On cable and the Internet, MSNBC News.
Music
Good day in just a few moments. In a room on Capitol Hill, a stack of tape players will be rolling with a compilation of the testimony of the President of the United States.
This is the House Radio and Television Gallery on Capitol Hill where aides are waiting the physical arrival of the tapes.
The report, 2,800 pages give or take, is right now being handed to members of Congress, all the ancillary supporting documents in the investigation of the President.
People on the Hill have already been given access to it. The table of contents runs the reader through the ground it covers.
And of course the long sought after and long awaited videotapes of the President will be rolling shortly.
We want to go to NBC News correspondent Gwen Ifill who is standing by for us on Capitol Hill.
Gwen, if you can set the mood up there as people await receipt of the report and with everyone else, wait to see these tapes for the first time.
Well, Brian, everyone is holding their breath. There's a sense of drama and a sense of anticipation but also a certain nervousness while lawmakers wait to see what the public reaction will be,
whether in fact the public backlash will set in that the White House is hoping for, signaling to lawmakers that maybe they have overstepped by releasing so much explicit detail,
much more than maybe perhaps the public has sentiment for. There is also, lawmakers also left town, Brian, in a plummock of activity on Friday.
As all of the bipartisanship they had talked about, all the cooperation across party lines they had talked about collapsed in a spectacular fashion as the committee voted to release a lot of these documents.
Democrats saying that all the Republicans wanted to do was embarrass the President.
Republicans saying they were only interested in getting as much information out in the words of the President sooner rather than later.
And so as a result, there's a bitter feeling hanging in the air about what the motivation is for the release of these documents and a certain uncertainty as people keep an eye on the public,
impinged polls about whether this is going to have the desired effects on the part of the Republicans.
Democratic members of Congress yesterday began floating a new trial balloon which is that the President should clear everything up for once and for all.
And an unprecedented move, come to Capitol Hill, come to the House Judiciary Committee and testify himself, explain to them exactly what he would say, answer their questions without parsing, without nuance.
And of course the White House when asked about their reaction to Senator Kerry's bright idea said nothing. They have nothing to say about that.
Gwen, let's talk briefly about the House Judiciary Committee before we talk about how these tapes are actually going to be played.
It has been pointed out that if you want to find the partisans, look on the House Judiciary Committee.
And the American public see Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee being staunch supporters of this President when in effect they may not be reflective of the general Democratic body in the House.
It's true and they did not cover themselves in glory with their first take at this on Friday.
The House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are very partisan.
We're talking about Barney Frank and a few other members from Massachusetts who are known as being liberals.
We're also talking about people like Bob Barr who is on the opposite end of the spectrum, who is a Republican from Georgia who is as conservative as they get.
What we have been told early on is that Henry Hyde, the chairman of the committee, would be the voice of reason.
He would be the person who reached across party lines. That also collapsed.
And so the ranking Democrat on the committee, John Conyers, who is also a liberal from Michigan, has now found himself in a war of words with the committee chairman.
And there doesn't seem like there's going to be any sign that it's going to get a whole lot better.
We have lawyers on this committee, so a lot of people who think that they know the correct constitutional interpretation of what their duty is.
And there's a lot of disagreement about exactly what that is.
And then the great suspicion behind the scenes, especially on the part of Democrats, is that all of this is being dictated by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is keeping a purposefully low profile,
but without whom the House Judiciary Committee certainly would not be moving forward on this kind of historic inquiry.
So there's a lot of bad feeling, and there's a danger that that will taint whatever comes next.
Gwen, how far are you, just for the benefit of our viewers physically, from where the tape playback machines are?
I'm on the Senate side of the Capitol building, which is about a good brisk five-minute walk from the House side where they're releasing the documents.
And perhaps we can remain on this shot for a while.
This is, you see, pool staff only. This is the pool feed in the nomenclature television. The tapes are on their way from the House Office building to the gallery on the House side of the Capitol building proper.
And NBC's Gwen Ifill will be getting her hands on the printed copy of the report, along with members of Congress.
Justice Correspondent Pete Williams is standing by for us in Washington. And Pete, by way of explaining, this is way, way uncharted territory.
We are airing these tapes as they air, as everyone sees them. We are all together in this.
They are going to contain the same kinds of graphic details we've had a week to become used to in this case.
What are the legal nuances that people will be looking for, not only that, but looking for to pick this president apart?
Well, as a matter of perjury rather than obstruction of justice, that will be the main interest as people watch this.
You have to assume that when Ken Starr's staff assembled the report that was made public a week ago,
they chose what they considered to be the most important or, if you will, the most damning things to the president about perjury.
And that will be a matter of carefully looking at the words.
So legally, in terms of trying to make a case if Republicans wish to do so for impeachment based on perjury,
the tapes themselves probably won't advance that very much because you have to assume that Ken Starr chose the passages that were most important.
And what it all comes down to will be the words in black and white as people argue over what they mean.
But beyond that, the emotional impact of seeing how the president said them will undoubtedly be important to the constituents of the House Judiciary Committee.
It's apparent that they want to hear what their constituents think about what the president said,
or they wouldn't be releasing all this material so quickly without having seen it themselves.
Pete, this may call for analysis on your part, and you can say no.
It's been said the president has to do something bold.
Senator Kerry, we just broadcast a calling on the president, come down to the Hill.
Talk to one side or both, but if time is getting short now where your rebuttal is concerned,
is there anything preventing the president from doing something out of the ordinary,
a preemptive strike on the Hill before he's called perhaps to the Hill during the course of potential impeachment hearings?
Well, the White House as a general matter is always reluctant to have the president testify before Congress
because it implies this is something that every president's lawyers worry about.
Very few presidents testify before Congress for this reason.
It implies that the Congress runs, the government runs the show,
and that the president can be dragged up to Capitol Hill whenever it suits their convenience.
Now, there are extraordinary interests here, but there will be many people urging the president not to do that,
and indeed he can probably satisfy that almost anywhere.
He could do some kind of event at the White House.
He could have some kind of extraordinary news conference.
There are lots of ways I suppose he could get what Senator Kerry wants him to say out publicly.
There's always a problem when the president testifies.
Does the Congress swear the president in?
These are the sort of things that people who worry about the formalities of the Constitution have migraine headaches about,
and maybe he wants to avoid all of that.
And if he chose to, I think a lot of people would understand why.
Pete Williams, who we're proud to say will be helping us walk us through what we see and hear on these tapes as we go throughout the day.
A brief note here.
There are several videotapes that are going to be walked into the house side of the U.S. Capitol building in the next few minutes,
maybe five or so minutes from now.
Very few people have seen these videotapes.
They are plus or minus four hours of the president's once secret grand jury testimony in this case.
They will probably, they will likely contain material that is not suitable for family viewing.
This network is with full warning that you will see on the bottom of the screen airing them in their entirety based on the belief
American people have purchased these videotapes in effect through the investigation
based on the belief that the president's videotape testimony in this case is germane to the crisis enveloping the White House right now,
something historian Robert Dalek this morning called a low moment for the United States of America.
It's not the first time we've seen a president on videotape.
We saw Ronald Reagan say 130 times, I don't know.
In response to questions in the John Poindexter case,
we saw Ronald Reagan unable to identify a photo, excuse me, of his own head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
perhaps a low moment for him in the post-presidential years.
But that is what we will be doing.
Further warnings will come as we approach the appointed hour.
We mentioned the president has his own agenda today.
He is in New York.
He arrived there last night with the First Lady, tight security,
if you're familiar with Manhattan, the entire east side is locked down, seven blocks of First Avenue locked down.
The president is going to be talking to the United Nations this evening.
Here was his landing last night.
It was a damp and breezy evening when the president touched down quickly into the motorcade,
made their way to Midtown Manhattan.
NBC's David Gregory is standing by outside the United Nations.
David, as diversions go, this is a big one.
What about the content of the speech that we can just assume the White House will say
is much more important than what we're hearing here?
Well, arguably there's a case to be made today, more than cases can be made on other days.
The president will be here in about half an hour, expected to address the General Assembly of the United Nations
at 1045 and the topic, a grave one, terrorism around the world
and what the international community can do to combat it.
What's ironic, Brian, is the fact that in recent weeks, amid this scandal,
at least the White House has taken some solace in the fact that the networks are carrying
the president and the First Lady's addresses publicly alive.
In this case, the president is competing against himself,
and he can't win when he's up against his own grand jury testimony.
Nevertheless, as you mentioned, the White House is immersing itself in a policy day
on the subject of terrorism, on the subject of international economics,
something that is gravely important to the country, but we'll get little notice today.
David Gregory at the United Nations.
Again, the president will be giving a speech at or about the same time.
These tapes are rolling from Capitol Hill.
I'd like to scroll around on our available shots from Capitol Hill,
starting with the gallery on the House side.
A lot of people you'll see crammed in a small room.
This is the home during the week.
All the journalists you see on television covering Congress,
all the journalists whose bylines you read in major dailies
and on the wire services across the country, they operate from this base of operations,
the television and radio gallery on the House.
Here we go, the shot of the tapes arriving in the Capitol building.
We are led to believe they are inside the middle envelopes.
You see there's a finite number of them, two aides introducing themselves,
the flash bulbs illuminating.
There is no sound that we can play for you for this moment.
It's not being made available to us.
The tape being opened very deliberately here on camera,
and that appears to be a videotape.
Not a format home viewers are used to.
This is a professional format videotape.
The envelopes under seal being very methodically opened,
and they will be put into one of a series of videotape playback machines.
This is a deadly serious business being taken quite seriously by those
in the House of Representatives.
The various television networks have pooled their resources.
Here is the first tape going into the machine.
The technician hitting play, and within seconds here,
we should be getting the first warning about when they will be playing
for audio and video purposes, the videotapes from the hill.
This is the process.
NBC's Gwen Ifill, members of the House will be all but falling all over themselves
to react to what they see.
No one has an advantage here except for members of the independent council staff,
members of the President's staff who are actually present for the taping.
Everyone seeing this for the same time, reaction will be spur of the moment.
Well, it will be spur of the moment.
You're trying to remember that the House of Representatives is technically not in session today.
The Senate will be here, but the House is not.
Of course, you can assume that a lot of members of the Judiciary Committee especially,
and a lot of folks who were around to talk about this over the weekend
or to read documents coming from the Ford office building where they've been stored,
they all have something to say about it.
So you can expect that they're going to either be coming to talk to us
or be talking to each other trying to figure out now what they do with this.
Many members of the House Judiciary Committee, including Republicans on the committee
who have seen the tape, have said in recent days that we should not expect it to be explosive.
It is, after all, four hours of testimony, four hours of legalisms and parsing
and according to some evasions on the President's part,
but also a few moments of total wrapped interest which we can expect to be seeing over and over again.
Let's stay on the shot of the VTR-1 as it's labeled, the tape playback machine on the hill.
And Gwen, we should also note there were many leaks over the weekend
that seven minutes into the testimony the President goes into a prepared statement
that lays out his intentions for the testimony saying, in effect,
here's what I plan to admit here and when you keep coming back to me with these questions,
here's what I'm going to repeat.
And he did do that apparently, repeated it over and over again.
The points of contention and the points of conflict, of course,
come when they begin to press the President on small detail.
That's when he reportedly loses his temper or leaves the room, takes a break,
and is unhappy about the kinds of detail he's pressed on.
We're told that, in fact, you can't really hear very clearly the voices of the prosecutors on this tape,
but you can hear very clearly the President's voice
and that we're going to be watching as much for his demeanor and his reaction as we are for his words.
Gwen Ifill on the hill, let's continue to watch the videotape playback room
while I read aloud the statement, quote,
When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997,
I engaged in conduct that was wrong.
These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse.
They did not constitute sexual relations, as I understood that term to be defined
at my January 17, 1998 deposition.
And the President goes on.
This happens seven minutes in.
What you see now is the queuing up of the actual videotape.
We are going to have to wait for a signal from the House of Representatives,
as really millions of television viewers on several separate networks have all this in common.
We'll all be airing it live.
But we can see the first frame of video there is the first image of the President,
and there appears to be curtains in the background at the top of your screen there.
The President is seated, we are left to assume, in the map room where the testimony was recorded.
NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams.
There is a very basic question being asked around America, Pete, and that is why,
how is it that they can release this legally?
Does the President have a presumption of confidentiality when he delivered this testimony on videotape?
Yes, not only this tape, but of course all the grand jury material,
all the printed material that's going to come out today,
and the answer is the House legally can do with it whatever it wants,
because when Ken Starr sent all of this to Congress, he asked permission from the three judge panel,
three judges here in Washington, for permission to send this all in spite of grand jury secrecy,
and the judges said yes. So the judges gave him permission, they said there's an exception under the rule,
we're allowing you to send this to Congress, and once he did that, it's Congress' baby,
they can do with it whatever they want.
Now interestingly, the rule that the judge cited was when grand jury material is needed in another judicial proceeding,
it can be released. You could well ask whether what's going on today is a judicial proceeding.
It's difficult to make that case, since this is not a court, this is Congress, it's not the judicial branch of government,
but on the other hand, if the President already has in essence agreed to testify on videotape,
he certainly didn't waive his grand jury secrecy, but whose right is it to appeal that?
It's a difficult case to make, no one I don't think is going to challenge it in court,
but the answer is Congress has the legal right to do this.
Williams, who is going to be watching along with us, coming up on 19 minutes after the hour on the East Coast,
it would probably be a good time for another warning.
This network is going to be airing the Clinton videotape testimony in its entirety, as given out.
There have been edits made to this videotape, they may be patently obvious,
a change in the President's position physically in front of the camera, a cutout in the middle of a stream of questioning.
There is material to worry about content-wise, both in the President's answers we're led to believe,
but mostly in the questions he is asked, including but not limited to questions asked by the grand jurors,
one or more themselves, about the President's conduct.
We are led to believe that early on he will read a statement about his own behavior,
about what in his behavior involving this young former intern matched the definition of sexual relations
as he was given it, as he was led to understand.
It is going to be graphic.
It is decidedly not going to be material for the few children who may be home on this Monday in September,
and we will be running a warning on the screen to that effect all day long.
We will be replaying selected versions of it throughout the day as more Americans get home from work
and want to see what they missed.
Of course, this evening a complete wrap-up about 11 1⁄2 hours from now, 9 o'clock Eastern time,
on our regular hour-long newscast, but certainly we'll be playing it along with analysis all day long.
We have just gotten the first definitive word as you look at the technicians queuing up the tape.
We're unaware, we don't know if they know they're on television.
On the right is one of the chief technicians in Washington for Cable News Network,
a veteran to the White House press corps.
At 9.25 a.m., that would put it exactly four minutes from now, the tapes will be rolling out of that machine.
What you see there is the queuing up of a backup copy.
There will be a redundancy in case something should happen to the primary copy as it rolls.
There is a bank of videotape machines there.
This may be a seamless playback in that when the tapes come to their end,
we may pick right up with the beginning of the next tape.
We already know this is going to be rather choppy in its duration.
For example, segment one, first tape, we're going to take two minute breaks I'm now told between the tapes.
First tape runs 11 minutes, second runs 50 minutes, 67 minutes, 47 minutes, 21 minutes and so on.
We assume that it's content that led to their cutting in that form.
But there appear to be seven tapes in all, times given are not precise.
We are all going to be watching this together for the first time.
Just a little bit more on what you're going to be seeing.
You can see the first hint of what this shot looks like right there as we zoom in on it.
That is the President, the first frozen screen image of the President.
Here are the documents being released, being distributed on Capitol Hill.
The first folks who got their documents were those who are members of Congress.
The government printing office has been working all weekend long.
That is a book you're seeing right there, the beige cover.
It is a paperback book as printed by the government printing office.
There is a charge for this. It runs approximately 2,800 pages.
There is many times precedent for this as the government printing office has been forced to print the results of several different investigations.
Again, two minutes to tape time.
The technicians are queuing up the President's videotape testimony.
One more time, it wouldn't hurt us to warn those families, especially during the holidays this time of year, who do have children at home.
You've been warned and the warning will continue all morning long.
This material is decidedly not for a family audience, decidedly not for children.
There will be the same kinds of off-color terms we've already heard used in the Star Report.
We've already heard being analyzed on the air and there will be hours of it.
We will air them here in their entirety.
We have no advance look at them to be able to give specific time warnings before specific references come up.
We don't have that luxury.
One minute to go now until the tapes begin rolling.
Coming up on 625 in the morning on the Pacific Coast, 925 here in the east.
The President's videotape testimony with a few edits having been made to it to protect people who have entered this case innocently
and to keep out material that simply is not germane to the investigation.
As members of the House Radio and Television News Gallery await,
this is a high anxiety moment for this administration, for this presidency,
but again something presidential historian Robert Delleck called a low moment for the American presidency overall.
At this point with just a few seconds remaining, let us listen in.
As the tapes are rolled on the Hill, the President's testimony starts being played live to a national audience.
The Grand Jury is in session. There is a forum. There are no other right persons in the Grand Jury room.
The pair received the testimony of the President.
Thank you, Mr. House and the House of Representatives.
Mr. President, with the situation right now, please,
we saw in the fair the testimony you're about to give as the whole truth and the rest of the truth that helped you out.
I do.
Good afternoon, Mr. President.
Good afternoon.
Could you please state your full name for the record, sir?
William Jefferson Clinton.
My name is Saul Weisenberg. I'm a Deputy Independent Counsel with the Office of Independent Counsel.
With me today are some other attorneys from the Office of Independent Counsel.
At the courthouse are the ladies and gentlemen of the Grand Jury prepared to receive your testimony as you give.
Do you understand, sir?
Yes, I do.
This proceeding is subject to Rule 6C of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as modified by Judge Johnson's order.
You are appearing voluntarily today as part of an agreement worked out between your attorney,
the Office of the Independent Counsel, and with the approval of Judge Johnson. Is that correct, sir?
That is correct.
Mr. Weisenberg, excuse me, you referred to Judge Johnson's order. I'm not familiar with that order.
Have we been served that or not?
No, my understanding is that that is an order that the judge is going to sign today.
She didn't have the name of a WACA person. Basically, my understanding is that it will cover all of the attorneys here today,
the technical people, so that they will be authorized persons permitted to hear Grand Jury testimony,
but they otherwise wouldn't be authorized to hear.
Thank you.
The Grand Jury, Mr. President, has been impaneled by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
I do.
And among other things, it is currently investigating under the authority of the Court of Appeals upon application by the Attorney General,
whether Monica Lewinsky or others, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses are committed,
other crimes related to the case of Jones v. Clinton. Do you understand that, sir?
I do.
And today, you will be receiving questions not only from attorneys on the OIC staff, but from some of the Grand Juries, too.
Do you understand that?
Yes, sir, I do.
I'm going to talk briefly about your rights and responsibilities as a Grand Jury witness.
Normally, Grand Jury witnesses, while not allowed to have attorneys in the Grand Jury room with them, can stop and consult with their attorneys.
Under our arrangement today, your attorneys are here and present for consultation, and you can break the consult with them as necessary,
but it won't count against our total time. Do you understand that, sir?
I do understand that.
You have a privilege against self-incrimination. If a truthful answer to any question would tend to incriminate you,
you can invoke the privilege, and that invocation will not be used against you. Do you understand that?
I do.
And if you don't invoke it, however, any answer that you do give can and will be used against you. Do you understand that, sir?
I do.
Mr. President, you understand that your testimony here today is under oath?
I do.
And you understand that because you have sworn to tell the truth of the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
that if you were to lie or intentionally mislead the Grand Jury, you could be prosecuted for perjury and or obstruction of justice?
I believe that's correct.
Is there anything that you, I have stated to you regarding your rights and responsibilities that you would like me to clarify that you don't understand?
No, sir.
Mr. President, I'd like to read for you a portion of Federal Evidence 603, which discusses the important function the oath has in our judicial system.
It says that the purpose of the oath is one, quote, calculated to awaken the witness's conscience and impress the witness's mind with the duty, end quote, to tell the truth.
Could you please tell the Grand Jury what that oath means to you for today's testimony?
I have sworn an oath to tell the Grand Jury the truth, and that's what I intend to do.
You understand that it requires you to give the whole truth, that is, a complete answer to each question, sir?
I will answer each question as accurately and fully as I can.
Now, you took the same oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on January 17, 1998, in a deposition in the Paula Jones litigation, is that correct?
I did take an oath, sir.
Did the oath you took on that occasion mean the same to you then as it does today?
I believe then that I had to answer the questions truthfully, that's correct.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, sir.
I believe that I had to answer the questions truthfully, that's correct.
And it meant the same to you then as it does today?
Well, no one read me a definition then, and we didn't go through this exercise then.
I swore an oath to tell the truth, and I believe that was bound to be truthful, and I tried to be.
At the Paula Jones deposition, you were represented by Mr. Robert Bennett, your counsel, is that correct?
That is correct.
He was authorized by you to be a representative there, your attorney, is that correct?
That is correct.
Your counsel, Mr. Bennett, indicated at page five of the deposition, lines 10 through 12,
I'm quoting, the President intends to give full and complete answers as Ms. Jones is entitled to have, end quote.
My question to you is, do you agree with your counsel that a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case is, to use his words, entitled to have the truth?
I believe that I was bound to give truthful answers, yes sir.
But the question is, sir, do you agree with your counsel that a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case is entitled to have the truth?
I believe when a witness is under oath, in a civil case or otherwise under oath,
the witness should do everything possible to answer the questions truthfully.
I'm going to turn over questioning now to Mr. Bennett of our office, Mr. President.
Good afternoon, Mr. President.
Good afternoon, Mr. Bennett.
My name is Robert Bennett, I'm attorney with the office of the independent counsel.
Mr. President, we are first going to turn to some of the details of your relationship with Monica Lewinsky that follow up on your deposition that you provided to Paula Jones' case, as was referenced, on January 17, 1998.
The questions are uncomfortable, and I apologize for that in advance.
I will try to be as brief and direct as possible.
Mr. President, were you physically intimate with Monica Lewinsky?
Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save you and the grand jurors a lot of time if I read a statement which I think will make it clear what the nature of my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was,
how it related to the testimony I gave, what I was trying to do in that testimony, and I think it will perhaps make it possible for you to ask even more relevant questions from your point of view.
And with your permission, I'd like to read that statement.
Absolutely, please, Mr. President.
When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong.
These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse.
They did not constitute sexual relations, as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17, 1998, deposition.
But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact.
These inappropriate encounters ended at my insistence in early 1997.
I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual manner.
I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct, and I take full responsibility for my actions.
While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold,
this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters.
I will try to answer to the best of my ability other questions, including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the term sexual relations,
as I understood it to be defined at my January 17, 1998, deposition, and questions concerning alleged subordination of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses.
That, Mr. Bittman, is my statement.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Would you like to have this?
Yes, please.
Would you like to have that anymore?
Grand jury, WJC Moore.
We're going to take a break.
Americans have not seen their president like this before.
They've not seen this president in this state of mind before, nor have we seen any president from that building or anywhere else admit to what you just heard, an inappropriate relationship with a young woman under his employ,
relationship that even extended to certain kinds of phone calls of a sexual nature. President Clinton testimony took at this point in real time a 16-minute break for the purposes of our tape playback.
We're going to just pause for two minutes while the tapes are changed on Capitol Hill.
You're looking at, when you look at the president that's seen that day in the map room of the White House, so named because it is where Roosevelt and Churchill mapped out the strategy and the progress in the later years of the allied effort in World War II.
NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams, we have seen the president read a statement from a folded piece of paper that he hoped would set the tone for the questioning and his answers and would stave off future questions along those lines.
Pete?
Well, I think a couple of things have to be pointed out. First of all, it's unusual the president's lawyer was in the room with him. You'll hear David Kendall throughout this, throughout this playback.
Most people in a grand jury don't have their lawyers present. Second point is the president said the relationship began in early 96 or 97, and of course one of the things the Ken Star report says is that it actually began in 95.
He says it began as a friendship. The Ken Star report also questions that. And finally the president says in his statement that for privacy reasons he doesn't want to give any more details.
Of course that's a good effort on his part, but any witness testifying before a grand jury has no, in essence, right to decline to answer because of privacy. Brian?
