allotted time, adduce in accustomed acceding about the — what the bodies are advantaged to and what the aphorism of law stands for, as important as all of that may be, afresh sit bottomward and about-face to the defendant’s admonition and ask that aegis admonition go forward, reserving two hours for real.

I admission that procedural niceties admission not necessarily characterized the way this balloon has gone forward. But I do admission — and this is the abandoned time today I will say this, I affiance — that affectionate of prosecutorial artifice is adapted of what we admission apparent afore in these aftermost weeks, absent to win too much.

Now, that said, let me activate breadth I brash to begin. We are demography the aftermost accomplish forth a alley that for best of us has seemed to be unending. Actually some of us may admission a faculty that we’ve gone able-bodied aloft Yogi Berra acreage to deja vu all over afresh and all over afresh and all over again.

I apprehension connected and adamantine as I apprehension about what I was activity to say today. How I could be of best admonition to you as you accomplish this momentous accommodation that will anon be entrusted to you. I briefly brash whether the acknowledgment to that catechism was artlessly to crop aback my time, but I brash that adjoin the adapted amusement of addition out our aftermost hours with you.

(LAUGHTER)

Or as Ernie Banks would admission said: “It’s such a nice day, let’s comedy too.”

(LAUGHTER)

But accursed as I am with lawyerly instincts, I absitively to compromise. I affiance you as abundant brevity as I can manage, alike if not abundant wit, while authoritative a few final believability that I anticipate you accusation to backpack with you as you go into your deliberations.

Now you admission heard the managers’ vision, or at atomic some allotment of it, their eyes of the activity we’ve been affianced in, and the acquaint we’ve learned, and what it will attending like at the end of our journey.

I annual them as adopted assembly of their people, and as we’re the adversaries. But I admission their eyes to be too dark, a eyes too little attuned to the needs of the people. Too little acute to the needs of our democracy. I admission it to be a eyes added focused on retribution, added brash to accomplish accessory ends, added blah about the approaching we face together.

Our vision, I think, is actually different, but it is not naive. We apperceive the affliction the admiral has acquired our association and his ancestors and his friends, but we know, too, how abundant the admiral has done for this country. And added chiefly we apperceive that our primary obligation, the assignment we all have, is to bottle that which the founders gave us. And we can best accomplish that assignment by anxiously traveling the alley that they laid out for us.

Now, you admission heard abounding speeches over the able few weeks about aerial crimes and misdemeanors. As I attending aback on the arguments and the counter-arguments, it seems to me that actually complete little can be acquired by repeating them. For aback all is said and done, what they beggarly is this: the framers chose stability, they fabricated accusation and abatement built-in recourses of aftermost resort.

The catechism that the managers appear to admission asked — and I am clumsy to acquaint what you they will ask today — is whether canard or obstruction of amends in the abstruse are amiss offenses. That is not the catechism you accusation answer. Nor accusation you assume, as the managers appear to, that because board are removed for accepting committed perjury, a admiral accusation be removed as well.

That is not what the law — the aphorism of law requires. The aphorism of law and balanced amends is commodity added than a simple syllogism. You accusation adjudge whether on these facts arising out of these circumstances, this admiral has so endangered the accompaniment that we can no best aspect his actual in office.

Now I anticipate in their hearts the managers do not actually disagree. Whatever tidbits they admission been able to accumulate from the actual almanac or added avant-garde scholarship, they cannot in the end abstain the cessation that abatement of the admiral is not commodity that the framers took lightly.

Indeed, two of their own assemblage in the Judiciary Committee, Assistant Van Alstyne and Adjudicator Wiggins, accustomed to accomplish it ablaze to them that alike if they were to acquisition that the offenses declared in the complete counsel’s barometer had been committed, addition accommodation had to be made. And that accommodation was whether in the interests of association the admiral should be impeached.

As Assistant Van Alstyne put it, in words that I admission are aspersing to my applicant but nonetheless accomplish the point, “In my own opinion,” he said, “I absorption if the admiral did that which the adapted counsel’s abode declared are crimes of such a low adjustment that it would disproportionately adulate the admiral by appointment him to balloon in the Senate, i would not bother to do it.”

Now, I apprehend that annual to you not, obviously, because the assistant and I are on the aforementioned ancillary of the political divide, of the aforementioned appearance of the president’s conduct, but because it is important, I think, to understand, as I feel the managers do not, that the framers abounding able-bodied accustomed what they were accomplishing aback they drafted the accusation accoutrement of the Constitution. They anxiously chose not to accomplish all delinquency by the admiral a abject for removal. They chose instead abandoned that conduct that they beheld as best serious, as best alarming to our arrangement of government.

As I’ve said, I anticipate in their hearts, the managers admission the force of this, for they’ve argued to you that canard and obstruction abandoned should be brash as the agnate of abomination and bribery in the crisis that they affectation to our society.

They’ve offered on this abundant rhetoric, and a few complete arguments, and I appetite to attending at aloof a few of these arguments as they were avant-garde in the managers’ aperture and not actually addressed aback then.

First, an actual altercation that Blackstone in his commentaries listed bribery and canard and obstruction of amends beneath the aforementioned annex of offenses adjoin accessible justice.

Second, a array of avant-garde accustomed agnate of that altercation that beneath the sentencing guidelines, we actually amusement canard added acutely than we do bribery.

And third — and this is a activity you’ve heard throughout these proceedings, what I’ll alarm the arrangement of amends altercation — that the president’s conduct, if he is not removed, will somehow capsize administering of our civilian rights laws.

But all these arguments are added subterfuge, offered because the managers knew that to accomplish any believable case for removal, they accusation accompany these accessories aural the complete baby amphitheater of offenses that the framers believed were actually alarming to the state.

First, Blackstone. It’s authentic that the commentaries bulk canard as amid 21 offenses adjoin accessible justice. Notably, however, Blackstone ranks the 21 in adjustment of seriousness, or as he puts it, malignity. Now, cardinal one on the list, the best cancerous offense, is a abomination that I admission to admission is alien to me, that of abandonment records.

Cardinal six is abiding from transportation, additionally an aperture rarely apparent in our avant-garde society. Numbers 10 to 12 are barratry, maintenance, and champerty, abnormally baby to me because they absorb my profession, but rarely pursued these days, I anticipate you’ll agree.

And at cardinal 15 is perjury. Now if as Madison told us, Blackstone was in the duke of every man, what does that acquaint us about why the framers chose abomination and bribery and added aerial crimes and misdemeanors as the breadth for impeachment? It tells us that they actually accustomed the allusive force of offenses adjoin accessible amends and nonetheless chose abandoned those that actually airish that crisis to the state.

Abomination for accessible reasons, and bribery because to them, the blow that the controlling would advertise himself to a adopted country, for example, was abundant added than bald speculation. And afresh added — added aerial crimes of agnate severity.

Now, as to the acquaint to be abstruse from the added avant-garde day — the sentencing guidelines — Mr. Administrator McCollum argued to you a few weeks ago that those to whom you admission accustomed the albatross to appraise the allusive severity of crimes admission assured that canard is at atomic as austere a abomination as bribery. That decision, he told you, is apparent by the commission’s accommodation to accredit to canard an aperture akin of 12, or about one year in prison; and to bribery, an aperture akin hardly beneath that.

But alike to the admeasurement that such an altercation were to be brash in a built-in balance, Administrator McCollum was artlessly not actuality aboveboard with you, for he bootless to explain that beneath these aforementioned guidelines, a allurement of let’s say $75,000 taken by an adopted official or a adjudicator for that matter, automatically carries an aperture akin of 24 — alert that of canard and a bastille book four to bristles times longer.

The drafters of our guidelines, to the admeasurement that Administrator McCollum asked you to attending at, abounding able-bodied admission the adapted force of bribes taken by the country’s leaders and are able to assay that aperture from the offenses, alike at best, that are afore you now.

And lastly, the arrangement of amends argument, the angle that somehow Admiral Clinton has debilitated our civilian rights laws. Well, whatever I adeptness say could not bout the adeptness of my abettor Ms. Mills, and appropriately I will not allure fate by venturing added into that territory.

I actually don’t appetite to become added absorbed in the development here. On this I do accede with the managers: we cannot lose afterimage of the built-in backwoods for some of the ytic trees.

There is abandoned one catechism afore you, admitting a difficult one, one that is a catechism of fact, and law, and built-in theory. Would it put at blow the liberties of the bodies to absorb the admiral in office?

Putting a accessory animus, if you can candidly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, afresh you accusation vote to acquit.

Now anniversary of you has a faculty of this in your apperception and your amore bigger than annihilation I could aback or I doubtable annihilation bigger than my colleagues could aback to you. And I won’t undertake to acquaint you added on this issue.

And aloof as we ultimately leave that catechism in your hands, we’ll leave to the censor of anniversary affiliate the catechism of what accustomed of affirmation to apply. Admitting Agent Buyer’s admonition to the contrary, this anatomy has never absitively for any of you what accustomed is appropriate, what accustomed inappropriate. Anniversary abettor is larboard to his or her own best judgment.

I adapted to you aback I aftermost batten to you that I admission you accusation administer a accustomed abundantly acrimonious to accredit you to accomplish this best important accommodation with authoritativeness and in a abode that will ensure that the American bodies admission that it has been fabricated with that certainty.

This is not an activity as to which as a bodies and we as a republic can be in doubt.

Let me move to the articles. Aloof as you admission listened patiently to our agitation about the acceptation of aerial crimes and misdemeanors, you admission as able-bodied heard acutely amaranthine abode about the specific accommodation of the assorted affairs that the managers adduce aggregate breadth for removal.

I will strive appropriately not to be disproportionately repetitive, added than is at atomic actually necessary.

My colleagues aftermost Saturday and in their beforehand presentations admission done my assignment for me. But I appetite to focus for aloof a little while on those aspects of the managers’ presentation that arete your adapted attention, or those that admission been decidedly elucidated or for that bulk beclouded by the affirmation you heard and watched on Saturday.

As we alpha this discussion, let me activity you a byword that I achievement you will bethink as I move through the accessories with you, and that byword is: Affective targets and abandoned pots.

Affective targets, ever-shifting theories, anniversary one avant-garde to alter the aftermost as it has fallen, collapsed victim to the facts.

Abandoned pots. Attractive containers, but aback you booty the lid off, you’ll acquisition annihilation to sustain you.

Now, I acclimated the appellation “empty vessels” in my aperture presentation, but it aback addled me that that was abundant too flattering, and adeptness alike beforehand that they had the accommodation to float, which they don’t.

Commodity I, the aboriginal affective target. Now as we’ve said repeatedly, we’ve been added than a little puzzled as to the exact attributes of the adduce avant-garde by the managers beneath the annual of Commodity I. And our abashing has abandoned increased, I accusation acquaint you, aback this balloon began.

We’ve argued, I anticipate with complete force, that both accessories are so amiss that they would not survive a motion to aish in any cloister in the land. Now, we’re not aloof to the affirmation that we are advancing some lawyer’s argument, and we’re gluttonous some abstruse escape. But I appetite you not to amusement this activity so lightly.

As you attending to Commodity I, for example, ask yourselves whether you can, at this backward moment in the trial, assay for yourselves with any alien faculty of authoritativeness the statements that the managers affirmation are perjurious. I doubtable you will apprehend a lot about that in the two hours afterward my presentation, but I’ll try to attending avant-garde aloof a bit.

Ask yourselves whether you are adequate in this gravest of affairs that aback you retire to your deliberations you could anytime apperceive that the constitutionally adapted two-thirds votes is present on any one charge.

Now, we’ve been authoritative this altercation for some time and with some frequency, and so you would anticipate that at atomic already the balloon began, the managers would admission anchored on a apprenticed set of charges.

But, no. Indeed, it addled me alike beforehand this afternoon, that aback Administrator Sensenbrenner rose to adduce to you, he was able to accord you four examples of perjury. We’ve heard a lot examples, we haven’t heard abundant certainty.

Now, aloof to accord you an archetype of how rapidly the ambition can move, you’ll anamnesis that in anecdotic the incidents of canard allegedly committed by the president, the managers fabricated abundant of the basal annual he apprehend to the admirable jury, including the use of the words “occasionally” and “on assertive occasions” to alarm the abundance of assertive conduct, and fabricated the accustomed accusation the annual itself was allotment of the arrangement to deceive the admirable jury.

Yet strangely, aback Mr. Administrator Rogan was asked about these complete adduce as backward as January 20th, he actually acutely abandoned them.

I complete your absorption to the exhibits afore you and to the chart. Appearing on television on January 20th with Chris Matthews, this is what transpired:

Mr. Matthews: Now avoid these elements — one, that the admiral aria aback he said “these relationships with her on assertive occasions.” Is that the language?

Adumbrative Rogan: That is the …

And Matthews: And why is that perjurious — perjurious?

Adumbrative Rogan: In fact, I’m not — I don’t anticipate it’s necessarily perjurious. In fact, that’s not one alike of the four areas that’s alleged. But they’re aggravating to aces these little dots out of the casting and try to adhere their hat on that.

RUFF: That is, that’s one little allotment of this acknowledgment he gave at the admirable jury. Matthews: And addition time he acclimated a byword with absorption to this antic activity declared buzz , he referred to it as casual or on occasion. Why do you add them in as allotment of the canard indictment?

Adumbrative Rogan: That’s not added in as allotment of the canard accusation in Commodity I, artlessly aloft that activity aback I was acclamation the Senate.

Matthews: You bigger get to those senators, because I anticipate they fabricated the aberration I did of cerebration that was one of the elements in the canard charge.

RUFF: And ogously over here, although I’ve antipodal the adjustment a bit, go through what you anticipate of the capital elements.

Adumbrative Logan: One of the things that we’re absorption on is a point I anticipate I fabricated aftermost anniversary aback I was presenting the case for perjury, ambidextrous with that basal annual that the admiral read, but aloof actually gave the admirable board a misperception of what the president’s accord was with Monica Lewinsky. Now, I never said that was the abject for the canard charge.

RUFF: Well, I admission to acquaint you, as did Mr. Matthews, I fabricated the aforementioned mistake. I heard Administrator Rogan say, quote, “This able annual he apprehend to the admirable board on August 17th, 1998, was the lynchpin in his plan to, quote, ‘win,'” unquote.

I heard him say, “It is accessible that the advertence in the president’s able annual to the admirable board that this accord began in 1996 was anxiously false.” I heard him say, “The president’s annual was anxiously cryptic aback he declared actuality abandoned with Ms. Lewinsky abandoned on assertive occasions.” And I heard him say, “The president’s annual was anxiously cryptic aback he declared his blast conversations with Monica Lewinsky as occasional.”

That’s what I heard aback Administrator Rogan batten to you a few weeks ago.

Now, I apperceive it’s abnormal to be accustomed a bill of particulars on television. And maybe that’s allotment of the avant-garde activity age.

And so as to Commodity I’s charge, now that this is off the books, that the admiral apostate himself apropos his accord with Ms. Lewinsky, we are already afresh larboard with the affirmation that he aria about touching; about his abnegation that he affianced in conduct that fell aural his abstract compassionate of a ogue acclimated in the Jones degradation — this, in the beforehand of testimony, assembly of the Senate, in which the admiral had already fabricated the audible best adverse acceptance that any of us can admission of.

It defies accustomed faculty and as any able prosecutor — and bristles able prosecutors said this to the Judiciary Board — will acquaint you, it defies complete apple acquaintance to accusation anyone, admiral or not, with canard on the arena that you discount his affirmation about his own abstract acceptance in a ogue of a appellation acclimated in a civilian deposition.

Annihilation in the evidentiary almanac has afflicted aback the OIC referred this bulk to the House six months ago. Indeed, it is cool to admission what could change in the evidentiary record.

And the managers admission offered this accusation and abide in it for affirmation not actually ablaze to me, but some dark acceptance that they accusation go forward, facts or no.

Now, there are three added elements to Commodity I. First, that the accusation — aboriginal the accusation that the admiral aria aback he claimed that he’d not apostate himself in the Jones deposition. The president, of course, fabricated no such representation in the admirable jury, and the managers cannot, no bulk how they try, disclose the adduce of the article, the Commodity II, that was so acutely abandoned by the House of Representatives.

Yet, if you listened to their presentations over the able weeks, it becomes axiomatic that, whether anxiously or unintentionally, they, themselves, admission appear to the point breadth the president’s affirmation on January 17 in the Jones degradation and August 17 in the admirable board are brash as admitting they were one and the same.

Now, aloof — aloof a few annual ago, you heard Administrator Gekas allocution to you about perjury. And allegedly 90 percent of what he talked to you about was canard in the Jones case.

In the Jones case. It doesn’t abide anymore. The House of Assembly bent that that was not an amiss offense.

It appears to accomplish no difference, though, that the House abandoned this charge, for the managers do abide to abide on it, as admitting somehow they could actualization the House from which they came that they’d fabricated a mistake.

Abandoned aftermost Saturday Administrator Graham could be heard aspersing the president’s affirmation that he had never been abandoned with Monica Lewinsky. Commodity that comes, not out of the admirable jury, but out of the Jones deposition.

At the aforementioned time he was demography him to assignment for his disposition on the acceptation of the chat “is,” commodity that is in the admirable board but is actually extraneous to these canard charges.

You could alike see it in their cine presentation aftermost Saturday, aback snippets from January 17th and August 17th were played afterwards any ogue and afterwards any faculty that there was any acumen amid the two events.

There’s actually annihilation in the president’s admirable board affirmation that purports to admission ample his affirmation in the Jones deposition. If anything, it’s axiomatic that he’s acknowledgment at breadth and allegorical and abacus to his degradation testimony.

Indeed, alike if commodity — the aboriginal Commodity II had survived, the president’s acceptance that he had worked, quote, “worked through the minefield of the Jones degradation afterwards actionable the law,” which is a adduce from his admirable board testimony, could not acquiesce the managers somehow to accredit that annual was apart perjurious, and they actually cannot do so now that the aboriginal Commodity II has disappeared.

Now, as to the added and third actual elements of Commodity I, that he — the admiral aria about Mr. Bennett’s annual to Adjudicator Wright at the time of the Jones degradation and that he aria about his own statements to his staff, I will accord with them in my altercation of the obstruction adduce in Commodity II.

Suffice it to say that annihilation in the almanac as it came to you in January could abutment aplomb on Commodity I, and annihilation added to the almanac aback afresh has afflicted that result.

And we move to Commodity II.

Administrator Hutchinson told you in his aboriginal presentation that Commodity II adequate on, in his words, seven pillars of obstruction. I admission adapted in my aperture annual of a few weeks ago that it would be added authentic to alarm them seven animate sandcastles of speculation.

But Administrator Hutchinson has not accustomed accommodating to admission my description, and so I will admission his.

Let’s aish one colonnade adapted at the start. Commodity II adduce that the admiral affianced in a arrangement to arrest the Jones case — the Jones case. And alleges as one aspect of this arrangement that in the canicule afterward January 21st, the admiral aria to his agents about his accord with Ms. Lewinsky — conduct that could not possibly admission had annihilation to do with the Jones litigation.

I will get to the affirmation of that accusation continuing abandoned in a little while, but I accompany up the more, absolve me, abstruse altercation actuality to highlight already added the admeasurement to which the House artlessly abandoned the best basal accustomed advance in bringing these adduce to you.

I admission yet to apprehend from the managers a audible believable annual for the admittance of this accusation as allotment of a arrangement to arrest the Jones litigation, and I can anticipate of none. I’m abiding that in the 120 annual actual to them, some allocation of will be spent acknowledgment aloof this point.

And so, one colonnade gone, a slight annual observed.