Pete Williams, and we're a few seconds away here from resuming the tape, the content you're about to hear in tape two is going to be graphic. Be forewarned this is not material for a family audience, certainly not for children.
As we await the loading into the machine of the second tape here now with the president again.
Your contacts with Mr. Williams did not involve an inappropriate intimate contact.
No sir, it indicates that it did involve inappropriate intimate contact.
It did involve inappropriate intimate contact.
Yes sir, it did.
Mr. Williams, the witness does not have a copy of the statement.
Thank you.
Was this contact with Mr. Micky, Mr. President, did it involve any sexual contact in any way, shape, or form?
Mr. Bittman, I said in the statement, I would like to state the terms of the statement. I think it's clear what inappropriately intimate is.
I have said what it did not include.
It did not include sexual intercourse and I did not believe it included conduct which falls within the definition I was given in the Jones deposition.
And I would like to stay with that characterization.
Mr. President, move to the definition that was provided you during your deposition. We will have that marked as grand jury exhibit WJC2.
This is an exact copy, Mr. President, of the exhibit that was provided you during that deposition.
I'm sure you remember from the deposition that paragraph one of the definition remained in a fact check right rule that that was to be the guiding definition and that paragraphs two and three were stricken.
Do you remember that, Mr. President?
Yes. Specifically what I remember is there were two different discussions, I think, of this.
There was quite an extended one in the beginning and everybody was entering into it and then in the end the judge said that she would take the first definition and strike the rest of it.
That's my memory.
Did you, in page 19 of your deposition in the case, the attorney who provided you with the definition asked you, would you please take whatever time you need to read the definition.
Later on in the deposition you did of course refer to the definition several times. Were you during the deposition familiar with the definition?
Yes, sir. Let me just ask a question. If you're going to ask me about my deposition, could I have a copy of it? Does anybody have a copy?
We have a copy. We'll provide you with a copy.
You say that was on page 19, Mr. President.
Mr. Attorney, would you please take whatever time you need to read this definition because when I use the term sexual relations, this is what I mean today.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir. That starts on 19. Let me say that there is a, just for the record, if my recollection was accurate, there's a long discussion here between the attorneys and the judge.
It goes on to page 23 and in the end the judge says I'm talking only about part one in the definition. Do you understand that? I answer, I do.
The judge says part one and then the lawyer for Ms. Jones says he's only talking about part one. They ask me if I understand it. I say I do and that was my understanding.
I might also note that when I was given this and began to ask questions about it, I actually circled number one. This is my circle here. I remember doing that so I could focus only on those two lines, which is what I did.
Did you understand the words in the first portion of the exhibit, Mr. President, that is for the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations, a person knowingly engages in or causes.
Do you understand, do you understand the words there in that phrase?
I can tell you what my understanding of the definition is if you want me to do it. My understanding of this definition is that it covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify.
That's my understanding of the definition.
What did you believe the definition to include and exclude? What kinds of activities?
I thought the definition included any activity by the person being deposed where the person was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the body with the purpose of intent or gratification and excluded any other activity.
For example, kissing is not covered by that I don't think.
Did you understand the definition to be limited to sexual activity?
Yes, I understood the definition to be limited to physical contact with those areas of the body with the specific intent to arouse or gratify. That's what I understood it to be.
What specific acts did the definition include as you understood the definition on January 17, 1919?
Any contact with the areas there mentioned sir. If you contacted those parts of the body with an intent to arouse or gratify, that is covered.
What did you understand?
If the person being deposed contacted those parts of another person's body with an intent to arouse or gratify, that was covered.
What did you understand the word causative in the first phrase?
The purpose of this definition is the person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly causes contact.
I don't know what that means. It doesn't make any sense to me in this context.
I think what I thought there was, since this was some sort of, as I remember they said in the previous discussion, I'm only remembering now so if I make a mistake you can correct me.
As I remember from the previous discussion they said this was some kind of definition that had something to do with sexual harassment.
That implies it's forcing to me.
There was never any issue of forcing in the case involving, well any of these questions they were asking.
They made it clear in this discussion, I just reviewed, that what they were referring to was intentional sexual conduct, not some sort of forcible abusive behavior.
I don't think I paid any attention to it because it appeared to me that that was something that had no reference to the facts that they admitted they were asking me about.
So if I could be clear Mr. President, was it your understanding back in January that the definition now marked as grand jury to the two only included consensual sexual activity?
My understanding, let me go back and say, my understanding, I'll tell you what it did include, my understanding was when I was giving you, was that what was covered in those first two lines was any direct contact by the person being deposed with those parts of another person's body if the contact was done with an intent to arouse or gratify.
That's what I believe it meant. That's what I believe it meant then, that's what I believe it means today.
I'm just trying to understand Mr. President, you made clear that you put the definition in the context of a sexual harassment case.
No, no, I think it was not in the context of sexual harassment. I just reread those four pages, which obviously grand jury doesn't have.
But there was some reference to the fact that this definition apparently had some connection to some definition in another context and that this was being used not in that context, not necessarily in the context of sexual harassment.
I would think that this causes would be what means to force someone to do something. That's what I've read it. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Therefore, I did not believe that anyone had ever suggested that I had forced anyone to do anything and that I did not do that.
And so that could not have had any bearing on any questions related to Ms. Lewinsky.
I suppose since you have now read portions of the transcripts, you reminded that you did not ask for any clarification of the term, is that correct?
No, sir. I thought it was rather when I read it, I thought it was rather strange with the definition, but it was the one the judge decided on and I was bound by it. So I took it.
During the deposition, you remember that Ms. Lewinsky's name came up when you were asked several questions about her. Remember that?
Yes, sir, I do.
During those, before those questions actually got started, your attorney, Mr. Bennett, objected to any questions about Ms. Lewinsky and he represented to Judge Wright who was presiding.
That was unusual, wasn't it, that a federal judge would come and actually, in your experience, a federal judge would come and preside at a deposition?
Excuse me, could you identify the transcript page on which Mr. Bennett objected to all testimony about Ms. Lewinsky before it got started?
The objections, the quote that I am referring to is going to be at page 54 of the deposition.
That is the testimony, though, after the testimony about Ms. Lewinsky, is it not?
Mr. President, is it unusual for a federal judge to preside over a civil deposition?
I think it is, but this was an unusual case. I believe I know why she did it.
Your attorney, Mr. Bennett, objected to the questions about Ms. Lewinsky, didn't he?
What page is that on, sir?
Page 54.
Were the questions whether the attorneys for Ms. Jones had a good faith basis to ask some of the questions that they were posing to you?
His objections actually begin at page 53.
Since the President pointed out the grand jurors correctly do not have a copy of the deposition, I will read a portion that I am referring to.
And this begins at line one of page 54.
I question the good faith of counsel, the innuendo of the question.
Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit, which they are in possession of, saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape, or form with President Clinton.
Where is that?
That is on page 54, Mr. President, beginning at line one.
That's midway through line one.
Well, actually in the present tense that's an accurate statement.
That was an accurate statement.
I think what Mr. Bennett was concerned about, maybe it would be helpful to you and to the grand jurors, quite apart from these comments,
if I could tell you what his state of mind was, what my state of mind was, and why I think the President was there in the first place.
If you don't want me to do it, I won't.
But I think it will help to explain a lot of this.
Well, we are interested, and I know from the questions that we received from the grand jurors, they are interested in knowing what was going on in your mind when you were reading Grand Jury Exhibit Two,
and what you understood that definition to include.
Our question goes to whether, and you were familiar, and what Mr. Bennett was referring to obviously is Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit.
And we'll have that marked, Mr. President, as Grand Jury Exhibit WJC4.
You remember that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit said that she had no sexual relationship with you.
Do you remember that? I do.
Do you remember in the deposition that Mr. Bennett asked you about that?
This is at the end of the definition, towards the end of the deposition.
You indicated, he asked you whether the statement that Mr. Lewinsky made in her affidavit was true, and you indicated that it was absolutely correct.
I did. And at the time that she made the statement, and indeed to the present day, because as far as I know, she was never deposed since the judge ruled,
she would not be permitted to testify in a case the judge ruled had no merit.
That is this case we're talking about.
I believe at the time that she filled out this affidavit, if she believed that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then this is accurate.
And I believe that is the definition that most ordinary Americans would give it.
If you said Jane and Harry have a sexual relationship, and you're not talking about people being drawn into a lawsuit and being given definitions and then a great effort to trick them in some way,
but you're just talking about people in ordinary conversation.
I'll bet the grand jurors, if they were talking about two people they know and said they have a sexual relationship, they meant they were sleeping together.
They meant they were having intercourse together.
So I'm not at all sure that this affidavit is not true and was not true in Ms. Lewinsky's mind at the time she swore it out.
Did you talk with Ms. Lewinsky about what she meant to write in her affidavit?
I didn't talk to her about her definition. I did not know what was in this affidavit before it was filled out specifically.
I did not know what words were used specifically before it was filled out or what meaning she gave to them.
But I'm just telling you that it's certainly true what she says here that we didn't have, there was no employment, no benefit in exchange, there was nothing having anything to do with sexual harassment.
And if she defines sexual relationships in the way I think most Americans do, meaning intercourse, then she told the truth.
And that depends on what was in her mind. I don't know what was in her mind. You'll have to ask her that.
But you indicated before that you were aware of what she intended by the term sexual relationship.
No sir. I said I thought that this could be a truthful affidavit.
And when I read it, since that's the way I would define it, since keep in mind she was not bound by this sexual relations definition, which is highly unusual.
I don't think anybody would admit that.
When she used a different term, sexual relationship, if she meant by that what most people mean by it, then that is not an untruthful statement.
So your definition of sexual relationship is intercourse only, is that correct?
No, not necessarily intercourse only, but it would include intercourse.
I believe that the common understanding of the term, if you say two people are having a sexual relationship, most people believe that includes intercourse.
So if that's what Ms. Lewinsky thought, then this is a truthful affidavit. I don't know what was in her mind, but if that's what she thought, the affidavit is true.
What else would sexual relationship include besides intercourse?
I think, let me answer what I said before. I think most people when they use that term include sexual relationships and whatever other sexual contact is involved in a particular relationship.
But they think it includes intercourse as well. And I would have thought so before I got into this case and heard all I've heard and seen all I've seen, I would have thought that that's what nearly everybody thought it meant.
Well, I ask Mr. President, because you're using the very document, grand jury's exhibit four, WJC four, represented to Judge Wright, and his understanding of the meaning of that affidavit, which you've indicated you thought Ms. Lewinsky thought was to use the term just intercourse.
He says to Judge Wright that it meant absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape, or form.
Well, let me say this. I didn't have any discussion, obviously at this moment, with Mr. Bennett. I'm not even sure I paid much attention to what he was saying. I was thinking I was ready to get on with my testimony here and they were having these constant discussions all through the deposition.
But that statement in the present tense at least is not inaccurate, if that's what Mr. Bennett meant. That is, at the time that he said that and for some time before that would be a completely accurate statement.
Now I don't believe that he was, I don't know what he meant. You'd have to talk to him, because I just wasn't involved in this and I didn't pay much attention to what was being said. I was just waiting for him to get back to me.
So I can't comment on or be held responsible for whatever he said about that, I don't think.
Well, do you agree between that he misled Judge Wright in some way that you would have corrected the record? He said, excuse me Mr. Bennett, I think the judge is getting a misimpression by what you're saying.
Mr. Bennett was representing me, I wasn't representing him. And I wasn't even paying much attention to this conversation, which is why when you started asking me about this I asked to see the deposition.
I was focusing on my answers to the question. And I've told you what I believe about this deposition, which I believe to be true.
And it's obvious, and I think by your questions you have betrayed, that the Jones Lawyers strategy in this case had nothing to do with uncovering or proving sexual harassment.
By the time this discovery started, they knew they had a bad case on the law, and they knew what our evidence was, they knew they had a lousy case on the facts.
And their strategy, since they were being funded by my political opponent, was to have this dragnet of discovery. They wanted to cover everybody, and they convinced the judge, because she gave them strict orders not to leak, that they should be treated like other plaintiffs and other civil cases.
And how could they ever know whether there had been any sexual harassment unless they first knew whether there had been any sex.
And so with that broad mandate, limited by time and employment in the federal or state government, they proceeded to cross the country and try to turn up whatever they could.
Not because they thought it would help their case. By the time they did this discovery, they knew what the deal was in their case, and they knew what was going to happen. And Judge Wright subsequently threw it out.
Now let me finish Mr. Bennett, you brought this up. Excuse me Mr. Bittman. What they wanted to do, and what they did do, and what they had done by the time I showed up here, was to find any negative information they could on me, whether it was true or not, get it in a deposition, and then leak it, even though it was illegal to do so.
It happened repeatedly. The judge gave them orders. One of the reasons she was sitting in that deposition was because she was trying to make sure that it didn't get out of hand.
But that was their strategy, and they did a good job of it, and they got away with it. I've been subject to quite a lot of illegal leaking, and they had a very determined, deliberate strategy, because their real goal was to hurt me.
When they knew they couldn't win the lawsuit, they thought, well maybe we can pummel, and maybe they thought I'd settle. Maybe they just thought they would get some political advantage out of it. But that's what was going on here.
Now I'm trying to be honest with you, and it hurts me, and I'm trying to tell you the truth about what happened between Ms. Lewinsky and me.
But that does not change the fact that the real reason they were zeroing in on anybody was to try to get any person in there, no matter how uninvolved with Paula Jones, no matter how uninvolved with sexual harassment, so they could hurt me politically.
That's what was going on, because by then, by this time, this thing had been going on a long time. They knew what our evidence was. They knew what the law was and the circuit in which we were bringing this case.
And so they just thought they would take a wrecking ball from me and see if they could do some damage.
John Wright had ruled that the attorney in the Jones case was permitted to ask you certain questions.
He certainly did, and they asked them, and I did my best to answer them. I'm just trying to tell you what my story was.
And your responsibility to answer those questions truthfully, Mr. President.
It was. But it was not my responsibility in the face of their repeated illegal leaking. It was not my responsibility to volunteer a lot of information.
There are many cases in this deposition where I gave, and keep in mind, I prepared, I treated them, frankly, with respect.
I prepared very well for this deposition on the Jones matters. I prepared very well on that.
I did not know that Linda Tripp had been involved in the preparation of this deposition or that all of them.
No, I don't. I just know what I read in the papers about.
But I had no way of knowing that they would ask me all these detailed questions. I did the best I could to answer them.
But in this deposition, Mr. Dutman, I was doing my best to be truthful. I was not trying to be particularly helpful to them.
And I didn't think I had an obligation to be particularly helpful to them to further, when I knew that there was no evidence here of sexual harassment.
And I knew what they wanted to do was to leak this, even though it was unlawful to do so. That's what I knew.
Mr. President, did you have an obligation to make sure that the presiding federal judge was on board and had the correct facts?
Did you believe that was your obligation?
Sir, I was trying to answer my testimony. I was thinking about my testimony.
I don't believe I ever even focused on what Mr. Bennett said and the exact words he did until I started reading this transcript carefully for this hearing.
That moment, that whole argument just passed me by. I was a witness. I was trying to focus on what I said and how I said it.
And believe me, I knew what the purpose of the deposition was. And sure enough, by the way, it did all leak, just like I knew it would.
Let me ask you, Mr. President, you indicated in your statement that you were alone in the Mississippi. Is that right?
Yes, sir.
How many times were you alone in the Mississippi?
Let me begin with the correct answer. I don't know for sure. But if you would like me to give an educated guess, I will do that. But I do not know for sure.
And I will tell you what I think based on what I remember. But I can't be held to a specific term because I don't have records of all of them.
How many times do you think?
Well, there are two different periods here. There's the period when she worked in the White House until April of 1996.
And then there's the period when she came back to visit me from February 1997 until late December 1997.
Based on our records, let's start with the records where we have the best records and the closest in time.
Based on our records between February and December, it appears to me that at least I could have seen her approximately nine times.
Although I do not believe I saw her quite that many times. At least it could have happened.
We think there were nine or ten times when she was in the White House when I was in the Oval Office when I could have seen her.
I do not believe I saw her that many times, but I could have.
Now, we have no records for the time when she was an employee at the White House.
Because we have no records of that for any of the employees at the White House, unless there was some formally scheduled meeting that was on the calendar for the day.
I'll tell you what I remember. I remember meeting her or having my first real conversation with her during the government shutdown in November of 1995.
As I explained in my deposition, during the government shutdown, most federal employees were actually prohibited from coming to work.
Even in the White House. Most people in the White House couldn't come to work.
The Chief of Staff could come to work. My National Security Advisor could come to work, actually.
Therefore, interns were assigned to all offices. And I believe it was her last week as an intern.
Anyway, she worked in the Chief of Staff's office. One night she brought me some pizza. We had some remarks.
Now, the next time I remember seeing her alone was on a couple of occasions when she was working in the Legislative Affairs Office as a full-time employee.
I remember specifically, I have a specific recollection of two times. I don't remember when they were, but I remember twice.
When on Sunday afternoon she brought papers down to me, stayed, and we were alone.
And I'm frankly quite sure, although I have no specific memory, I'm quite sure there were a couple of more times, probably two times more, three times more.
That's what I would say. That's what I can remember. But I do not remember when they were, or at what time of day they were, or what the facts were.
But I have a general memory that would say I certainly saw her more than twice during that period between January and April of 1996 when she worked there.
So, to summarize your testimony, approximately five times you saw her before she left the White House and approximately nine times after she left the employment in the White House?
I don't, there were several times in 1997, I told you that I looked at my calendar and I tell you what I think the outer limits are. I would think that would sound about right.
There could be, in that first four-month period, maybe there's one or two more, maybe there's one less. I just don't know. I don't remember. I didn't keep records.
But I'm giving you what I specifically remember and then what I generally remember. I'm doing the best to be helpful to you.
You reviewed the records for December 28, 1997, Mr. President?
Yes, sir, I have.
Do you believe that Ms. Lewinsky was at the White House and saw you on December 28, 1997?
Yes, sir, I do.
And do you remember talking with Ms. Lewinsky about her subpoena that she had received from Paula Jones' case on that day?
I remember talking with Ms. Lewinsky about her testimony, or about the prospect that she might have to give testimony.
And she talked to me about that, and I remember that.
And you also gave her Christmas gifts, is that correct, Mr. President?
That is correct. They were Christmas gifts and they were going away gifts. She was moving to New York and taking a new job, starting a new life, and I gave her some gifts.
And you actually requested this meeting, is that not correct?
I don't remember that, Mr. Bittman, but it's quite possible that I invited her to come by before she left town.
But usually when we met, she requested the meetings. And my recollection is in 1997, she asked to meet with me several times when I could not meet with her and did not do so.
But it's quite possible that because she had given me a Christmas gift and because she was leaving that I invited her to come by the White House and get a couple of gifts before she left town.
I don't remember who requested the meeting, though. I'm sorry I don't.
You were along with her on December 28, 1997.
Yes, sir, I was.
The gifts that you gave her were a cannabis bag from the Black Dog restaurant at Marcus Vineyard, is that right?
Well, that was just something I had in the place to contain the gifts. But I believe that the gifts I gave her were, I put them in that bag, that's what I had there, and I knew she liked things from the Black Dogs, so I gave her.
I think that's what I put the presents in. I remember what the presents were. I don't remember what the bag was. I gave them.
Did you also give her a marble bear's head carving from Vancouver, Canada?
I did do that. I remember that.
You also gave her a raquette blanket that is a famous raquette from New York?
I did do that. I had that in my possession for a couple of years, but I'd never used it and she was going to New York, so I thought it would be a nice thing to give her.
You gave her a box of cherry chocolates, is that right?
I don't remember that, sir. I mean, there could have been. I just don't remember. I remember giving the bear and the throw. I don't remember what else. It seems to me like it was one other thing in that bag. I didn't remember the cherry chocolates.
How about a pen of the New York skyline?
That could have been in there. I seem to remember I gave her some kind of pen.
What about a pair of Joe Sunblast?
I don't remember that. I'm not denying it. I'm just telling you what I remember and what I don't.
You have given this and went to give some other occasions, is that right, Mr. Frosch?
Yes, I have.
This, though, was you gave her the most gifts that you had ever given her in a single day, is that right?
Well, that's probably true. It was sort of like a going away present and a Christmas present as well.
She had given me a particularly nice book for Christmas, an antique book on the President's. She knew that I collected old books and it was a very nice thing.
I just thought I ought to get up a few things and give them to her before she left.
You mentioned that you discussed her subpoena in Paula Jem's case. Tell us specifically what you discussed.
No, sir. That's not what I said. I said my recollection is I knew by then, of course, that she had gotten a subpoena and I knew that she therefore was slated to testify.
And she mentioned to me, and I believe it was at this meeting, she mentioned, I remember a conversation about the possibility of her testifying.
I believe it must have occurred on the 28th.
She mentioned to me that she did not want to testify.
So that's how it came up, not in the context of I heard you have a subpoena, let's talk about it.
She raised the issue with me in the context of her desire to avoid testimony, which I certainly understood, not only because there were some embarrassing facts about our relationship that were inappropriate,
but also because a whole lot of innocent people were being traumatized and dragged through the mud by these Jones lawyers with their dragnet straps.
And so since she didn't know Paula Jones and knew nothing about sexual harassment and certainly had no experience with that, I clearly understood why she didn't want to be a part of it.
You didn't want her to testify, you didn't want her to disclose the embarrassing facts of this inappropriate intimate relationship that you had, is that correct?
Well, I did not want her to have to testify and go through that and of course I didn't want her to do that. Of course not.
Did you want those facts, not only the fact that she would testify, but did you want the facts that she had about your embarrassing inappropriate intimate relationship to be disclosed?
Not there, but not in any context. However, I never had any high confidence that they wouldn't be.
Did anyone, as far as you knew, know about your embarrassing inappropriate intimate relationship that you had with Ms. Newton?
At that time I was unaware that she had told anyone else about it, but if I had known that it would not have surprised me.
Had you told anyone?
Absolutely not.
Had you tried in fact not to let anyone else know about this relationship?
Well of course.
What did you do?
Well I never said anything about it for one thing. And I did what people do when they do the wrong thing. I tried to do it where nobody else was looking at.
How many times did you do that?
Well if you go back to my statement, I remember there were a few times in 96, I can't say with any certainty. There was once in early 97.
After she left the White House, I did not believe I ever had any inappropriate contact with her in the rest of 96.
There was one occasion in 97 when, regrettably, we were together for a few minutes, I think about 20 minutes, and there was inappropriate contact.
And after that, to domestic biomemory belief, it did not occur again.
Did you tell her in the conversation about her being subpoenaed, she was upset about it, or did you acknowledge that?
Sorry, you have to respond to the record. Yes or no, did you agree that she was upset about being subpoenaed?
Oh yes sir, she was upset. We didn't talk about subpoena, but she was upset. She said, I don't want to testify. I know nothing about this.
I certainly know nothing about sexual harassment. Why do they want me to testify?
And I explained to her why they were doing this and why all these women were on these lists and people that they knew good and well had nothing to do with any sexual harassment.
I explained to her that it was a political lawsuit. They wanted to get whatever they could under oath that was damaging to me,
and then they wanted to leak it in violation of the judge's orders and turn up their nose and say, well, you can't prove we did it.
Now that was their strategy. And they were very frustrated because everything they leaked so far was old news.
So they desperately were trying to validate this massive amount of money they'd spent by finding some new news.
And she didn't want to be caught up in that, and I didn't blame her.
You were familiar, weren't you, Mr. President, that she had received a subpoena, but already acknowledged?
Yes sir, I was.
And Mr. Jordan informed you of that? Is that right?
No sir, I believe, and I believe I testified to this in my deposition.
I think the first person who told me that she had been subpoenaed was Bruce Lindsay.
I think the first person, and I was in this deposition, it's a little bit cloudy, but I was trying to remember who the first person who told me was.
Because the question was, again, as I remember, could we go to that in the deposition since you asked me that?
Actually, I think you're, with all respect, I think you may be confusing when Mr. Lindsay, perhaps Mr. Lindsay did tell you she was subpoenaed, I don't know. But in your deposition, you were referring to Mr. Lindsay, notifying you that she had been identified as a witness.