Next. Ms. Lewinsky’s affirmation and the aboriginal of the abandoned pots. The managers accusation that the admiral corruptly encouraged a attestant to assassinate a affirmation affirmation that he knew to be perjurious, apocryphal and misleading, and ogously encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie if she were of declared as a witness.

In my aperture statement, and Mr. Kendall’s added abundant discussion, we fabricated two points: first, that Ms. Lewinsky had afresh denied that she had anytime been asked or encouraged to lie; and second, that there was artlessly no complete or amplified affirmation that the admiral had anytime done such a thing.

Now it’s not in altercation that the admiral declared Ms. Lewinsky on the aboriginal morning of December 17th to acquaint her about the afterlife of Betty Currie’s brother, and in the aforementioned alarm that he told her that she was now listed on the Jones attestant list.

The managers admission from the alpha relied on one actuality and on one bottomless antecedent stemming from this call, which in the managers’ minds was the alpha and the boilerplate and the end of the arrangement to animate the filing of a apocryphal affidavit.

There was actually no added blow or annual on which they can rely.

Now, the one actuality to which the managers point is Ms. Lewinsky’s affirmation that the admiral said that if she were actually subpoenaed, she possibly could book an affirmation to abstain accepting to testify, and at some point in the alarm mentioned one of the declared awning acceptance that they had acclimated aback she was still animate at the White House; that is, bringing affirmation to him.

And it is on this all-a-quiver foundation, a complete abbreviate colonnade indeed, that the managers anatomy their hypothesis.

In the face of the acutely insurmountable hurdle of Ms. Lewinsky’s afresh denials that anyone anytime asked or encouraged her to lie, the managers admission persisted in arguing and abide to do so that the admiral did somehow animate her to lie, alike if she didn’t apperceive it.

Now, you’ve heard that activity sounded, really, for the aboriginal time on Saturday and afresh a little bit today — alike if she didn’t apperceive it — because both actually accustomed that any affirmation Ms. Lewinsky would book would admission to be false, if it were to aftereffect in her alienated her deposition.

But neither the actuality on which they await nor their antecedent was of abundant admonition to the managers afore Ms. Lewinsky’s deposition, and neither, surely, has any force afterwards her deposition.

Afterwards you saw Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, there can be annihilation larboard of what was, at best, abandoned conjecture. Alike afore her deposition, Ms. Lewinsky had testified, as had the admiral in the admirable jury, that accustomed the claims actuality fabricated in the Jones case, a truthful, admitting apprenticed affidavit, adeptness — adeptness — accredit that Ms. Lewinsky had annihilation accordant to activity in the way of affirmation in the Jones case.

Faced with this record, the managers asked you to accredit Ms. Lewinsky’s deposition, apery that she would, and I quote, and this is from the manager’s proffer, “rebut the afterward inferences fatigued by White House admonition on key issues. Amid others, that Admiral Clinton did not animate Ms. Lewinsky to book a apocryphal affirmation and that Admiral Clinton did not admission an compassionate with Ms. Lewinsky that the two would lie beneath oath.”

Unhappily for the managers, and conceivably their dejection was best reflected in the accent of Administrator Bryant’s altercation on this subject, Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, as you saw yourself on Saturday, did aloof the opposite.

In an connected colloquy with Mr. Administrator Bryant on the answerable of the affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky fabricated ablaze aloft any doubt: first, that the admiral had never discussed the capacity of the affirmation with her; second, that there was no affiliation amid the beforehand that she adeptness book an affirmation and the advertence to any awning story; and third, that she believed it accessible to book a authentic affidavit.

Now you saw abundant of this allocation of Ms. Lewinsky’s degradation on Saturday, and I’m not activity to appoint too abundant on your patience, but I do appetite to comedy aloof a complete few segments of that videotape. First, two segments alpha with the agreeable of the affidavit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Are you — did he accomplish it — bang that.

BRYANT: Did he accomplish any representation to you about what you could say in that affidavit?

LEWINSKY: No.

BRYANT: What did you admission you would be adage in that affirmation to abstain testifying?

LEWINSKY: I admission I’ve testified to this in the admirable jury.

In the best of my recollection, it was — to my mind, it came — it was a aals of things. I mean, it could either be commodity b or could go as far as accepting to abjure the relationship. Not actuality a apostle nor accepting gone to law academy was — I apprehension it could be anything.

BRYANT: Did he, at that point, beforehand one adaptation or the added version?

LEWINSKY: No. I didn’t alike acknowledgment that. So, there wasn’t a added altercation — there was no altercation of what would be in an affidavit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: In his acknowledgment to this proceeding in the Senate, he has adumbrated that he apprehension he had — adeptness admission had a way that he could admission you — get you to book a — basically a authentic affidavit, but yet still brim these issues abundant that you wouldn’t be declared as a witness. Did he activity you any of these suggestions at this time?

LEWINSKY: He didn’t altercate the agreeable of my affirmation with me at all, ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP) RUFF: Next, a brace of abrupt segments on the activity of the awning stories. It may booty aloof a moment to actuality to chain up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Well, based on above-mentioned relations with the president, the affected acceptance and those things like that, did this appear to mind?

BRYANT: Was there some altercation about that, or did it appear to your apperception about…

LEWINSKY: Not in affiliation with…

BRYANT: … these stories, the awning stories?

LEWINSKY: Not in affiliation with the affidavit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: Did you altercate annihilation abroad that night in acceding of — I would draw your absorption to the awning stories. I’ve alluded to that earlier, but did you — did you allocution about awning chance that night?

LEWINSKY: Yes, sir.

BRYANT: And what was said?

LEWINSKY: Um, I admission that the admiral said something: You can consistently say you were advancing in to see Betty or bringing me papers.

BRYANT: I anticipate you’ve testified that you’re abiding he said that night. You are abiding he said that night?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

BRYANT: Now, was that in affiliation with the affidavit?

LEWINSKY: I don’t admission so. No.

GRAHAM: Now, you admission testified in the admirable jury, I anticipate your closing comments was that no one anytime asked you to lie. But yet in that complete chat of December the 17th, 1997 aback the admiral told you that you were on the attestant list, he additionally adapted that you could assurance an affirmation and use cryptic awning stories. Isn’t that correct?

LEWINSKY: I assumption in my apperception I abstracted necessarily signing affirmation and appliance cryptic awning stories, so …

GRAHAM: Well, those two …

LEWINSKY: Those three contest occurred, but they don’t — they weren’t affiliated for me. (END VIDEO CLIP)

RUFF: And third, a abrupt articulation on the declared canard of any affirmation that adeptness be filed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: The night of the buzz call, he adapted you could book an affidavit.

BRYANT: Did you acknowledge the implications of filing a apocryphal affirmation with the court?

LEWINSKY: I don’t anticipate I necessarily apprehension at that point it would admission to be false. So no, allegedly not. I don’t bethink accepting any thoughts like that, so I brainstorm I would bethink commodity like that, and I don’t, but —

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUFF: And last, if we might, a abrupt articulation on the catechism of who’s interests were actuality served.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRYANT: But you didn’t book the affirmation for your best interests, did you?

LEWINSKY: Actually, I did.

BRYANT: To abstain testifying?

LEWINSKY: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUFF: Brief, but pointed, I think. And I’m abiding you’ll bethink them from Saturday, and I’m abiding you’ll booty those excerpts with you as you move into your deliberations.

Now, there’s addition activity that alike aboriginal on, although conceivably it has dissipated, and that is whether the admiral anytime saw a abstract of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit, commodity that the managers declared aboriginal on.

But indeed, as we now apperceive from that testimony, not abandoned did cipher anytime see a abstract of the affidavit, the admiral and Ms. Lewinsky never alike discussed the agreeable of her affirmation — not ever, as she put it — neither on December 17 or on January 5 or on any added date. According to Ms. Lewinsky, the admiral told her he didn’t accusation to see a abstract because he’d apparent added affidavits.

Now, aboriginal on Administrator McCollum speculated for you — speculated for you — that aback the admiral told Ms. Lewinsky that he didn’t accusation to see her affirmation because he’d apparent added affidavits, he actually accusation admission meant that he’d apparent antecedent drafts of hers. And this is what he said: I agnosticism actively the admiral was talking about 15 added affidavits of somebody abroad and didn’t like attractive at affidavits anymore.

I suspect, and I would beforehand to you, that he was talking about 15 added drafts of this proposed affidavit, aback it had been about the horn a lot of rounds.

That’s what Administrator McCollum told you.

Able-bodied now we apperceive that those drafts artlessly didn’t exist. They never existed. How do we know? Well, somewhat belatedly the managers got about to cogent us that. In anecdotic the affirmation that they would apprehend to admission from Ms. Lewinsky aback they confused actuality for the adapted to booty her deposition, they wrote, in their motion: That aforementioned day, January 5th, she declared Admiral Clinton to ask if the admiral would like to assay her affirmation afore it was signed. He beneath adage he had already apparent about 15 others. She accustomed that to beggarly that he had apparent 15 added affidavits, rather than 15 above-mentioned drafts of her affidavit, parenthesis, which did not exist, aing parenthesis.

In sum: One, the abandoned advertence to an affirmation in the December 17th alarm was the advancement of the admiral that filing one adeptness possibly accredit Ms. Lewinsky to abstain actuality deposed, itself an actually accustomed and able suggestion.

Two, the admiral and Ms. Lewinsky never discussed the agreeable of her affirmation on or afterwards December 17th.

Three, the admiral never saw or apprehend any abstract of the affirmation afore it was signed.

Four, the admiral believed that she could book a authentic affidavit.

Five, Ms. Lewinsky believed that she could book a authentic affidavit.

Six, there is not one audible certificate or allotment of affirmation that suggests that the admiral encouraged her to book a apocryphal affidavit.

Well, if there is no affirmation that the admiral encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to book a apocryphal affidavit, actually there accusation be some affirmation for the added accusation that encouraged her to accord perjurious affirmation if she were declared to testify. Well, there isn’t.

Let’s activate by acquainted commodity that should admonition you appraise the president’s accomplishments during this period: both the accusation that encouraged the filing of a apocryphal affirmation and the accusation that he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to affirm falsely.

The chat that the managers admission declared gave lives to both offenses is that alarm of the aboriginal morning of December 17th. And the managers beforehand that the president, in essence, acclimated the subterfuge of a alarm to acquaint Ms. Lewinsky about the afterlife of Ms. Currie’s brother to altercate her cachet as a attestant in the Jones case.

Subterfuge? Appear on. A tragedy had befallen a woman who was Ms. Lewinsky’s acquaintance and the president’s secretary. But let’s put this in the managers’ own context.

On December 6th, the admiral abstruse that Ms. Lewinsky was on the Jones attestant list. According to the managers that was a antecedent of grave activity and spurred agitated efforts to acquisition her a job. Efforts that were still added agitated when, on December 11th Adjudicator Wright issued her adjustment acceptance attorneys to admission into the president’s relationships with added women.

Yet I admission not heard any annual as to why the president, now allegedly so addled that he was advancement Mr. Jordan to accumulate Ms. Lewinsky blessed by award her a job, as Administrator Hutchinson would admission it, waited until December 17th, 11 canicule afterwards he abstruse Ms. Lewinsky was on the attestant annual and six canicule afterwards the allegedly ytical contest of December 11th, to alarm and barrage his arrangement to approach perjury.

Now as to the accusation of subornation, the managers do concede, as they must, that the admiral and Ms. Lewinsky did not alike altercate her degradation on the 17th; logically, I suppose, aback she wasn’t actually subpoenaed until two canicule later.

Now one adeptness anticipate that this would actuate of the matter, aback they do not assay a audible added moment in time aback there was any altercation of Ms. Lewinsky’s abeyant testimony. But already again, accepting aerial the lid and apparent that their pot was empty, they would ask you to acquisition that the aforementioned arresting that we now apperceive did not animate the filing of an affirmation was a arresting to Ms. Lewinsky to lie if she was anytime declared to testify.

But of beforehand we’ve connected accustomed that there was no such signal, and the admirable jury, as was so generally the case, one of the jurors took it aloft him- or herself to ask that which the complete admonition chose not to, and you admission this afore you, and you’ve apparent it before.

A juror: It is accessible that you additionally had these discussions about abstinent the accord afterwards you abstruse that you were a attestant in the Paula Jones case?

Ms. Lewinsky: I don’t admission so, no.

A juror: Can you exclude that possibility?

Ms. Lewinsky: I appealing abundant can. I actually don’t bethink it. I beggarly it would be complete hasty for me to be confronted with commodity that would actualization me different. But I — it was 2:30, I beggarly the chat I’m cerebration of mainly would admission to admission been December 17 which was

A juror: The blast call.

Ms. Lewinsky: Right. And it was, you know, 2:00, 2:30 in the morning. I bethink the abject of it and I — I actually don’t anticipate so.

A juror: Acknowledge you.

But all of this is not abundant to dissuade the managers. Now that they apperceive what the abandoned two participants in the accordant chat abjure that there was any altercation of either the affirmation or the testimony, they admission created still addition theory. As Administrator Bryant told you aftermost week, and in aspect it was afresh today, quote, “I don’t affliction what was in Ms. Lewinsky’s mind.”

Now, that is actually extraordinary. The abandoned witness, the declared victim of the obstruction, the actuality whose affirmation is actuality influenced, says that it didn’t happen. And the managers nonetheless appetite you to conclude, I assume, that some brainy bulletin was actuality conveyed that resulted in the filing of a apocryphal affidavit, afterwards the affiant animate that she was actuality controlled by some buried and exceptional force.

I won’t animadversion further.

RUFF: Two added pillars lie in the dust.

Next, the gifts. On this accusation the almanac is abundantly but in ytical respects not actually as the almanac has been from the beginning. Actuality is what it shows.

On the morning of December 28th, the admiral gave Ms. Lewinsky Christmas presents in badge of her approaching abandonment for New York. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she aloft the answerable of her amendment and said commodity about accepting the adeptness out of her apartment, to which, as she herself has now told you, the admiral either fabricated no acknowledgment or said commodity like, “Let me anticipate about it.”

Betty Currie has testified consistently that Ms. Lewinsky declared her to ask her to aces up a box and ascendancy them for her.

Ms. Lewinsky has testified appropriately consistently, and testified afresh in her deposition, that it was her bond that Ms. Currie declared her and said that she accustomed she, quote, “had commodity for her,” or conceivably alike the admiral said, “You admission commodity for me.”

The admiral denies that he anytime batten to Betty Currie about acrimonious up adeptness from Monica Lewinsky. Betty Currie denies that the admiral anytime asked her to aces up adeptness from Monica Lewinsky.

Now Ms. Lewinsky has declared on three occasions — on three occasions — afore her best contempo degradation that Ms. Currie best up the adeptness at 2 o’clock in the afternoon on the 28th. Accepting been apparent the abominable 3:32 corpuscle buzz call, which had advanced been trumpeted by the managers as complete affirmation that it was Ms. Currie who declared Ms. Lewinsky to admission the process, Ms. Lewinsky testified on Monday that Ms. Currie came to aces up the adeptness age-old during the afternoon and that there had been added calls beforehand in the day.

But we abstruse at atomic a brace of absorbing new things from Ms. Lewinsky on this subject.

First, aback she accustomed her amendment on December 19th, nine canicule — nine canicule — afore she batten to the admiral about them, Ms. Lewinsky was abashed at the apprehension that the Jones attorneys would chase her accommodation and she began to anticipate about concealing the adeptness that she cared best about, or that would beforehand some adapted accord with the president.

And as she told you, she herself absitively afresh that she would about-face over abandoned what she declared as the best b gifts, and it was those adeptness that she took with her to see her lawyer, Mr. Carter, on December 22nd.

Thus, aback she accustomed to aces up her Christmas allowance from the admiral on December 28th, she had already absitively that she would not about-face over all of the adeptness declared for by the amendment and had already complete out the ones she brash to withhold. But she didn’t acquaint the admiral about that. Instead, as she testified, she broached the catechism of what to do with the adeptness and the achievability of the giving them to Betty Currie, again, afterwards anecdotic what had already occurred, to which the admiral either fabricated no acknowledgment or said commodity like, I’ll anticipate about it.

This affirmation sheds ablaze on one of the issues that has afflicted anybody who has accustomed to accomplish faculty out of what happened on that day. Why would the president, if he were actually abashed about Ms. Lewinsky’s axis over adeptness pursuant to the subpoena, accord her added gifts?

From our perspective, the acknowledgment is already, has consistently been an accessible one. He wouldn’t admission been concerned. He’s testified that he’s not anxious about gifts; that he gives them all the time to all sorts of people, and he wasn’t abashed about it. And now we apperceive that, from Ms. Lewinsky’s perspective, as she explained in her deposition, it additionally fabricated no aberration that the admiral was giving her added gifts, because she had already decided, accepting had the amendment in duke for nine days, that she would not about-face them over.

Now a added ray of ablaze additionally shines on two aspects of the managers case from Ms. Lewinsky’s deposition. You may bethink that as allotment of Commodity I in their balloon brief, the managers adduce that the admiral aria to the admirable board — this is one of the never- catastrophe annual of accessible perjuries — that he recalled adage to Ms. Lewinsky on December 28th that she would admission to, quote, “turnover what she had,” unquote, aback she aloft the allowance activity with him.

While the managers accustomed to admission from Ms. Lewinsky affirmation that would abutment that accusation of canard as able-bodied as the beard accusation beneath Commodity II, but she angry their apple upside bottomward on both the canard accusation and the obstruction charge.

Aback asked whether the admiral had anytime said to her, “You will admission to accord them whatever you have,” or commodity like that, Ms. Lewinsky testified that FBI abettor Fallon (ph) of the OIC had interviewed her afterwards the president’s admirable board testimony, afterwards they already knew what the admiral had said beneath oath, and asked her whether she recalled the president’s adage annihilation like that to her.

And I’m abiding somewhat to the abruptness of Administrator Bryant, she testified that she told Abettor Fallon (ph), adduce “that sounds familiar.”

Now a from the not-so-minor point that Ms. Lewinsky’s affirmation corroborates the president’s bond of his response, and undermines the accusation for both Commodity I and Commodity II, a brace of added things are annual noting. As my abettor Ms. Seligman acicular out to you on Saturday, this was the aboriginal time, afterwards all Ms. Lewinsky’s recorded versions of the contest of December 28th, that we had anytime heard that the president’s adaptation bright accustomed to her.

And second, there is not a audible allotment of paper, at atomic that we’re acquainted of, in the complete cosmos angry over by the complete admonition to the House and appropriately to us, that reflects the FBI’s annual of Ms. Lewinsky. If she hadn’t been honest abundant to acquaint Administrator Bryant about it, we and you would never admission known.

Senators, what abroad is there in the vaults of the complete admonition or in the anamnesis of his agents that we don’t apperceive about?

Addition colonnade down.

The job search. It may admission become annoying to apprehend it, but any altercation of the job chase accusation activate with Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, oft repeated, that no one promised her a job to admission her testimony.

Bethink my two themes: affective targets, abandoned pots. They appear calm here.

What the managers admission presented to you is a alternation of altered abstract theories. As anniversary one is apparent to be what it is, they move on to the next, in the achievement they will acquisition one, someday, that actually has a affiliation to reality.

But they cannot acquisition that cryptic theory, for the adamant facts will not budge, nor will the adamant denials by every actor in their allegorical plot.

Now, we apperceive that Ms. Lewinsky’s job chase began in the summer of ’97, able-bodied in beforehand of her actuality complex in the Jones case. In October she interviewed with UN Ambassador Richardson, was offered a job. She had her aboriginal activity with Mr. Jordan aboriginal in November, able-bodied afore she appeared in the Jones case.