Where is that, sir? I don't want to get into that. I just want to... what page is that?
Well, actually...
No, it had to be, because I saw a witness list much earlier than that.
Much earlier than December 28th?
Oh, sure. And earlier than... I believe Monica...
Page 69.
I believe Monica Lewinsky's name was on a witness list earlier than she was subpoenaed.
So I believe when I was answering this question, at least I thought I was answering when I found out...
Yes, see, there's... on page 68, that anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in this case.
Then I said, I don't think so. Then I said, did you ever talk to Monica about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case?
Then I gave an answer that was non-responsive that really tried to finish the answer above. I said, Bruce Lindsay.
I think Bruce Lindsay told me that she was. I think maybe that's the first person who told me that she was.
I want to be as accurate as I can. And that... I believe that Bruce is the first person who told me that Monica had gotten a subpoena.
Did you in fact have a conversation with Mr. Jordan on the evening of December 19, 1997,
in which he talked to you about Monica being in Mr. Jordan's office, writing a copy of his subpoena, and being upset about being subpoenaed?
I remember that Mr. Jordan was in the White House on December 19, and for an event of some kind,
that he came up to the residence floor and told me that Monica had gotten a subpoena, or that Monica was going to have to testify.
And I think he told me he recommended a lawyer for her. I believe that's what happened. But it was a very brief conversation.
He was there for some other reason.
And if Mr. Jordan testified that he had also spoken to you at around 5 p.m. and the White House phone laws reflect this, that he called you around the time he met with Ms. Lewinsky
and informed you that she had been subpoenaed. Does that consist with your memory? Also in the 19th.
I had a lot of phone conversations at DeBurne about this. I didn't keep records of them. I now have some records.
My memory is not clear. My testimony on that was not clear. I just knew that I had talked to Vernon at some time, but I thought that Bruce was the first person who told me.
But Mr. Jordan had also told you. Is that right?
Yes. I now know I had a conversation with Mr. Jordan about it, where he said something to me about that.
And that was probably on the 19th, December 19.
Well, I know I saw him on the 19th, so I'm quite sure. And if he says he talked to me on the 19th, I believe he would have better records.
And I certainly think he's a truthful person.
Getting back to your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28, you are aware that she's been subpoenaed.
You are aware, are you not, Mr. President, that this has been a call for the production, among other things, all the gifts that you had given Ms. Lewinsky.
You are aware of that on December 28, weren't you?
I'm not sure. And I understand this is an important question.
I did have a conversation with Ms. Lewinsky at some time about gifts, the gifts I'd given her.
I do not know whether it occurred on the 28th or whether it occurred earlier.
I do not know whether it occurred in person or whether it occurred on a telephone.
I have searched my memory for this because I know it's an important issue.
Perhaps I can tell you what I remember about the conversation and you can see where I'm having trouble placing today.
Please, the reason I'm not sure it happened on the 28th is that my recollection is that Ms. Lewinsky said something to me like,
what if they asked me about the gifts you'd given her? That's the memory I have. That's why I question whether it happened on the 28th because she had a subpoena with a request for production.
And I told her that if they asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had, that that's what the law was.
And let me also tell you, Mr. Bidman, if you go back and look at my testimony here, I actually asked the Jones lawyers for help on one occasion when they were asking me what gifts I had given her.
I was never hung up about this gift issue. Maybe it's because I have a different experience, but you know the President gets hundreds of gifts a year, maybe more.
I have always given a lot of gifts to people, especially if they give me gifts, and this was no big deal to me. I mean it's nice, I enjoy it.
I gave dozens of personal gifts to people last Christmas, I give gifts to people all the time. Friends of mine give me gifts all the time, give me tithes, give me books, give me other things.
It was just not a big deal. And I told Ms. Lewinsky that, you know, if they ask you for this, you'll have to give them whatever you have.
And I think, Mr. Bidman, it must have happened before then, because either that or Ms. Lewinsky didn't want to tell me that she had a subpoena, because that was the language I remember her using.
Well, didn't she tell you, Mr. President, that the subpoena specifically called for a cap pen that you had produced, or that you had given her?
I don't remember that. I remember, sir, I've told you what I remember. That doesn't mean that my memory is accurate. A lot of things have happened in the last several months.
A lot of things were happening then. But my memory is she asked me a general question about gifts. And my memory is she asked me in the hypothetical.
So it's possible that I had a conversation with her before she got a subpoena. Or it's possible she didn't want to tell me that was part of the subpoena. I don't know.
But she may have been worried about this gift business, but it didn't bother me. My experience was totally different.
I told her, I said, look, the way these things work is when a person gets a subpoena, you have to give them whatever you have. That's what the law is.
And when I was asked about this in my deposition, even though I was not trying to be helpful particularly to these people that I thought were not well motivated of being honest or even lawful in their conduct,
reason being me, that is the Jones legal team, I did ask them specifically to enumerate the gifts. I asked them to help me because I couldn't remember the specifics.
So all I'm saying is I wasn't troubled by this gift issue.
And your testimony is that Ms. Lewinsky was concerned about her turning over any gifts that you had given her and that your recommendation to her was, absolutely Monica, you have to produce everything that I have given you. Is that your testimony?
My testimony is what I have said. And let me reiterate it. I don't want to agree to a characterization of it. I want to just say what it was.
My testimony is that my memory is that on some date in December, and I'm sorry I don't remember when it was, she said, well what if they asked me about the gifts you have given me?
And I said, well if you get a request to produce those, you have to give them whatever you have. And to me, I don't now see this as a problem.
And if she thought it was a problem, I think it must have been really a misapprehension of the circumstances. I certainly never encouraged her not to comply lawfully with the subpoena.
Sir, if your intent was, as you have earlier testified, you didn't want anyone to know about this relationship you have with Ms. Lewinsky, why would you feel comfortable giving her gifts in the middle of discovery in Paula Jones' case?
Well sir, for one thing, there was no existing improper relationship at that time. I had for nearly a year done my best to be a friend to Ms. Lewinsky, to be a counselor to her, to give her good advice, and to help her.
And she had, for her part, most of the time accepted the changed circumstances. She talked to me a lot about her life, her job ambitions, and she continued to give me gifts.
And I felt that it was the right thing to do to give her gifts back. I have always given a lot of people gifts. I have always been giving gifts. I do not think there is anything improper about a man giving a woman a gift, or a woman giving a man a gift, that necessarily connotes an improper relationship.
It didn't bother me. I wasn't, you know, this was December 28th. I gave her some gifts. I wasn't worried about it. I thought it was an all right thing to do.
You have notes and letters, cards, letters, and notes in this investigation. After this relationship, this inappropriate intimate relationship between you and Ms. Lewinsky ended, she continued to send you numerous intimate notes, cards. Is that right?
Well, they were, some of them were somewhat intimate. I'd say most of them, most of the notes and cards were affectionate, all right, but she had clearly accepted the fact that there could be no contact between us that was in any way inappropriate.
Now, she sent cards sometimes that were just funny, even a little bit off color, but they were funny. She liked to send me cards, and I got a lot of those cards. Several anyway, I don't know a lot. I got a few.
Did she profess her love to you in these cards after the end of the relationship?
She said she loved you.
Sir, the truth is that most of the time, even when she was expressing her feelings for me in affection at times, I believe that she had accepted, understood my decision to stop this inappropriate contact.
She knew from the very beginning of our relationship that I was apprehensive about it, and I think that in a way she felt a little freer to be affectionate because she knew that nothing else was going to happen.
I can't explain entirely what was in her mind, but most of these messages were not what you'd call over the top. They weren't things that if you read them, you would say, oh my goodness, these people are having some sort of sexual affair.
But some of them were quite affectionate.
My question was, did she, did she not profess her love to you in these cards and letters that she sent to you after the relationship ended?
Most of them were signed love, you know, love, Monica. I don't know that I would, I don't believe that in most of these cards and letters she professed her love, but she might well have.
But you know, love can mean different things too, Mr. Bittman. I have, there are a lot of women with whom I have never had any inappropriate contact who are friends of mine who will say from time to time, I love you.
And I know that they don't mean anything wrong by that.
Specifically, Mr. President, do you remember the card she sent you after she saw the movie Titanic in which she said that she reminisced or dreamed about the romantic feelings that occurred in the movie and how that reminded her of you two.
Do you remember that?
No sir, but she could have said it. Just because I don't remember it doesn't mean it wasn't there.
You're not denying that?
Oh no, I wouldn't deny that. I just don't remember it. You asked me if I remembered it. I don't. She might have done it.
Do you ever remember telling her, Mr. President, that she should not write some of the things that she does in these cards and letters that she sends to you because it reveals, it disclosed this relationship that you had and that she shouldn't do it?
I remember telling her she should be careful what she wrote because a lot of it was clearly inappropriate and would be embarrassing if somebody else read it. I don't remember when I said that. I don't remember when it was in 96 or when it was. I don't remember.
It's embarrassing in that it was revealing the intimate relationship that you and she had. Is that right?
I do not know when I said this so I don't know whether we did have any sort of inappropriate relationship at the time I said that to her. I don't remember. But it's obvious that if she wrote things that she should not have written down and someone else read it that it would be embarrassing.
She certainly sent you something like that after the relationship began. And so therefore there was, at the time she sent it, something inappropriate going on?
Well my recollection is that she, that maybe because of changed circumstances in her own life, in 1997 after there was no more inappropriate contact that she sent me more things than she might have.
And that there was sort of a disconnect sometimes between what she was saying and the plain facts of our relationship. And I don't know what caused that. But it may have been dissatisfaction with the rest of her life. I don't know.
She had from the time I first met her talk to me about the rest of her personal life and it may be that there was some reason for that. It may be that when I did the right thing and made it stick that in a way she felt the need to cling more closely or try to get closer to me even though she knew nothing improper was happening or was going to happen.
I don't know the answer to that.
After you gave her the gifts of 728, did you speak with your secretary, Ms. Curry, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that, or some, some compilation gifts that Ms. Lewinsky would have?
No sir, I didn't do that. I did not do that.
When you testified in the Paula Jones case, this was only two and a half weeks after you had given her these six gifts, you were asked at page 75 of the deposition, lines two through five, well, have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?
And you answered, I don't recall. And you were correct. You pointed out that you actually asked them, do you know what they were?
I think what I meant there was I don't recall what they were, not that I don't recall whether I had given them.
And then if you see they did give me these specifics.
And I gave them quite a good explanation here. I remember very clearly what the facts were about the black dog.
And I said that I could have given her the hat pen and the Walt Whitman book, but I did not remember giving her the gold brooch, which was true. I didn't remember. I may have given it to her, but I didn't remember giving it to her.
They didn't ask me about the about the Christmas gifts. And I don't know why I didn't think to say anything about it. But I have to tell you again, I even invited them to have a list.
It was obvious to me by this point in the definition in this deposition that they had these people had access to a lot of information from somewhere.
And I presume it came from Linda Tripp. And I had no interest in not answering their questions about these gifts. I do not believe that gifts are incriminating, nor do I think they are wrong. I think it was a good thing to do. I'm still not sorry I gave Monica Lewinsky gifts.
Why did you assume that that information came from Linda Tripp?
I didn't then.
I thought you just said by then.
No, no, no. I said I now assume that because of all of the subsequent events. I didn't know. I just knew that somebody had access to some information and they may have known more about this than I did.
Let me ask you about the meeting you had with Betty Curry at the White House on Sunday, January 18, this year, the day after your deposition.
First of all, you didn't, Mrs. Curry, your secretary of six some years, you never allowed her did you to watch whatever intimate activity you did with Ms. Lewinsky, did you?
No, sir. Not to my knowledge.
And as far as you know, she couldn't hear anything either. Is that right?
There were a couple of times when Monica was there when I asked Betty to be places where she could hear because Monica was upset and this was after all the inappropriate contact had been terminated.
I'm talking about the times when you actually had the intimate contact.
I believe that, well, first of all, on that one occasion in 1997, I do not know whether Betty was in the White House after the radio address in the Oval Office complex.
I believe she probably was, but I'm not sure. But I'm certain that someone was there. I always someone was there.
In 1996, I think most of the times that Mr. Lewinsky was there, there may not have been anybody around except maybe coming in and out, but not permanently.
So that's correct. I never, I didn't try to involve Betty in that in any way.
Not only did you not try to involve her, you specifically tried to exclude her and everyone else, isn't that right?
Well, yes. I've never, and it's almost humorous, sir. I'd have to be an exhibitionist not to have tried to exclude everyone else.
So if Mrs. Currie testified that you approached her on the 18th when you spoke with her and you said you were always there when she was there,
she wasn't washing Mrs. Currie. She was always there in the White House. And I was concerned. Let me back up and say.
What about the radio address? Let me back up and say, Mr. Pittman, I knew about the radio address. I was sick after it was over.
And I was pleased that at that time it had been nearly a year since any inappropriate contact that occurred with Mr. Lewinsky. I promised myself it wasn't going to happen again.
The facts are complicated about what did happen and how it happened. But nonetheless, I'm responsible for it. On that night she didn't.
I was more concerned about the times after that when Ms. Lewinsky was upset. And I wanted to establish at least that I had not, because these questions were, some of them were off the wall.
Some of them were way out of line, I thought. And what I wanted to establish was that Betty was there at all other times in the complex.
And I wanted to know what Betty's memory was about what she heard, what she could hear. And what I did not know was, I did not know that.
And I was trying to figure out. I was trying to figure out in a hurry because I knew something was up.
So you wanted to check her memory for what she remembered and that is whether she remembered nothing or whether she remembered an inappropriate intimate relationship.
No, I didn't ask her about it in that way. I asked her about what I was trying to determine was whether my recollection was right.
She was always in the office complex when Monica was there and whether she thought she could hear any conversations we had or did she hear any.
And then I asked her specifically about a couple of times when, once when I asked her to remain in the dining room, Betty, while I met with Monica in my study.
And once when I took Monica into the small office Nancy hung like occupiers right next to Betty's and talked to her there for a few minutes.
That's my recollection of that. I was trying to, I knew Mr. Bittman to a reasonable certainty that I was going to be asked more questions about this.
I didn't really expect you to be in the Jones case at the time. I thought what would happen is that it would break in the press.
And I was trying to get the facts down. I was trying to understand what the facts were.
If Ms. Curry testified that these were not really questions to her, that they were more like statements, is that not true?
Well I can't testify as to what her perception was. I can tell you this. I was trying to get information in a hurry. I was downloading what I remembered.
I think Ms. Curry would also testify that I explicitly told her once I realized that you were involved in the Jones case, you would be office of independent counsel.
And that she might have to be called to witness, that she should just go in there and tell the truth, tell what she knew, and be perfectly truthful.
So I was not trying to get Betty Curry to say something that was untruthful. I was trying to get as much information as quickly as I could.
What information were you trying to get from her when you said, I was never alone with her, right?
I don't remember exactly what I did say with her. That's what you say I said.
If Ms. Curry testified to that, that she said you told her, I was never alone with her, right?
Well, I was never alone with her.
Mr. Goodman, just a minute. I was never alone with her, right might be a question.
And what I might have meant by that is, in the Oval Office complex.
We've been going for more than an hour. Would you mind if we take a break? I need to go to the restroom.
238.
Here we go.
That day not too long ago when the news media were camped outside the White House wondering what it was like in the math room while the President testified on videotape, we now know.
We have also now received the first glimpse of some of the documents and photos being put into evidence.
Some of it never changed hands, letters unsent, letters sent between the President and Monica Lewinsky.
Photos of the two of them together in the company of others and not in the company of others being released as part of the two book set of 2800 pages in all.
NBC News correspondent and Washington attorney, I might add, Chip Reid has been listening along with us.
Chip, what stands out so far as we take a two minute break here between tapes as you watch this testimony?
One thing that stands out is the fact that the President used this opportunity to go after the Jones lawyers and make clear that he thought it was a personal attack by his political enemies to gather negative information and then get it out.
Keep in mind the President has said that he expected this videotape would be released at some point, so he took advantage of that and used it as an opportunity to make his case not to the prosecutors, not to the grand jury, but to the American people.
On the legal issues, we have touched many of the different counts of impeachment offenses. Ken Starr's belief that they're impeachment offenses.
We have talked about the gifts that Ken Starr's office believes he helped to conceal.
Also, perjury. Was he alone with Monica Lewinsky? He said in his Jones deposition he didn't recall gifts. He said the Jones deposition didn't recall gifts.
Now he has very clear memories of being alone and the gifts.
Also, perjury on the issue of sexual relations. They say it's just not credible that he could say oral sex is not sexual relations.
So we have touched on many of the different issues so far already this early in the testimony.
Jeffrey, thanks. And our Washington bureau, again, the break that actually happened is longer than the break reflected here.
All we're doing is pausing two minutes between tapes. Here is the President.
This, we can presume, is now the President coming back on. Let's go back to the tape just playing now.
I'm sorry, 48.
Your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Jones deposition. Council is fully aware, page 54, line 5.
Council is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of, saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind, any manner, shape, or form with President Clinton.
That statement is made by your attorney and final judge, Susan Morrigh, correct?
That's correct.
Your, that statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
The statement that there was no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape, or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
It depends upon what the meaning of the word is.
Yes.
If, if, if, if, if is means is and never has been, that is not, that's one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
But, as I have testified, I'd like to testify again.
This is, it is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked about his lawyer's statements instead of the other way around. I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange.
I was focusing on my own testimony. And if you go back and look at the sequence of this, you will see that the Jones lawyers decided that this was going to be the Lewinsky deposition, not the Jones deposition.
And given the facts of their case, I can understand why they made that decision. But that is not how I prepared for it. That is not how I was thinking about it.
And I am not sure, Mr. Weisenberg, as I sit here today, that I sat there and followed all these interchanges between the lawyers.
I'm quite sure that I didn't follow all the interchanges between the lawyers all that carefully.
And I don't really believe, therefore, that I can say Mr. Bennett's testimony or statement is testimony and is imputable to me.
I don't know that I was even paying that much attention to it.
You told us you were very well prepared for the deposition.
No, I said I was very well prepared to talk about Paula Jones and to talk about Kathleen Willey because she had made a related charge.
She was the only person that I think I was asked about who had anything to do with anything that would remotely approximate sexual harassment.
The rest of this looked to me like was more a way to harass me.
You're the President of the United States and the attorney tells the United States District Court judge that there's no sex of any kind, any way, shape, or form whatsoever.
And you feel no obligation to do anything about that at that deposition, Mr. President?
I have told you, Mr. Weisenberg, I will tell you for a third time, I am not even sure that when Mr. Bennett made that statement that I was concentrating on the exact words he used.
Now, someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?
That is, ask me a question in the present tense.
I would have said no and it would have been completely true.
Was Mr. Bennett aware of this tense-based distinction you're making?
I don't have any questions about communications with private counsel.
Well, the witness has already testified, I think, that Mr. Bennett didn't know about the inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Well, you'll have to ask him.
He was not a sworn witness and I was not paying that close attention to what he was saying.
I've told you that repeatedly.
I was, I don't, I never even focused on that until I read it in this transcript in preparation for this testimony.
When I was in there, I didn't think about my lawyers, I was frankly thinking about myself and my testimony and trying to answer the question.
I just want to make sure I understand, Mr. President.
Do you mean today that because you were not engaging in sexual activity with Ms. Lewinsky during the deposition that the statement of Mr. Bennett might be true?
No, sir.
I mean that at the time of the deposition, that was well beyond any point of improper contact between me and Ms. Lewinsky.
So that anyone generally speaking in the present tense saying there is not an improper relationship would be telling the truth if that person said there was not in the present tense.
Present tense encompassing many months.
That's what I meant by that.
Not that I was, I wasn't trying to give you a cute answer that I was obviously not involved in anything improper during the deposition.
I was trying to tell you that generally speaking in the present tense if someone said that that would be true. But I don't know what Mr. Bennett had in his mind.
I don't know. I didn't pay any attention to this colloquy that went on.
I was waiting for my instructions as a witness to go forward.
I was worried about my own testimony.
I want to go back to some questions about Mr. Jordan.
We're going to touch a little bit on December 19th meeting with his mother.
Mr. Jordan is a longtime friend of yours, is that correct Mr. President?
Yes sir, we've been friends probably 20 years maybe more.
You said you consider him to be a truthful person, correct?
I do.
Mr. Jordan has told us that he visited you in the residence on the night of the 19th after a White House holiday dinner to discuss Monica Lewinsky and her subpoena.
Do you have any reason to doubt?
No, I've never known him to say anything that wasn't true.
And his memory of these events I think would be better than mine because I had a lot of other things going on.
We have wave records that will show that but in the interest of time since you don't dispute that I'm not going to show them right now.
And in fact that was the very day Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed wasn't it?
The night that he came to see you.
I don't have independent memory of that but you would probably know that. I'm sure there's a record of when she got a subpoena.
Mr. Jordan has told us that he spoke with you over the phone within about an hour of Monica receiving her subpoena and later visited you that very day at the White House to discuss it.
Again you have no reason to doubt, is that correct?
I believe I've already testified about that here today.
That I had lots of conversations with Vernon. I'm sure that I had lots of conversations with him that included comments about this.
And if he has a specific memory of when I had some conversation on a certain day I would be inclined to trust his memory over mine because under the present circumstances my head's probably more cluttered than his and my schedule's probably busier and he's probably got better records.
And when Mr. Jordan met with you with the residence that night sir he asked you if you had been involved in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky didn't he?
I do not remember exactly what the nature of the conversation was.
I do remember that I told him that there was no sexual relationship between me and Monica Lewinsky which was true.
And that we then all I remember for the rest is that he said he had referred to a lawyer and I believe it was Mr. Carter and I don't believe I've ever met Mr. Carter. I don't think I know him.
Mr. President, if Mr. Jordan has told us that he had a very disturbing conversation with Ms. Lewinsky that day,
then went over to visit you at the White House and that before he asked you the question about sexual relationship related that disturbing conversation to you.
The conversation being that Ms. Lewinsky had a fixation on you and thought that perhaps the First Lady would leave you at the end of the, that you would leave the First Lady at the end of your term and come be with Ms. Lewinsky.
Do you have any reason to doubt him that it was on that night that that conversation happened?
All I can tell you sir is I certainly don't remember him saying that. He could have said that because as you know a great many things happened in the ensuing two or three days.
And I could have just forgotten it but I don't remember him ever saying that.
At any time?
No, I don't remember him saying that. What I remember was that he said that Monica came to see him that she was upset that she was going to have to testify that he had referred her to a lawyer.
In fact she was very distraught about the subpoena according to Mr. Jordan, wasn't she?
Well, he said she was upset about it. I don't remember at any time when he said this other thing you just quoted me. I'm sorry I just don't remember that.
That is something that one would be likely to remember.
I think I would and I'd be happy to share it with you if I did. I only had one encounter with Ms. Lewinsky I seem to remember which was somewhat maybe reminiscent of that but not that, if you will, obsessive.
That's the way you want to use that word.
Do you recall him at all telling you that he was concerned about her fascination with you, even if you don't remember the specific conversation about you leaving the First Lady?
I recall him saying he thought that she was upset with, somewhat fixated on me, that she acknowledged that she was not having a sexual relationship with me and that she did not want to be drug into the Jones lawsuit.
That's what I recall and I recall his saying that he had recommended a lawyer to her and she had gone to see the lawyer. That's what I recall.
I don't remember the other thing you mentioned. I might well remember it if he had said it. Maybe he said it and I've forgotten it but I can't tell you that I remember that.
Mr. President, you swore under oath in the Jones case that you didn't think anyone other than your lawyers had ever told you that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed.
Page 68, line 22 through page 69, line 3. Here's the testimony, sir. Question. We've gone over it a little bit before.
Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in the case? Answer. I don't think so.
Now, this deposition was taken just three and a half weeks after by your own testimony, Vernon Jordan made a trip at night to the White House to tell you among other things that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed and was upset about it.
Why did you give that testimony under oath in the Jones case, sir?
Mr. Weisenberger, I think you have to, again, you have to put this in the context of the flow of questions.
And I've already testified to this once today. I will testify to it again.
My answer to the next question, I think, is a way of finishing my answer to the question and the answer you said there.
I was trying to remember who the first person, other than Mr. Bennett, I don't think Mr. Bennett, who the first person told me that, who told me Paula Jones had, I mean, excuse me, Monica Lewinsky had a subpoena.
And I thought that Bruce Lindsay was the first person. And that's how I was trying to remember that.
Keep in mind, sort of like today, these questions are being kind of put at me rapid fire, but unlike today, I hadn't had the opportunity to prepare at this level of detail.
I didn't, I was trying to keep a lot of things in my head that I had remembered with regard to the Paula Jones case and the Kathleen Willie matter because I knew I would be asked about them.
And I gave the best answers I could. Several of my answers are somewhat jumbled. But this is an honest attempt here, if you read both these answers, it's obvious they're both answers to that question you quoted, to remember the first person who was not Mr. Bennett who told me.
And I don't believe Vernon was the first person who told me. I believe Bruce Lindsay was.
Let me read the question, because I want to talk about the first person issue. The question on line 25, page 68 is, did anyone other than your attorneys
ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in this case? Answer, I don't think so. You would agree with me, sir, that the question doesn't say, the question doesn't say anything about who was the first person.
It just says, did anyone tell you? Isn't that correct? That's right. And I said Bruce Lindsay because I was trying to struggle with where I'd heard this, and they were free to ask a follow up question and they didn't.
Mr. President, three and a half weeks before Mr. Jordan had made a special trip to the White House to tell you that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, she was distraught, she had a fixation over you. You couldn't remember that three and a half weeks later?
Mr. Weisenberg, if they had access to all this information from their conversations with Linda Tripp, if that was the basis of it, they were free to ask me more questions. They may have been trying to trick me.
Now, they knew more about the details of my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I'm not sure everything they knew was true because I don't know, I've not heard these tapes or anything.
But they knew a lot more than I did. And instead of trying to trick me, what they should have done is to ask me specific questions and I invited them on more than one occasion to ask follow up questions.
This is the third or fourth time that you seem to be complaining that I did not do all their work for them.
That just sitting here answering these questions to the best of my memory with limited preparation was not enough that I should have actually been doing all their work for them.
Now, they've been up all night with Linda Tripp, who had betrayed her friend Monica Lewinsky, stabbed her in the back and given them all this information.
They could have helped more if they wanted to ask me follow up questions. They could. They didn't. I'm sorry, I did the best I could.
Can you tell the grand jury what is tricky about the question that anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you?
No, there's nothing. I'm just telling you, I have explained, I will now explain for the third time, sir.
I was being asked a number of questions here. I was struggling to remember them.
There were lots of things that had gone on during this time period that had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky.
Now, I believed then, I believe now, that Monica Lewinsky could have sworn out an honest affidavit that under reasonable circumstances and without the benefit of what Linda Tripp did to her,
would have given her a chance not to be a witness in this case.
So I didn't have perfect memory of all these events that have now, in the last seven months, since Ms. Lewinsky was kept for several hours by four or five of your lawyers and four or five FBI agents,
as if she were a serious felon, these things have become the most important matters in the world.
At the moment they were occurring, many other things were going on. I honestly tried to remember.
You know, if somebody asks you, has anybody ever talked to you about this? You normally think, well, where was the first time I heard that?
That's all I was trying to do here. I was not trying to say not Vernon Jordan but Bruce Lindsay. Everybody knows Vernon Jordan is a friend of mine.
I probably would have talked to Vernon Jordan about the Monica Lewinsky problem if he had never been involved in it.
So I was not trying to mislead them. I was trying to answer this question with the first person who told me that.
Now I realize that wasn't the specific question. They were free to ask follow-ups just like you're asking follow-ups today.
And I can't explain why I didn't answer every question in the way you seem to think I should have.
And I certainly can't explain why they didn't ask what seemed to me to be logical follow-ups, especially since they spent all that time with Linda Tripp the night before.
You told us that you understand your obligation then as it is now to tell the whole truth, sir. You would call that.
I took the oath here. You even read me a definition of the oath.
If Vernon Jordan has told us that you have an extraordinary memory, one of the greatest memories he's ever seen in a politician, would that be something you would care to dispute?
No, I do have a good memory. At least I have had a good memory in my life.
Do you understand that if you answered I don't think so to the question has anyone other than your attorneys told you that Monica Lewinsky has been served with a subpoena in this case,
that if you answered I don't think so but you really knew Vernon Jordan had been telling you all about it, you understand that that would be a false statement?
Presumably for jury.
Mr. Weisenberg, I have testified about this three times. Now I will do it the fourth time. I am not going to answer your Tripp questions.
I, people don't always hear the same questions in the same way. They don't always answer them in the same way.
I was so concerned about the question they asked me that the next question I was asked,
I went back to the previous question trying to give an honest answer about the first time I heard about the Lewinsky subpoena.
Look, I could have had no reasonable expectation that anyone would ever know, excuse me, not know that I would talk to Vernon Jordan about nearly everything.
I was not interested in, if the implication of your question is that somehow I didn't want anybody to know I would ever talk to Vernon Jordan about this, that's just not so.
It's also, if I could say it, say one thing about my memory. I have been blessed and advantaged in my life with a good memory.
I have been shocked and so have members of my family and friends of mine at how many things that I have forgotten in the last six years.
I think because of the pressure and the pace and the volume of events in the President's life, compounded by the pressure of your four-year inquiry and all the other things that have happened.
I'm amazed there are lots of times when I literally can't remember last week.
If you ask me, did you talk to Vernon, when was the last time you talked to Vernon Jordan, what time of day was it, when did you see him, what did you say?
My answer was the last, you know, if you answer me, when was the last time you saw a friend of yours in California?
If you ask me a lot of questions like that, my memory is not what it was when I came here because my life is so crowded.
And now that, as I said, you have made this the most important issue in America, I mean, you have made it the most important issue in America from your point of view.
At the time this was occurring, even though I was concerned about it and I hoped she didn't have to testify and I hoped this wouldn't come out,
I felt, I will say again, that she could honestly fill out an affidavit that in, under reasonable circumstances, would relieve her of the burden of testifying.
I am not trying to exclude the fact that I talked to Vernon here.
I just, all I can tell you is I believe this answer reflects, I was trying to remember the first person who told me who was not Mr. Bennett and I believe it was Bruce Linson.
As you yourself recall, just recall Mr. President, Vernon Jordan not only discussed the subpoena with you that night, but discussed Frank Carter, the lawyer who got him from Ms. Lewinsky,
and also Mr. Jordan discussed with you the next few weeks after the 19th of December, the, in addition to the job aspects of Ms. Lewinsky's job,
he discussed with you her affidavit that she was preparing in the case. Is that correct, sir?
I believe that he did notify us, I think, when she signed her affidavit. I have a memory of that. Or it seems like he said that she had signed her affidavit.
He told us that he notified you around January 7th when she signed her affidavit that you generally understood that it would deny a sexual relationship. Do you have any reason to doubt that?
No.
That's the affidavit, the lawyer, and the subpoena. And yet when you were asked, sir, at the Jones deposition about Vernon Jordan, specifically about whether or not he had discussed the lawsuit with you,
you didn't reveal that to the court. I want to refer you to page 72, line 16. This is where this starts. It's going to go down. It might go down somewhat.
Line 16, question, has it ever been reported to you that he, and that's referring to Mr. Jordan. At line 12 you're asked, you know a man named Vernon Jordan, you answer, I know him well.
Going down to 16, has it ever been reported to you that he met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about this case? This is your answer, or a portion of it.
I knew that he met with her. I think Betty suggested that he meet with her. Anyway, he met with her. I thought that he talked to her about something else.
Why didn't you tell the court when you were under oath and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, that you had been talking with Vernon Jordan about the case, about the affidavit, the lawyer, the subpoena?
That's not the question I was asked. I was not asked any question about, I was asked, has it ever been reported to you that he met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about this case?
I believe, I may be wrong about this, my impression was that at the time, I was focused on the meetings, I believe the meetings he had were meetings about her moving to New York and getting a job.
I knew at some point that she had told him that she needed some help because she had gotten a subpoena. I'm not sure I know whether she did that in a meeting or a phone call.
I was not focused on that. I know Vernon helped her to get a lawyer, Mr. Carter, and I believe that he did it after she had called him, but I'm not sure.
But I knew that the main source of their meetings was about her moving to New York and her getting a job.
Are you saying, sir, that you forgot when you were asked this question that Vernon Jordan had come on December 19th, just three and a half weeks before, and said that he'd met that day, the day that Monica got the subpoena?
It's quite, it's sort of a jumbled answer. It's quite possible that I got mixed up between whether she had met with him or talked to him on the telephone in those three and a half weeks.
Again, I say, sir, just from the tone of your voice and the way you're asking questions here, it's obvious that this is the most important thing in the world and that everybody was focused on all the details at the time.
But that's not the way it worked. I was doing my best to remember. Now keep in mind, I don't know if this is true, but the news reports are that Linda Tripp talked to you, they went and talked to the Jones lawyers, and you know that she prepared them for this.
Now maybe you seem to be criticizing me because they didn't ask better questions, and as if you didn't prepare them well enough to sort of set me up or something.
I don't know what's going on here. All I can tell you is I didn't remember all the details of all this. I didn't remember what, when Vernon talked to me about Monica Lewinsky, where she talked to him on the telephone or had a meeting, I didn't remember all those details.
I was focused on the fact that Monica went to meet with Vernon after Betty helped him set it up and had subsequent meetings to talk about her move to New York.
Now keep in mind, at this time, until this date here, when it's obvious that something funny is going on here and there's some sort of a gotcha game at work in this deposition, until this date, I didn't know that Ms. Lewinsky's deposition wasn't going to be sufficient for her to avoid testifying.
I didn't, you know, so all these details, excuse me, I'm sorry, our affidavit, thank you. So I don't necessarily remember all the details of all these questions you're asking me because there was a lot of other things going on and at the time they were going on, until all this came out, this was not the most important thing in my life.
This was just another thing in my life.
So Vernon Jordan met with you, sir, and he reported that he had met with Monica Lewinsky and the discussion was about the lawsuit and you didn't inform, under oath, the court of that in your deposition?
I gave the best answer I could based on the best memory I had at the time they asked me the question. That's the only answer I can give you, sir.
And I think I may have been confused in my memory because I've also talked to him on the phone about what he said about whether he talked to her or met with her. That's all I can tell you.
But let me say again, I don't have the same view about this deposition, I mean this affidavit that I think you do.
I felt very strongly that Ms. Lewinsky and everybody else that didn't know anything about Paula Jones and anybody about anything about sexual harassment, that she and others were themselves being harassed for political purposes in the hope of getting damaging information that the Jones lawyers could unlawfully leak.
Now, I believe then, I believe today, that she could execute an affidavit which under reasonable circumstances with fair-minded, non-politically oriented people would result in her being relieved of the burden to be put through the kind of testimony that thanks to Linda Tripp's work with you and with the Jones lawyers she would have been put through.
I don't think that's dishonest, I don't think that's illegal. I think what they were trying to do to her and all these other people who knew nothing about sexual harassment was outrageous, just so they could hurt me politically. So I just don't have the same attitude about this.
Well you're not telling our grand jurors that if you think the case was a political case or a set up Mr. President that that would give you the right to commit perjury or whatever.
No sir, no sir. In the face of their, the Jones lawyers, the people that were questioning me, in the face of their illegal leaks, their constant, unrelenting illegal leaks, in a lawsuit that I knew and by the time this deposition and this discovery started, they knew, was a bogus suit on the law and a bogus suit on the facts.
In the face of that, I knew that in the face of their illegal activity, I still had to behave lawfully. But I wanted to be legal without being particularly helpful. I thought that was that was what I was trying to do.
And this is the, you're the first person who ever suggested to me that that I should have been doing their lawyers work for them. When they were perfectly free to ask follow up questions on one or two occasions, Mr. Bennett invited them to ask follow up questions.
It now appears to me they didn't because they were afraid I would give them a truthful answer and that there had been some communication between you and Ms. Tripp and them and they were trying to set me up and trick me. And now you seem to be complaining that they didn't do a good enough job.
I did my best sir at this time. I did not know what I now know about this. A lot of other things were going on in my life. Did I want this to come out? No. Was I embarrassed about it? Yes. Did I ask her to lie about it? No. Did I believe there could be a truthful affidavit? Absolutely.
Now that's all I know to say about this. I will continue to answer your questions as best I can. You're not going back on your earlier statement that you understood you were sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the folks at that deposition are you Mr. President?
No sir, but I think we might as well put this out on the table. You tried to get me to give a broader interpretation to my oath than just my obligation to tell the truth. In other words you tried to say even though these people are treating you in an illegal manner and illegally leaking these deposition, you should be a good lawyer for them.
And if they don't have enough sense to ask a question, and even if Mr. Bennett invited them to ask follow up questions, if they didn't do it, you should have done all their work for them. So I will admit this sir. My goal in this deposition was to be truthful, but not particularly helpful.
I did not wish to do the work of the Jones Lawyers. I deplored what they were doing. I deplored the innocent people they were tormenting and traumatizing. I deplored their illegal leaking. I deplored the fact that they knew once they knew our evidence that this was a bogus lawsuit and that because of the funding they had from my political enemies they were putting ahead.
I deplored it. But I was determined to walk through the minefield of this deposition without violating the law and I believe I did.
You're not saying are you Mr. President in terms of doing the work for the Jones folks, the Jones Lawyers, that you could say as part of your not helping them, I don't know to a particular question when you really knew, and that it was up to them, even if you really knew the answer, it was up to them to do the follow up.
You kind of had a one three, I don't know if I could finish. I've been very patient Mr. President in letting you finish. You didn't think you had a free shot to say I don't know or I don't recall but when you really did know and you did recall and it was just up to them, even if you weren't telling the truth, to do a follow up and to catch you.
No sir I'm not saying that and if I could give you one example. That's why I felt that I had to come back to that question where I said I don't know that and talk about Bruce Lindsay because I was trying, I was honestly trying to remember how I first heard this.
I wasn't hung up about talking about this. All I'm saying is, let me say something sympathetic to you. I've been pretty tough so let me say something sympathetic.
All of you are intelligent people. You worked hard on this. You've worked for a long time. You've gotten all the facts. You've seen a lot of evidence that I haven't seen.
And it's an embarrassing and personally painful thing, the truth about my relationship with Mr. Lewinsky. So the natural assumption is that while all this was going on, I must have been focused on nothing but this, therefore I must remember everything about it in the sequence and form in which it occurred.
All I can tell you is I was concerned about it. I was glad she saw a lawyer. I was glad she was doing an affidavit. But there were a lot of other things going on and I don't necessarily remember it all.
And I don't know if I can convince you of that, but I tried to be honest with you about my mindset, about this deposition, and I'm just trying to explain that I don't have the memory that you assume that I should about some of these things.
I want to talk to you first, Mr. President, about the incident that happened at the Northwest Gate of the White House on December 5th. Sorry, December 6, 1997.
Give me just a moment. That was a, let me ask you first, in early 1997, the Paula Jones case was pending, correct?
Yes, sir.
You were represented by Mr. Bennett, of course.
Yes, that's correct. Yes, I did. He was.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
No, no, yes, he was representing me.
How often did you talk to him or meet with him, if you can just recall, at that time of the litigation?
Well, we met, I would say, I wish Mr. Ruff were answering this question instead of me. His memory would be better.
We met probably, oh, for a long time we didn't meet all that often, maybe once a month, and then the closer we got to the deposition, we would meet more frequently.
So maybe by this time we were meeting more. We also, there was a period when we had been approached about-
The question only goes to the number of meetings, not the content.
I understand. We're not talking about the content. There was a period in which we, I think back in the summer before this, when we had met more frequently.
But I would say normally once a month, sometimes something would be happening, we'd meet more, and then as we moved toward the deposition, we would begin to meet more.
The witness list came out on December 5th of 1997 of Monica Lewinsky's name on it.
Mr. President, when did you find out that Monica's name was on that witness list?
I believe that I found out late in the afternoon on the 6th. That's what I believe.
I tried to remember with great precision, and because I thought you would ask me about this day, I tried to remember the logical question, which is whether I knew it on the 6th and if so at what time.
I had a meeting in the late afternoon on the 6th, and I believe that's when I learned about it.
So on the morning of the 6th, Monica Lewinsky came to the Northwest Gate and found out that you were being visited by L.R. Mondale at the time and had an extremely angry reaction.
You know that, sir, now, don't you?
I know that Monica Lewinsky came to the gate on the 6th and apparently directly called in and wanted to see me and couldn't and was angry about it. I know that.
And she expressed that anger to Betty Curry over the telephone, is that correct, sir?
Betty told me that.
Monica later expressed her anger to you in one of her telephone conversations with Betty Curry, is that correct?
You mean that I talked to her on the phone?
Monica Lewinsky that day, before she came in to visit in the White House.
Mr. Weisenberg, I remember that she came in to visit that day. I remember that she was upset.
I don't recall whether I talked to her on the phone before she came in to visit, but I may well have. I'm not denying that I did. I just don't recall that.
And Mrs. Curry and yourself were very irate that Ms. Lewinsky had overheard that you were in the Oval Office with a visitor on that day.
Isn't that correct, that you and Mrs. Curry were very irate about that?
Well, I don't remember all that. What I remember is that she was very, Monica was very upset. She got upset from time to time.
I couldn't see her. I was doing as I remember her. I had some other work to do that morning.
She had just sort of showed up and wanted to be let in and wanted to come in at a certain time, and she wanted everything to be that way.
And we couldn't see her. Now, I did arrange to see her later that day. And I was upset about her conduct.
I'm not sure I knew or focused on at that moment exactly the question you asked. I remember I thought her conduct was inappropriate that day.
I want to go back and I want to take them one at a time. Number one, did you find out at some point during that day that Monica had overheard from somebody in the Secret Service that you were meeting with Ms. Mondale?
And that Monica got very irate about that?
I knew that at some point. I don't know whether I found out that that day. I knew that somehow she knew that Eleanor Mondale was in to see us that day.
I knew that. I don't know that I knew how she knew that on that day. I don't remember that.
Pardon me. That leads into my second question, which is, weren't you irate at the Secret Service precisely because they had revealed this information to Ms. Lewinsky on that very day?
So irate that you told several people or at least one person that somebody should be fired over this on that very day?
I don't remember whether it happened on that very day, but let me tell you that the uniformed Secret Service, if that is in fact what happened, and we'll stipulate that that is, that no one should be telling anybody, not anybody, not a member of my staff, who the President is meeting with.
That's an inappropriate thing to do. So I would think that if that in fact is what I heard when I heard it, I would have thought that was a bad thing. I don't know that I said that. I don't remember what I said and I don't remember to whom I said it.
It would be an inappropriate thing, sir, and that leads into my next question is that why did Mrs. Curry, on your instructions later that day, tell many of the Secret Service officers involved that it never happened to forget about it?
What never happened? The incident that you were so irate about earlier, the incident of somebody disclosing to Mrs. Lewinsky that Ms. Mondale was in the Oval Office with you?
I don't know the answer to that. I think maybe, you know, I don't know.
Do you recall that you later gave orders to the effect that we're going to pretend this never happened or something like that?
No, sir. I don't recall that. First of all, I don't recall that I gave orders to fire anybody, if that was the implication of your first statement.
It wasn't an implication. Actually, the question was that you initially wanted somebody fired. You were so mad that you wanted somebody fired.
I don't remember that, first of all. I remember thinking it was an inappropriate thing to do.
I remember, as I usually do when I'm mad, after a while I wasn't so mad about it, and I'm quite aware that Ms. Glewinsky has a way of getting information out of people when she's either charming or determined.
I could have just said, well, I'm not so mad about it anymore, but I don't remember the whole sequence of events you're talking to me about now, except I do remember that somehow Monica found out Bella Mondale was there.
I learned either that day or later that one of the uniformed division personnel had told her. I thought then it was a mistake. I think now it was a mistake.
I'm not sure it's a mistake someone should be terminated over. I think that you could just tell them not to do that anymore.
In fact, it would kind of be an overreaction to get our radar terminated, somebody for revealing to a former White House staffer who visits where the President is, don't you think, sir?
Well, it would depend upon the facts. I think the whole people in the uniformed Secret Service who are working on the gate have no business telling anybody anything about the President's schedule.
Just as a general principle, I didn't mind anybody knowing that she was there, if that's what you're saying. I could care less about that.
I think that the schedule itself, that these uniformed people, somebody shouldn't just be able to come up on the street because they know who the Secret Service agent is, he says who the President is with. I don't think that's proper.
But on the other hand, I wanted to know what happened. I think we found out what happened and then they were told not to let it happen again and I think that's the way it should have been handled. I think it was handled in the appropriate way.
And you have no knowledge of the fact that Secret Service officers were told later in the day something to the effect of this never happened, this event never happened. You have no knowledge of that.
I'm not sure anybody ever told that to me. I thought you were asking, let me just say my interpretation of this, of your previous question was different than what you're asking now.
What I remember was being upset that this matter would be discussed by anybody. Incidentally it happened to be Monica Lewinsky.
And that whatever I said I don't recall, but then thinking that the appropriate thing to do was to say, look, this is not an appropriate thing for you to be talking about the President's schedule and it shouldn't happen again.
Now the question you seem to be asking me now, I just want to be sure I'm getting the right question, is whether I gave instructions in effect to pretend that Monica Lewinsky was never at the gate.
And if that is the question you're asking me, I don't believe I ever did that, sir. I certainly have no memory of doing that.
Or anything to that effect.
Well Mr. President, you've told us that you were not going to try to help the Joneses' attorneys and I think it's clear from your testimony that you were pretty literal at the time.
So that's why I'm saying I don't necessarily know the exact words. The question was do you have any knowledge of the fact that later in the day on Saturday the 6th of December 1997, Secret Service people were told something to this effect.
This event never happened. Let's just pretend this event did not happen. Do you have knowledge of it or not?
No sir. And I didn't instruct the Secret Service in that regard. I have no memory of saying anything to anybody in the Secret Service that would have triggered that kind of instruction.
Did you tell Captain Purdy while you were standing in the doorway between the Oval Office and Betty Curry's office, did you tell Captain Purdy of the uniformed division, I hope I can count on your discretion in this matter.
At the end of the day when you all were talking about that earlier incident, did you tell him that or anything like that sir?
I don't remember anything I said to him in that regard. I have no recollection of that whatever.
We'll take a break now.
Thank you.
3.38.
That portion of the tape is over. We embark on another two minute break interrupting the extraordinary sight, the extraordinary spectacle of the President of the United States being asked such intimate questions and some would argue so artfully dodging some of those intimate questions.
The President testifying on tape while live at the United Nations in a scene just a few minutes ago to a speech before the assembled body he received a rather rousing and boisterous standing ovation upon his introduction by Secretary General Kofi Annan, the international body clearly sending a signal to President Bill Clinton.
At the same time the President is talking more paper evidence is coming out, more photographic evidence including these pictures, Monica Lewinsky with the President including one at the summer barbecue for interns and members of the media on the south grounds of the White House.
There are love notes, some sent, some not sent. This one addressed Dear Handsome, another one Dear Mr. President abbreviated from Monica Lewinsky.
The evidence, this is also a letter from the President back, obviously portions of it form letter including the sentence Hillary and I send our best wishes but there is a personal notation at the bottom of the letter.
All of this from the two volume bound set of evidence, two books, over 3,000 pages, NBC News correspondent Chip Reed watching all this along with us in our Washington bureau. Chip?
Brian, I think some of the high points here are first of all what everybody expected it to be is the President's parsing of the meaning of sexual relations all through the beginning of this testimony described by one Republican yesterday as dancing on the head of a pin, sometimes humorous that he actually seriously makes those arguments and also his attack on the Jones lawyers, another high point.
Chip Reed, thank you. Another warning, our break is almost up what you're about to hear and see could contain very graphic details not suitable for children or family viewing this again a continuation of the tape playback the President's testimony here he is again.
Yeah.
These next series of questions are from the grand jurors.