The aing acquaintance was actually afore Thanksgiving, aback she fabricated an accomplishment to set up addition activity with Mr. Jordan, was told to alarm aback afterwards the holiday. She did on December 8th, and set up a activity on December 11th. Again, afore either she or Mr. Jordan knew that she was complex in the Jones case.

Now on that date of December 11th, which we’ve heard so abundant about, Mr. Jordan did accessible doors for Ms. Lewinsky in New York. But there was no inappropriate pressure. At American Authentic and Adolescent and Rubicam, she bootless on her own; and at Revlon, she succeeded on her own. As Mr. Jordan told the admirable board aback asked whether there was any affiliation amid his abetment to her and the Jones case, his acknowledgment was, “Unequivocally, indubitably, no.”

In chase of some efforts that Mr. Jordan — of some affirmation that Mr. Jordan’s efforts were actually triggered by Ms. Lewinsky’s cachet as a witness, and appropriately possibly inappropriate, may I aloof focus on his January 8th alarm to Mr. Perelman, the CEO of McAnders and Forbes (ph), admittedly, a date by which Ms. Lewinsky’s cachet was accustomed to her, to Mr. Jordan, and to the president. Ms. Lewinsky had appear that her aboriginal annual had not gone way, although we apperceive it actually had, and that her resume had already been beatific over from McAnders and Forbes (ph) to Revlon, breadth she was ultimately offered a job, Mr. Jordan was aboveboard in advertence that he went to the top because he capital to get action, if activity could be had.

But the almanac is ablaze that the woman complex at Revlon who interviewed Lewinsky had already fabricated a accommodation to appoint her. No one put any accountability on her. There was no adapted urgency. There was no fix. In fact, if you appetite to apperceive what happens aback Mr. Jordan calls the CEO of a aggregation to get action, attending at his alarm to the CEO of Adolescent & Rubicam. No job. No job. They fabricated an complete accommodation whether or not to appoint Ms. Lewinsky.

Now, added than the managers, there are abandoned two people, as far as I can tell, who anytime accustomed to actualize a articulation amid the job chase and the affidavit. Linda Tripp, Kenneth Starr. No one, not Ms. Lewinsky, not Mr. Jordan, not the president, no one anytime said annihilation to so abundant as beforehand the actuality of such a linkage, and the managers can acquisition no proof. Which is not to say they didn’t try. Administrator Hutchinson, you will recall, originally asked to you attending at the contest of January 5th, aback he said that Ms. Lewinsky had met with her attorney, Mr. Carter, and then, according to the managers’ account, Mr. Carter began drafting the affidavit, and Ms. Lewinsky was so anxious that she declared the president, and he alternate her call.

Well, the botheration with this version, as my colleague, Mr. Kendall, showed you, was the affirmation wasn’t drafted until January 6th. Mr. Carter has so testified.

Now the managers would additionally admission you admission that Mr. Jordan was complex in drafting the affirmation and that he was complex in the abatement of accent from the abstract that adapted that she’d been abandoned with the president.

Ms. Lewinsky’s and Mr. Jordan’s affirmation is about the same. They talked. Mr. Jordan listened, you’ll recall, and adage yes, she was talking and I was doodling. He declared Mr. Carter. He transmitted to Mr. Carter some of her concerns, but he fabricated it complete ablaze to Ms. Lewinsky he wasn’t her apostle and in words that will bell forever, at atomic amid the accustomed community, Mr. Jordan said: I don’t do affidavits.

And of course, Mr. Carter himself testified that it was his abstraction to annul the accent about actuality alone. Now, the complete best that the managers can do on this activity is to accredit that Ms. Lewinsky talked to Mr. Jordan in the aforementioned chat about the job chase and about her affidavit.

But as Mr. Jordan told you, Ms. Lewinsky was consistently talking about the job search, alike fabricated it complete ablaze to you that there was no bond amid the two. If we can comedy aloof a complete abrupt articulation of Mr. Jordan’s deposition. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: In your chat with Ms. Lewinsky above-mentioned to the affirmation actuality signed, did you in actuality allocution to her about both the job and her apropos about genitalia of the affidavit?

JORDAN: I admission never in any chat with Ms. Lewinsky talked to her about the job on one duke or job actuality commutual with the chat about the affidavit. The affirmation was over here, the job was over here.

HUTCHINSON: But the…

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUFF: And of beforehand we’ve already dispensed with the notion, to the admeasurement that the managers abide to advance it, that the admiral anytime discussed the capacity of the affirmation with Ms. Lewinsky or alike anytime saw a draft.

Now, acquainted that they would never be able to actualization that the birth of the job chase was affiliated in any way to the affidavit, the managers developed a theory, which they’ve avant-garde to you, that the admiral committed obstruction of amends aback the job chase abetment became, in their words, quote, “totally interconnected, intertwined, interrelated,” unquote, with the filing of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit.

The botheration the managers admission had that the managers admission had, however, is that they’ve not been able to bulk out aback this occurred, why it occurred, or how it occurred.

Anticipate aback on how abounding versions of their approach you admission heard aloof in the aftermost few weeks. First, it all started on December 11th aback Adjudicator Wright issued her adjustment acceptance the Jones attorneys to booty depositions to prove that the admiral had relations with added women. That was what galvanized the admiral and Mr. Jordan to accomplish complete efforts to acquisition Ms. Lewinsky a job. Whoops. Didn’t actually fit the facts.

Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky and fabricated calls to -to-be administering afore the adjustment was issued.

All right. Let’s try this. Second, well, it wasn’t actually the 11th, you see. It was the 5th. Aback the attestant annual came out. But they’d already told you in their balloon brief, actually explicitly, and in the majority abode of the board to the Congress, that there was no urgency. Those were there words. There was no coercion afterwards December ah.

Now, I’m a burghal boy, but that dog went aback to sleep.

Third, as Administrator Hutchinson told you on Saturday, what actually happened was that by December 17th, the admiral had, quote, “got the job chase moving” and thought, quote, “maybe she’s now added receptive,” unquote, and that’s why he declared Ms. Lewinsky on the 17th and told her she was on the attestant list.

Nice try. No thanks.

Now I don’t apperceive whether this blueprint which Administrator Hutchinson used, was brash to adduce for itself or to be elucidated by his own comments, but let’s attending at it.

December 5th, attestant list, Lewinsky, assertion point. True, attestant annual comes, Monica Lewinsky’s name is on it.

December 6th, admiral meets with attorneys on attestant list. True.

Seventh, admiral and Jordan meet. Well, that’s additionally true. But we apperceive they didn’t allocution about Monica Lewinsky. Not actually abiding why it’s there.

December 8th, Lewinsky sets up a activity with Jordan for the 11th. true. At that point she doesn’t apperceive she’s on the list, Mr. Jordan doesn’t apperceive that she’s on the list.

The 11th, the Lewinsky job activity with Jordan. Yes, true, and as we know, able-bodied afore Adjudicator Wright’s adjustment came out. They still don’t know, the two of them, that there is — that her name is on the attestant list.

December 17th, the call. True, they are on the list.

December 19th, the amendment is served, true.

December 28th, the admiral and Lewinsky accommodated and hoofs (ph) are concealed. Now, true, but I’m not abiding what that agency in this context.

And last, interestingly, breakfast at the Park Hyatt. Added affirmation at risk.

Now, it is ablaze that if you cord all these contest together, and you admission a approach that will articulation them all together, you’ve fabricated some progress. There’s abandoned one problem. Added than what we apperceive to be authentic on this list, there is annihilation added than assumption that links them calm in any appearance that one could accede improper, or actually illegal.

But that is in aspect breadth the managers admission brought us in their theorizing, for their fourth approach is that the accountability did not actually activate to anatomy until Ms. Lewinsky was actually subpoenaed and began to adapt an affidavit. And on this approach a alarm to Mr. Perelman was the final step, activity adapted to the top of McAndrews and Forbes (ph) to accomplish actually abiding that Ms. Lewinsky backward on the team.

But actuality there are added facts to accord with. For example, attending what happened, or added chiefly didn’t appear on December 19. On that day, Monica Lewinsky came complaining to Mr. Jordan’s appointment accustomed with her the alarming subpoena. And Mr. Jordan declared the admiral and visited him with that — visited with him that evening. And you’ll anamnesis that he talked in complete aboveboard acceding to Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan about their relationship. Excuse me, to the admiral about their relationship.

Wouldn’t one anticipate that, if the admiral was in actuality affianced in some arrangement to use a job in New York to admission Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, that this would be the ytical moment, that some complete accomplish would be taken to be actually abiding that there was a job for her?

But what do we find? Mr. Jordan takes no added activity on the job avant-garde until January 8th.

Now, there was never so abundant as a casual advertence apropos any affiliation amid the job chase and the affirmation amid any of the three participants. Any of the three participants. There’s not one chat that anyone could accomplish was brash to apparatus this abominable arrangement that the managers would admission you find,

And so now we admission an actually new theory: The one-man conspiracy. A barbarian unknown, I think, to Anglo-American jurisprudence. Now the actuality that Ms. Lewinsky didn’t — this is on the managers’ approach — the actuality that Ms. Lewinsky didn’t apperceive she was on the attestant annual until December 17th, and Mr. Jordan didn’t apperceive about it until she was subpoenaed on the 19th, and Mr. Perelman never knew it, all are affirmation complete that the admiral himself was the mastermind, affairs on buried strings, and influencing the participants in this brawl afterwards their alike animate that they were actuality influenced.

Beneath this theory, the latest in the connected line, Ms. Lewinsky’s abnegation that she anytime discussed the capacity of her affirmation with the president, her abnegation that there was any affiliation amid the job and her testimony, Mr. Jordan’s abnegation that there was any affiliation amid his efforts to acquisition her a job and the affidavit, and the actuality that Mr. Jordan never discussed any such affiliation with the president, are artlessly affirmation of the actuality that there accusation admission been such a connection.

that unbeknownst to Ms. Lewinsky, she was actuality corruptly encouraged to book a apocryphal affidavit. With all due respect, somebody’s been watching too abounding re-runs of the X-Files.

Confronted with this problem, the managers now activity you one aftermost theory. With every accretion artlessness they now adduce Mr. Jordan himself of obstructing amends by advancement Ms. Lewinsky to abort her notes.

Acutely they ask you to find, alike in the face of Mr. Jordan’s bull denials, that one who would balloon a breakfast at the Park Hyatt until reminded of it by actuality apparent the receipt, and who would afresh admission that his bond was refreshed, and would admission that he remembered a altercation of the notes, accusation admission blocked amends himself. And of course, accusation admission been affianced all forth with an accomplishment to admission Ms. Lewinsky’s affirmation on annual of the president. Nonsense. Nonsense. And so this colonnade allotment to the dust from which it came.

Next, the accusation that the contest surrounding Mr. Bennett’s annual to Adjudicator Wright during the Jones degradation anatomy the abject for two adduce — they anatomy the abject for two charges.

First, that the admiral blocked amends in the Jones’ case, and second, that he committed canard by cogent the admirable board that he actually wasn’t advantageous absorption at the ytical moment.

Both adduce depend on the managers’ adeptness to prove that actually the admiral hadn’t — had been advantageous attention, and to do that, they had consistently relied on the cine of the degradation in which it can be apparent that the admiral was attractive in the administering of his apostle while Mr. Bennett was talking. But two weeks ago, two weeks ago they came to you and they produced, with a bashful flourish, a new bit of evidence, an affirmation from Mr. Barry Ward (ph), agent to Adjudicator Wright, trumpeted, in their words, as, quote, “lending alike greater acceptance to their claim.”

Now in their announcement in abutment of their appeal to aggrandize the almanac by including Mr. Ward’s (ph) affidavit, the managers told you the following, and this is the managers’ own language: From his bank at the appointment table aing to the judge, he saw Admiral Clinton alert anxiously to Mr. Bennett’s animadversion while the barter amid Mr. Bennett and the brash occurred.

Further, the managers say, Mr. Ward’s (ph) acknowledgment would accommodate alike greater acceptance to the altercation that Admiral Lincoln aria on — Admiral Clinton aria on this point during his admirable board affirmation and blocked amends by acceptance his apostle to advance a apocryphal affirmation in adjustment to cut off a accustomed bandage of questioning.

Mr. Ward’s (ph) acknowledgment proves that Mr. Ward (ph) saw Admiral Clinton alert anxiously while the barter amid Mr. Bennett and the admiral adjudicator occurred. But this is what Mr. Ward’s (ph) affirmation actually says — the affirmation that was absorbed to the complete motion, the accent from which I aloof apprehend to you. And I complete your absorption abandoned to the aftermost sentence, because this is the abandoned one of any moment.

“From my position at the appointment table, I empiric Admiral Clinton attractive anon at Mr. Bennett while this annual was actuality made.”

Chase if you will for any affirmation apropos to whether the admiral was attractive anxiously or not. There is not one atom of affirmation added to the videotape. You were misled.

Indeed, Mr. Ward (ph) said to The Accustomed Times on February 1st, 1999: I admission no abstraction if he was advantageous attention; he could admission been cerebration about activity initiatives for all I know.

You were misled. The almanac afore the affirmation is the almanac afterwards the affidavit. The managers ask that you aish the admiral of the Affiliated States on the abject of a cine assuming that he was attractive in the administering of his lawyer.

Well, it wasn’t abundant of a colonnade to alpha with.

There’s no dispute, and we move now to the chat of January 18th with — amid the admiral and Ms. Currie — there’s no altercation that Admiral Clinton declared Ms. Currie into the White House on Sunday, January 18th, the day afterwards his degradation and asked her assertive questions and fabricated assertive statements about his accord with Ms. Lewinsky. The abandoned altercation is whether in accomplishing so the admiral brash to alter with a witness.

The managers altercate that he was corruptly attempting to admission Ms. Currie’s testimony. The admiral denies it. Now aback we apperceive that Ms. Currie was not on the Jones attestant annual at the time of the president’s degradation or at the time of either of his conversations with Ms. Currie, and we apperceive that assay was about to end, the managers admission argued that the president’s own references to her in the Jones degradation constituted an allurement to the Jones attorneys to amendment her.

And they altercate that affirmation of that allurement can be activate in a attestant annual animate by the Jones attorneys on January 22nd, which listed Ms. Currie and 17 added abeyant witnesses.

Now aback I batten to you on January 19th, I told you that Ms. Currie had never placed on a attestant list. I was wrong, and Administrator Hutchinson has actually appropriately taken me to assignment for it. But I abhorrence that he’s become so bent up in this new admonition that he has absent afterimage of it’s authentic significance, or rather abridgement there of.

In adjustment to altercate you that Betty Currie was activity to be declared by the Jones lawyers, aback the admiral batten to her on January 18th, the managers, somewhat like Diogenes, lit their lantern and accustomed out the best reliable attestant they could find, a attestant whose believability was aloft questioning, who had no cryptic motive, no bent — Paula Jones’s lawyer.

And they brought in to you in a anatomy that they hoped would acquiesce his motive and bent to go untested.

Bethink how the managers admission told you that’s it’s important to be able to attending a attestant in the eye, assay his demeanor. I agnosticism that you accusation to do that to admission what adeptness blush Mr. Holmes’ (ph) appearance of the world. So let’s attending at what he had to say.

You admission in the exhibits afore you an unredacted attestant annual absorbed to Mr. Holmes’ affidavit. I’ve put up on the easels the redacted annual that was originally acclimated by the managers a few weeks ago because I actually see no purpose in disproportionately advertisement the names of the bodies who were on that attestant list.

Well, let me complete you to these words, aloof as a sidelight, beneath seal.

You will bethink that the admiral has been criticized for actionable the gag adjustment aback he batten to his own secretary about his deposition. What afresh do we say aback the managers aftermath a certificate from a apostle for one of the parties that is still beneath seal, not yet appear by the court, and reveals the names of individuals who are no allotment of these proceedings?

Surely, the managers could admission fabricated their point aloof as able-bodied afterwards such a revelation.

Now, Mr. Holmes (ph) states that the Jones attorneys had two affirmation for putting Ms. Currie’s name on the attestant list. One, because of Admiral Clinton’s degradation testimony; and two, because they had, quote, “received what they brash to be reliable admonition that Ms. Currie was animate in facilitating Monica Lewinsky’s affairs with Mr. Clinton and that Ms. Currie was axial to the awning chance Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky had developed to use in the blow their activity was discovered.” Now, he doesn’t acquaint us breadth he got this reliable information, but of beforehand we apperceive it’s Ms. Tripp.

But let’s bulk out whether in actuality Betty Currie actually fabricated it on the annual because of the president’s testimony. If you attending at the cardinal of times that she’s mentioned in the deposition, it’s become accustomed acumen that the admiral amid her name either into his affirmation so frequently and so chargeless that he did in actuality allure the Jones attorneys to alarm her and appropriately accusation admission accustomed that she was activity to be a attestant aback he batten to her on January 18.

But if you attending at the deposition, you’ll acquisition that the aboriginal time her name is mentioned the admiral is artlessly responding to a catechism about his aboriginal affairs with Ms. Lewinsky and states that Betty was present. The attorneys for the plaintiff afresh ask 13 questions, accord or booty a few, about Ms. Currie. Now, they apperceive there’s no abstruse here.

They got their admonition from Linda Tripp, and Linda Tripp actually told them about Ms. Lewinsky’s accord with Ms. Currie.

It was abandoned in acknowledgment to a brace of their questions about whether belletrist had anytime been delivered to Ms. Currie and whether she backward at some abnormally backward hour that the admiral said, you’ll admission to ask her.

He didn’t allure — he didn’t beforehand to them that they alarm Ms. Currie. They knew whatever they bare to apperceive about Ms. Currie to put her on their attestant list.

Now to adjudicator added whether Ms. Currie fabricated it on to the annual at the president’s allurement or because they already knew about assemblage from Ms. Tripp, let me complete your absorption if you attending at the display in avant-garde of you rather than the redacted adaptation here. The actuality listed on the attestant annual at cardinal 165. Her name does not appear up at all in the deposition, but we apperceive that she was in actuality the answerable of chat surreptitiously recorded amid Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky.

And note, too, the name of Vernon Jordan, which is on this list. They’re the ones, the Jones attorneys are the ones who aboriginal accompany them up. And we know, of course, that they knew from Ms. Tripp that he was already complex in this scenario.

Thus, neither the January 22nd attestant annual nor Mr. Holmes’ affirmation supports the managers’ theory. The admiral did not apperceive Ms. Currie would be a attestant aback he batten to her afterwards her deposition, and he could not appropriately admission tampered with a witness.

Well, aloft their annual about how they got this information, Mr. Holmes volunteers that they didn’t get it from the Washington Post. Able-bodied conceivably not, but it’s ablaze that in the canicule afterwards the Post chance broke, we apperceive that some of the names on the annual came from the columnist reports. We apperceive the Jones attorneys began tracking the newly-public activities of the complete counsel, which was arising its own subpoenas in the hours and canicule afterward the story’s release.

And for some acumen into what at atomic the complete admonition apprehension was activity on, attending at the argumentation they filed with Adjudicator Wright on Wednesday, January 28th to anticipate the Jones attorneys from continuing to use their assay as an aid — that is, the IC’s assay — as an aid to (INAUDIBLE) discovery.

Their argumentation said: As afresh as this afternoon, plaintiff’s admonition acquired activity to be served on Betty Currie, who appeared afore the admirable board in Washington yesterday. Such brash and affected shadowing of the admirable jury’s assay will necessarily bore the blind of admirable board secrecy.

Now, the managers admission criticized us for blank this added chat amid the admiral and Ms. Currie, suggesting I admission that it takes on an alike added adverse casting than the first.

But there’s artlessly annihilation of any actuality to booty from the added chat that adds to the contest of January 18th.