Grand jurors want you to be more specific about the inappropriate conduct. The first question was,
one of the grand jurors has said that you referred to what you did with Ms Lewinsky as inappropriate contact.
What do you mean by that?
I mean, just what I said.
But I'd like to ask the grand jury, because I think I have been quite specific.
And I think I've been willing to answer some specific questions that I haven't been asked yet.
But I do not want to discuss something that is intensely painful to me this has been tough enough already on me and on my family.
So I take responsibility for it. I have no one to blame but myself.
What I meant was, and what they can infer that I meant was that I did things that were when I was alone with her, they were inappropriate and wrong.
But that they did not include any activity that was within the definition of sexual relations that I was given by a judge right in the definition.
I said that I did not do those things that were within that definition and I testified truthfully of that.
And that's all I can say about it now.
If there's any doubt on the part of the grand jurors about whether I believe some kind of activity falls within that definition or outside that definition, I'd be happy to try to answer that.
Well, I have a question regarding your definition then.
And my question is, is oral sex performed on you within that definition as you understood it?
If it was not, no.
The grand jurors would like to know upon what basis, what legal basis you're declining to answer more specific questions about this.
I've mentioned to you that obviously you have privileges, privileges against self-incrimination.
There's no general right not to answer questions.
And so one of the questions from the grand jurors is what basis, what legal basis are you declining to answer these questions?
I'm not trying to evade my legal obligations or my willingness to help the grand jury achieve their legal obligations.
As I understand it, you want to examine whether you believe I told the truth in my deposition, whether I asked Ms. Lewinsky not to tell the truth,
and whether I did anything else with evidence or in any other way, amounted to an obstruction of justice or a subordination of perjury.
And I'm prepared to answer all questions that the grand jury needs to draw that conclusion.
Now respectfully, I believe the grand jurors can ask me if I believe, just like that grand juror did,
could ask me do you believe that this conduct falls within that definition?
If it does, then you're free to conclude that my testimony is that I didn't do that.
And I believe that you can achieve that without requiring me to say and do things that I don't think are necessary
and that I think frankly go too far in trying to criminalize my private life.
A person touched another person, if you touched another person on the breast, would that be in your view
and was it within your view when you took the deposition, within the definition of sexual relation?
If the person being deposed, in this case me, directly touched the breast of another person with the purpose to arouse or gratify under that definition, that would be included.
Only directly sir, or would it be directly or through clothes?
Well I would, I think the common sense definition would be directly, that's how I would infer what it means.
If the person being deposed kissed the breast of another person, would that be in the definition of sexual relations as you understood it when you were under oath in the Jones case?
Yes, that would constitute contact, I think that would. If it were direct contact, I believe it would.
Maybe I should read it again just to make sure.
If this basically says that there was any direct contact with an intent to arouse or gratify, that was the intent of the contact, then that would fall within the definition, that's correct.
So touching in your view then and now, the person being deposed touching or kissing the breast of another person would fall within the definition.
That's correct sir.
And you testified that you didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Jones deposition under that definition, correct?
That's correct sir.
If the person being deposed touched the genitalia of another person, would that be in, with the intent to arouse the sexual desire, arouse or gratify as defined in definition one,
would that be under your understanding then and now, sexual relations?
Yes sir.
Yes it would?
Yes it would. If you had a direct contact with any of these places in the body, if you had direct contact with intent to arouse or gratify, that would fall within the definition.
So you didn't do any of those three things with Monica Lewinsky?
You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations as I understood this term to be defined.
Including touching her breast, kissing her breast, or touching her genitalia?
That's correct.
Would you agree with me that the insertion of an object into the genitalia of another person, the desire to gratify sexually, would fit within the definition used in the Jones case as sexual relations?
There's nothing here about that, is there?
I don't know that I ever thought about that one way or the other.
The question is, under the definition as you understood it then, under the definition as you understand it now.
Pardon me just a moment.
Pardon me Mr. President.
Deposition exhibit one, question one, under the Jones case, definition of sexual relations.
Would it gratify the sexual desire of any person?
Would it constitute, in other words, contact with the genitalia?
I don't know the answer to that.
I suppose you could argue that since section two, paragraph two was eliminated, and paragraph two actually dealt with the object issue,
that perhaps whoever wrote this didn't intend for paragraph one to cover an object and basically meant direct contact.
So if I were asked, I've not been asked this question before, but I guess that's the way I would read it.
If it would not be covered, that activity would not be covered?
If the activity you just mentioned would be covered in number two, and number two was stricken, I think you can infer logically that paragraph one was not intended to cover it.
But as I said, I've not been asked this before. I'm just doing the best I can.
Well, if someone were to hold or a judge were to hold that you're incorrect and that definition one does include the hypo I've given to you, because we're talking in hypos so that you don't, under your request here,
if someone were to tell you a rule that you're wrong, that the insertion of an object into somebody else's tenetelia with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person is within definition one.
Mr. Whiteberry, excuse me. I have not objected here to any question you've asked. I must tell you I cannot understand that question. I think it's improper, and the witness can understand it, and he can answer it.
I'll be happy to rephrase it. If you're wrong and it's within definition one, did you engage in sexual relations under the definition with Monica Lewinsky?
But Mr. Wachberg, I have said all along that I would say what I thought it meant, and you can infer that I didn't.
This is an unusual question, but it's a slippery slope.
I have tried to deal with some very delicate areas here, and in one case I've given you a very forthright answer about what I thought was not within here.
All I can tell you is whatever I thought was covered, and I thought about this carefully, and let me just point out, this was uncomfortable for me. I had to acknowledge, because of this definition, that under this definition I had actually had sexual relations once with Jennifer Flowers,
a person who had spread all kinds of ridiculous, dishonest, exaggerated stories about me for money. And I knew when I did that it would be leaked, it was, and I was embarrassed, but I did it.
So I tried to read this carefully. I can tell you what I thought it covered, and I can tell you that I do not believe I did anything that I thought was covered by this.
As I understand your testimony, Mr. President, touching somebody's breast with the intent to arouse a gratified sexual desire of any person is covered.
Kissing the breast is covered. Touching the genitalia is covered, correct?
In parents, the witness said directly in each one of those cases.
Directly is covered, correct?
I believe it is, yes, sir.
Oral sex, in your view, is not covered, correct?
If performed on the deponent.
Is not covered, correct?
That's my reading of this number one.
And you're declining to answer the hypothetical about insertion of an object. I need to inform you, Mr. President, but we'll go on, at least for now, but I need to inform you that the grand jury will consider your not answering the questions more directly.
And their determination of whether or not they're going to issue another subpoena.
Let me switch the topic and talk to you about John Podesta and some of the other aides you met with and spoke to after the story became public on January 21, 1998, the day of the Washington Post story.
Do you recall meeting with him around January 23, 1998, Friday a.m. in your study, two days after the Washington Post story, and extremely explicitly telling him that you didn't engage in any kind of sex in any way, shape, or form with Monica Lewinsky, including oral sex?
I meet with John Podesta almost every day.
I meet with a number of people.
The only thing I.
What happened in a couple of days after what you did was revealed.
Is a blizzard to me.
The only thing I recall is that I met with certain people and a few of them I said, I didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky.
I didn't have an affair with her or something like that.
I had a very careful thing I said, and I tried not to say anything else.
And I, it might be that John Podesta was one of them, but I do not remember the specific meeting about what you asked or the specific comments to which you referred.
I don't remember seven months ago. I'd have no way to remember.
You don't remember denying any kind of sex in any way, shape, or form with him, including oral sex.
Correct.
I remember that I issued a number of denials to people that I thought they'd hear them, but I tried to be careful and to be accurate in them.
I do not remember what I said to John Podesta.
Surely if you told him that, that would be a falsehood.
Correct.
Oh, I didn't say that.
I didn't say that at all. That is not covered by the definition, and I did not address it in my statement.
Well, let me ask you then. If you told him, perhaps he thought it was covered, I don't know.
But if you told him, if you denied to him sex in any way, shape, or form, kind of similar to what Mr. Bennett did at the deposition, including oral sex, wouldn't that have been a falsehood?
Now, Mr. Washburne, I told you in response to a grand jury's question, you asked me, did I believe that oral sex performed on the person being deposed was covered by that definition?
And I said, no. I don't believe it's covered by the definition.
I said you were free to conclude that I did not do things that I believe were covered by the definition.
And you have asked me a number of questions, and I have acknowledged things that I believe are covered by the definition.
Since that was not covered by the definition, I want to fall back on my statement.
Look, I'm not trying to be evasive here. I'm trying to protect my privacy, my family's privacy.
And I'm trying to stick to what the deposition was about.
If the deposition wasn't about this and didn't cover it, then I don't believe that I should be required to go beyond my statement.
Mr. President, it's not our intent to embarrass you, but since we have to look, among other things, at obstruction of justice, questions of obstruction of justice and perjury,
the answer to some of these delicate and unfortunate questions are absolutely required.
And that is the purpose that we have to ask them for.
Mr. Weitzberg, with respect, you don't need to know the answer for that if the answer, no matter what the answer is, wouldn't constitute perjury because it wasn't sexual relations as defined by the judge.
The only reason you need to know that is for some other reason. It couldn't have anything to do with perjury.
Mr. President, one of the nice things about, one of the normal things about an investigation and a grand jury investigation is that the grand jurors and the prosecutors get to ask the questions unless they're improper and unless there's a legal basis.
As I understand from your answers, there's no legal basis for which you'd decline to answer these questions. And I'll ask you again to answer the question.
I'm unaware of any legal basis for you not to.
The question is, if you told John Podesta two days after the story broke, something to this effect, that you didn't have any kind of sex in any way, shape or form, including oral sex with Ms. Lewinsky, were you telling him the truth?
And let me say again with respect, this is an indirect way to try to get me to testify to questions that have no bearing on whether I committed perjury.
You apparently agree that it has no bearing on whether I committed perjury.
Mr. President, I'm sorry, with respect, I don't agree with that. I'm not going to argue with you about it. I just am going to ask you again, in fact direct you, to answer the question.
I'm not going to answer that question because I believe it's a question about conduct that whatever the answer to it is does not bear on the perjury because oral sex performed on the deponent under this definition is not sexual relations.
It is not covered by this definition.
The witness is not declining to tell you anything he said to John Podesta.
The witness is not declining to tell me anything. Did you deny oral sex in any way, shape or form to John Podesta?
I told you so before and I will say again. In the aftermath of this story breaking and what was told about it, the next two days, next three days are just a blur to me. I don't remember to whom I talked, when I talked to them or what I said.
So you're not declining to answer, you just don't remember?
I honestly don't remember. I'm not saying that anybody who had a contrary memory is wrong. I do not remember.
Do you recall denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to the following people, Harry Thompson, Hirskan Bowles, Harold Ickes, Mr. Podesta, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Betty Curry? Do you recall denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to those individuals?
I recall telling a number of those people that I didn't have either an affair with Monica Lewinsky or didn't have sex with her. And I believe, sir, that you'll have to ask them what they thought. But I was using those terms in the normal way people use them. You'll have to ask them what they thought I was saying.
If they testified that you denied a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky or if they told us that you denied that, do you have any reason to doubt in the days after the story broke? Do you have any reason to doubt?
No. Let me say this. It's no secret to anybody that I hope that this relationship will never become public. It's a matter of fact that it had been many, many months since there had been anything improper about it in terms of improper contact.
Did you deny it?
I did not want to mislead my friends, but I wanted to find a language where I could say that. I also, frankly, did not want to turn any of them into witnesses. And sure enough, they all became witnesses.
Well, you knew they were. And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship that I used in the language I used. I said there's nothing going on between us. That was true. I said I have not had sex with her, as I define it. That was true.
And did I hope that I would never have to be here on this day giving this testimony? Of course. But I also didn't want to do anything to complicate this matter further. So I said things that were true. They may have been misleading, and if they were, I have to take responsibility for it, and I'm sorry.
They may have been misleading, sir, and you knew, though, after January 21st when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that they might be witnesses. You knew that they might be called into a grand jury, didn't you?
I think I was quite careful what I said after that. I may have said something to all these people of that effect, but I also, whenever anybody asked me any details, I said, look, I don't want you to be a witness, or I turn you into witness, or give you information that could get you in trouble. I just wouldn't talk. I by and large didn't talk to people about this.
If all of these people, let's leave out Mrs. Curry for a minute, Vernon Jordan, Sid Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erskine Bowles, Harry Thompson, after the story broke, after Judge Starr's involvement was known on January 21st, have said that you denied a sexual relationship with them, are you denying that?
No. I'm just telling you what I meant by it. I told you what I meant by it when they started this deposition.
You told us now that you were being careful, but then it might have been misleading, is that correct?
It might have been since we have seen this four-year, $40 million investigation come down to parsing the definition of sex. I think it might have been. I don't think at the time that I thought that's what this was going to be about.
In fact, if you remember the headlines at the time, even you mentioned that post story, all the headlines were, and all the talking, the people who talked about this, including a lot who had been quite sympathetic to your operation, said, well, this is not really a story about sex, this is a story about sublimation of perjury and these talking points and all this other stuff.
So what I was trying to do was to give them something that would be true, even if misleading in the context of this deposition, and keep them out of trouble and deal with what I thought was the almost ludicrous suggestion that I had urged someone to lie or tried to suborn perjury in other ways.
I want to go over some questions again. I don't think you're going to answer them, sir, and so I don't need a lengthy response, just a yes or a no. I understand the basis upon which you're not answering them, but I need to ask them for the record. If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area, you touched her breast, would she be lying?
Let me say something about all this.
All I really need for you, Mr. President.
I know.
I won't answer under the previous grounds or to answer the question, you see, because we only have four hours and your answers are extremely lengthy.
I know that.
I'll give you four hours and 30 seconds if you'll let me say something general about this.
I will answer to your satisfaction that I won't, based on my statement, I will not answer.
I would like 30 seconds at the end to make a statement and you can have 30 seconds more on your time if you let me say this to grand jury and to you.
And I don't think it's disrespectful at all. I've had a lot of time to think about this.
But go ahead and ask your question.
The question is if Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area, you touched her breast, would she be lying?
That is not my recollection.
My recollection is that I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky and I'm staying on my former statement about that.
My statement is that I did not have sexual relations as defined by that.
If she says that you kissed her breast, would she be lying?
I'm going to revert to my former statement.
Okay. If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area, you touched her genitalia, would she be lying?
That calls for a yes, no, or reverting to your former statement.
I will revert to my statement on that.
If Monica Lewinsky says that you used a cigar as a sexual aid with her in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
Yes, no, or won't answer?
I will revert to my former statement.
If Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her, would she be lying?
Well, that is, at least in general terms, I think is covered by my statement.
I addressed that in my statement and I don't believe it.
Let me define phone sex for purposes of my question.
Phone sex occurs when a party to a phone conversation masturbates while the other party is talking in a sexually explicit manner.
The question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her, would she be lying?
I think that is covered by my statement.
Did you, on or about January 13, 1998, Mr. President, ask Erskine Bowles to ask John Hilly if he would give a recommendation for Monica Lewinsky?
In 1998?
Yes, on or about January 13, 1998, did you ask Erskine Bowles, your Chief of Staff, if he would ask John Hilly to give a recommendation for Monica Lewinsky?
At some point, sir, I believe I talked to Erskine Bowles about whether Monica Lewinsky could get a recommendation that was not negative from the Legislative Affairs Office.
I believe I did.
I just didn't hear the very last part.
I think the answer is yes. At some point I talked to Erskine Bowles about this.
I do not know what the date was. At some point I did talk to him.
And if Erskine Bowles has told us that he told John Podesta to carry out your wishes, and John Podesta states that it was three or four days before your deposition, which would be the 13th or the 14th, are you in a position to deny that?
The 13th or 14th of?
January, as to date.
I don't know. I don't know when the date was.
I'm not in a position to deny it. I won't deny it. I'm sure that they're both truthful men. I don't know when the date was.
You recall asking Erskine Bowles to?
I recall talking to Erskine Bowles about that, and my recollection is, sir, that Ms. Lewinsky was moving to New York, wanted to get a job in the private sector, was confident she would get a good recommendation from the Defense Department,
and was concerned that because she'd been moved from the Legislative Affairs Office, transferred to the Defense Department, that her ability to get a job might be undermined by a bad recommendation from the Legislative Affairs Office.
So I asked Erskine if we could get her a recommendation that was at least neutral so that if she had a good recommendation from the Defense Department, it wouldn't prevent her from getting a job in the private sector.
If Mr. Bowles has told us that, in fact, you told him that she already had a job and had already listed Mr. Hilley as a reference and wanted him to be available as a recommendation, would you be any, is that inconsistent with your memory?
A little bit, but I think, my memory is that when you get a job like that, you have to give them a resume which says where you worked and who your supervisor was.
And I think that that's my recollection. My recollection is that slightly different from that.
And who was it that asked you to do that on Monica Lewinsky's behalf?
I think she did. You know, she tried for months and months to get a job back in the White House, not so much in the West Wing, but somewhere in the White House complex, including the old Executive Office Building.
And she talked to Marcia Scott, among others, and she very much wanted to come back.
And she interviewed for some jobs but never got one. She was from time to time upset about it.
And I think what she was afraid of is that she couldn't get a, from the minute she left the White House she was worried about this, that if she didn't come back to the White House and work for a while and get a good job recommendation, that no matter how well she had done at the Pentagon, it might hurt her future employment prospects.
Well, it became obvious that, you know, her mother moved to New York. She wanted to go to New York. She wasn't going to get a job in the White House. So she wanted to get a job in the private sector.
And she said, I hope that I won't get a letter out of the Legislative Affairs Office that will prevent my getting a job in the private sector. And that's what I talked to Erskine about. Now that's my entire memory of this.
I want to go back briefly to the December 28 conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. I believe you testified to the effect that she asked you what if they asked me about gifts she gave me.
My question, my question to you is after that statement by her, did you ever have a conversation with Betty Curry about gifts or picking something up from Monica Lewinsky?
I don't believe I did sir, no.
You never told her anything to this effect that Monica has something to give you. And I'll say Betty Curry.
No sir, I didn't. I don't have any memory of that, whatever.
And so you have no knowledge that, or you had no knowledge at the time that Betty Curry went and picked up, your secretary went and picked up from Monica Lewinsky items that were called for by the Jones subpoena and hid them under her bed.
You had no knowledge that anything remotely like that was going to happen.
I did not. I did not know she had those items. I believe until that was made public.
And you agree with me that that would be a very wrong thing to do, to hide evidence in a civil case, or any case. Isn't that true?
Yes, I don't know that Ms. Curry knew that that's what she had at all.
I'm not saying she did.
If Monica Lewinsky did that after they had been subpoenaed and she knew what she was doing, she should not have done that. And indeed I myself told her, if they ask you for gifts you have to give them what you have.
And I don't understand if in fact she was worried about this, why she was so worried about it. It was no big deal.
I want to talk about a December 17th phone conversation you had with Monica Lewinsky at approximately 2 a.m. Do you recall making that conversation and telling her initially about the death of Betty's brother, but then telling her that she was on the witness list and that it broke your heart that she was on the witness list?
No sir, I don't, but it is quite possible that that happened because if you remember earlier in this meeting you asked me some questions about what I'd said to Monica about testimony and affidavits.
And I was struggling to try to remember whether this happened in a meeting or a phone call. Now I remember I called her to tell her Betty's brother had died. I remember that.
And I know it was in the middle of December and I believe it was before Monica had been subpoenaed. So I think it is quite possible that if I called her at that time and I'd not talked to her since the 6th, and you asked me this earlier, I believe when I saw her on the 6th,
I don't think I knew she was on the witness list then. Then it's quite possible I would say something like that. I don't have any memory of it, but I certainly wouldn't dispute that I might have said that.
And in that conversation, or in any conversation in which you informed her she was on the witness list, did you tell her you know you can always say that you were coming to see Betty or bringing me letters? Did you tell her anything like that?
I don't remember. She was coming to see Betty. I can tell you this, I absolutely never asked her to lie.
Sir, every time you came to see Betty and you were in the Oval Office, she was coming to see you too, wasn't she? Or just about every time?
I think just about every time. I don't think every time. I think there was a time or two when she came to see Betty when she didn't see me.
So do you remember telling her, any time when you told her or after you told her that she was on the witness list, something to this effect? You know you can always say you were coming to see Betty or you were bringing me letters?
I don't remember exactly what I told her that night. I don't remember that. I remember talking about the nature of our relationship, how she got in, but I also will tell you that I felt quite comfortable that she could have executed a truthful affidavit which would not have disclosed the embarrassing details of the relationship that we had had, which had been over for many, many months by the time this incident occurred.
Did you tell her, any time in December, something to that effect? You know you can always say that you were coming to see Betty or you were bringing me letters. Did you say that or anything like it in December, 97 or January, 98 to Monica Lewinsky?
Well that's a very broad question. I do not recall saying anything like that in connection with her testimony. I can tell you what I do remember saying, if you want to know, but I don't. We might have talked about what to say in a non-legal context at some point in the past, but I have no specific memory of that conversation. I do remember what I said to her about possible testimony.
You would agree with me if you did say something like that to her, to urge her to say that to the Jones people, that that would be part of an effort to mislead the Jones people, no matter how evil they are and corrupt.
I didn't say they were evil. I said what they were doing here was wrong, and it was.
Wouldn't that be misleading?
Well, again you're trying to get me to characterize something that I don't know if I said or not, without knowing whether the context is complete or not. So I would have to know what was the context, what were all the surrounding facts.
I can tell you this, I never asked Ms. Lewinsky to lie. The first time she raised with me the possibility that she might be a witness or I told her you suggested a possibility in this December 17th time frame, I told her she had to get a lawyer.
And I never asked her to lie.
Did you ever say anything like that? You can always say that you were coming to see Betty or bringing me letters. Was that part of any kind of a, anything you said to her or a cover story before you had any idea she was going to be part of Paula Jones?
I might well have said that.
Okay.
Because I certainly didn't want this to come out if I could help it. And I was concerned about that. I was embarrassed about it. I knew it was wrong.
And, and you know, of course I didn't want it to come out.
But, but you're saying that you didn't say anything, I want to make sure I understand. Did you say anything like that once you knew or thought she might be a witness in the Jones case? Did you repeat that statement or something like it to her?
Well, again, I don't recall, and I don't recall whether I might have done something like that. For example, somebody says what if the reporters asked me or this, that, the other thing. I can tell you this.
In the context of whether she could be a witness, I have a recollection that she asked me, well, what do I do if I get called as a witness? And I said you have to get a lawyer. And that's all I said. And I never asked her to lie.
Did you tell her to tell the truth?
Well, I think the implication was she would tell the truth. I've already told you that I felt strongly that she could issue, that she could execute an affidavit that would be factually truthful.
That might get her out of having to testify. Now it obviously wouldn't if the Jones people knew this because they knew that if they could get this and leak it, it would serve their larger purposes, even if the judge ruled that she couldn't be a witness in the case.
The judge later ruled she wouldn't be a witness in the case. The judge later ruled the case had no merit. So I knew that. And did I hope she'd be able to get out and testify on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit? No, I did not.
If Monica Lewinsky has stated that her affidavit that she didn't have sexual relationship with you is in fact a lie, I take it you disagree with that?
No, I told you before what I thought the issue was there. I think the issue is how do you define sexual relationship? And there was no definition imposed on her at the time she executed the affidavit.
Therefore she was free to give it any reasonable meaning. And if she says she was lying, and I believe common sense ordinary meeting that you talked about earlier Mr. President that most Americans would have, if she says sexual relationship, saying I didn't have one was a lie because I had oral sex with the president, I take it you would disagree with that?
Now we're back to where we started, and I have to invoke my statement. But let me just say one thing. I've read a lot, and obviously I don't know whether any of it's accurate, about what she said and what is, what reports to be on these tapes.
And this thing, and I searched my own memory, this reminds me to some extent of the hearings when Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were both testifying under oath.
Now, in some rational way they could not have both been telling the truth.
Since they had directly different accounts of a shared set of facts.
Fortunately, or maybe you think unfortunately, there was no special prosecutor to try to go after one or the other of them to take sides and try to prove one was a liar, and so Judge Thomas was able to go on and serve on the Supreme Court.