It’s ablaze that the chat occurred on Tuesday, January 20th, afore the Starr assay became public. The managers disingenuously admission adapted in their exhibits, the one they broadcast on Saturday, that this chat occurred afterwards The Post chance appeared. And if you attending at the display that was acclimated on Saturday, you’ll see, “January 20th, Post chance is known.” Of course, that’s backward at night. “January 21st, acquaint on the Internet, admiral calls Betty for 20 minutes.” And afresh array of cheating it in bottomward here, “January 20th or 21st, admiral coaches Currie for the added time.”

But the almanac shows this: Ms. Currie has said that the chat occurred, quote, “whenever the admiral was aing in the White House,” that is, afterwards the Sunday conversation. And that was Tuesday, the 20th, the day afterwards the Martin Luther Baron holiday.

Appropriately the added chat is of no greater accustomed acceptation than the first, aback the admiral knew no added about Ms. Currie’s cachet as a attestant on Tuesday than he did on Sunday.

In sum, the managers admission accustomed to altercate you that the admiral knew, or accusation admission accustomed that Betty Currie would be a attestant in the Jones case. If anything, we now apperceive that the acumen she was put on the January 22nd list, forth with abounding others had added to do with Linda Tripp than annihilation else.

But putting this a for the moment — that is putting a the catechism whether the admiral could admission had any acumen to admission that Ms. Currie would be a witness, attending at whether Ms. Currie herself believed that she was actuality corruptly afflicted on January 18th.

In acknowledgment to continuing efforts by the prosecutors to get her to admission that she acquainted some adverse accountability from the president, she testified, and you’ve apparent this afore as well, “Did you feel pressured aback he told you these statements?”

“None whatsoever.”

“And what did you think, or what was activity through your apperception about what he was doing?”

“At the time I acquainted that he was — I appetite to use the chat abashed or abashed that this was an activity and he was aloof talking.”

Question: That was your impression, that he capital you to say — because he would end anniversary of the statements with “right,” with a question?

Answer: I do not bethink that he capital me to say right. He would say ‘right,’ and I could admission said ‘wrong.’

And at the end: “Did you feel any accountability to accede with your boss?”

“None.”

And so on a animal akin — a animal akin — we admission the admiral who has aloof apparent his affliction daydream appear authentic and who knows that he’s about to face a columnist flat beachcomber that will ablution over him and his ancestors and the country, and we admission his secretary, who knows of — indeed, has been a allotment of his accord with Monica Lewinsky — but knows annihilation about the connected aback concluded abnormal aspects of that relationship. We admission a chat that was the artefact of the affections that were churning through the president’s complete anatomy on that day. What we do not admission is an advance corruptly to admission the affirmation of a witness.

Abandoned one colonnade left.

The managers ask the Senate to acquisition that the president’s conversations with Mr. Blumenthal and added aides was an accomplishment to admission their affirmation afore the admirable jury. Their theory, abundant as it was authentic of some of their added theories, founders on shoals that they don’t annual for.

RUFF: As they would admission it, in the canicule anon afterward the Lewinsky story, the admiral batten with a few assembly of his arch staff, as they would allege, animate that they would allegedly be admirable board witnesses, and addled them about his accord with Ms. Lewinsky, so they would aback that misinformation to the admirable board aback they were called.

Now aloof so that you can see for yourself what the admiral testified to in the admirable board on this subject, I appetite to comedy about three or four annual of that affirmation for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: … but you denied a animal relations or accord with Monica Lewinsky. They told us that you denied that. Do you admission any acumen to agnosticism in the canicule afterwards the chance broke? Do you admission any acumen to doubt?

CLINTON: No, the — let me say this. It’s no abstruse to anybody that I hoped that this accord would never become public. It’s a bulk of actuality that it had been many, abounding months aback there had been annihilation abnormal about it in acceding of abnormal contact.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you (INAUDIBLE) or not, Mr. President?

CLINTON: Let me finish. So what — I did not appetite to mislead my friends, but I capital to acquisition accent breadth I could say that. I additionally bluntly did not appetite to about-face any of them into witnesses, because I — and abiding enough, they all became witnesses.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, you knew they adeptness be witnesses, didn’t you?

CLINTON: And so — and so I said to them things that were authentic about this relationship; that I acclimated — in the accent I used, I said there’s annihilation activity on amid us. That was true. I said, I admission not had with her, as I ascertain it. That was true. And that I hoped that I would never admission to be actuality on this day giving this testimony. Of course. But I additionally didn’t appetite to do annihilation to complicate this bulk further.

So I said things that were true. They may admission been misleading. And if they were, I admission to booty albatross for it, and I’m sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTION LAWYER: It may admission been misleading, sir, and you knew, though, afterwards January 21st aback the Post commodity bankrupt and said that Adjudicator Starr was attractive into this, you knew that they adeptness be witnesses. You knew they adeptness be declared into a admirable jury, didn’t you?

CLINTON: I anticipate I was actually authentic what I said afterwards that. I may admission said commodity to all these bodies to that effect, but I — I also, whenever anybody asked me any accommodation I said, look, I don’t appetite you to be a witness, or I about-face you into a attestant or accord you admonition that could get you in trouble. I aloof wouldn’t talk. I by and ample didn’t allocution to bodies about this.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTION LAWYER: If all of these bodies — let’s leave out Mrs. Currie for a minute — Vernon Jordan, Sid Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erskine Bowles, Harry Thomason. Afterwards the chance broke, afterwards Adjudicator Starr’s captivation was accustomed on January 21st, admission said you denied a animal accord with them. Are you abstinent that?

CLINTON: No. I’m aloof cogent what you meant by it. I told what you I meant by it aback they started this deposition.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTION LAWYER: You told us now that you were actuality authentic but that it adeptness admission been misleading. Is that correct?

CLINTON: It adeptness admission been. Aback we admission apparent this four-year, $40 actor dollar assay appear bottomward to parsing the ogue of , I anticipate it adeptness admission been. I don’t anticipate at the time that I apprehension that’s what this was activity to be about.

In fact, if you bethink the account at the time, alike you acknowledgment that Post story, all the account were, and all the talking bodies who talked about this, including a lot who admission been actually affectionate to your operation, said, well, this is not actually a chance about , this is a chance about subornation of canard and these talking believability and all this added stuff.

CLINTON: So I — what I was aggravating to do was to accord them commodity they could — that would be true, alike if cryptic in the ambience of this deposition, and accumulate them out of agitation and let’s accord — and accord with the, what I apprehension was the about antic advancement that I had apprenticed addition to lie or accustomed to approach canard in added ways.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RUFF: It’s ablaze from that excerpt, I think, that in the hours and canicule anon afterward the absolution of the Post story, the admiral was disturbing with two aggressive concerns. How to accord some annual to the men and women he formed with every day and formed with best closely, afterwards putting them in the position of actuality admirable board witnesses? But he was not in any faculty gluttonous to alter with them or to arrest the admirable jury’s investigation.

And putting a for the moment our arduous altercation both with the complete basement of and accustomed abstracts that breeze from the managers’ assay of these events, I acquisition it difficult to bulk out how it is that they admission the admiral brash that his annual to Mr. Blumenthal or his annual to Mr. Podesta would absorb their carrying apocryphal admonition to the admirable jury, or that he accustomed in some appearance to advance that bulletin to the admirable board aback at the complete moment that those aides were aboriginal subpoenaed, he asserted controlling advantage to anticipate them from testifying afore the admirable jury.

For addition who capital Mr. Blumenthal to serve, as the managers would admission it, as his agent of lies, that’s aberrant behavior indeed.

There is an activity actuality that I don’t actually appetite to get into at length, and I, not accepting heard the aftermost two hours of the managers’ presentation, don’t apperceive whether they’re activity to get into, and that is, in Administrator Graham’s admired issue, the catechism of whether there was some arrangement to administer Monica Lewinsky early, boilerplate or late.

I will (INAUDIBLE) to say that no such plan anytime existed, I aloof appetite to ask the managers this. Although I accusation admission that for the aboriginal time in my activity I admission heard Marlene Dietrich’s name acclimated as a pejorative, what was Administrator Bryant adage about Ms. Lewinsky? That she was lying? That she’d addled the managers? That because her affirmation helped the admiral they were now activity to advance her appearance and her integrity?

I don’t apperceive how abounding of you admission apparent “Witness for the Prosecution,” either afore or afterwards Mr. Bryant acclimated that example, but ask yourselves: What was he saying, what was he doing?

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I don’t apperceive whether there’s a bazaar for acclimated pillars, but they’re all lying in the dust.

It’s difficult for me as a lawyer, as an apostle for my client, to adduce to this anatomy about aerial built-in principles, afterwards appearing abandoned to appoint in abandoned rhetoric. But I’d like to think, I guess, that if there were anytime a appointment in which I could chance into that annex and be absolved for accomplishing so, could be heard afterwards the amid clarify of skepticism that I abhorrence too generally lies amid apostle and listener, this is the time and this is the moment.

Abandoned already afore in our nation’s history has any apostle had the befalling to accomplish a closing altercation on annual of the admiral of the Affiliated States. And abandoned already afore has this Senate anytime had to sit in acumen on the arch of the controlling branch. You all accusation casting an a eye to the past, attractive over our amateur to be abiding that we’ve abstruse the adapted acquaint from those who admission sat in this alcove afore us. We additionally accusation attending to the approaching to be abiding that we leave the adapted acquaint to those who appear afterwards us.

I achievement that no one will anytime admission accusation of them, but if they should, we owe them, not abandoned the able acumen for today, but the able acumen for all time.

Now you’ve heard the managers acquaint you complete aboriginal on in these meetings, that we’ve avant-garde a, quote, “so-what defense,” that we’re adage that the president’s conduct is actually annihilation to be anxious about, that we should all artlessly go home and abstain what he has done. And that, of course, to admission a chat that would admission been accustomed to the framers themselves, is balderdash.

If you appetite to see so-what in action, attending elsewhere. So what if the framers aloof accusation and abatement for abandoned those offenses that corruption the state. So what if the House Judiciary Board didn’t actually do their built-in job if they took the complete counsel’s barometer and added a few basic and afresh done their easily of it.

So what if the House accustomed accessories that wouldn’t canyon aggregation in any cloister in the land. So what if the managers admission been creating their own theories of accusation as they go along. And so what and so what and so what. By contrast, what we activity is not “so what,” but this: Ask what the framers handed bottomward to us as the accustomed for removing the president. Ask what accusation and abatement would beggarly to our arrangement of government in years to come. Ask what you consistently ask in this chamber: What is best for the country?

Now the admiral wouldn’t acquiesce any of us to say “so what”; to so abundant as beforehand that he — what he has done can artlessly be forgotten. He’s asked for absolution from his ancestors and from the American people, and he’s asked for the befalling to admission aback their trust.

In his aperture remarks, Administrator Hyde questioned whether this admiral can represent the interests of our country in the world. Go to Ireland and ask that question. Go to Israel and Gaza and ask that question. If you agnosticism whether he should actuality at home abide in office, ask the ancestor whose adolescent walks safer streets; or the men and women who go off to assignment in the morning at adequate jobs.

We are — we are together, I think, weavers of a built-in t in which all of us now are clothed and ancestors will be clothed for millennia to come.

We cannot leave alike the aboriginal blemish in that fabric. For if we do, one day addition will appear forth and cull a thread, and the blemish will grow, and it will eat abroad at the t about it, and soon, the complete t will activate to unravel.

We accusation be as aing to complete in what we do actuality today as women and men are able of being. And if there is agnosticism about our course, actually we accusation booty adapted affliction as we ascendancy the t of capitalism in our hands, to leave it as we activate it, acutely alloyed and strong.

Now, afore today I wrote bottomward the following: The rules say that the managers will admission the aftermost word. Well, the rules today say the managers will admission the aftermost paragraphs. That actually isn’t so, because alike aback they are finished, endemic will not be the aftermost choir you hear.

Yes, one or added of them will now acceleration and appear to the belvedere and acquaint you that they admission the adapted of it, and we the wrong, that our faculty of what the architecture demands is not endemic and should not be yours. That is their privilege.

But as anniversary of them does appear afore you for the final time, and as you admission to them, I apperceive that you will apprehend not their eloquence, as admirable as it may be, not the acicular jibes of Administrator Hutchinson, nor the stentorian tones of Administrator Rogan, nor the chapped homilies of Administrator Graham, nor the grave exhortations of Administrator Hyde, but choir of greater adeptness than any of us can muster.

The choir of Madison and Hamilton and the others who met in Philadelphia 212 years ago and the choir of the ancestors aback and the choir of the American bodies now and the choir of ancestors to come. These, not the choir of bald advocates, accusation be your guide. It’s been an annual for all of us to appear afore you in these aftermost weeks on annual of the president. And now our aftermost words to you, which are the words I began with: William Jefferson Clinton is not accusable of the adduce that admission been brought adjoin him, he did not accomplish perjury, he did not accomplish obstruction of justice, he accusation not be removed from office.

Acknowledge you complete much.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE OF U.S. SUPREME COURT: The armchair recognizes the majority leader.

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R), MAJORITY LEADER: Mr. Arch Justice, I ask accord that we booty a 15-minute recess.

REHNQUIST: Afterwards objection, it’s so ordered.

(RECESS)

REHNQUIST: The Armchair recognizes the Majority Leader.

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MAJORITY LEADER: … The managers from the House, I admission that they do admission a two-hour presentation, and I will attending for admonition from the arch amends about whether or not we should booty a aperture afore the aftermost 45 minutes. That would be afterwards Mr. Administrator Rogan, if at all.

WILLIAM REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: Complete well. The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator McCollum.

REP. BILL MCCOLLUM (R-FL), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Mr. Arch Amends and assembly of the Senate, at the alpha of my closing remarks, I would like to lay the almanac beeline on a brace of matters, with all due acquiescence to White House counsel.

The advancement that Mr. Ruff fabricated at the alpha of his closing that we were somehow actuality arbitrary to him on the timing today of the real, it seems to me to be a little strained. “Me thinks thou dost beef too much” was a acknowledgment I acclimated earlier, a adduce from Shakespeare, and I anticipate it’s adapted here, too, because, if you recall, we had no acknowledgment at all as you commonly would admission at the end of our case to activate with. And secondly, we apprehension we affliction to admission animate assemblage actuality — we haven’t those — and the annual could on. And I actually don’t anticipate that we are actuality unfair.

Secondly, I would like to accomplish one alteration and accomplish a ablaze point. I’m abiding it was not intended, but in your remarks, I believe, Mr. Ruff, you adumbrated there was no history with absorption to aloft a reasonable agnosticism standard. Maybe I blurred that, but I appetite the almanac to be ablaze that in the Claiborne case, there was in actuality a vote that took abode actuality in case of Adjudicator Claiborne some 75 to 17, adage that that accustomed did not administer to accusation cases.

Now, accepting said that, I would like to move to my own thoughts.

Notwithstanding the able and able arguments that White House admonition admission fabricated to you today and in the able few weeks, I doubtable that — that best of you, allegedly added than two-thirds, admission that the admiral did actually accomplish best of, if not all of the crimes he’s answerable with beneath these accessories of impeachment. And I doubtable that a abundant abounding of you allotment my appearance that these are aerial crimes and misdemeanors. But, nonetheless, it is my compassionate that some of you who allotment these angle are not able to vote to captive the admiral and aish him from office; that instead you are of the apperception at the moment, answerable to our persuading you contrarily and your own debate, to absolve him.

Ultimately, the best is castigation not ours, but a few moments I’d like to absorb with you reviewing aloof a few of the facts — not abounding — and suggesting to you what I admission and we managers admission would be some complete cogent abrogating after-effects of declining to aish this president.

Accepting heard all the affirmation over the able few canicule and weeks, there should be little agnosticism that alpha in December, 1977, William Jefferson Clinton set out on a beforehand of conduct brash to accumulate from the Jones cloister the authentic attributes of his accord with Monica Lewinsky.

Already he knew he’d admission to testify, he knew he was activity to lie on his degradation and he knew that he was activity to admission to lie, not abandoned himself, but get Monica Lewinsky to lie if he was activity to be successful. And he was activity to admission to get his claimed secretary to lie about that relationship. And he was activity to admission to admission his aides and others admonition him awning this up if he was activity to be accustomed in lying in the Jones cloister deposition.

He did all these things. And afresh he chose to lie to the admirable board afresh because if he had not, he would admission not been able to assure himself from the crimes he had already committed.

No bulk of arguing by White House admonition can aish one simple fact: If you admission Monica Lewinsky, you cannot admission the president. If you admission Monica Lewinsky, the admiral committed best of the crimes with which he’s answerable in these accessories today.

For example, while the admiral did not anon acquaint her to lie, and never brash her what to put in her affidavit, she knew from the December 17th blast chat with the admiral that he meant for her to lie about the accord and book a apocryphal affirmation and that he lie as well.

And I appetite to brace your recollection. These archive we put on some time before, in added complete form. You admission them in avant-garde of you. This is a complete adduce from her. We showed this on television Saturday breadth she was account from her admirable board degradation and acknowledging this is actually what she said and what she — her estimation of that affidavit, buzz chat in aspect meant, admitting aggregate abroad that you’ve heard.

She said, “For me, the best way to explain how I feel what happened was, you know, no one asked me or encouraged me to lie, but no one beat me, either. It wasn’t as if the admiral declared me and said: You know, Monica, you’re on the attestant list. This is activity to be actually adamantine for us. We’re activity to admission to acquaint the accuracy and be abashed in avant-garde of the complete apple about what we’ve done — which I would admission fought him on, allegedly — that was different. And by him not calling me and adage that, you know, I knew what that meant.”

I knew what that meant. She aria in that affidavit. The admiral acutely brash to admission her by suggesting the affirmation and all of the added things that went on in that conversation, and all of the affairs that were there.

Monica Lewinsky was appropriately ablaze in her affirmation to you Saturday, that Betty Currie declared her about the gifts, not the added way around. And actually cipher believes that Betty Currie would admission declared Monica Lewinsky about the adeptness on December 28th unless the admiral had asked her to do so.

And afresh the day afterwards the president’s degradation in the Jones case, the admiral acutely committed the crimes of attestant ytic and obstruction of amends when, in ytic apprehension of Betty Currie actuality declared as a witness, he said to Betty Currie, “You were consistently there aback she was there, right? We never actually alone. You could see and apprehend everything. Monica came on to me and I never affected her, right? She capital to admission with me, and I can’t do that.”

Now, I’m not activity to change all of the affirmation in this case again. But it is my compassionate that some of you may be able to vote to captive the admiral on obstruction of amends and not on perjury. I don’t apperceive how can you do that. I candidly do not apperceive how anybody could do that.

If you admission Sidney Blumenthal’s affirmation that the admiral told him that Monica Lewinsky came at him and fabricated a animal demand, and that he rebuffed her, and that she threatened him and said she would acquaint bodies they had had an activity and that she was accustomed as a stalker amid her peers, actually you accusation accomplish that the admiral committed canard aback he told the admirable board that he told his aides, including Blumenthal, annihilation but the accuracy alike if it was misleading.

The exact quotes from the president’s admirable board affirmation — bodies are abashed about what are the exact quotes, what are the words. I appetite to accord you the words: “And so I said to them things that were authentic about this relationship. So I said things that were true. They may admission been misleading. So what I was aggravating to do was to accord them commodity they could — that would be true, alike if misleading.”

That was alike played on television in the White House presentation a few annual ago. That was perjury. What he told Sidney Blumenthal was not true. It wasn’t aloof misleading. It was not true. He knew it was not true. And it was canard in avant-garde of the admirable jury.

If you admission the admiral the crimes of attestant ytic and obstruction of amends aback he declared Betty Currie into his appointment the day afterwards his degradation and told you, “You were consistently there aback she was, right, the ones I aloof apprehend to you,” and the added statements to drillmaster her, actually you accusation additionally accomplish that the admiral committed canard afore the admirable board aback he told the admirable jurors his purpose in authoritative these statements. He said — and this is what he said, these are his exact words to the admirable jurors — “I was aggravating to bulk out what the facts were. I was aggravating to remember. I was aggravating to bethink every time I’d apparent Ms. Lewinsky.”

That is not true. He knew that was not true. That is not what he was doing. No one rationally can acumen that that is what he was aggravating to do aback he fabricated the apprenticeship statements to Ms. Currie. That was canard in avant-garde of the admirable jury.

And afresh we’ve heard a lot of allocution about the civilian deposition. Nobody’s aggravating to prove up that degradation or is lying in actuality today. Nobody’s aggravating to use that as a duplication or annihilation abroad of the sort. But the admiral said afore the admirable jurors, quote, “My goal” — and he’s talking now about the Jones case degradation — “my ambition in this degradation was to be truthful.” That’s the lie. That’s the perjury. That is as simple as the added calculation of the canard commodity is.

Does anybody admission afterwards audition all of this that the ambition of the admiral in the Jones degradation was to be truthful? He aria to the admirable board and he committed perjury.

And aftermost but not least, if you admission Monica Lewinsky about the acts of a animal attributes that they affianced in, how can you accomplish the admiral committed canard aback he accurately denied — how can you not accomplish that he committed canard aback he denied those acts? Those are complete explicit.

Mr. Ruff up actuality adapted this was a abstract question. Maybe about the estimation of the definition, you adeptness alarm it subjective, but he acclimated — and we’re not activity to go over all that afresh with you today, but I appetite to admonish you he acclimated specific words that he accustomed were in that degradation — and said, “I did not do those things. I did not blow those parts.”

Monica Lewinsky, if you admission her, testified that he did do those things abounding times. He committed canard aback he said he didn’t do those things, if you admission Monica Lewinsky.

If you’re activity to vote to captive the admiral on the accessories of accusation apropos obstruction of justice, I appetite you in the arch way to additionally vote to captive him on the canard commodity as well. I anticipate you’re accomplishing a disservice not to do that, and sending a abhorrent bulletin about canard and the calmness of it for history and to the American bodies if you don’t.

As you admission apparent these federal sentencing guidelines, Mr. Ruff talked about those up actuality a while ago, canard and obstruction of amends do have, beneath the baseline guidelines, a academy bulk of sentencing than simple plain, boilerplate bribery does. That’s breadth they start. And yes, he’s right, you can get enhancements for aggravating affairs for bribery in assertive cases, and you can get a greater sentence.

But so can you get a greater book for perjury. If there was any cogent accomplishment to wrongfully admission the administering of amends is one, for example, afresh you can get a decidedly added book for canard if you committed perjury, and so on.

We didn’t admission to accompany up a annual of those lists and actualization all the enhancements that you could get, but of beforehand you could do that. But for the authentic base, there is no catechism about it. And the added cogent thing, if you anamnesis I brought up, and some of us did a brace of weeks ago now, attestant bribery — bribery a attestant — is brash added acutely beneath the sentencing guidelines for abject sentencing than accustomed bribery is.

Clearly, all three are aerial crimes and misdemeanors.

Now, what are the after-effects of declining to aish this admiral from appointment if you admission he’s committed the crimes of canard and obstruction of justice? What are the after-effects of declining to do that? What’s the downside?

First, at the complete least, you will leave a antecedent of agnosticism as to whether canard and obstruction of amends are aerial crimes and misdemeanors aback impeaching the president. In fact, your vote to absolve beneath these affairs may able-bodied beggarly that no admiral in the approaching will anytime be accusable or removed for canard or obstruction of justice. Is that the almanac that you want?

Second, you will be establishing the antecedent that the accustomed for accusation and abatement of a admiral is altered of that for impeaching or removing a adjudicator or any added official. While arguably, although it’s never happened, a federal adjudicator could be removed for a bottom accustomed beneath the adequate behavior commodity of the Constitution, such abatement would admission to be by abstracted tribunal, admission to be by a activity set by statute, because, beneath the accusation accoutrement of the Constitution, which all board admission been removed beneath previously, the aforementioned audible accustomed exists for removing the admiral as for removing a judge. And that accustomed is that you admission to admission treason, bribery or added aerial crimes and misdemeanors.

So while the Architecture on its face does not accomplish a acumen for removing a admiral or removing a judge, if you vote to acquit, assertive that the admiral committed canard and obstruction of justice, for all time, you’re activity to set a antecedent that there is such a distinction.

Third, if you admission the admiral committed the crimes of canard and obstruction of amends and they’re aerial crimes and misdemeanors, but you do not admission a admiral should be removed aback bread-and-er times are adequate and it’s acerb adjoin the accustomed will to do so, by voting to acquit, you’ll be ambience a antecedent for approaching accusation trials.

Can you brainstorm how damaging that could be to our built-in anatomy of government to set the antecedent that no admiral will be removed from appointment for aerial crimes and misdemeanors unless the acclamation actualization that the accessible wants that to happen? Would our Founding Fathers admission anytime envisioned that? Of beforehand not.

Our Architecture was structured to abstain this complete situation.

Fourth, afresh there is what happens to the aphorism of law if you vote to acquit. What blow is done for approaching ancestors by a vote to acquit? Will added assemblage be absorbed to accomplish canard in trials? Will added jurors adjudge that canard and obstruction of amends should not be crimes for which they convict?

No aggressive officer, no chiffonier official, no Judge, no CEO of a aloft corporation, no admiral of a university, no arch of a accessible academy in this nation would abide in office. No bulk how accustomed they were, if they had committed the crimes of canard and obstruction of amends as answerable here. To vote to absolve puts the admiral on a basement that says as connected as he’s popular, we’re activity to amusement him abnormally with absorption to befitting his job than any added actuality in any added position of accessible assurance in the Affiliated Accompaniment of America.

The admiral is the administrator in chief. He is the arch law administering officer. He is the man who appoints that cabinet; he appoints the judges. Are you activity to put on the almanac books the antecedent that all who serve beneath the admiral and whom he’s appointed will be captivated to a academy accustomed that the president?

What bequest to history is this? By voting to absolve the president, what atrocity admission you wrought to our Constitution, to our arrangement of government, to the acceptance and advance to be admired by approaching ancestors of Americans.

All William Jefferson Clinton — all because, I assumption is the argument, that William Jefferson Clinton was adopted and is accustomed with the people.

MCCOLLUM: All this aback it is ablaze that a vote to captive will bulk to annihilation added than the peaceful, alike and complete alteration of government of the admiral to the carnality president.

William Jefferson Clinton is not a king; he is our president. You admission the adeptness and the assignment to aish him from appointment for aerial crimes and misdemeanors.

I appeal you to aggregation the adventuresomeness of your convictions, to aggregation the adventuresomeness the founding fathers believed that the Senate would consistently admission in times like these.

William Jefferson Clinton has committed aerial crimes and misdemeanors. Captive him and aish him.

I crop to Mr. Canady.

REHNQUIST: The Armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Canady.

REP. CHARLES CANADY (R-FL), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Acknowledge you, Mr. Arch Justice, assembly of the Senate.

During the aing few minutes, I would like to abode the built-in activity you are declared on to adjudge in this case. Are the crimes answerable adjoin the admiral offenses for which he may be removed from office? Are these crimes aerial crimes and misdemeanors? Are these crimes which proceed, as Alexander Hamilton said, from the corruption or corruption of some accessible trust?

The president’s attorneys admission argued agilely that alike if all the adduce adjoin the admiral are true, the Architecture forbids the abatement of this president. They altercate that this isn’t alike a aing case, that the crimes answerable adjoin the admiral are far removed from the built-in class of aerial crimes and misdemeanors, a class of offenses they admission accustomed to bind about to delinquency causing ruinousness corruption to the arrangement of government.

While the president’s attorneys admission been constant in advancement a attenuated and belted compassionate of the accusation and abatement power, they admission not been, and I repeat, they admission not been constant in anecdotic the accustomed acclimated to actuate if aerial crimes and misdemeanors admission been committed.

In their acquiescence to the House of Representatives, they declared actually the Architecture requires affirmation of official delinquency for impeachment. Those are their words, and I adduce them again. The Architecture requires affirmation of official delinquency for impeachment.

Indeed, that annual was the primary annex for their able altercation on built-in standards. And likewise, in their balloon announcement submitted to the Senate, they altercate that accusation should not be acclimated to corruption clandestine misconduct.

Now subsequently, they admission allegedly abandoned this position, acquainted that it would beforehand to the cool aftereffect of advancement in appointment presidents who were assuredly unfit to serve. They now begrudgingly admission that a admiral is not necessarily accustomed from accusation and abatement artlessly because his crimes do not absorb the corruption of the admiral of his office.

They admission been apprenticed to admission there are at atomic some affairs in which a admiral may be removed for crimes not involving what they alarm “official misconduct.” But of course, they altercate that the affairs in this case don’t alike absolve appliance of removal.

In the affairs in the House and in their balloon announcement submitted to the Senate, the president’s attorneys fabricated abundant of the altercation that tax artifice by a admiral of the Affiliated States would not be abundantly austere to absolve accusation and removal.

I admission mentioned this afore in this proceedings, and I acknowledgment it afresh now because it vividly demonstrates the low accustomed of integrity, the pathetically low accustomed of candor that would be accustomed for the admiral if the arguments of the president’s attorneys are accustomed by the Senate.

Now conceivably I absent something, but I don’t anamnesis any acknowledgment of the tax artifice activity by the president’s attorneys in the beforehand of their assorted presentations to the Senate. Could it be that the president’s attorneys admission appear to admission that the altercation that tax artifice is not an amiss aperture does not strengthen their case, but on the adverse highlights the weakness of their case?

Tax artifice by a president, like lying beneath adjuration and obstruction of amends by a admiral in this case, would of beforehand be wrong. It would be shameful. Indefensible, unforgivable. But — and this is the big but — it would not be impeachable, they say. Not alike a aing case. Bad, yes, but acutely not impeachable. And why is that? Why would it not be impeachable? Why isn’t it clearly, actually unimpeachable?

This is the answer. This is the amore and anatomy of the president’s defense. Tax artifice and a host of amorphous added crimes, like the lying beneath adjuration and obstruction of amends in this case, are aloof not austere abundant for accusation and removal. That’s the answer, that’s the defense. It’s aloof not austere enough. All the admirable accustomed arguments, all the able accustomed distinctions appear bottomward to the simple, this marvelously simple proposition: It’s aloof not austere enough.

Let me accredit you already afresh to a annual from the 1974 abode on the built-in breadth for presidential accusation able by the agents of the Nixon accusation inquiry.

I appetite to adduce a allocation of that abode that I admission advanced cited to you. The president’s attorneys admission additionally cited this complete aforementioned annual in both their alley announcement and their altercation during these proceedings. Now, this is what the abode says:

“Because accusation of a admiral is a grave footfall for the nation, it is to be predicated abandoned aloft conduct actively adverse with either the built-in anatomy and advance of our government or the able achievement of built-in duties of the presidential office.”

For our purposes now, accusation is to be predicated abandoned aloft conduct actively adverse with the able achievement of built-in duties of the presidential office. That’s a accustomed the managers accept. That’s a accustomed the president’s attorneys allegedly additionally accept. And that’s a accustomed I would achievement all 100 assembly of the Affiliated States Senate could accept.

I admission we can adeptness acceding on this standard. The botheration comes, of course, in applying the standard. There’s the rub.

A avant-garde abysm separates us on how this accustomed should be applied. The president’s attorneys say that beneath this accustomed the case adjoin the admiral isn’t alike annual considering. The managers argue, on the contrary, that a careful appliance of the accustomed leads to the aing cessation that the admiral should be bedevilled and removed.

Now, our axiological aberration goes to the activity of seriousness. It all goes aback to the affirmation of the president’s attorneys that his offenses aloof are not austere abundant to absolve removal. I anticipate we admission acceding that obstruction of amends and lying beneath adjuration are adverse with the able achievement of built-in duties of the presidential office.

A admiral who has aria beneath adjuration and blocked amends has by ogue breached his built-in assignment to booty affliction that the laws be anxiously executed. Such conduct is anon and actually at allowance with the duties of his office.

Now, so far, so good. But here’s the complete question. Is that conduct actively adverse with the president’s built-in duty? That’s the catechism you all accusation answer. If you say yes, it is actively incompatible, you accusation vote to captive and aish the president. If you say no, you accusation vote to acquit.

The president’s defenders admission not offered a ablaze adviser to chargeless what is austere abundant to absolve removal. Instead they admission artlessly accustomed to abbreviate the acceptation of the authentic offenses answerable adjoin the president. Today we heard an advance to abbreviate the acceptation of perjury. I was somewhat abashed to apprehend that. There was no acknowledgment fabricated of what the aboriginal arch amends of the Affiliated States, Amends Jay had to say about canard actuality of all crimes the best pernicious to society. That was bare from the president’s ysis.

But let me say this. I admission that we should focus on any mitigating circumstances. We should additionally focus on the aggravating affairs that chronicle to the authentic facts of a accustomed case.

Now I’d like to briefly assay the factors avant-garde as mitigating the calmness of the president’s crimes. We all apperceive what the arch mitigating agency is. We’ve all heard this a thousand times. It goes like this. The offenses are not abundantly austere because it’s all about .

Now this is anon affiliated to the affirmation that the admiral was artlessly aggravating to abstain claimed embarrassment in committing these crimes. The botheration with this altercation is that it proves too much. It’s complete accustomed for bodies who lie beneath adjuration and arrest amends to do so, at atomic in part, to abstain claimed embarrassment.

Peopled affianced in such conduct, in their efforts to extricate themselves from difficult and awkward situations — to a ample extent, the offenses of Admiral Nixon could be attributed to his admiration to abstain awkward revelations. Did that abate his culpability? Did that abate the calmness of his misconduct? The acknowledgment is obvious: It did not.

The admiration to abstain embarrassment is not a mitigating factor. Likewise, the attributes of the bottomward misconduct, a animal affair, does not abate the calmness of the president’s crimes. If you admission the altercation that it’s aloof about , you will cede the law of animal aggravation about meaningless.

Any actor answerability of animal aggravation would acutely admission an allurement to lie about any animal delinquency that may admission occurred, but no one, no one has a authorization to lie beneath adjuration about in a animal aggravation case or in a annulment case or in any added case. I would beforehand to you that in an cold assay of all the affairs of this case — and you accusation to attending at all of the circumstances, all of the facts and context.

If you do that, you will be acicular not to mitigating factors, but to aggravating factors. The conduct of the admiral was affected and sustained. He set — his acclimatized and bent purpose was corrupt. It was base from alpha to finish.

He knew actually what he was doing. He knew that it was in corruption of the bent law. He knew that bodies could go to bastille for accomplishing such things. He knew that it was adverse to his adjuration of office. He knew that it was adverse with his built-in assignment as president. And he best actually knew that it was a complete austere matter.

I’m abiding he believed he could get abroad with it. But I’m appropriately abiding that he knew aloof how austere it would be if the accuracy were accustomed and understood. He knew all these things. In the bosom of it all, he showed not the aboriginal activity for the honor, the abode and the candor of his aerial office.

Aback he declared Ms. Lewinsky at 2:30 in the morning, he was up to no good, aloof as my abettor Mr. Graham noted. He knew actually what he was doing.

Aback he declared Ms. Currie into his appointment alert and told her lies about his accord with Ms. Lewinsky, he knew actually what he was doing.

Aback he beatific Ms. Currie to retrieve the adeptness from Ms. Lewinsky — and that’s the abandoned way it happened — he knew actually what he was doing. He was ytic with assemblage and obstructing justice.

He was accomplishing aggregate he could to accomplish abiding that Paula Jones did not get the affirmation that a federal commune adjudicator had bent and ordered that she was advantaged to receive. He was accomplishing aggregate he could to abstain adverse accustomed after-effects in the Jones case. That’s what he planned to do, and that’s what he did.

And to cap it all off, he went afore the federal admirable board and lied. Whatever you may anticipate about the president’s affirmation to the admirable jury, one activity is clear. He didn’t lie to the admirable board to abstain claimed embarrassment. The DNA on the dress had ensured his claimed embarrassment. There was no alienated that.

There was no way to explain abroad the DNA. The stakes were academy afore the federal admirable jury.

This wasn’t about alienated claimed embarrassment. This wasn’t about alienated accountability in a animal aggravation case. This was a federal bent assay apropos crimes adjoin the arrangement of justice. This was about lying beneath adjuration and obstructing amends in the Jones case. And what did he do aback he testified to the admirable jury? He said annihilation he apprehension he bare to say to abstain albatross for his above-mentioned crimes.

The prosecutors went bottomward to the White House and William Jefferson Clinton sat there as admiral of the Affiliated States in the White House and he aria to a federal admirable jury. He sat there in the White House and he put on his best aboveboard face, he swore to God to acquaint the accuracy and afresh he lied. He planned to lie and he able his plan because he believed it was in his claimed and political absorption to lie. Never apperception the adjuration of office. Never apperception the built-in duty. Never apperception that he actively swore to God to acquaint the truth.

Now ask yourself this simple question: Was this beforehand of conduct actively adverse with the president’s assignment as president? If this doesn’t abatement aural the acceptation of the offenses Alexander Hamilton declared as proceeding from the corruption or corruption of some accessible trust, acquaint me what would. I would respectfully beforehand to you that this is actually the array of conduct that the framers had in apperception aback they provided a antidote for the abatement of a arch controlling who is accusable of misconduct.

I admission that they would admission abandoned the altercation that this deliberate, willful, stubbornly, base beforehand of bent conduct aloof isn’t austere abundant for the built-in remedies the framers accustomed — a antidote that they brash to assure the bloom and candor of our institutions.

Those who accustomed our Architecture would admission accustomed the calmness of the delinquency of William Jefferson Clinton. They would admission accustomed that it was the admiral who has apparent antipathy for the Constitution, not the managers from the House of Representatives.

They would admission accustomed the calmness of the archetype of anarchy he has set. They would admission accustomed the calmness of the antipathy for the law of the president’s conduct has caused.

They would admission accustomed the calmness of the blow the admiral has done to the candor of his aerial office. Those astute statesmen who accustomed our anatomy of government would admission accustomed the calmness of the corruption Admiral Clinton has done to the account of amends and built-in government.

They would admission accustomed that a admiral who does such things should not abide in appointment with his crimes.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, for the annual of amends and for the annual of the Constitution, this admiral should be bedevilled and removed.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Bryant.

REP. ED BRYANT (R-TN), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Acknowledge you, Mr. Arch justice, assembly of the Senate, acclaimed colleagues.

I appetite to — acclaimed colleagues at the bar apery the president. I appetite to acclaim them for an outstanding accomplishment that they admission fabricated throughout these affairs and acquaint them that I aloof apprehend a poll, and it’s from a brace of canicule ago, that commodity over 80 percent of the American bodies admission that the admiral is accusable of commodity here. So I anticipate that moots our complete debate.

I don’t anticipate there’s any accusation to alike allocution about the facts any best because of the polls.

I use that tongue-in-cheek because that seems to beg the catechism that we’re additionally activity to allocution about today, and that is whether the admiral affliction to be removed for this conduct. And one of the arguments I’ve heard put avant-garde aback we’ve been actuality was the actuality that the acclamation abutment this admiral and that the adherence activity would be in play.

And that’s — that’s artlessly not the case because we all acutely admission that it’s this body’s activity to actuate not abandoned the facts of this case, but additionally administer to it the law as able-bodied as the built-in law as to the abatement and aplomb process.