But what I learned from that, I can tell you that I was a citizen out there of this listening.
And when I heard both of them testify what I believed after it was over,
I believe that they both thought they were telling the truth.
This is, you're dealing with in some ways the most mysterious area of human life. I'm doing the best I can to give you honest answers.
And that's all I can tell you. And you know those people both testified under oath. So if there had been a special prosecutor, one of them could have gone after Anita Hill, another could have gone after Clarence Thomas.
I thank God there was no such thing then, because I don't believe that it was a proper thing. And I think they both thought they were telling the truth.
So maybe Ms. Lewinsky believes she's telling the truth, and I'm glad she got her mother and herself out of trouble. I'm glad you gave her that sweeping immunity. I'm glad for the whole thing.
It breaks my heart that she was ever involved in this.
I want to go back to a question about Vernon Jordan. I want to go back to late December and early January, late December of 97, early January of 98.
During this time, Mr. President, you're being sued for sexual harassment by a woman who claims, among other things, that others got benefits that she didn't because she didn't have oral sex with you.
While this is happening, your powerful friend Vernon Jordan is helping to get Monica Lewinsky a job and a lawyer.
He's helping to get a job and a lawyer for someone who had some kind of sex with you and who has been subpoenaed in the very case, the Jones case.
Don't you see a problem with this? Didn't you see a problem with this?
No. Would you like to know why?
Isn't that why Vernon Jordan asked you on December 19 whether or not you had sexual relationships with Monica Lewinsky and why he asked her?
Because he knew it would be so highly improper to be helping her with a lawyer and a job if, in fact, she had had a relationship with you?
No, I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that at all, particularly since even if you look at the facts here, in their light, most unfavorable to me, no one has suggested that there was any sexual harassment on my part.
And I don't think it was wrong to be helping her. Look.
A subpoenaed witness in a case against you?
Absolutely. Look, for one thing, I had already proved in two ways that I was not trying to influence her testimony.
I didn't order her to be hired at the White House. I could have done so. I wouldn't do it.
She tried for months to get in. She was angry.
Secondly, after I terminated the improper contact with her, she wanted to come in more than she did. She got angry when she didn't get in sometimes.
I knew that that might make her more likely to speak. And I still did it because I had to limit the contact.
And thirdly, let me say, I formed an opinion really early in 1996. And again, well let me finish this sentence. I formed an opinion early in 1996, once I got into this unfortunate and wrong conduct, that when I stopped it, which I knew I'd have to do, and which I should have done a long time before I did,
that she would talk about it. Not because Monica Lewinsky is a bad person. She's basically a good girl. She's a good young woman with a good heart and a good mind.
I think she is burdened by some unfortunate conditions of her upbringing. But she's basically a good person. But I knew that the minute there was no longer any contact, she would talk about this. She would have to. She couldn't help it.
It was a part of her psyche. So I had put myself at risk, sir. I was not trying to buy her silence or get Vernon Jordan to buy her silence. I thought she was a good person. She had not been involved with me for a long time in any improper way, several months.
And I wanted to help her get on with her life. It's just as simple as that.
Another break for the President. This one lasted several minutes. For the purposes of our broadcast and changing tapes, this will last just two minutes. The President trying to end on an upbeat note, talking about Monica Lewinsky as a good girl, after a stretch of testimony that saw him decline, to answer several questions, referring instead to the statement he read seven minutes into the testimony. NBC News correspondent Chip Reid has been watching this along with us in our Washington bureau. Chip?
Well, I think one of the things that really stands out here is the President's demeanor. We had initially heard that he was angry, turning purple, stormed out of the room. Then yesterday we heard from White House people. They said, no, we think he's amazingly calm. We think he's angry, but in control. John Podesta said he shows remorse and regret.
And I think that really is closer to the point here, and that will probably work in the President's favor. Even Republicans on Capitol Hill yesterday who had seen it said this is far from a knockout punch. And I think that's right. There's really no new evidence on the perjury or obstruction of justice counts.
What there is that works against the President, very much so in some people's opinion, is being able to see him actually dance on the head of that pin and say, I was not having sexual relations, even though he admits having had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky. And that is where he is probably most at risk here.
Chip Reed, and in addition to the videotape we've been showing you today, there are over 3,000 pages of evidence being released now in Washington. Some of it has found its way up to our studios. This is the thickness of the books, containing pictures as well in the appendix.
And one of the pictures is of the now famous dress in this case, the circle marking where the evidence was found. There is videotape testimony upcoming in one of the next sections about this piece of evidence.
But one of the major quotes in the President's videotape testimony we just heard on the air, and that is that Monica Lewinsky was a good girl, basically a good person, and he talked about her upbringing.
Again, this is an afternoon session, the President showing signs of tiredness, and we're going to resume looking at the testimony.
We have one hour and five minutes left. If we stick to the four hour time frame, that's 30 seconds.
You gave me about 30 seconds soliloquy, so I owe you 30 seconds more.
Very generous. That actually segues very nicely into one of the grand jurors pointed out actually that you indicated at the beginning of the deposition that you would answer all the grand jurors, you wanted to answer all the grand jurors' questions.
And they wanted to know whether you would be willing to stay beyond the four hour period to in fact answer all their questions.
Well, let's see how we do in the next hour, and then we'll decide.
Let me draw your attention to early January this year, after Christmas, before your deposition. You remember talking to Betty Curry about Monica, who had just called her and said that she, Monica, needed to talk to you before she signed something.
I'm not sure that I do remember that, but go ahead.
In early January, she told, and then Betty Curry relayed this to you, that Monica called, it's important, she needs to talk to you before she signs something, and then you do indeed talk to Monica that day on the telephone.
I did talk to her that day? Yes.
That's a question, if you have a memory of that you can answer.
I'm trying to remember when the last time I talked to her was.
I am aware so that she signed this affidavit
about this time, sometime in the first week of January.
I may have talked to her before she did it. I don't know, I talked to her a number of times between the time Betty's brother died, Christmas, then I saw her on December 28th. I may have talked to her, but I don't remember the specific conversation.
You would have talked about, she had just given you a gift actually in early January, a book on the Presidents of the United States. And you discussed this with her, and you said you liked it a lot.
I did like it a lot. I told you that my impression, my belief was that she gave me that book for Christmas.
Maybe that's not right. I think she had that book delivered to me for Christmas.
And then, as I remember, I went to Bosnia, and for some reason she wasn't there around Christmas time.
But anyway, maybe I didn't get it until January. My recollection was that I had gotten it right before Christmas.
Let me see if I can jog your memory further. Monica talked to you in that phone conversation that told you that she had just met with her attorney that Mr. Jordan had arranged with her.
And their attorney said that if she is deposed, that they are going to ask her how she got her job at the Pentagon. And Monica then asked you, what do you think I should say? How do I answer that question? How did I get the job at the Pentagon?
Did you talk to Monica about that? About the possibility?
No, I don't remember her asking me that, but if she had asked me that, I would have told her the truth.
And I didn't, you know, I don't know exactly how she got her job at the Pentagon. I know Evelyn Lieberman wanted to transfer her out of the job she had, and somebody must have arranged that, but I didn't arrange it.
That's actually not my question. My question is whether you remember talking to Monica about her being concerned that I may have to answer some questions about how and why I was transferred from the Pentagon out of the White House.
Fearing that this would...
No, I don't remember that at all.
Her answer is that would reveal your relationship.
Oh, no sir, I don't remember that. Maybe somebody, maybe she did, but I only remember... well, I don't remember that. That's all I can tell you. I don't remember that.
Are you saying, Mr. President, that you did not then say to Ms. Malinsky that you could always say that people in legislative affairs got you the job or helped you get it?
I have no recollection of that, whatever.
Are you saying you didn't say it?
No sir, I'm telling you, I want to say I don't recall, I don't have any memory of this as I sit here today, and I can tell you this, I never asked her to lie. I never did.
And I don't have any recollection of the specific thing you're saying to me.
Now, if I could back up, there were several times when Monica Lewinsky talked to me on the telephone in 1996, in person in 1997, about her being concerned about what anybody would say about her transfer from the White House to the Pentagon.
But I remember no conversation in which she was concerned about it for the reasons you just mentioned. And all my memory is she was worried about it because she thought it would keep her from getting a good job down the road.
And she talked to me about it constantly in 1997. She thought, well, I'll never have my record clear unless I work somewhere in the White House complex where I can get a good recommendation.
But in the context you mentioned it, I do not recall the conversation.
Did you ever tell Ms. Lewinsky, promise to her that you would do your best to get her back into the White House after the 1996 presidential election?
What I told Ms. Lewinsky was that I would do what I could to see if she had a good record at the Pentagon, and she assured me she was doing a good job and working hard, that I would do my best to see that the fact that she had been sent away from the legislative affairs section did not keep her from getting a job in the White House.
And that is in fact what I tried to do. I had a conversation with Ms. Scott about it, and I tried to do that.
But I did not tell her I would order someone to hire her, and I never did. I wouldn't do that. It wouldn't be right.
When you received the book, this gift from Monica, the President of the United States, this book that you liked and talked to Monica about, did it come with a note, do you remember the note that it came with, Mr. President?
No, sir, I don't.
Do you remember that in the note she wrote that she expressed how much she missed you and how much she cared for you, and you and she later talked about this in this telephone conversation, and you said, and she apologized for putting such emotional, romantic things in this note, and you said, yeah, you shouldn't have written some of those things, you shouldn't put those things down on paper.
Did you ever say anything like that to Ms. Lewinsky?
Oh, I believe I did say something like that to Ms. Lewinsky. I don't remember doing something as late as you suggest. I'm not saying I didn't. I have no recollection of that.
Keep in mind now, it had been quite a long time since I'd had any improper contact with her.
And she was, in a funny way, almost more attached to me than she had been before. In 96, she had a long relationship, she said, with a man whom she liked a lot, and I didn't know what else was going on in her private life in 97, but she talked to me occasionally about people she was going out with.
But normally her language at this point was, if affectionate, was not improperly affectionate, I would say. But it could have happened. I wouldn't say it didn't. I just don't remember it at this late date.
Let me refer back to one of the subjects we talked about in one of the earlier breaks, right before one of the earlier breaks, and that is your meeting with Mrs. Curry on January 18th, this is the Sunday after your deposition of the Paula Jones case.
You said that you spoke to her in an attempt to refresh your own recollection about the events involving Ms. Lewinsky, is that right?
Yes.
How did you making the statement, I was never alone with her, right, refresh your recollection?
Well, first of all, let's remember the context here.
I did not at that time know of your involvement in this case.
I just knew that obviously someone had given them a lot of information, some of which struck me as accurate, some of which struck me as dead wrong, but it led them to ask me a whole series of questions about Monica Lewinsky.
On Sunday morning, the Drudge Report came out, which used Betty's name, and I thought that we were going to be debuts by press comments, and I was trying to refresh my memory about what the facts were.
So when I said we were never alone, right, I think I also asked her a number of other questions, because there were several times, as I'm sure she would acknowledge, when I either asked her to be around,
I remember once in particular when I was talking with Ms. Lewinsky when I asked Betty to be in the next room, in the dining room, and as I testified earlier once in her own office.
But I meant that she was always in the Oval Office complex, in that complex while Monica was there, and I believe that this was part of a series of questions I asked her to try to quickly refresh my memory.
So I wasn't trying to get her to say something that wasn't so, and in fact I think she would recall that I told her to just relax, go in the grand jury, and tell the truth when she'd been called as a witness.
So when you said to Mrs. Curry that I was never alone with her, right, you just meant that you and Ms. Lewinsky would be somewhere, perhaps in the Oval Office, many times in your back study, is that correct?
That's right. We were in the back study.
And then?
That's fine with me. I was talking about 1997. I was never ever trying to get Betty Curry to claim that on the occasions when Monica Lewinsky was there when she wasn't anywhere around, that she wasn't.
I would never have done that to her, and I don't think she thought about that. I don't think she thought I was referring to that.
Did you put a date restriction, did you make it clear to Mrs. Curry that you were only asking her whether you were never alone with her after 1997?
Well I don't recall whether I did or not, but I assumed, if I didn't, I assumed she knew what I was talking about because it was the point at which Ms. Lewinsky was out of the White House and had to have someone wave her in in order to get in the White House.
I do not believe to this day that I was in 1997, that she was ever there and that I ever saw her unless Betty Curry was there. I don't believe she was.
Do you agree with me that the statement, I was never alone with her, is incorrect? You were alone with Monica Lewinsky, weren't you?
Well it again depends on how you define alone. Yes we were alone from time to time, even during 1997, even when there was absolutely no improper contact occurring. Yes, that is accurate.
But there were also a lot of times when even though no one could see us, the doors were open to the halls, on both ends of the hall, people could hear, the Navy stewards could come in and out at will.
If they were around, other things could be happening. So there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were.
And sometimes when we, but as far as I know, what I was trying to determine, if I might, is that Betty was always around. And I believe she was always around, where I could basically call her or get her if I needed her.
When you said to Mrs. Curry, you could see and hear everything, that wasn't true either, was it? As far as you knew?
My memory of that was that she had the ability to hear what was going on if she came into the Oval Office from her office.
And a lot of times, you know, when I was in the Oval Office, she just had the door open to her office. Then the door was never completely closed to the hall.
So I think there was, I'm not entirely sure what I meant by that, but I could have meant that she generally would be able to hear conversations, even if she couldn't see them.
And I think that's what I meant. Now I could have been referring not generally to every time she was there, but one particular time I remember when Mr. Winski was there, when I asked Betty,
and I'm sorry to say for reasons I don't entirely remember, to actually stay in the dining room while I talk with Monica. I do remember one such instance.
You've already testified that you did almost everything you could to keep this relationship secret. So would it be fair to say that even from Mrs. Curry, she didn't know about the nature, that is, your intimate, physically intimate relationship with Mr. Winski, did she?
As far as I know, she was unaware of what happened on the occasions when I saw her in 1996 when something improper happened. And she was unaware of the one time that I recall in 1997 when something happened.
I think she was quite well aware that I was determined to impose appropriate limits on the relationship when I was trying to do it. And anybody would hope that this wouldn't become public, although I frankly, from 1996 on, always felt that if I severed inappropriate contact with Mr. Winski, sooner or later it would get public.
And I never thought it would be part of the Jones case. I never even thought about that. I certainly never thought it would be part of your responsibilities. But I did believe that she would talk about it.
My question was more simple than that. Mrs. Curry did not know of the physically intimate nature of your relationship, did she?
I don't believe she did, no.
So you would have done, you tried to keep that nature of the relationship from Mrs. Curry.
Absolutely. So you would not have engaged in those physically intimate acts if you knew that Mrs. Curry could see or hear that, is that correct?
That's correct, but keep it in mind, sir. I was talking about 1997. That occurred to the, I believe that occurred only once in February of 1997.
I stopped it. I never should have started it, and I certainly shouldn't have started it back after I resolved not to in 1996.
And I was referring to 1997. And what, as I say, I do not know, her memory and mine may be somewhat different.
I do not know whether I was asking her about a particular time when Monica was upset and I asked her to stand, stay back in the dining area,
whether I had reference to the fact that if she kept her door open to the Oval Office, because it was always the door to the hallway was always somewhat open,
that she would always be able to hear something if anything went on that was too loud or whatever. I do not know what I meant.
I'm just trying to reconcile the two statements as best I can without being sure.
There was at least one event where Mrs. Curry was definitely not even in the Oval Office area. Isn't that right?
I think you began to testify about that before. That was at the radio address?
I'm not sure of that, but in that case there was certainly someone else there. I don't know.
I'm not sure if you're talking about Mrs. Curry's memory about whether someone else was there.
I can say that if I'm in the Oval Office, my belief is that there was someone else there, somewhere in the Oval Office complex.
I've looked at the film. This night has become legendary now. I've looked at the film we have. I've looked at my schedule.
I've seen the people at the radio address. I do believe that I was alone with her from 15 to 20 minutes.
I do believe that things happened then which were inappropriate.
I don't remember whether Betty was there or not, but I can't imagine that since all this happened more or less continuously
in that time period, there must have been someone who was working around the radio address who stayed around somewhere.
That would be my guess. I'm sorry I don't have records about who it would be, but I doubt very seriously if we were all alone in that Oval Office complex.
Mr. President, if there is a semen stain belonging to you on a dress of Ms. Kowinski's, how would you explain that?
Well, Mr. Bittman, first of all, when you asked me for a blood test, I gave you one promptly. You came over here and got it.
We met that night and talked. So that's a question you already know the answer to, not if, but you know whether.
The main thing I can tell you is that doesn't affect the opening statement I made.
The opening statement I made is that I had inappropriate intimate contact. I take full responsibility for it. It wasn't her fault. It was mine.
I do not believe that I violated the definition of sexual relations I was given by directly touching those parts of her body with the intent to arouse or gratify.
And that's all I have to say. I think for the rest, you know what the evidence is, and it doesn't affect that statement.
Is it possible or impossible that your semen is on a dress belonging to Ms. Kowinski?
I have nothing to add to my statement about it, sir. You know what the facts are. There is no point in a hypothetical.
Don't you know what the facts are also, Mr. President?
I have nothing to add to my statement, sir.
Getting back to the conversation you had with Mrs. Curry on January 18th.
You told her, if she testified that you told her, Monica came on to me and I never touched her.
You did in fact, of course, touch Ms. Kowinski, isn't that right?
In a physically intimate way?
Now, I testified about that. And that's one of those questions that I believe is answered by the statement that I made.
What was your purpose in making these statements to Mrs. Curry?
If they weren't for the purpose to try to suggest to her what she should say, if ever asked.
Now, Mr. Bittman, I told you the only thing I remember is when all this stuff blew up, I was trying to figure out what the facts were.
I was trying to remember. I was trying to remember every time I had seen Ms. Kowinski.
Once this thing was in grudge and there was this argument about what it was, it was not going to be in Newsweek.
That was a clear signal to me because Newsweek, frankly, had become almost a sponsoring media outlet for the Paula Jones case.
And they had a journalist who had been trying so far fruitlessly to find me in some sort of wrongdoing.
And so I knew this was all going to come out. I did not know at the time, I will say again, I did not know that any of you were involved.
I did not know that the Office of Independent Counsel was involved.
I was trying to get the facts and trying to think of the best defense we could construct in the face of what I thought was going to be a media onslaught.
Once you became involved, I told Betty Curry not to worry that she had been through a terrible time.
She had lost her brother, she had lost her sister, her mother was in the hospital.
I said, Betty, just do not worry about me. Just relax, go in there and tell the truth. You will be fine.
Now, that is all there was in this context.
Did the conversations that you had with Mrs. Curry, this conversation, did it refresh your recollection as to the events involving Mr. Winston?
Well, as I remember, I do believe in fairness that she may have felt some ambivalence about how to react
because there were some times when she seemed to say rest when I am not sure she meant yes.
It seems like there was one or two things where she said, well, remember this or the other thing, which did reflect my recollection.
So I would say a little yes and a little no.
Why was it then that two or three days later, given that the Washington Post article came out on January 21,
why would you have had another conversation with Betty Curry asking or making the exact same statements to her?
I do not know that I did. I remember having this one time. I do not know that I did.
If Mrs. Curry says you did, are you disputing that?
No, sir, I am not a dispute.
If there is your representation, she testified that that conversation was with Wendy.
I am not making a representation as to what Mrs. Curry said. I am asking the President.
If Mrs. Curry testified two or three days later, that two or three days after the conversation with the President on January 18,
that he called her into the Oval Office and went over the exact same statements that the President made to her on the 18th,
is that accurate? Is that a truthful statement by Mrs. Curry if she made it?
I do not remember how many times I talked to Betty Curry. I can't possibly remember that.
I do remember when I first heard about this story breaking, trying to ascertain what the facts were,
trying to ascertain what Betty's perception was. I remember that I was highly agitated, understandably I think.
And then I remember when I knew she was going to have to testify to the grand jury,
and I felt terrible because she had been through this loss of her sister, this horrible accident at Christmas that killed her brother.
Her mother was in the hospital. I was trying to make her understand that I did not want her to be untruthful to the grand jury,
and that her memory was different from mine. It was fine just going there and telling them what she thought. So that's all I remember.
Mr. President, my name is Jackie Bennett. If I understand your current line of testimony,
you're saying that you're only interested in speaking with Mrs. Curry in the days after your deposition was to refresh her own recollection?
Yes.
Because not to impart instructions on how she was to recall things in the future?
No, and certainly not under oath. Every day, Mr. Bennett, in the White House and in every other political organization,
when you're subject to a barrage of press questions of any kind, you always try to make the best case you can consistent with the facts.
That is, while being truthful. So I was concerned for a day or two there about this as a press story only.
I had no idea you were involved in it for a couple days. I think Betty Curry's testimony will be that I gave her explicit instructions,
our encouragement to just go in the grand jury and tell the truth. That's what I told her to do, and I thought she would.
Mr. President, when did you learn about the drugs report reporting allegations of you having a sexual relationship with someone at the White House?
I believe it was the morning of the 18th, I think.
What time of day, sir?
I have no idea.
Early morning hours?
Yeah, I think somebody called me and told me about it, maybe Bruce, maybe someone else, I'm not sure. But I learned early in the 18th of the drugs report.
Very early morning hours, sir.
My deposition was on the 17th, is that right?
Saturday the 17th.
Yeah, I think it was when I got up Sunday morning, I think. Maybe it was late Saturday night, I don't remember.
Did you call Betty Curry, sir, after the drugs report hit the wire?
I did.
Did you call her at home?
I did. Was that the night of the 17th?
Night of the 17th, early morning hours of the 18th.
Okay, yes. I worked with Prime Minister Netanyahu that night until about midnight. Isn't that right?
Excuse me, I think the question is directed, Mr. Bennett, if you could help out between the day of the week, I think that would be helpful.
Saturday night, Sunday morning.
Yes, I called Betty Curry as soon, I think about as soon as I could after I finished with Prime Minister Netanyahu and then the aftermath of that meeting, planning where we were going next in the Middle East peace process.
We take two minutes break, please.
Can I ask a one-minute question first?
Sir, I think the way this is confusing the day is that it's all...
I didn't think it was the night of the 17th.
Can we have a break and I could get straightened out?
Sure. May I ask one other question? This is a question I forgot to ask.
I don't want to get mixed up on these dates now. Go ahead.
This is a... they wanted to know whether... they want us to clarify that the President's knowledge, your knowledge, Mr. President, as to the approach to our office this morning, that is we were told that you would give a general statement about the nature of your relationship with Ms. Lewicki, which you have done,
and yet that you would... you did not want to go into any of the details about the relationship, and that if we press on going into the details, that you would object to going into the details.
And the grand jurors, before they wanted to vote on some other matters, they wanted to know whether you were aware of that, that we were told that.
This is not a fair question. You said you were told. Who told me what? The question...
You said the grand jury was told.
We have kept the grand jury informed, as we normally would, of the proceedings here.
Right. And I'm sorry, but who are you representing who told you or the grand jury anything? Is that our conversation?
Yes.
Our conversation.
That was in substance related to the grand jurors.
And what's your question to me, Mr. Bimber?
Whether you were aware of the facts that I just described.
Yes, let me say this. I knew that Mr. Kendall was going to talk with Judge Starr.
What we wanted to do was to be as helpful as we could to you on the question of whether you felt I was being truthful.
When I said I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, as defined in that definition one in my testimony.
And I thought the best way to do that and still preserve some measure of privacy and dignity would be to invite all you and the grand jurors to ask,
well, would you consider this, that, or the other thing covered by the definition? You asked me several questions there,
and I did my best to answer whether I thought they were covered by the definition.
Instead, if I thought they were covered, you could conclude from that that my testimony is I did not do them.
If those things, if things are not covered by the definition, and I don't believe they're covered, then I could not, then they shouldn't be within this discussion one way or the other.
Now, I know this is somewhat unusual, but I would say to the grand jury, put yourself in my position.
This is not a typical grand jury testimony. I have to assume a report is going to Congress.
There's a videotape being made of this, allegedly because only one member of the grand jury is absent. This is highly unusual.