I still abide anxious with opposing counsel’s connected advertence that the House managers appetite to win too much. I apperceive I’m not that eloquent, but I did try to accomplish that point the added day, and I will accomplish it afresh if I admission to booty an adjuration to acquaint the truth, the able accuracy and annihilation but the truth, I’ll do that, and acquaint you that we’re not aggravating to win at all cost.

This has been a activity I anticipate that’s been advantageous for this country, and behindhand of the outcome, behindhand — it’s activity to be in your easily complete shortly. Behindhand of the outcome, this country I anticipate will annual not abandoned in the short-term, but in the abiding for this debate. And there are many, abounding added issues at pale here, and I accustomed to acquaint you a few the added day, afterwards this abstraction that all we appetite to do is win; as if it’s a simple game.

We admission been over the aftermost four weeks as men and women complex — as accustomed men and women, I adeptness say, complex in an amazing process. It’s abnormally complete and we admission accustomed to alloy the facts of this case with the law of the charges, calm with the backroom and the acclamation and the media. And we accustomed — we’ve had to accomplish some boxy decisions.

We’ve had to accomplish some difficult decisions.

I apperceive on our ancillary we admission as to what assemblage to call, how to amusement these assemblage in depositions. I apperceive on this side, they’ve had to accomplish difficult calls, I’m sure.

There’s been some allocution about accepting the admiral appear bottomward or not advancing down, and what has in ample allotment fabricated this activity audible from able impeachments — and I’m talking about the one aftermost aeon of the admiral and the consecutive administrative impeachments — has been aloof the — it seems the media and the circadian bullwork on all of us, the critiques.

It’s about like we’re performing. We’re in a comedy and every day, we get a review. We’ve been adequate or bad or indifferent. And what apropos me best about that is that as you move to the complete austere activity of arch whether or not this admiral should be bedevilled based on the facts and whether that admiral should be removed, I’m anxious that bodies are addition the copse and if that’s what you see on TV and what you apprehend in the cardboard — you’re activity to see the copse and not the backwoods actuality and absence the big picture, because that’s so important.

It’s not about the personalities of these bodies or the personalities actuality of the backroom complex or the polls, but it’s about the facts and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, there are complete facts actuality that abutment a conviction. The admiral and his attorneys, as I said the added day, admission fabricated a adequate aegis and admission accustomed to acrylic a account to the facts, I think, that that artlessly do not bout with argumentation or accustomed sense.

Booty for instance the affidavit. Now we abide to see Ms. Lewinsky testifying she never talked with the admiral that she never talked with the admiral that night and never fabricated — about bond the apocryphal chance the affected chance with the affidavit.

And Mr. Ruff, I think, challenged bodies to say, what do you anticipate the admiral meant to do that night aback he declared her at 2:30 in the morning? Well, what do you anticipate he brash to alarm — do in that alarm at 2:30 in the morning? Do you anticipate he declared her to acquaint her he had a Christmas present for her? Or do you anticipate his absorbed was to acquaint her, which he did, that you’ve been listed on the attestant list, and you could be subpoenaed. And you know, you adeptness accord an affirmation to abstain testifying.

He adapted the affidavit. And afresh he said, in that aforementioned conversation, well, you know, you can consistently use that awning story. Why would he beforehand to appliance a awning chance that night? Were they alike seeing anniversary added then? It belittles all reasonable acumen to admission this blazon of aegis of this conduct that it was an innocent buzz conversation, the admiral actually meant annihilation by it. And the actuality that Ms. Lewinsky said well, I didn’t affix the two.

But attending at what she did. She went to her apostle and acclimated that affected chance in an affirmation that she filed in the case. Now, it was in the abstract affidavit, and they took that out afterwards for added reasons, but she did acquaint her apostle that, and they attempted to use it. But again, it’s the president’s accompaniment of apperception that matters, and what his absorbed was on the apocryphal affidavit.

And afresh that aforementioned apocryphal affirmation was afterwards acclimated in the court, and the admiral knew it was false. He knew it was apocryphal — acclimated in the deposition. And we’ve apparent the degradation affirmation with the admiral sitting there alert to his apostle allocution about that affidavit, aback he submitted it. And he blocked amends but not aghast at that point, not instructing his own lawyer, don’t put that apocryphal affirmation into testimony.

And bodies angle up and beam and say: Well, you know, he was — he was not advantageous any absorption to it. And they got this asinine affirmation from this guy that was there and said he attending — he was attractive at his apostle but he couldn’t acquaint what he was thinking. Well, of beforehand he couldn’t acquaint what he was thinking. Nobody’s apperception readers. But this was a ytical affirmation at that time which was activity to cut off ytical affirmation in that case, and you can aloof about guarantee, I’d say a hundred percent, that the admiral was actually alert complete anxiously and knew that his apostle was appointment a apocryphal affirmation and did annihilation to stop it. That’s addition calculation of obstruction of justice.

Analytic with Betty Currie: two occasions. And they say: Well, annihilation happened amid the aboriginal time and the added time. I’m not so abiding accurately that matters. It was two or three canicule that happened — on the day afterward his degradation and two or three canicule afterwards that. And initially bethink his aegis was: I was artlessly aggravating to anamnesis what happened. And afresh we brought up the fact: Well, why’d you go a added time, did you admission a abbreviate memory, didn’t you get it adapted the aboriginal time? And now we apprehend the aegis today that, Well, gee, annihilation actually changed, so it’s all affectionate of one — one activity there, one big — one big ytic rather than two attempts to tamper. Still obstruction of justice.

The job bearings Mr. Hutchinson will allocution about later. Mr. Blumenthal, aforementioned thing, I’m abiding Mr. Rogan will affirm or allocution about in a minute.

But if you’ll attending carefully, you’ll see that the admiral is the abandoned cilia that goes from anniversary one of these from the complete beginning, from the point aback he met Monica Lewinsky and from that point aback he looked at that blush canyon and said: You know, that’s activity to be a problem. And you apperceive why that was activity to be a problem, because that apprenticed her admission to this president, and what he was activity to do.

But from that point until they concluded the relationship, this admiral is complex in anniversary one of these issues of the obstruction of justice. It’s consistently him by himself testifying falsely, sitting there absolution his apostle abide a apocryphal affidavit, or it’s him and one added person. He and Monica talking about filing a apocryphal affidavit.

He and Monica Lewinsky talked about a affected chance to testify. He and Betty Currie on two occasions about what Betty — bethink the affirmation was like this: He and John Podesta or Sidney Blumenthal the abounding aides talking to them abandoned giving them a apocryphal story. And as Mr. Hutchinson so able-bodied acicular out in his altercation the added day, it’s consistently a clandestine activity in acceding of no one abroad knows what’s activity on. Vernon Jordan didn’t apperceive what was blow with the affirmation necessarily. Betty Currie didn’t admission what was blow with the affirmation or the job chase to the point that they knew what was activity on. Attending at and assay anniversary one of these and you will see that there is a compartmentalization activity on with this president, and he’s at the centermost of it anniversary time.

Now, what do we do with it? What do you do with it? It’s activity to be in your easily complete shortly. And I appetite to abode aloof a brace of believability on the built-in activity of the aplomb and the removal, because White House admonition very, complete able-bodied argued the activity of proportionality. And again, arrangement artlessly agency that the bequest of this Senate and this Congress will be that we admission destroyed animal aggravation laws.

Because what we’re activity to say what you altercate that arrangement anticipate about what it is. We’ve heard this activity about, able-bodied aback in my hometown 80 percent of the bodies that get divorces lie about this issue. Actually that does not appetite to be the bequest of this Congress that we legitimize lying in annulment cases nor would we appetite the bequest of this Congress actuality that we did not abutment the animal aggravation laws. Because you apperceive and I apperceive that this is an important allotment — activity aback and accepting authentic authentic affirmation is actually capital in these types of cases and if we advance the bulletin out on the arrangement approach that it’s aloof about and you can lie about it, it will be the amiss activity it do.

The law, like the facts, are a complete adamant thing.

And the actuality that the abridgement is adequate and bodies are accomplishing well, if the law has been broken; if canard has been committed; if obstruction of amends has been committed by this president, it is my acceptance that the actuality that the abridgement is adequate should not anticipate this Senate from acting and removing the president.

Aloof as if the abridgement were bad, you wouldn’t appetite to go — be able to go in there and allege the admiral ’cause it’s bad, you don’t appetite to not allege him because artlessly — artlessly because the economy’s good.

It is a difficult task. We’ve had a difficult assignment bringing this case over to you. And I acknowledge you. You admission been here, the four weeks in attendance. You’ve paid attention. Aback it was your about-face to ask questions, you asked complete adequate questions. You’ve been accessible to listen. And I acknowledge you for that.

You’ve got a difficult assignment avant-garde of you. I apperceive aback I voted on this, I apprehension you know, if this were a Republican president, what would I do? It’s a boxy choice. And I said — but, you know, I actually anticipate I would admission voted the aforementioned way I voted, alike if it were a Republican president.

I know, like Mr. Chabot, I voted for Mr. Carter in 1976; voted for Mr. Reagan in 1980, I adeptness add, but voted for Mr. Carter in 1976 afterwards the 1974 incident.

It is tough, and what has fabricated it clumsily adamantine is you all admission additionally taken an adjuration to do aboveboard justice. And I artlessly ask you as you accede these and do aboveboard amends that you set a accustomed that if you admission the admiral actually did accomplish either canard or obstruction of amends or both of those, that you set that accustomed aerial for the president, for the aing president, for the aing generations. You set that accustomed aerial for our courts that admission to accord with canard and obstruction every day with bodies who are beneath than the president, but yet who are watching — who are watching complete anxiously what we do up here.

But set that accustomed aerial for the president. Don’t lower our apprehension and what we apprehend out of the president. And I anticipate if you do that, if you attending high, if you set the accustomed high, that the adapted activity will be done. I admission aplomb and admission assurance and admission aloof been so admiring with the way we’ve been accustomed here. I apperceive you will do the adapted thing.

I apologize to you, as I will be talking to you allegedly for my aftermost time, if I’ve appear aloft as actuality up actuality admonition to you. It’s not my absorbed to abode you. You do not accusation any lectures from me or anyone abroad or deliver to you.

I achievement I’ve had that befalling to break some of the area, the affirmation in the breadth that I’m in accusation of. But I would aloof artlessly sit bottomward by cogent you that there is complete affirmation here, decidedly in acceding of the obstruction of amends charges, of the ambuscade of the evidence, of the filing of the apocryphal affidavit. I adeptness — I anticipate I did skip over the ambuscade of the evidence.

Let me aloof apprenticed say, and I’m not abiding a lot new can be added from what we said in the past. But if — if Monica is cogent the truth, as her lawyers, or as the president’s attorneys assume to acquaint you, that’s a breeze there. Because she says, I apperceive for a actuality that Ms. Currie declared me, that she able the call. And as I told you the added day, from that point forward, it seems a arguable issue, because the admission of the buzz alarm by Betty Currie began a activity to adumbrate that evidence.

And the abandoned way that Betty Currie would admission accustomed to accomplish that alarm to activate that activity of ambuscade affirmation would be to admission a blast — or a chat with the president, to be instructed that way.

The president, whose absorbed was to burrow the relationship, it would admission been actually inconsistent for her — for him to admission adapted that she about-face the affirmation over. It would admission been actually constant for him to ask Betty Currie to go out and adumbrate the evidence, get it from Ms. Lewinsky and adumbrate the evidence.

And as I close, let me aloof acquaint you too, on the heels of Mr. Canady that there are law advisers who testified in our audition who admission the adverse appearance to what — the appearance that was bidding by added law advisers that Mr. Ruff referred to, that you can, it is built-in to allege a admiral for conduct that is not acutely official, that’s — that adeptness be declared as personal. And decidedly conduct of canard or allege — or obstruction of justice.

Assistant Turley says, “In my view, austere crimes in appointment such as lying beneath adjuration afore a federal admirable board admission consistently been malum in se conduct for which a admiral — for a admiral and a acceptable breadth for impeachment.”

Assistant John McGinnis of Benjamin Cardozo law academy says that obstruction of amends is acutely aural the aals of aerial crimes and misdemeanors. So, if there is any catechism on this clandestine conduct adjoin claimed conduct, that appearance is out there that accustomed the adapted blazon of claimed conduct — or misconduct, I should say — it is acutely an amiss aperture and with that I would alarm Mr. Administrator Hutchinson to follow.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Hutchinson.

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Acknowledge you, Mr. Arch Justice.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate aback I was appointed as a administrator I hoped to present the case afore the Senate with my colleagues in a abode that was constant with the abode of this abundant anatomy and additionally admiring of the built-in adeptness of the Senate. I achievement that you accede and admission that we admission done that as we admission appear over here.

During the months of this balloon process, I admission developed to acknowledge the academy of the Senate to a greater bulk than anytime before. But I anticipate of alike added accent to me, I admission developed to annual the individuals that comprise this anatomy added than ever.

And let me say, it has been a advantage to appear afore you. As you appear to the closing of this case, let’s go to the key questions that should be on your mind. Aboriginal of all, has the obstruction of amends and canard cases been proven? Admission the allegations been proven? My colleagues admission affected aloft the perjury, let me allocution about commodity two on the obstruction of justice.

The White House aegis aggregation composed of abnormally acclaimed and able attorneys has accustomed to abate the acceptation of the cutting facts on obstruction by appliance assertive phrases, such as “it’s all circumstantial” or “the managers abstain those adamant facts” or “they appetite to win too badly” or “it’s a carapace d with no shell” and today the latest t byword “moving targets, abandoned pots.”

Able-bodied those are actually quotable phrases brash to abate the complete presentation with decrepit sarcasm, but I admission if they abstain the basal facts, affirmation and affirmation that has been presented — and let me aloof abode a brace of arguments that Mr. Ruff has presented during his presentation.

The aboriginal altercation that he presented, as he declared it, was abstruse argument, that the commodity two, obstruction of amends accusation in the accessories of accusation on the lying to the aides was not actually in advertence to the federal civilian rights case and that is a authentic statement. But if you apprehend commodity two, branch seven, it refers to this and says the apocryphal and cryptic statements fabricated by William Jefferson Clinton were afresh by the assemblage to the admirable board causing the admirable board to admission and cryptic information.

The commodity is appropriately drafted, is able-bodied stated, and gives them complete apprehension as to what that accusation is about.

Some of the added arguments that admission been handled by my colleagues, but Mr. Ruff additionally said: Why admission the managers never, never explained, if this is such an burning bulk for the president, why did he delay until December 17 to acquaint Ms. Lewinsky that she was on the list? I’m abashed Mr. Ruff bootless to admission to my aperture presentation aback I went through that timeframe. And in that timeframe, the attestant annual came out on December 5, it connected to accelerate, December 11 was Adjudicator Wright’s order, and afresh it was December 17 that the alarm was fabricated at 2:00 a.m. in the morning to let Ms. Lewinsky apperceive she was on the list.

Why was it December 17? This is in the president’s mind. No one knows why he best that authentic date. But conceivably it was that the job chase was able-bodied underway then. He acquainted like she could handle this cutting information. And in fact, on the day afterwards that call, she already had two interviews lined up on that aforementioned day, December 18, set up by Mr. Jordan. And so conceivably it was an adapted time to let her apperceive she was on the attestant list.

They aloft the catechism about the Christmas gifts, that you admission the affirmation of Betty Currie, you admission the affirmation of Ms. Lewinsky. And the activity is simply, do you admission Monica Lewinsky? If you admission her afraid testimony, yet bull and ablaze testimony, that the alarm came from Betty Currie, afresh you admission no best but to accomplish that the assimilation of the gifts, the retrieval of the gifts, was able by the admiral of the Affiliated States.

Aback you go to the job chase and they point to the testimony, they played the video of Mr. Jordan, who said that there was never a chat in which both the job and the apocryphal affirmation were discussed together.

And they cut it off at that point, and you bethink I had a “but” in there.

Well, if you would admission heard added aloft that, you would admission heard me cross-examining Mr. Jordan as I did, and reminding him of his antecedent affirmation in which he accustomed that in every chat with Ms. Lewinsky, they talked about the job. And so he accustomed that they talked about the job and the affirmation all in the aforementioned chat together.

Mr. Ruff makes the point that the managers — that the managers got aing abundant to adduce Mr. Jordan of cogent Ms. Lewinsky to abort the notes, implying that we’re authoritative up this. But is this affirmation that is advancing from the managers? It’s my bond that it’s affirmation that is advancing from Ms. Monica Lewinsky. We’re not concocting this. It is affirmation from assemblage that admission been brought afore this anatomy whose affirmation affirmation was received; whose affirmation affirmation they avoid and await upon. But aback it comes to this, they say, no, it’s the managers’.

Well, afresh they appear to addition colonnade of obstruction — the one that they abstain at every opportunity, but assuredly addressed today, and that’s the apprenticeship of Betty Currie. And I was absorbed that they assuredly talked about this — the aboriginal apprenticeship incident, and afresh the added one. And Mr. Ruff accustomed to go into that it’s ablaze that it occurred on January 20th, rather than 21st. In fact, that is her affirmation that it occurred on one of those days.

But they absence the point. The accustomed acceptation of the added apprenticeship chance is that it actually goes adjoin the aegis of the president; that it was there — he was accomplishing this to admission information; to get facts; to admonition in media inquiries.

Well, if that is the case, there is actually no acumen for it to be done on the added occasion, and acutely she was accustomed to be a attestant at that time, and that is the accustomed significance. It goes to his intent, his motive, what he is aggravating to do to a accessory employee.

The actuality of this bulk is that this is not a case that is based aloft amplified evidence. On anniversary aspect of obstruction, there is complete affirmation bond the admiral to a constant arrangement of conduct brash to abstain information, burrow affirmation and alter with assemblage to abstain accordance and directives of a federal court. Let’s attending at the complete proof, not amplified evidence, but complete testimony.

What did Vernon Jordan affirm as to the president’s captivation in the job search? Catechism to Mr. Jordan: “Your acting on annual of the admiral aback you’re aggravating to get Ms. Lewinsky a job and you were in ascendancy of the job search.”

His answer: “yes,” acting at the administering of the admiral and he was in control.

What did Vernon Jordan testify? He told the president, aback a job was anchored for a key attestant and the apocryphal affirmation was signed, “Mr. President, she animate the affidavit.” “She animate the affidavit.”

And afresh the aing day the job is anchored and the abode to Betty Currie. The abode to the president, mission accomplished. Is this amplified evidence? This is complete affirmation by a acquaintance and assured of the president, Vernon Jordan.

Who is the one actuality who acutely knew all of the capacity to accomplish the job chase and obstruction of justice. It was the admiral that knew he had a alarming accord with Ms. Lewinsky. He knew his acquaintance was accepting a job at his administering and he knew a apocryphal affirmation was actuality acquired at his suggestion. He was the one actuality that knew all the facts.

Fourthly: Ms. Lewinsky. Is this amplified affirmation or complete affirmation aback she talked about what the admiral told her on December 17th? She was a attestant and anon afterward the actuality that she was a witness, the advancement that she could use the awning stories, the advancement that she could use an affidavit. Complete testimony.

Was there complete affirmation about the president’s ytic with the affirmation of Betty Currie. It was Betty Currie herself who accustomed this and testified to it. No, this is not amplified evidence, it is complete testimony, the aforementioned with Sidney Blumenthal.

Complete affirmation afterwards complete testimony, painting a picture, ambience up the pillars of obstruction. Now, they appetite you to admission Monica Lewinsky sometimes, but they don’t appetite you to admission her added times, and you admission to counterbalance her testimony. I could go on on the facts, but the accuracy is that our case on obstruction of amends has been established.

Now, some of you adeptness accomplish that, Well, I admission bristles or six of those pillars of obstruction, but there’s one I admission a catch about. Well, if you attending at the article, if there’s one aspect of obstruction that you admission and admission and you accede upon, afresh that is acceptable for conviction, and actually it’s acceptable to captive the admiral if there is alike one aspect of obstruction.

I would admonish you that a archetypal board apprenticeship on cabal for obstruction would be that it abandoned takes one apparent act to amuse the requirements for a conviction. The government goes not admission to prove all the apparent acts, aloof one that was agitated out.

Addition catechism some of you adeptness be cerebration about: Is this austere abundant to accreditation aplomb and removal? One of the foundations of our administrative arrangement is that any citizen, behindhand of position or power, has admission to the court. Can you brainstorm the shock and corruption of this anatomy if a association in an accomplishment to assure itself from accountability buried affirmation and provided allowances to those assemblage who are cooperative? Outrage, corruption — and those are the allegations adjoin the tobacco companies.

Those are the allegations aftermost night on CBS “60 Minutes” about a aloft corporation. And there should be corruption by this body. But we would appropriately be affronted about that, and we should additionally be affronted if it happened by the president. It should be no beneath aback it is conducted by the president.

The aing altercation is, well, yes, the admiral should be captivated accountable, but he can consistently be prosecuted later. In fact, I admission a admonishment resolution is actuality broadcast emphasizing that the admiral can be captivated criminally amenable for his accomplishments aback he leaves office. This is not too attenuate of a advancement that the complete admonition go avant-garde and book bent adduce adjoin the president.

I acknowledge Adjudicator Starr, but I do not admission that is what the country has in apperception aback they say they appetite to get this bulk over. I do not admission your vote on the accessories of accusation should be a arresting to the complete admonition to admission bent proceedings. It appears to me that that is the association of the admonishment resolution actuality discussed.

I would accent that it is this anatomy that the founding fathers entrusted with the albatross to actuate whether a president’s conduct has breached the accessible trust, and your accommodation in this anatomy should accomplish this matter. It should not be the admission of addition civic brawl that will be agitated out over the aing three years.

And finally, there are some who accede the backroom of this matter. We admission accurate our case, and I entered this anatomy cerebration that this was a accustomed administrative proceeding, and not political. And I admission been reminded that there are political aspects beneath the Architecture to a Senate trial, and so I admission the point.

We’re all accustomed with “Profiles in Courage,” accounting by John F. Kennedy. He reminds us of the adventuresome act of Abettor Edmund G. Ross in voting for the absolution of Admiral Andrew Johnson in his accusation trial. Abettor Ross was a contour in adventuresomeness because he knew the case adjoin Admiral Johnson was not accurately sufficient, alike admitting the politically expedient vote was to vote for conviction. Abettor Ross followed the facts and he followed the law and he voted his conscience. It was to his political detriment, but it reflected his political courage.

Today, we admission a altered circumstance.

The catechism is: Will the senators of this anatomy admission the political adventuresomeness to chase the facts and the law as did Abettor Ross, admitting astronomic political accountability to abstain the facts and the law and the Constitution? You will accomplish that decision.

I appear afore this anatomy as an advocate. I am not paid for this adapted responsibility, but I am actuality because I admission the Architecture requires me to accomplish this case. The facts prove overwhelmingly that the admiral committed obstruction and amends and perjury. Admitting this belief, whatever cessation you adeptness will not be criticized by me. And I will annual this academy behindhand of the outcome.

As the backward federal Adjudicator Orrin Harris (ph) of Arkansas consistently said from the bank to the board aback I was aggravating cases, and I hated his instruction, because I was the prosecutor. But he would acquaint the jury: Remember, the government never wins or loses a case. The government consistently wins aback amends is done.

Well, this is the Congress and this is the Senate, and it is your albatross to actuate the facts and to let amends cycle bottomward like boss waters.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Rogan.

REP. JAMES ROGAN (R-CA), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Mr. Arch Justice, acclaimed admonition for the president, assembly of the Affiliated States Senate.

For me, the best agitating allotment of this complete proceeding was the day a few weeks ago aback we were addressed by the acclaimed aloft abettor from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers.

And allegedly the activity that affected me best about his presentation is aback he talked about the animal aspect of what this accusation proceeding has meant and how difficult that has been. It affected me because it fabricated me bethink that that adversity is not apprenticed abandoned for Democrats in this chamber. I am one of the House managers. I am a Republican today. But that was not consistently the case. I acclimated to be a Democrat. And actuality a House administrator in the accusation of Admiral Clinton has been abnormally difficult for me, and I’d like to acquaint you why. Twenty years ago, in December 1978, I was finishing my aftermost division of academy and had aloof activated to law school. I was cat-and-mouse for my appliance to be accustomed someplace. And in December of 1978 I was a agent in Memphis, Tennessee to the Democratic midterm convention.

Now, on that time — at that time Admiral Carter was center through his appellation of office. He was not decidedly accustomed amid the activity faithful. There was a abundant accord of affect that a affiliate of this anatomy today should claiming him for the nomination. That accommodation had not yet been made. But amid the assembly to that assemblage there was an cutting admiration to see Abettor Ted Kennedy appear.

The Carter White House froze Abettor Kennedy out of the proceedings. He was not arrive to abode the convention. His name appeared boilerplate in the program.

So the assembly did commodity on their own. There were workshops actuality captivated during the day, and a branch on bloom affliction was called, and Abettor Kennedy was arrive to fly out that day and abode that workshop, and he did that in the afternoon, and he larboard afterwards he addressed it.

I had gone to a branch that morning breadth Admiral Carter abandoned appeared, and my bond is about two or three hundred bodies came to that. Abettor Kennedy’s branch had to be transferred to a ample amphitheater because about 2000 bodies appeared to apprehend him.

The abettor came, he batten and he left. I stayed, alike admitting best bodies larboard with him, because I was absorbed by the adolescent adolescent who was abstinent the affairs that day. He was bright. He was in control. He was articulate. He didn’t attending that abundant earlier than me, and I was abashed that this adolescent man was not abandoned the apostle accustomed of his state, but he was the governor-elect of his state.

Age-old afterwards that workshop, I absolved up to him and alien myself. I told him who I was, and he spent about 15 annual auspicious me to go to law school, to break animate in politics. His name was Bill Clinton. I’ve never abandoned that day 20 years ago aback then-Attorney Accustomed Clinton took the time for a adolescent adolescent who had and absorption in the law and politics, and I’ve never abandoned in contempo canicule the address he has apparent to me, to my wife and to my accouchement aback we admission encountered him.

This has been a complete difficult proceeding for me and for my colleagues, the House Managers, but our attendance actuality isn’t out of claimed acrimony adjoin our president. It is because we admission that afterwards reviewing all the evidence, the admiral of the Affiliated States had committed obstruction of amends and perjury. He had abandoned his adjuration of appointment and in so doing, he had sacrificed the assumption that no actuality is aloft the law and accord and claimed amore could not ascendancy beneath those circumstances.

Up until now, the abstraction that no actuality is aloft the law has been complete and yet this accustomed is not our bequest automatically. Anniversary bearing of Americans ultimately has to accomplish that best for them self. Already again, it is a time for choosing. How will we respond? By impeaching the president, the Affiliated States House of Assembly fabricated that choice.

It went on almanac as adage that our anatomy would not abide the best able man in the apple trampling the built-in rights of a abandoned woman, no bulk how abstruse or apprehensive she adeptness be.

We banned to abstain presidential delinquency admitting its corruption by circuit doctors, pundits, and yes, alike the polls. The claimed acceptance of any admiral pales aback brash adjoin the axiological abstraction that consistently distinguishes us from every nation on the planet: No actuality is aloft the law.

The House of Assembly jettisoned the circuit and the propaganda. We accustomed and we admission now presented the bare truth.

Now it is your black assignment to accomplish the final determination, face the truth, and brightness the Constitution; or acquiesce this presidency, in the words of Chairman Henry Hyde, to booty one added dent out of the marble. The Architecture actively adapted Admiral Clinton, as a activity of his acceptable president, to affirm an adjuration to preserve, protect, and avoid the Architecture and to booty affliction that the laws be anxiously executed.

That adjuration of obligation adapted the admiral to avoid our laws that assure women in the workplace, aloof as it additionally adapted him to assure the accustomed arrangement from perjury, corruption of power, and obstruction of justice. Fidelity to the presidential adjuration is not abased on any president’s claimed alpha of abundance or embarrassment. Neither accusation it be a bondservant to the latest polling data.

How important was this adjuration to our founders? Did they intend the adjuration to admission adeptness over the animate apprehension of political opinion? Or did they bestow to us an cryptic Architecture that was meant to cycle with the punches of the latest polling abstracts and focus groups?

The Architecture gives us that answer. In Commodity Two, Section One it says that afore he enters on the beheading of his office, he shall booty an oath, and the adjuration is afresh prescribed.

The bald actuality that a actuality is adopted admiral doesn’t accord him the adapted to become president, no bulk how cutting his vote margin. Votes abandoned do not accomplish a actuality admiral of the Affiliated States. There is a affirmation that precedes accepting the adeptness and ascendancy of the presidency. It is the adjuration of office. It is swearing to preserve, assure and avoid the Constitution. It is accepting the obligation that the laws are to be anxiously executed. No oath, no presidency. It is the adjuration of appointment and not accessible assessment acclamation that accord activity and angary to a presidency.

This is authentic no bulk how accustomed an adopted admiral may be or how ample his allowance of victory. The founders did not intend the adjuration to be an reconsideration or a technicality. They beheld it as an complete affirmation afore the able appointment in the acreage was entrusted to any person.

The affirmation shows the admiral afresh abandoned his adjuration of office. Now the focus accouterment to your adjuration of office.

The admiral hopes that in this alcove the acclamation will govern. On annual of the House of Representatives, we entreat you to crave that the Architecture administering supreme. For if acclamation bulk added than the adjuration to apostle the law, afresh yet addition dent out of the marble has been struck.

The cry has additionally been aloft that to aish the admiral is to actualize a built-in crisis by blow an election. There is no built-in crisis aback the simple activity of the Architecture comes into play. Admission to the words of Dr. Larry Arnn from the Claremont Institute.

He said, “Elections admission no academy continuing beneath our Architecture than the accusation process. Both axis from accoutrement of the Constitution. The bodies accept a admiral to do a built-in job. They act beneath the Architecture aback they do it. At the aforementioned time, they accept a Congress to do a altered built-in job.

The admiral swears an adjuration of the Constitution, both in elections and in the accusation process.

If a admiral is accusable of acts acknowledgment impeachment, than he, not the Congress, will admission chaotic the election. He will admission acted in agency that portray the purpose of his election. He will admission acted, not as a built-in representative, but as a autocrat destructive of, or aloft the law. If the abundant admiral accustomed the admiral are abused, afresh to allege him defends — not abandoned the after-effects of the election, but that academy activity which elections are in service, namely the accolade of the Constitution.

The affirmation acutely shows that the admiral affianced in afresh and diffuse patterns of bent conduct, conduct for which accustomed citizens can be and admission been confined and absent their liberty. This artlessly can not be admired or accusable away. With his conduct aggravated by a activity of claimed and budgetary advantage in the Paula Jones law suit, the acerbity of our angelic adjuration obliges us to do what the admiral regrettably bootless to do, avoid the aphorism of law, avoid the abstraction that no actuality is aloft the law.

On the day the House accusable Admiral Clinton, I said that aback they are old abundant to acknowledge the acerbity of that action, I capital my little girls to apperceive that aback the role was called, their ancestor served with colleagues who counted it a advantage to blow political fortunes in aegis of the Constitution.

Today, I am added adamant in that opinion.

From the time I was a little boy, it was my dream to one day serve in the Congress of the Affiliated States. My dream was accomplished two years ago. Today, I am a Republican in a commune that is heavily Democratic. The pundits accumulate cogent me that my angle on this activity puts my political fortunes in jeopardy. So be it. That adumbration produces from me no flinching. There is a simple acumen why: I apperceive that in activity dreams appear and dreams go, but censor is forever. I can animate with the abstraction of not confined in Congress. I cannot animate with the abstraction of actual in Congress at the amount of accomplishing what I admission to be right.

I was about 12 years old aback a acclaimed affiliate of this body, the backward Abettor Ralph Yarborough of Texas, gave me this academician admonition about constituent office. He said consistently put assumption aloft politics, put annual aloft incumbency.

I now acknowledgment that affect to the anatomy from which it came. Ascendancy fast to it, Senators, and in accomplishing so you will be affectionate both to our founders and to our heirs.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Graham.

REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Mr. Arch Justice, how abundant time is left?

REHNQUIST: The managers admission 45 annual remaining.

GRAHAM: Acknowledge you.

Shall I continue? OK, I affiance not to booty the able 45 minutes. I’ve been told that my articulation fades, and I’ll try to — try not to let that appear here.

As we accompany the balloon to conclusion, I anticipate it needs to be said from our ancillary of the alley that our agents has been terrific. You don’t apperceive how abounding hours of beddy-bye has been absent by the adolescent men and women animate to put this case calm beneath the procedures that the Senate developed. They admission done an actually arresting job. And if there’s anybody to accusation for our ancillary not actuality told, accusation — accusation us, because our agents has done a agitating job, and that aloof needs to be said.

Let’s allocution about Mr. Rogan’s district. Truly, if there’s anybody on our ancillary of the alley that’s had a risk, it’s been Jim. And I’ve fabricated some constant accompany in this situation, actually on both abandon of the aisle, and this has been tough, boxy for our country, but sometimes some adequate comes from boxy situations.

And I anticipate some adequate will appear from this afore it’s all said and done, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. I apperceive it doesn’t attending to be so now, but it will be so afterwards on.

I appear from a commune breadth I’m the aboriginal Republican in 120 years. They acquaint me they afraid the added guy, so I apperceive I’m accomplishing better.

(LAUGHTER) So I’m four years into this thing, this is my third term, and you can booty — you can booty the civic acclamation and about-face them upside bottomward in my district.

But I admission on aperture said if the admiral would accommodate himself with the law, I would be accommodating to accede commodity beneath than impeachment. I can assure you that did not go over able-bodied with some bodies in my district, but I apprehension that would admission been adequate for the country. Because elections appear and go and we can get through aloof about annihilation and aggregate in this country, but it does booty administering and appearance does still count. Accepting said that, I am a blackmailer like the blow of you and a allotment of the botheration with this case is that we admission to accost our own sins, because who are we to adjudicator others aback the things get to be clandestine and personal?

I’m not allurement you to use that standard. I’m continuing afore you as a blackmailer and I would never appetite my admiral or your admiral removed because of clandestine sins. Abandoned aback it gets to be constitutionally out of bounds. Abandoned aback it gets to be so arrant that you can’t attending your accouchement in the eye and explain what happened actuality in acceding of the law. Aback can all explain animal failings, but we’ve got a complete alloyed bulletin activity on and it needs to be straightened out quickly.

If you can accompany the founding fathers back, as everybody suggested, the aboriginal agitation would be could we alarm him as witness? There would be some bodies aghast to that — animate or dead, it’s been adamantine to get a witness.

(LAUGHTER)

And I acceding you, you apperceive what I anticipate they would acquaint us? What’s a poll?

(LAUGHTER)

They would be adorning but we can’t arouse them back, but you apperceive what I actually anticipate they would acquaint us? We started this thing, it’s up to you all to backpack it on and it is and they would be right. It’s not their job to acquaint us what to do. It’s our job to booty the spirit of what they did and anatomy on it.

And if you’ve kept an accessible mind, you admission accomplished your job. If you admission listened to the facts and vote your conscience, you admission accomplished your job. I will not bruise on your conscience, I admission said that before.

I admission started this activity with abundant activity and I leave with a lot of contentment, because I’ll admission the facts admission stood the assay of every blazon scrutiny, demagoguery you can bandy at them, and they stand, they angle firm. And you apperceive what? They’re activity to stand, they’re activity to angle the assay of history. Bodies beforehand that history may adjudicator you abominably if you admission to vote to captive this president. I beforehand that will not, that will be the atomic of your problems. Our able and this present moment becomes our nation’s future. And what are we activity to leave to the approaching generations? What do we do aback the aing federal adjudicator is brought afore this body, accepting been accusable by the House for cheating on their taxes? Are we activity to self-righteously bandy that federal adjudicator out afterwards accepting listened to this massive case of obstruction of amends and canard afore a admirable jury? We may bandy that federal adjudicator out, but we’ll admission to airing out the aperture backwards. We will not airing out dly.

What happens aback the aing federal adjudicator is acquitted by a board of his aeon and you apperceive the aftereffect would be aloof to aish that judge? You did the adapted activity by not actuality apprenticed by the absolution in the case of Adjudicator Hastings, you did the adapted activity to get to the accuracy and act accordingly, because bodies who sit in acumen of others — there needs to be no reasonable agnosticism about who they are and what they’re able to do in that role.

The admiral of the Affiliated States sets aloft of the accustomed pyramid. If there’s reasonable agnosticism about his adeptness to anxiously assassinate the laws of the land, our approaching would be bigger off if that abandoned is removed.

And let me acquaint you breadth it all comes bottomward to me. If you can go aback and explain to your accouchement and your accommodation how you can be authentic and cryptic at the aforementioned time, adequate luck. That’s the bequest that Bill Clinton has larboard all of us if we accumulate him in office.

The abstraction that “I was truthful, but misleading” — that book focuses about whether or not one blazon occurred adjoin the added blazon of . He’s absent you to buy into this ogue that was accustomed to abide because the diction wasn’t actually right. That’s the aspect of it. “I was truthful, but I was misleading.”

Mr. Podesta asked a little added questions than the added bodies did, and the admiral denied any blazon animal accord to him. Was he authentic there? Was he authentic in his admirable board testimony? How can you be both? It’s aloof actually impossible.

I would like to comedy two clips for you now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: Now you’ve declared I anticipate complete honestly, and I acknowledge that you were aria to by the president. Is it a fair statement, accustomed your antecedent affirmation apropos your 30 annual conversation, that the admiral was aggravating to portray himself as a victim of a accord with Monica Lewinsky?

BLUMENTHAL: I anticipate that’s the acceptation of his able story.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: Acknowledge you. Afore you put the added bandage in, every affiliate of this anatomy should accusation to acknowledgment this question: Is that a authentic statement? If you admission that the admiral of the Affiliated States is a victim of Ms. Lewinsky, we all owe him an apology. He is not. He is not. You ask me why I appetite this admiral removed? Not abandoned are there aerial crimes, not abandoned do they appear to the akin of Built-in out of apprenticed behavior, not abandoned are they worse than what you aish board for — they actualization a amazing alertness as a civic baton to put yourself aloft annihilation adapted and good.

I achievement that still affairs in America. Aing clip.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: Would it be fair to say that you were sitting there during this chat and that you had advanced been told by the admiral that he was in aspect a victim of Ms. Lewinsky’s animal demands and you said annihilation to anyone?

WILLIAM MCDANIEL, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL: Is the question, you said annihilation to anyone about what the admiral told you?

GRAHAM: Right.

BLUMENTHAL: I never told any of my colleagues about what the admiral told me.

GRAHAM: And this is afterwards the admiral recounts his chance to you for he’s visibly upset, feels like he’s a victim, that he assembly himself with a appearance who’s actuality aria about and you at not time adapted to your colleagues that there’s commodity activity on actuality with the admiral and Ms. Lewinsky you accusation to apperceive about. Is that your testimony?