And in addition to that, I have sustained a breathtaking number of leaks of grand jury proceedings.
And so I think I am right to answer all the questions about perjury,
but not to say things which will be forever in the historic annals of the United States because of this unprecedented videotape and may be leaked at any time.
I just think it's a mistake. And so I'm doing my best to cooperate with the grand jury and still protect myself, my family, and my office.
Thank you.
During what some will consider a taken as a whole a pathetic moment for the U.S. presidency,
a prophetic comment there by the president talking about his comments living on forever for the judgment of history.
We've just seen a lot of legalese in this past segment. NBC News correspondent and lawyer Chip Reid is with us.
Chip, who's been watching along with us. And Chip, bring us up to date on what we've been watching here specifically.
Well, we've been re-plowing a lot of the same ground here over and over again. They started on it early in the testimony.
They hit it again in the middle, and then they hit it again here.
Basically, the president is believed by Ken Starr's office to have perjured himself in two ways, two primary ways, in his grand jury testimony.
Number one, saying he did not have sexual relations. The president says oral sex is not included within the definition of sexual relations.
He says either, as most people understand it, or the definition that was given to him in the Paula Jones case.
And the president says, I did not have sexual relations, even though it was oral sex, with great conviction there.
And that goes along with his lawyer's argument that if he really believed that, then it's not perjury.
They argue that you have to knowingly lie in order for this to constitute perjury.
The other area where they argue, where Ken Starr's office argues there was perjury, is in Monica Lewinsky's saying
there was other types of touching. The president says, no, that was not the case.
Chip Reid in Washington on what is an extraordinary day, millions of Americans watching the president's videotaped testimony.
And the last comment the president made would foreshadow what would eventually happen.
The reason it was more than just a live television feed, the reason it was taped was because one grand juror could not be present
and would need the benefit of seeing it all again.
You saw the president briefly take questions via the attorneys from the grand jurors themselves.
There could be more of that before we wrap up. Remember to take you back to the current time.
This was late in the afternoon on a hot summer day in Washington. Let's go back.
Before we broke, we were talking about the sequencing of your conversations with Betty Curry,
following your deposition on Saturday, January 17th. Do you recall that?
I do.
All right. And you recall contacting Betty Curry, calling her and instructing her on the evening of Saturday night
after your deposition and telling her to come in the next day?
Yes, sir, I do.
Sunday was normally her day off, isn't that so?
Yes, it was.
And so you were making special arrangements for her to come back into the White House, isn't that so?
Well, yes, I asked her to come back in and talk to me.
And it was at that time that you spoke with her and Mr. Bittman and Mr. Weisenberg asked you questions
about what you said in that conversation, isn't that so?
Yes, they have, I don't know whether that's the time, but I did talk to her as soon as I realized that
the deposition had become more about Monica Lewinsky than Paula Jones.
I asked her, you know, if she knew anything about this.
I said, you know, it's obvious that this is going to be a matter of press speculation.
And I was trying to go through the litany of what had happened between us and ask some questions.
Well, in fairness, it would be more than a matter of simple press speculation, isn't that so?
Mr. President, there was a question about whether you had testified fully, completely, and honestly
on the preceding day in your deposition.
Actually, Mr. Bennett, I didn't think about that then.
This has been a rather unprecedented development, and I wasn't even thinking about the independent counsel
getting into this.
So at that moment, I knew nothing about it.
And I was more interested in what the facts were and whether Ms. Curry knew anything about it,
knew anything about what Monica Lewinsky knew about it.
Mr. President, you told us at least a little bit about your understanding of how the term
sexual relations was used and what you understood to mean in the context of your deposition,
isn't that correct?
That is correct.
And you told us that was a lawsuit, Paula Jones' file, in which she alleged that you asked her
to perform oral sex, isn't that so?
That was her allegation.
That was her allegation.
And notwithstanding that that was her allegation, you testified that you understood the term
sexual relations in the context of the questions you were being asked to mean something else,
at least insofar as you were the recipient rather than the performer.
Sir, Paula Jones' lawyers pulled out that definition, not me.
And Judge Susan Weber Wright ruled on it, just as she later ruled their case had no merit
in the first place, no legal merit, and dismissed it.
I had nothing to do with the definition.
I had nothing to do with the judge's ruling.
I was simply there answering the questions they put to me under the terms of reference
they imposed.
Well, the grand jury would like to know, Mr. President, why it is that you think that oral
sex performed on you does not fall within the definition of sexual relations as used
in your deposition.
Because that is, if the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on him, then the
impact is not with anything on that list, but with the lips of another person.
It seems to me self-evident that that's what it is.
And I thought it was curious.
Let me remind you, sir, I read this carefully.
And I thought about it.
I thought about what contact meant.
I thought about what intent to arouse or gratify meant.
And I had to admit under this definition that I'd actually had sexual relations with Jennifer
Flowers.
Now, I would rather have taken a whipping than done that, after all the trouble I'd
been through with Jennifer Flowers and the money I knew that she had made for the story
she told about this alleged 12-year affair, which we had done a great deal to disprove.
So I didn't like any of this, but I had done my best to deal with it.
And that's what I thought.
And I think that's what most people would think reading this.
Would you have been prepared to, if asked by the Jones lawyers, would you have been
prepared to answer a question directly asked about oral sex performed on you by Monica
Lewinsky?
If the judge had required me to answer it, of course I would have answered it.
And I would have answered it truthfully.
Would you believe that the Jones litigants had the same understanding of sexual relations
that you claim you have?
I don't know what their understanding was, sir.
My belief is that they thought they'd get this whole thing in and that they were going
to, what they were trying to do is do just what they did with Jennifer Flowers.
They wanted to find anything they could get from me or anyone else that was negative,
and then they wanted to leak it to hurt me in the press, which they did, even though
the judge ordered them not to.
So I think their position, Mr. Bennett, you asked the question, their position was we're
going to cast the widest net we can and get as much embarrassing stuff as we can and then
dump it out there and see if we can make him bleed.
I think that's what they were trying to do.
Don't you think, sir, that they could have done more damage to you politically or in
whatever context if they had understood the definition the same way you did and asked
the question directly?
I don't know, sir.
As I said, I didn't work with their lawyers in preparing this case.
I knew the case was wrong.
I knew what our evidence was.
By the time of this deposition, they knew what their evidence was.
Their whole strategy was, well, our lawsuit's not good, but maybe we can hurt him with the
discovery.
And, you know, they did some, but it didn't amount to much.
And did I want, if I could, to avoid talking about Monica Lewinsky?
Yes, I'd give anything in the world not to be here talking about it.
I'd give anything in the world not to have to admit what I've had to admit today.
But if you look at my answer in the Flowers deposition, at least you know I tried to carefully
fit all my answers within the framework there, because otherwise there was no reason in the
wide world for me to do anything other than make the statements I'd made about Jennifer
Flowers since 1991 that I did not have a 12-year affair with her and that these, the
following accusations she made are false.
So that's all I can tell you.
I can't prove anything.
But you did have a great deal of anxiety in the hours and days following the end of your
deposition on the 17th.
Isn't that fair to say?
Well, I had a little anxiety the next day, of course, because of the Drudge Report.
And I had an anxiety after the deposition because it was more about Monica Lewinsky
than it was about Paula Jones.
The specificity of the questions relating to Monica Lewinsky alarmed you.
Isn't that fair to say?
Yes, and it bothered me too that I couldn't remember the answers.
It bothered me that I couldn't, as Mr. Weisenberg pointed out, it bothered me that I couldn't
remember all the answers.
I did the best I could.
And so I wanted to know what the deal was, sure.
Mr. President, to your knowledge, if you turned over in response to the grand jury subpoenas,
all gifts that Monica Lewinsky gave you?
To my knowledge, I have, sir.
As you know, on occasion, Mr. Kendall has asked for your help in identifying those gifts.
And I think there were a couple that we came across in our search that were not on the
list you gave us that I remembered in the course of our search had been given to me
to Monica Lewinsky and we gave them to you.
So, to the best of my knowledge, we have given you everything we have.
Can you explain why on the very day that Monica Lewinsky testified in the grand jury on August
6th of this year you wore a necktie that she had given you?
No, sir, I don't believe I did.
What necktie was it?
The necktie you wore on August 6th, sir.
Well, I don't know that it was the necktie that Monica Lewinsky gave me.
Can you describe it to me?
Well, I don't want to take time at this point, but we will provide you with photographic
evidence of that, Mr. President.
If you give me, I don't believe that's accurate, Mr. Bennett.
So let me ask you a question.
But if you give it to me and I look at it and I remember that she gave it to me, I'll
be happy to produce it.
I do not believe that's right.
Well, if you remember that she gave it to you, why haven't you produced it to the grand
jury?
I don't remember that she gave it to me.
That's why I asked you what the tie was.
I have no earthly idea.
I believe that I did not wear a tie she gave me on August 6th.
Can you tell us why Bionnie Nelvis wore a tie that Monica Lewinsky had given you on
the day he appeared in the grand jury?
I don't know that he did.
Have you given Bionnie Nelvis any ties, sir?
Oh, yes, a lot of ties.
And so if he wore the tie that you gave him that Monica Lewinsky had given you, that would
not have been by design.
Is that what you're telling us?
Oh, absolutely not.
May I explain, Mr. Bennett?
It won't take long.
Every year since I've been president, I've gotten quite a large number of ties, as you
might imagine.
I have a couple of friends, one in Chicago and one in Florida, who give me a lot of ties,
a lot of other people who send me ties all the time or give them to me when I see them.
So I always have the growing number of ties in my closet.
What I normally do is someone gives me a tie as a gift.
I wear it a time or two.
I may use it, but at the end of every year, and sometimes two times a year, sometimes
more, I go through my tie closet and I think of all the things that I won't wear a lot
or that I might give away.
And I give them mostly to the men who work there.
I give them to people like Glenn and Elvis who work in the kitchen back in the White
House or the gentlemen who are my stewards or the butlers or the people who run the
elevators.
And I give a lot of ties away a year.
Excluding Christmas, I bet I give 30, 40, maybe more ties away a year.
And then, of course, at Christmas, a lot.
So there would be nothing unusual if, in fact, Elvis had a tie that originally had come
into my tie closet from Monica Lewinsky.
It wouldn't be unusual.
It wouldn't be by design.
And there are several other people of whom that is also true.
Mr. President, I'd like to move to a different area right now.
I'd like to ask you some questions about Kathleen Willey.
You met Kathleen Willey during your 1992 campaign, isn't that so?
Yes, sir, I did.
As a matter of fact, you first saw her at a rope line at the Richmond, Virginia,
airport on October 13, 1992.
Is that not correct?
I don't believe that is correct.
When did you first meet her, sir?
Well, let me ask you this.
When was the debate in Richmond?
I believe it was October 13, 1992, sir.
Well, I believe that I had met her before then because Governor Wilder,
I believe that was his last year as governor, I think that's right, 1992-93,
I believe that I met her in connection with her involvement with Governor Wilder.
And I have the impression, it's kind of a vague number, but I have the impression
that I had met her once before, at least once before I came to that Richmond debate.
Now, I'm not sure of that.
Well, at least if you had met her before.
But I am quite sure she was at the Richmond debate and I did meet her there.
I'm quite sure of that.
Mr. President, you've seen television footage of you standing on a rope line
with Governor Donald Byer asking Mr. Byer,
for the name of Kathleen Willie.
You've seen that footage, haven't you?
I don't know that I've seen it, but I am aware that it exists.
All right.
And you can see him, you can read his lips, he's saying the name Kathleen Willie
in response to a question from you, isn't that so?
That's what I've heard.
And as a matter of fact, you sent Nancy Hernreich, who was present on that day,
to go get her telephone number, didn't you, sir?
I don't believe so.
You don't believe so?
Let me say this.
If that is true, then I'm quite certain that I had met her before.
I would never call someone out of the blue that I saw on a rope line
and send Nancy Hernreich to get her number to do it.
Even if you were just learning her name for the first time?
That's correct.
I'm not so sure that I didn't ask Donald Byer if he was on the rope line with me,
who she was, because I thought I hadn't seen her before
or I knew I'd seen her before and I didn't remember her name.
Now, I do that all the time, for men and women.
I'm sorry.
Do you recall that you sent Nancy Hernreich to get her telephone number?
No, I don't.
All right.
Do you recall, having received her telephone number, calling her that night?
No, sir, I don't.
Do you recall inviting her to meet with you at your hotel that night?
No, sir, I do not.
Do you recall where you stayed in Richmond, Virginia during the debate before this event?
I stayed at some hotel there, I believe.
Actually, did you stay at the Williamsburg Inn, not in Richmond?
Yeah, that's right.
We prepared in Williamsburg.
That's correct.
I believe we prepared in Williamsburg and then went to Richmond for the debate,
and then I think we spent the night in Richmond,
and the next day I think we had a rally before we left town.
I believe that's right.
Do you know of any reason Kathleen Willie's telephone number would appear on your toll records
from your room in Williamsburg?
No, I'm not denying that I called her, sir.
You asked me a specific question.
I won't deny that I called her.
I don't know whether I did or not.
As a matter of fact, you called her twice that day, didn't you, sir?
I don't recall.
I may well have done it, and I don't know why I did it.
Well, does it refresh your recollection that you called her and invited her to come to your room that night, sir?
I don't believe I did that, sir.
If Kathleen Willie has said that, she's mistaken or lying.
Is that correct, Mr. President?
I do not believe I did that.
That's correct.
But what is your best recollection of that conversation, those conversations?
I don't remember talking to her, but it seems to me that at some point, that's just why I believe I'd met her before, too.
But at some point I had some actual person-to-person conversation with her about my sore throat and what she thought would be good for it or something like that.
I have some vague memory of that. That's it.
This is the chicken soup conversation, Mr. President.
Well, I don't know if I would come to your room. Maybe that's what she said I should have. I don't remember.
But I have no recollection, sir, of asking her to come to my room.
I'm sorry, I don't.
I won't deny calling her. I don't know if I did call her. I don't know if she tried to call me first. I don't know anything about that.
I just met her and Doug Wilder. I remember that she and her husband were active for Governor Wilder, and that's about all I remember, except that I had a conversation with her around the Richmond debate.
I do remember talking to her there.
Mr. President, let's move ahead to the episode on November 29, 1993, in which Mrs. Willie met you in your office at the Oval.
The subject matter of the 60 Minutes broadcast a few months ago. You recall that episode?
I certainly do.
Mr. President, in fact, on that day you did make sexual advances on Kathleen Willie. Is that not correct?
That's false.
You did grab her breast, as she said?
I did not.
You did place your hand on her groin area, as she said?
No, I didn't.
And you placed her hand on your genitals, did you not?
Mr. Bennett, I didn't do any of that, and the questions you're asking, I think, betray the bias of this operation that has troubled me for a long time.
You know what evidence was released after the 60 Minutes broadcast that I think pretty well shattered Kathleen Willie's credibility.
You know what people down in Richmond said about her. You know what she said about other people that wasn't true.
I don't know if you've made all this available to the grand jury or not. She was not telling the truth.
She asked for the appointment with me. She asked for it repeatedly.
Did she make a sexual advance on you, Mr. President?
On that day? No, she did not. She was troubled.
On some other day?
I wouldn't call it a sexual advance. She was always very friendly, but I never took it seriously.
Mr. President, you mentioned the documents that were released and information that came out from people in Richmond, etc.
After the 60 Minutes piece was broadcast, as a matter of fact, you were required under the court's rulings to produce those documents in response to document requests by the Jones litigants, is that correct?
I believe the Jones litigants, the request for production of documents to me, ran the documents that were in my personal files and in my personal possession and did not cover documents that were White House files.
So I don't believe we were required to produce them.
As a matter of fact, when that story first ran, sir, before 60 Minutes was back in July or so of 1997, I was aware that we had some letters.
I didn't dream, Kathleen Willie, I didn't remember that she'd written this as much as she had and called as much as she had and asked to see me as often as she had after this alleged incident.
I didn't know the volume of contact that she had which undermined the story she has told.
But I knew there was some of it and I made a decision that I did not want to release it voluntarily after the Newsweek ran the story because her friend Julie Steele was in the story saying she asked her, she, Kathleen Willie, asked her to lie.
And because frankly her husband had committed suicide, she apparently was out of money and I thought who knows how anybody would react under that.
So I didn't. But now when 60 Minutes came with the story and everybody blew it up, I thought we would release it.
But I do not believe we were required to release White House documents to the Jones lawyers.
Mr. President, you made a decision on whether to stay beyond the four hours we agreed to to accept questions from the grand jury.
We have made an agreement Mr. Bennett to give you four hours. We're going to do that. But I'm going to watch there about 12 minutes left.
I guess that's no. Is that correct Mr. Kendall?
Yes, that's correct.
May I ask you a question? Could I have a two minute break?
Sure.
We'll get through it. I'm sorry to bother you with this. I know we're getting to the end.
And so we will take a two minute break and the President's testimony.
One more news item that has come to us from Mission Viejo, California this afternoon.
Florence Griffith Joyner, known as Flojo to her fans, a triple gold medalist at the 1988 Olympics, still a world record holder in several events, died today of an apparent heart seizure.
She was 38 years old. Florence Griffith Joyner, sister-in-law of Jackie Joyner, Coercy by the way, coached by her husband for a long time.
Just a beloved figure to her fans, fans of Jack and Field around the world and viewers of the Olympic Games.
Let's go to Chip Reid in our Washington Bureau who's been watching this testimony. Beyond the obvious, Chip, the content is pretty rough. What are your fine points on this?
Well, in what we've heard over the past 20 minutes or so, they seem to be wrapping up some loose ends.
The question of whether the tie that the President wore the day Monica Lewinsky testified before the grand jury, was it from her? Was it a signal to her that he's still on her side?
The issues of Kathleen Willey that did not play any big role in Ken Starr's report.
Otherwise, we have had a repetition of the questions on the key issues here, whether the President had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, which he has denied over and over and over again through this.
Sticking to his point that oral sex performed by her on him did not constitute sexual relations by his definition or the Jones lawyer's definition.
And that would go, if he could establish that, to undermining the perjury counts both in the Jones deposition and before the grand jury.
And those who believe that the President will be damaged by this believe a whole set of facts, including that it's one thing to read about him either parsing the truth or misstating the truth.
It's another entirely to watch him on television doing it. Chip Reidon, our Washington bureau, who's been watching every moment of this right along with us.
Let's go back to the tape.
Mr. President, at various times in this investigation, officials have invoked executive privilege in response to questions that have been posed to them by the grand jury and in the grand jury.
One of the grand jurors has posed the question, did you personally authorize the invocation of executive privilege?
If the answer is authorized, I think the answer to that would be yes.
But I would like the grand jury to know something.
In the cases where we raised lawyer-client privilege or executive privilege or where the Secret Service raised their privilege, and I had nothing to do with that.
I did not authorize it or prove it or anything else. That was something they asked to be free to make their decision on by themselves.
In none of those cases did I actually have any worry about what the people involved would say.
The reason those privileges were advanced and litigated was that I believed that there was an honest difference between Judge Starr and the Office of Independent Counsel
and Mr. Ruff, my counsel, and I about what the proper balance was in the constitutional framework.
I did not want to put the presidency at risk of being weakened as an institution without having those matters litigated.
Now we've lost some of those matters. Our people have testified and the grand jury is free to conclude whether they believe that the testimony they gave was damaging to me.
But I don't imagine it was and I wasn't worried about it.
It was an honest difference of constitutional principle between Judge Starr and the Office of Independent Counsel in the White House.
Mr. President, a couple of very brief questions given our time.
The White House's outside counsel, Mr. Eggleston, withdrew the White House's appeal from Chief Judge Johnson's ruling that the invocation of executive privilege had to give way to the grand jury's right to the information.
That ruling in connection with the testimony of Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Lindsey. Were you informed of that fact that the appeal had been withdrawn?
I was informed of it and as a matter of fact I was consulted about it and I strongly supported it. I didn't want to appeal it.
My main difference, Judge Starr, as you know, and with some of the court decisions, is on the extent to which members of the White House counsel staff, like Mr. Lindsey, should be able to counsel the President on matters that may seem like they're private, like the Jones case, but inevitably intrude on the daily work of the President.
But I didn't really want to advance an executive privilege claim in this case beyond having it litigated so that we had not given up on principle this matter without having some judge rule on it.
And you're satisfied that you now have the benefit of that ruling, is that correct?
Well, yes. I just didn't want to, I didn't want to, yes. And I didn't, I made the, I actually I think made the call, or at least I supported the call. I did not, I strongly felt we should not appeal your victory on the executive privilege issue.
Mr. President, among the many remaining questions of the Cranjors is one that they would like answered directly without relation to, without regard to inferences, which is the following. Did Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on you? They would like a direct answer to that, yes or no?
Well, that's not the first time that question's been asked, but since I believe, and I think any person, reasonable person would believe that that is not covered in the definition of sexual relations I was given, I'm not going to answer except to refer to my statement.
I had intimate contact with her that was inappropriate. I do not believe any of the contacts I had with her violated the definition I was given, therefore I believe I did not do anything but testify truthfully on these matters.
We have a couple of photos of the tie that you wore.
Would you please give them to me?
Yes.
Now this is this August 6th, is that correct?
1998, the day that Monica Lewinsky appeared at the Cranjors, and my question to you on that is were you sending some kind of a signal to her by wearing one of the ties, let me finish if you don't mind.
Sure, I'm sorry.
Were you sending some kind of a signal to her by wearing a tie she had given you on the day that she appeared at the Cranjors?
No sir, I don't believe she gave me this tie. If I was sending a signal, I'm about to send a terrible signal and maybe you ought to have invited her to talk again, I don't want to make light about this.
I don't believe she gave me this tie, I don't remember her giving me this tie. And I had absolutely no thought of this in my mind when I wore it.
If she did, I don't remember it and this is the very first time I've ever heard of it.
Did you realize when you, can I just have for the record what are the exhibit numbers?
Mr. Bennett has some more questions.
Mr. President, we were talking about your responses to document requests in the Jones litigation and I had just asked you about turning over Kathleen Willie correspondence, should we call that?
Yes sir, I do.
If I understand your testimony, you did not believe that the request for documents compelled you to search for those documents in the White House?
Mr. Bennett, I want to answer this question in a way that is completely satisfactory to you and the grand jury without violating the lawyer-client privilege, which is still intact.
It was my understanding that in the request for production of documents, that those requests ran against and operated against my personal files.
Now I have some personal files in the White House and I'm sorry, in this case I'm not my own lawyer and I don't know how the distinction is made between files which are the personal files of the President and files which are White House files.
But I do have a very clear memory that we were duty bound to search and turn over evidence, or excuse me, documents that were in my personal file, but not in the White House file.
And I believe that the letters to which you referred, Ms. Willie's letters and Ms. Willie's phone messages, were in the White House file.
And therefore I was instructed at least that they were, that we had fully complied with the Jones Lawyers request and that these documents were outside the request.
Mr. President, you're not contending that White House documents, documents stored in the fashion these were stored, are beyond your care, custody, or control, are you?
Mr. Bennett, that may be a legal term of art that I don't have the capacity to answer. I can only tell you what I remember.
I remember being told in no uncertain terms that if these were personal files of the President, we had to produce documents.
If they were essentially White House files, we were not bound to do so.
And so we didn't.
So you're saying somebody told you that you didn't have to produce White House documents?
And I'm fortunate to witness that this question should not invade the sphere of attorney-client privilege. Any conversation with the counsel or privilege?
Let me say, maybe Mr. Kendall, we need a break here. I'm trying to avoid invading the lawyer-client privilege.
I can just tell you that I did the best I could to comply with this.
And eventually we did make, of course, all of this public. And it was damaging to Ms. Willie and her credibility.
It was terribly damaging to her. And the first time she came out with this story, I didn't do it.
I only did it when they went back on 60 Minutes and they made this big deal of it and it turned out she had tried to sell this story and make all this money.
And I must say, when I saw how many letters and phone calls and messages there were that totally undercut her account, I myself was surprised.
But you knew there were letters.
I did, sir.
And White House is under your control, isn't it, Mr. President?