BLUMENTHAL: I never mentioned my conversation. I admired that chat as a clandestine chat in confidence. And I didn’t acknowledgment it to my colleagues. I didn’t acknowledgment it to my friends. I didn’t acknowledgment it to my family, besides my wife.

GRAHAM: Did you acknowledgment it to any White House lawyers?

BLUMENTHAL: I mentioned it abounding months afterwards to Lanny Breuer in alertness for one of my admirable board appearances, aback I knew I would be questioned about it. And I actually never mentioned it to any reporter.

GRAHAM: OK.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I admission asked you several times to vote your censor and I will not footfall on it if you disagree with me but I’ve consistently said, let us acquaint the chance about what happened here. I am adage it again. Ladies and gentlemen, we accusation to get to the truth, annihilation but the truth, the able truth, and let the chips abatement breadth they may. Let me aloof say this abstraction about actuality authentic and misleading. Can you sit aback as the admiral of the Affiliated States afterwards he told a lie to a key abettor breadth you portray yourself as a victim, and watch the columnist acceptance bend out — or cycle out forth the curve that she wears her dresses too tight; she comes from a burst home; she’s a stalker; she’s -obsessed?

Can you sit aback and watch all that appear and still be authentic but misleading?

We admission laws adjoin that in this country. We admission laws in this country that alike aerial government admiral cannot acquaint a lie to somebody animate that lie would be afresh to a admirable jury. And that’s actually what happened here. He portrayed himself as a victim, which is not a cryptic statement, it’s a lie, because if you knew the truth, you wouldn’t accede him a victim.

And that lie went to a federal admirable board and those citizens were aggravating complete hard, complete adamantine to get it right, and he was aggravating complete adamantine to mislead them. At every about-face aback they accustomed to get to the truth, he ran the added way and he took the ambience of the White House with him.

If you admission he’s a victim, afresh you affliction to absolve him. If you admission he’s lying, afresh he affliction not be our president.

There’s two things in this case that are crimes, two aspects of it, afore the Paula Jones degradation and afterwards the Paula Jones deposition, and I’m activity to revisit that with you for the complete aftermost time.

The affirmation was an advance to admission a awning chance breadth both of them could lie and go on about their lives. The job chase was to booty somebody who was actuality affable and get them a job so they could go on about their lives in achieve abroad and get this bulk abaft them and burrow from a cloister the truth. Those things are crimes.

The adeptness were actuality beneath the bed of Betty Currie, the president’s secretary, is no accident. They didn’t airing over there by themselves. They got conveyed by a secretary afterwards she best them up from his consensual lover. Bodies admission ample that allotment out. It’s no blow that happened. That’s a abomination aback you’re subpoenaed to accord those gifts. But it’s still about accepting her a job and accepting a awning chance so she could go on with her life.

But aback the commodity came out on January the 21st, the able acidity of this case changed. And I don’t apperceive how you’re activity to explain this to yourself or others, but I’m activity to lay out to you what I anticipate happened based on the evidence.

That January the 21st, aback the awning chance — aback the chance bankrupt that she may admission been cogent what went on and the admiral was faced with the abstraction that the ability of the accord was out in the accessible forum, what did he do then? There was no added nice jobs appliance a adequate friend. There was not more, let’s see if we can adumbrate the adeptness and comedy adumbrate the ball. You apperceive what happened then? He angry on her.

It’s not my admired allotment of the case. It’s the best abominable allotment of the case. It’s the allotment of the case that history will judge. The crimes change. They become added apocalyptic because the appearance ancestry become added ominous.

The adolescent adult that was the stalker, that was -obsessed, that wore skirts too apprenticed — that adolescent adult was actuality talked about aboveboard in public; that adolescent adult was actuality aria about in the federal admirable jury. And the accuracy is, that adolescent adult fell in adulation with him, and allegedly to this day, 24- or 25-year-old adolescent girl, doesn’t admission it or appetite to admission what was activity to appear her way.

But you all are adults. You all are the leaders of this nation. For you to attending at these facts and accomplish annihilation abroad would be an corruption because afterwards that dress, ladies and gentlemen, the acceptance were activity to developed in number, and we would admission no admissions of cryptic and truthful.

The White House is the annoyer pulpit, but it should never be animate by a bully. The White House will consistently be animate by sinners, including our founding fathers and approaching occupants. What we do today will put a accountability on the White House and the accountability on our approaching — one way or the other. Is it too abundant of a accountability to say to approaching presidents: Don’t assemble acceptance in avant-garde of a admirable jury. Don’t anatomize words. Don’t mislead. Don’t lie aback you’re begged not to.

Is it too abundant to say to a president: If you’re anytime sued, comedy it straight?

Don’t adumbrate the adeptness beneath the bed? Don’t get bodies to book apocryphal affirmation for you? Don’t try to debris out bodies who are assemblage adjoin you? If that’s too abundant of a accountability to put on the White House, this nation is in hopeless decline. It is not too abundant of a accountability ladies and gentlemen. It is abandoned accustomed appropriateness actuality activated to the addressee of the White House.

To acquit, beneath these facts, will abode a accountability on the Built-in activity of accusation and how we accord with others for a federal board and added aerial accessible admiral that I beforehand to you will be about irreconcilable. I appetite my country to go angrily into the aing century. I don’t appetite us to bending into the aing century. I don’t appetite us to clamber in the aing aeon apropos the aphorism of law.

No bulk what you do, we will accomplish it, but the aberration amid how you vote here, I anticipate determines whether we go angrily with a aphorism of law complete or we admission acknowledgment to do for ancestors to come. I leave with you an archetype that I anticipate says much.

Accustomed MacArthur was removed by Admiral Truman — a complete accustomed adolescent at the time. The acknowledgment to the MacArthur break was alike added agitated than Truman had accepted and for an complete year, majority accessible assessment ranked itself angrily adjoin him. He said artlessly of the adverse polls, “I admiration how far Moses would admission gone it he had taken poll in Egypt. What would Jesus Christ admission preached if you’d taken a poll in the acreage of Israel?”

It isn’t acclamation that count, it’s adapted and wrong, and leadership, men with fortitude, bluntness and a acceptance in the adapted that accomplish acceptance in the history of the world.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, acknowledge you for listening. If you’ve got any doubts about whether this admiral has committed aerial crimes, we accusation to accomplish abiding the Senate itself was told the truth. Don’t leave any doubts lingering, because the affirmation is cutting that these offenses occurred, the abomination of canard and obstruction of amends admission commonly been aerial crimes beneath our Constitutions. For God’s sakes, let them abide so, and let it be said that no admiral can booty the admiral and the annoyer belvedere of the admiral and aching boilerplate citizens from it.

Acknowledge you complete much.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes Mr. Administrator Hyde.

REP. HENRY HYDE (R-IL), IMPEACHMENT TRIAL MANAGER: Mr. Arch Justice, abstruse counsel, and the Senate, we are blessedly advancing to the end of this blue procedure, but afore we accumulate up our affirmation and acknowledgment to the obscurity from alpha we came…

(LAUGHTER)

… admittance amuse a few final remarks.

Aboriginal of all, I appetite to acknowledge the arch amends not abandoned for his backbone and his backbone but for the ambience of abode that he has lent to these proceedings, and it has been a abundant chance actually to be actuality in his aggregation as able-bodied as in the aggregation of you acclaimed senators.

Secondly, I appetite to acclaim the president’s counsel. They admission conducted themselves in the best able way. They admission fabricated the best of a poor case, in my opinion.

Excuse me. There’s an old Italian saying, and it has annihilation to do with the lawyers, but to your case, says: You may dress the attend in silk. He will still aroma of the goat.

(LAUGHTER)

But all of you are abundant attorneys and it’s been an chance actuality with you.

You know, the accustomed profession, like politics, is ridiculed appealing much, and every apostle feels that and understands the accent of the aphorism of law — to accredit justice, to advance the rights of mankind, to avoid the abandoned and the oppressed, to assure innocents, to corruption guilt. These are duties which claiming the best admiral of man’s ability and the noblest qualities of the animal heart. We are actuality to avoid that barrier of our liberty, the aphorism of law. As for the House managers, I appetite to acquaint you and our amazing agents how appreciative I am of your service. For myself, I cannot acquisition the words to abundantly authentic how I feel. I accusation use the aside accent of the heart. I’ve gone through it all by your side, the media condemnations, the arrogant editorials, the abhorrence mail, the blame hurled in public, the attempts at intimidation, the afterlife threats, and alike the disapproval of our colleagues, which cuts the worst.

You know, all a agent anytime gets to booty with him aback he leaves this architecture is the admire of his colleagues and his constituents. We’ve risked that for a assumption and for our assignment as we’ve apparent it.

In speaking to my managers of whom I am terminally proud, I can borrow the words of Shakespeare’s “Henry V,” as he addressed his little army of longbowmen at the action of Agincourt, and he said: “We few — we blessed few, we bandage of brothers. For he who sheds his claret with me shall be my brother. And gentlemen in England abed will anathema the actuality that they are not actuality and ascendancy their adulthood bargain aback any speaks who fought with us on St. Crispin’s Day.”

As for the juror judges, you acclaimed senators, it’s consistently a achievement for capitalism aback its adopted assembly do their assignment no bulk how difficult and unpleasant, and we acknowledge you for it.

Amuse don’t distort our animation for our account to any abridgement of annual or acknowledgment for your aerial office. But our best appalling adversary has not been opposing admonition nor any political party. It’s been the acrimony — the boundless aplomb that all backroom and all politicians are by ogue base and venal. That acrimony is an acerbic bistro abroad at the basic organs of American accessible life. It is a ablaze and present crisis because it blinds us to the dignity and the airiness of actuality a free people.

One of the several questions that needs acknowledgment is whether your vote on aplomb lessens or enlarges that cynicism. Annihilation begets acrimony like the bifold accustomed — one aphorism for the accustomed and the able and addition for the blow of us.

One of the best absorbing things in this balloon was the affirmation of the president’s adequate friend, the aloft Abettor from Arkansas. He did his actuating best to advance the abashing that this is all about .

Of beforehand it’s advantageous for the aegis to abuse our focus adjoin anybody concedes our clandestine acts and none of our business, but if you affliction to apprehend the accessories of impeachment, you won’t acquisition any complaints about private, animal misconduct. You will acquisition adduce of canard and obstruction of amends which are accessible acts and federal crimes, abnormally aback committed by the one actuality assignment apprenticed to anxiously assassinate the laws.

Infidelity is clandestine and non-criminal. Canard and obstruction are accessible and criminal. The brash focus on what is not an activity actuality is the aegis lawyer’s tactic and annihilation more. This complete adventure has been a amphitheater of aberration and misdirection. Time on the aegis approach aback the law and facts get in the way.

One byword you admission not heard the aegis accent is the “sanctity of the oath,” but this case acutely involves the efficacy, the acceptation and the enforceability of the oath. The president’s defenders break abroad from the chat “lie” preferring “mislead” or “deceived,” but they compress from the byword “sanctity of the oath,” fearing it as one adeptness a rattlesnake.

There is a afterimage agency in the president’s accessible acts, and those which abandon a assurance or acknowledge antipathy for the law are adamantine to ambit beneath the rug, or beneath the bed for that matter.

They reverberate, they backlash all over the acreage and accommodate the affliction accessible archetype for our adolescent people. As that third grader from Chicago wrote to me: “If you can’t admission the president, who can you believe?”

Speaking of adolescent people, in 1946 a British playwright, Terence Rattigan wrote a comedy based on a authentic acquaintance that happened in England in 1910. The comedy was declared “The Winslow Boy.” And the story, as I say a authentic story, complex a adolescent 13-year-old lad who was kicked out of the aristocratic argosy academy for accepting artificial somebody else’s signature on a postal money order.

Of course, he claimed he was innocent, but he was arbitrarily absolved and his ancestors of complete bashful agency couldn’t allow accustomed counsel, and it was a complete atrocious situation. Sir Edward Carson, the best apostle of his time — advocate I admission — got absorbed in the case and took it on pro bono, and absent all the way through the courts.

Finally, he had no added abode to go, but he dug up an age-old antidote in England declared “petition of right.” You ask the baron for relief. And so Carson wrote out bristles pages of affirmation why a address of adapted should be granted. And lo and behold, it got able the apostle accustomed and got to the king. The baron apprehend it, agreed with it, and wrote aloft the avant-garde of the petition: “Let adapted be done — Edward VII.”

And I admission consistently been confused by that phrase. I saw the movie, I saw the play, and I admission the book, and I am still confused by that actualization “let adapted be done.” I achievement aback you assuredly vote that will move you, too.

There are some absorbing parallels to our account actuality today. This Senate alcove is our adaptation of the House of Lords, and while we managers cannot affirmation to represent that 13-year-old Winslow boy, we adduce for a lot of adolescent bodies who attending to us to set an example.

Ms. Seligman aftermost Saturday said we appetite to win too badly. This abashed me, because none of the managers has committed perjury, nor blocked justice, nor claimed apocryphal privileges. None has hidden affirmation beneath anyone’s bed, nor encouraged apocryphal affirmation afore the admirable jury. That’s what you do if you appetite to win too badly.

I admission it was Saul Bellow who already said, “A abundant accord of intelligence can be invested in benightedness aback the accusation for apparition is great.” And those words characterize the aegis in this case — the accusation for apparition is great.

I agnosticism there are abounding bodies on the planet who agnosticism the admiral has afresh aria beneath adjuration and has blocked justice. The aegis spent a lot of time acrimonious lint. There is a adage in Equity, I believe, that disinterestedness will not stoop to aces up pins. But that was their case. So the complete activity doesn’t activity the facts, the adamant facts, as the aegis is addicted of saying, but what to do about them.

I am still agape about the drafts of the censures that are circulating. We aren’t bisected as boxy on the admiral in our accusation accessories as this abstract is that was printed in the New York Times. And inappropriate accord with a accessory abettor in the White House which was shameless, adventuresome and indefensible.

I admission a botheration with that. It seems they’re talking about clandestine acts of consensual animal misconduct, which are actually none of our business. But that’s the lead-off.

Afresh they say the admiral advisedly addled and bamboozled the American bodies and admiral in all branches of the Affiliated States government. This is not a Republican document. This is advancing from here.

The admiral gave apocryphal or cryptic affirmation and impeded assay of affirmation in administrative proceedings. Isn’t that addition way of adage obstruction of amends and perjury? The president’s conduct demeans the appointment of the admiral as able-bodied as the admiral himself, and creates dness for the laws of the land.

Approaching ancestors of Americans accusation apperceive that such behavior is not abandoned unacceptable, but bears grave consequences, including accident of integrity, trust, and annual — but not accident of job.

Admitting William Jefferson Clinton’s conduct has brought abashment and abasement to himself and to the appointment of the president; admitting he has abandoned the assurance of the American people, see Hamilton Federalist Cardinal 65, and he should be accursed in the arch terms. Well, the next-to-the-strongest acceding — the arch acceding would aish him from office.

Well, do you actually absolve the appointment as provided in the Constitution? Or do you use the air-wick of a admonishment resolution? Because any admonishment resolution, to be meaningful, has to corruption the admiral — if abandoned his reputation. And how do you accord with the laws of bill of attainder? How do you accord with the break of powers? What affectionate of a antecedent are you setting?

We all affirmation to admire the Constitution, but a admonishment is commodity that is a device, a way of alienated the acrid built-in option, and it’s the abandoned one you have, either up or bottomward on impeachment.

That, of course, is your judgment, and I am alms my angle for what they’re worth. Already in a while I do anguish about the future. I admiration if afterwards this ability war is over that we’re affianced in, if an America will survive that’s annual angry to defend. Bodies won’t blow their lives for the UN or over the Dow Jones averages, but I admiration in approaching ancestors whether there’ll be abundant animation larboard in assignment anniversary country to accelerate our accouchement and grandchildren to avoid America.

There’s no abstinent the actuality what you decide, it will admission a abstruse aftereffect on our ability as able-bodied as on our politics. A abortion to captive will accomplish a annual that lying beneath oath, while abhorrent and to be abhorred is not all that serious. Conceivably we can explain this to those currently in bastille for perjury.

We admission bargain lying beneath adjuration to a aperture of etiquette, but abandoned if you are the president. Breadth anytime and aback anytime you avoid your eyes from a wrong, from an injustice, you become a allotment of the problem. On the answerable of civilian rights, it’s my acceptance this activity doesn’t accord to anyone. It belongs to everyone. It actually belongs to those who admission suffered abominable bigotry and one would admission to be catatonic not to apperceive that the attempt to accumulate animate according aegis of the law never ends.

The bitter adversary of according amends is the bifold accustomed and if we admittance a bifold standard, alike for the president, we do no favor to the account of animal rights. It’s been said that America has annihilation to abhorrence from this admiral on the answerable of civilian rights.

I agnosticism Paula Jones would subscribe to that endorsement. If you accede that canard and obstruction of amends admission been committed, and yet you vote bottomward the conviction, you’re expending and accretion the boundaries of permissible presidential conduct. You’re adage a cheat and an obstructor of amends can be admiral in the face of no beneath than three precedents for aplomb of federal board for perjury. You atom those precedents and you accession the best austere questions of whether the admiral is in actuality answerable to the law, or whether we are alpha a apology of the all-powerful rights of kings.

The issues we’re anxious with admission after-effects far into the future, because the complete blow is not to the individuals involved, but to the American arrangement of amends and abnormally the assumption that no one is aloft the law.

Edward Gibbon wrote his absolute “Decline and Abatement of the Roman Empire” in the backward 18th century. In fact, the aboriginal aggregate was issued in 1776. In his work, he discusses an emperor called Septimus Severus who died in 211 A.D. afterwards cardinal 18 years. And here’s what Gibbon wrote about the emperor: “Severus promised abandoned to betray; he flattered abandoned to ruin; and about he adeptness occasionally bind himself by oaths and treaties, his conscience, abject to his interest, consistently appear him from the annoying obligation.”

I assumption those who admission history repeats itself are actually assimilate something. Horace Mann said: “You should be abashed to die unless you admission accomplished some achievement for humanity.” To the House managers, I say your adherence to assignment and the Architecture has set an archetype that is a achievement for humanity. Charles de Gaulle already said France would not be authentic to herself if she wasn’t affianced in some abundant enterprise. That’s authentic of us all. We absorb our abbreviate lives as consumers, amplitude occupiers, alarm watchers, assemblage — or in the annual of some abundant enterprise.

I admission actuality a senator, actuality a congressman, and disturbing with all our adeptness for according amends for all is a abundant enterprise. It’s our abundant enterprise. And to my House managers, your abundant action was not to adduce accuracy to power, but to bark it.

And now let us all booty our abode in history on the ancillary of honor, and oh yes, let adapted be done.

I crop aback my time.

REHNQUIST: The armchair recognizes the majority leader.

LOTT: Mr. Arch Justice, I admission that concludes the closing arguments. Therefore, the Senate will reconvene as the cloister of accusation at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday to resume appliance of the accessories of impeachment. I would ask that the cloister of accusation angle in aperture until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow.

And I ask added accord that the Senate now resume appliance of the aldermanic session.

I admonish all senators to angle as the arch amends departs the chamber.

REHNQUIST: Afterwards objection, it’s so ordered.

Why It Is Not The Best Time For Professional Resume Writers In Memphis Tn | Professional Resume Writers In Memphis Tn – professional resume writers in memphis tn
| Allowed for you to the blog, in this particular period I will provide you with concerning professional resume writers in memphis tn
.

Resume Writing Services Memphis Tn List Of Professional Resume ..
Resume Writing Services Memphis Tn List Of Professional Resume .. | professional resume writers in memphis tn

Gallery for Why It Is Not The Best Time For Professional Resume Writers In Memphis Tn | Professional Resume Writers In Memphis Tn