Well, Mr. Bennett, again, I'm not trying to be... some days I think it's under my control and some days I'm not so sure.
If you're asking me as a matter of law, I don't want to discuss that because that's... I mean, I'd be glad to discuss it, but I'm not the person who should make that decision.
That decision should be made by someone who can give me appropriate advice and I don't want to violate the lawyer-client privilege here.
Well, Mr. President, how are the letters from Kathleen Willey that surfaced after the 60 Minutes episode here any different from the correspondence in other matters, tangible items, tangible things, of Monica Lewinsky?
Well, the items you asked for from Monica Lewinsky that I produced to you, you know, that there was a tie, a coffee cup, a number of other things I had.
And I told you there were some things that had been in my possession that I no longer had.
I don't know if I did that.
It was one book, I remember, that I left on vacation last summer.
The same documents that the Jones litigants had asked you for?
Yes, but at any rate, they were different.
The gifts were in my personal possession, clearly.
In your office at the Oval?
Well, in the books, now that the presidential books were with my other books that belonged to me personally, they were in the Oval.
Where did you draw the lines, sir, between personal and White House?
You're talking about some documents that are in the Oval Office, and we don't see where you're drawing the lines.
Well, Mr. Bennett, I don't think these were, I think the Lewinsky gifts were all non-documents.
You can, just a moment, I'd like to finish answering the question, please, because this is a legitimate question, I think.
There's somebody in the White House, Mr. Bennett, who can answer your question, and you could call them up and they could answer it under oath for you.
There is some way of disaggregating what papers are personal to the President and what papers are part of the White House official archives of papers.
And I don't know how the distinction is made.
Did you direct that personnel, Nancy Hernreich or anyone else, make a search for correspondence from Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky when those documents were called for in the Jones litigation, sir?
Did you direct that somebody on the White House staff looked for those documents?
I don't believe that I was in charge of doing the document search, sir.
So the strict answer to that question is that I didn't.
So you sat back and relied on this legalistic distinction between your personal, which you're in control of, and the White House, which, by the way, you're also in control of.
Is that not correct?
I want to check the argument in the form of a question.
We'll allow the witness to answer it.
We now have overtime even 30 seconds.
Mr. Bennett, I haven't said this all day long, but I would like to say it now.
Most of my time and energy in the last five and a half years has been devoted to my job.
Now, during that five and a half years, I have also had to contend with things no previous president has ever had to contend with.
A lawsuit that was dismissed for lack of legal merit, but that cost me a fortune and was designed to embarrass me.
This independent counsel inquiry, which has gone on a very long time and cost a great deal of money, and about which serious questions have been raised, and a number of other things.
And during this whole time, I have tried as best I could to keep my mind on the job the American people gave me.
I did not make the legal judgment about how the documents were decided upon that should be given to the Jones lawyers and one that shouldn't.
And I might add that Ms. Willie would have been very happy that these papers were not turned over because they damaged her credibility so much.
Had they not ultimately been turned over after she made, I think, the grievous error of going on 60 Minutes and saying all those things that were not true.
But I did not make the decision. It was not my job. This thing was being managed by other people. I was trying to do my job.
Mr. President, the grand jury I'm notified still has unanswered questions of you and we appeal to you again to make yourself available to answer those questions.
Mr. Bennett, our agreement was for four hours. We have not counted the break time.
You know, Mr. Bennett, I wish I could do it. I wish the grand jurors had been allowed to come here today as we invited them to do.
I wanted them down here. I wanted them to be able to see me directly. I wanted them to be able to ask these questions directly.
But we made an agreement that was different and I think I will go ahead and stick with the terms of it.
The invitation was made after there was political fallout over the deposition circumstances with the satellite transmission and the taping. Isn't that so?
I don't know about the taping, Mr. Bennett. I understood that the prospect of the grand jurors coming down here was raised fairly early. I don't know.
But anyway, I wish they could have. I respect the grand jury.
Just for the record, the invitation to the grand jury was contingent upon us not videotaping. We had to videotape because we haven't asked the grand juror.
That's the only reason Mr. Weisenberg has a video tape.
Well, yeah. Do you want to answer that?
I'm just feeling.
Thank you very much.
It was just a few hours later, the president went on national television to deliver what some found to be an angry response that was only part confession of what he had done and in large part devoted to attacking the staff of the independent council.
Coming up on one forty p.m. Eastern Time, and we have been watching for the better part of the last four hours, the president's once secret videotape testimony to the Ken Star grand jury among the voices you heard in that last portion was the independent council himself.
Ken Star, who joined in the questioning along with his co-counsel, who'd been working the case all day long.
And we learned through discussion there confirmed rather that the grand jury had been invited to the White House. It was long said in the White House that the president could display his prowess for taking witnesses over to his side if he was allowed face to face interaction with them.
That also would have avoided the need for videotape.
But as you heard, there was one absent grand juror quickly before we continue. The White House has issued a statement calling this release a violation of grand jury secrecy, calling the decision to make the most salacious details and put them out gratuitous.
Quote. This is from Mike McCurry.
The question of impeaching a president is one of the most solemn and serious undertakings that any Congress can take upon itself. Sadly, the Republican majority in Congress is off to a bad start.
They refer to the brow beating and badgering of this president and the questioning.
And this is the last two sentences in the statement.
The real question for the American people and for the Congress of the United States is whether the president's conduct, however it may be judged, should result in the president's impeachment. That the president's conduct does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense should now be clear to everyone.
From the office of the press secretary, the traveling press secretary in New York, where NBC's John Palmer is standing by outside the United Nations, the president, you may recall, started the morning there.
John, I understand he's back inside and can you set the mood for us with the traveling White House? Have staffers and reporters been following this all day?
Yes, indeed, Brian. The juxtaposition here of the tapes that we have been seeing of the testimony on August the 17th and then the president of the United States delivering a major foreign policy address before the United Nations General Assembly on terrorism.
It's been quite a bizarre juxtaposition. A lot of people gathering around to wonder which one the networks are covering, whether it be the speech or whether it be the tapes there.
The president got a very, very warm reception before the General Assembly today. Of course, he has been here every September on this opening day of the fall session.
It was a standing ovation and it went on for some time. Later, one of the president's aides said it was the most enthusiastic reception the president has ever received at the United Nations.
The president was described as moved and gratified. The president, in his remarks about terrorism, said that terrorism is not fading away at the end of the 20th century.
It's an international problem and it deserves an international solution with all countries of the world coming together, joining hands, no matter what their other disputes are, to attack terrorism through better airport security and a check on the export of explosives and that thing and so forth.
The White House, as the president, did not look at any of the tapes as they were played because he could have in his hotel before he came over here. He had about 30 or 40 minutes before he arrived here at the United Nations for his speech.
And they went on to say, as you have just mentioned, Brian, that as they've said all along, they think the release of this tape was unfair. They think it's a violation of the secrecy of the grand jury.
And I thought it was interesting in that statement you read from Mike McCurry there. They took a shot at the Republicans for allowing the release of what they said was quite salacious material.
They said they thought there was an understanding with the Democrats this would not be released, some of the printed documents that were released today.
And they say it brings to question the motives of the Republicans. Are they really just out to get the president? Are they serious about this whole impeachment process?
There's some feeling here on the part of people that all of this is interfering with the president's foreign policy, his ability to deal with it.
Senator Biden, the ranking Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that foreign policy had been somewhat sidetracked.
But the president's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, says no, that is not true.
The president himself said he's been able to concentrate every day on national security, but it certainly brings to mind a little bit of what happened during the Nixon era when President Nixon, in trouble with his own scandal, took refuge in foreign policy, as the president certainly did today, Brian.
John Palmer traveling with the president of New York where we should quickly add we will televised Mike McCurry's briefing this afternoon scheduled loosely for 3 p.m. Eastern time.
We will also televised live the president's planned speech at NYU Law School in lower Manhattan today.
He is supposed to speak there. And the subject of the talk is the global economy.
We will see what kind of reception he gets there to students who may or may not have been watching this all day.
NBC News correspondent Chip Reid has also been watching this with us all day long.
And Chip, a couple of points. For people watching for the intangibles almost, the atmospherics, this was a president who was perspiring at times, looked defensive, almost hollow at times.
Also, we now know that the advanced billing didn't live up to reality, meaning the burst of anger, the president storming out of the room, turning purple according to some descriptions.
But of the legal content, what do you think? Is it perhaps perjurious comments the president made that will stand out?
Most definitely. I think the low point here, and they kept coming back to it again and again, was the president's parsing of the definition of sexual relations and the other finely honed definitions that he dealt with.
For example, saying that with regard to whether he was ever alone with Monica Lewinsky, well, it depends on your definition of alone.
And when Bob Bennett in the Paula Jones case said there is no sexual activity of any kind and the president was later asked about that, he said, well, it depends on what the definition of is is.
Barney Frank, one of his biggest defenders on the Hill, has said that that makes the president sound like a 14-year-old trying to outsmart the president.
And I think we saw some confirmation of that today. But there were some high points.
Number one, other than the fact of actually being able to see the president there, judge his demeanor, and perhaps members of Congress and the American public will be confirmed, have their belief that he may have committed perjury confirmed.
Maybe it will be bad for the president in that way. But on the other charges, there's really no new evidence.
Everything that was in the report was in this testimony and everything that was in the testimony was in the report.
Ken Starr did not leave much out at all with regard to the elements of the alleged impeachable offenses.
And a high point on the president's part is that he used this as a political opportunity.
He, as he said in the testimony, was quite sure that this was going to get out to the American public at some point.
So he used it quite a bit to attack Ken Starr and his prosecutors, to attack the Paula Jones lawyers, calling them his political enemies who were out to spread negative information about him.
He also referred to Monica Lewinsky as a good girl with a good heart and said it breaks his heart that she got wrapped up in the legal part of this.
He said that Linda Tripp stabbed Monica Lewinsky in the back.
And he really took every opportunity to speechify, essentially, to the American people, not to the grand jurors, not to the prosecutors, but to go over their heads and talk to the American people.
Chip Reed, thank you. And we will play for you, perhaps out of order chronologically, but the portion of the tape Chip just referred to, this runs a little over two minutes and the same warning applies here.
It was on the screen for much of the president's testimony this morning.
The following contains some graphic passages, but the following also sheds a lot of light on the kind of questioning we saw, the kind of answers from the president.
If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched her breasts, would she be lying?
Let me say something about all this.
All I really need for you, Mr. President, is to say I won't answer under the previous grounds or to answer the question, you see, because we only have four hours and your answers are extremely lengthy.
I know that. I'll give you four hours and 30 seconds if you'll let me say something general about this.
I will answer to your satisfaction that I won't, based on my statement I will not answer.
I would like 30 seconds at the end to make a statement and you can have 30 seconds more on your time if you let me say this to the grand jury and to you.
And I don't think it's disrespectful at all. I've had a lot of time to think about this. But go ahead and ask your question.
If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched her breasts, would she be lying?
That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky and I'm staying on my former statement about that.
My statement is that I did not have sexual relations as defined by that.
If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched her genitalia, would she be lying?
That calls for a yes, no, or reverting to your former statement. I will revert to my statement on that.
If Monica Lewinsky says that you used a cigar as a sexual aid with her in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
Yes, no, or won't answer? I will revert to my former statement.
If Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her, would she be lying?
Well, that is at least in general terms I think is covered by my statement. I address that in my statement and I don't believe it.
Let me define phone sex for purposes of my question. Phone sex occurs when a party to a phone conversation masturbates while the other party is talking in a sexually explicit manner.
The question is if Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her, would she be lying?
I think that is covered by my statement.
As unbelievable as the content may seem, given the fact that the man being questioned here is the President, this is some of what aired today,
some of what happened that day in August when the President was talked to and deposed.
Chip Reid, people are going to compare this to the kind of Hollywood depiction of taking the Fifth on the stand and some of the hearings we've seen on the Hill over the years in American history.
How similar and how different is this from something like taking the Fifth on a question?
Well, very different in this case. There are two things the President did here.
Number one, he simply refused to answer some questions to go into detail. These he basically answered. Those questions he answered, he reverted back to the statement he had read at the beginning that said he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
So he's doing two things here. Number one, he's saying because they never had intercourse, it was only oral sex. Hard to believe we're saying these things on the air, Brian, but we are.
It was only oral sex, but that did not fit in within the definition of sexual relations.
The second argument that is made by the independent counsel's office, the second count of perjury with regard to the grand jury testimony, is that the President lied by saying he did not have those different forms of sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky.
Because even within his definition of sexual relations, if he touched her in sexual ways, the ways that were just described, that would constitute sexual relations.
So he's saying number one, I didn't have sexual relations because we didn't have intercourse, and number two, I didn't have sexual relations because I didn't touch her in those other various ways.
But as we're going into the details, it probably isn't necessary because we did get from the President his denials of the specific acts that the independent counsel's office alleged there. So quite a bit different from taking the fit.
Chip Reid in Washington, and we should now probably try to get ourselves in some kind of chronological order. I'd like to play for you now the very beginning of the session, the somewhat shocking and unlikely scene of the President being sworn in in this case.
His presence was re-enacted on the day. We saw him there, his testimony was adapted, and we found the whole truth. We love the truth, but we don't know.
I do.
We saw as if to defray questions about the specifics, as the White House called them the salacious details. The President pulled from his pocket a folded piece of White House stationery on which had been written the following statement based on content.
I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997.
I engaged in conduct that was wrong.
These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse.
They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17, 1998, deposition.
But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact.
These inappropriate encounters ended at my insistence in early 1997.
I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual manner.
I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct and I take full responsibility for my actions.
While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold.
This is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters.
I will try to answer to the best of my ability other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the term of sexual relations,
as I understood it to be defined at my January 17, 1998, deposition, and questions concerning alleged subordination of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses.
And that, the President hoped and wished, would become the benchmark answer any time the questions got specific. He wanted to be able to return to that piece of language.
We should also tell you that concurrent with the playing of the tapes was issued a two-book set, over 3,000 pages, of supporting documents.
The detail is voluminous and graphic, things like details from Monica Lewinsky's phone machine, Linda Tripp's advice that the dress in question not be laundered, 44 visits by Monica Lewinsky to the White House,
the President's testimony later we saw it during the day that she is basically a good girl.
Monica Lewinsky walks down 16th Street to try to catch the eye of the passing President, leaving church services out the limousine window to believe her version of it, later giving him an excuse to call her and suggest a meeting,
answering no to the question of was there any sexual activity in the Oval Office proper, but saying no, there was sort of a pillow talk about it in the Oval Office afterwards.
And even how the two of them sat physically during his convalescence from his knee injury at Greg Norman's Miami home.
There is an angry note that Monica Lewinsky wrote the President after seeing the happy pictures of the President and Mrs. Clinton vacationing in the Virgin Islands.
Some will recall the pictures that were criticized for being too obtrusive of the President and the First Lady kind of dancing romantically, thinking they were alone on the beach.
That and that view of the President's relationship with his wife, the First Lady, apparently upset Monica Lewinsky.
The documents are being poured over now by journalists of all stripes in Washington, NBC News producers and correspondents,
and there's information in there just now coming to light because of the sheer volume, the thousands of pages there.
We are joined now by NBC News Chief Legal Correspondent and co-host of Weekend Today, Jack Ford.
Jack, we haven't talked to you here on MSNBC since the beginning of our coverage.
And aside from what the American public will choose to take away from the sight of their President doing this kind of thing with certain words and the truth and expressions,
what do you think the biggest legal ramification will be to come out of these tapes?
Well, Brian, it's difficult for us to assess these in terms of what a bottom line is going to be, as you know.
We're not talking about this being a legal arena, even though it has all the trappings.
And you and I have talked about this before. It has all the trappings of a legal matter.
But the fact of the matter is it has now moved into the political arena.
But there are some analogies you can draw out of all of this.
If you look at his testimony, and I'm sure we're going to see all sorts of assessments over the next 24, 48 hours,
so many people giving their opinions of how well he did,
it reminds me of one of the things that you experienced very early on in your career if you were trying cases, either as a prosecutor or defense attorney.
It's not unusual for you, after you had one of your major witnesses on the witness stand testifying,
you usually run outside in the hallway the first break you have,
and you ask some of the people who are sitting in the courtroom watching who are not connected how your witness did.
And it's not at all unusual. Same witness. Ask one person, and they'll say to you, great, your witness did a sensational job.
And you wander down the hallway a little bit, and you ask another person who was sitting in the courtroom,
and they look at you and shake your head and say, boy, you got a tough time with that witness because he was really terrible.
I think that's what you're going to see coming out of this, Brian.
The people who want to believe the president or want to say, you know what, this is enough, let's move on, are going to be reasonably satisfied with it.
Those that want the president out, I'm sure, will point to this, and they'll extract certain portions of it, and they'll say, here, here's the evidence we're talking about here.
This is the reason why he should be gone.
If you're talking about the legalities, did he defend himself in terms of a perjury charge, in terms of an obstruction of justice charge?
Well, he gave plausible explanations.
Would a jury be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that those explanations are insufficient and therefore, if there ever was a charge,
and obviously is the big if, and we're talking hypothetically here, would a jury say that they're satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt?
We don't know the answer to that question.
But I think it's pretty clear, and I think most people will agree, there was no major smoking gun, so to speak, here.
Jack, of course, the lawyers knew that they were questioning a man who's a pretty fair lawyer himself, once a teacher of constitutional law, certainly a quick study.
Even his memory and his prowess in that area came up once.
They tried to establish courtroom style.
The people have said about you, Mr. President, you have an extraordinary memory. How, then, is it true that you don't remember thus and so?
It was interesting to see how they focused on that, Brian, as you said, bringing up his own memory, trying to get him to agree,
yes, I've got it, as it was described, an extraordinary memory here.
Clearly, the prosecutors want to suggest to the grand jurors watching or anybody else watching this that if you have such a good memory,
why do you keep saying, I don't recall about certain types of responses, certain types of questions?
So it was a strategy that was used.
One of the things I think was interesting, Brian, is that we had heard these reports of these heated exchanges within the course of this.
And I think, again, people who have watched trials and even seen the workings inside a grand jury might tell you that they were surprised how tame this really is.
We just went through the rounds of satellites surfing there, having evidently lost Jack Ford's signal from 30 Rock in New York. We'll try to reestablish contact and conduct.
The president spoke at great length. Jack was making a point about his anger.
The advance billing from some, most of them through leaks, said to be sources close to the independent counsel,
was that the president lost his temper, turned purple with rage at least once, unless those portions, considered gratuitous, were eventually edited out of the videotape version we saw here today.
And Jack's contention was absolutely correct that those did not show up and they did not meet advance billing.
The president also dealt a lot with the Paula Jones case.
We have one more snippet of his videotape today we'd like to play and then talk about it some more.
The Jones lawyer's strategy in this case had nothing to do with uncovering or proving sexual harassment.
By the time this discovery started, they knew they had a bad case on the law and they knew what our evidence was, they knew they had a lousy case on the facts.
And so their strategy, since they were being funded by my political opponents, was to have this dragnet of discovery.
They wanted to cover everybody and they convinced the judge, because she gave them strict orders not to leak, that they should be treated like other plaintiffs in other civil cases
and how could they ever know whether there had been any sexual harassment unless they first knew whether there had been any sex.
And so with that broad mandate limited by time and employment in the federal or state government, they proceeded to cross the country and try to turn up whatever they could.
Not because they thought it would help their case, by the time they did this discovery they knew what the deal was in their case.
And they knew what was going to happen and Judge Wright subsequently threw it out.
Now let me finish Mr. Bennett, you brought this up. Excuse me Mr. Bittman. What they wanted to do and what they did do and what they had done by the time I showed up here
was to find any negative information they could on this, whether it was true or not, get it in a deposition and then leak it even though it was illegal to do so.
It happened repeatedly. The judge gave them orders. One of the reasons she was sitting in that deposition was because she was trying to make sure that it didn't get out of hand.
But that was their strategy and they did a good job of it and they got away with it.
I've been subject to quite a lot of illegal leaking and they had a very determined, deliberate strategy because their real goal was to hurt me.
They didn't want to win the lawsuit. They thought well maybe we can pummel and maybe they thought I'd settle.
Maybe they just thought they would get some political advantage out of it. But that's what was going on here.
Now I'm trying to be honest with you and it hurts me and I'm trying to tell you the truth about what happened between Ms. Lewinsky and me.
But that does not change the fact that the real reason they were zeroing in on anybody was to try to get any person in there, no matter how uninvolved with Paula Jones,
no matter how uninvolved with sexual harassment, so they could hurt me politically.
That's what was going on because by then, by this time, this thing had been going on a long time.
They knew what our evidence was. They knew what the law was and the circuit in which we were being in this case.
And so they just thought they would take a wrecking ball from me and see if they could do some damage.
You're right and wrong that the attorney in the general state was permitted to ask you certain questions.
He certainly did and they asked them and I did my best to answer them. I'm just trying to tell you what my story was.
You answered those questions truthfully, Mr. President.
It was. But it was not my responsibility in the face of their repeated illegal meeting.
It was not my responsibility to volunteer a lot of information.
The president as lawyer, many people will not understand why the president would be willing to say,
it was not my job to help along their case. It is often an attorney's job to tell their client that it is not your role.
Your role is very narrow and narrowly defined in this case.
We want to bring in former White House special counsel Lanny Davis.
Gentlemen, we've turned too often to help explain what we're seeing on the screen here.
And Lanny, this is a dark day by any standard in presidential politics.
We've now seen some of the most personal discussion by any president.
This breaks new ground all over the place.
And I'm curious as to how much you were able to see this morning, your reaction to what you have seen.
I haven't seen the whole thing. I've seen about an hour or so and I certainly saw the last 30 minutes in your clip.
So I'm in a position to react to that limited extent.
And?
Well, I think clearly the president was an embarrassed individual trying to resist telling everything.
He clearly was less than fully literally truthful. I think the press secretary has used those words.
And it's not a very happy sensation for friends of his and supporters of his, as I've clearly been.
That being said, I think there really is going to be a phenomenon here of an overselling for partisan purposes of the negative side of this tape by the Republican House leadership.
I think they're going to regret the hype that has gone on here to drop all these documents and put this tape out right now with a view of trying to injure the president and the Democrats in the fall elections.
I think there's a chance that there will be a backlash because of their rush to get all this information out without having a fair process to conduct an impeachment inquiry.
Meantime, though, you have a man whose presidency is by any standard left crippled.
For how long, we don't know. But you're hearing growing numbers of voices on the Hill wondering just what is he going to be able to do in office, just how effective can he be as a leader?
And can you make a case as to why the president, after all of what some would call his achievements over the last one and a half terms, will be remembered for anything other than this videotape moment today?
I certainly can. I think the American people right now are answering your question by the way they rate his performance in office.
I think this will be a very bleak aspect of his presidency, and it will imperil his legacy.
But if you look at the record and the way he turned around the deficit, the way he dealt with the welfare system and all the other issues, you will see the reason why, notwithstanding what has to be the worst cataclysmic public relations event in the modern presidency,
he is at the highest level of approval ratings in the history of polling in this century.
Just put those two statements together, and it offers some hope that if he can deal and resolve with this horrible personal crisis and move on, there is a chance that he can still at least recover his legacy as a very good president.
I would say only that George Bush post-Gulf War would have pushed the numbers higher.
Atlante, you say imperil his legacy but not define it. Do you still believe that?
I don't think that necessarily it will define it.
Clearly it will be a very major part of any historian's verdict on the president.
We are talking about history now, not contemporary journalism.
But in historic terms, if we look at just the deficit when he entered the presidency and what he will leave the country as a surplus, and I believe that he will get credit for that and some other achievements,
one hopes that historians will balance a severe personal failing against a public achievement as in the case of the deficit and other issues I could mention.
I hope so anyway.
And we will see, of course, not every American will see the tape in its entirety.
Many people in the workplace will catch up with it this evening.
And it's been said that the rub here, the conundrum, will be that seeing the president say what he did on videotape will be far different from reading just the transcripts.
As the viewing public looks at it, Lenny Davis is going to stand by with us.
Before we take a break, I want to let you know what is coming up this afternoon.
First of all, Mike McCurry is due to brief within the hour.
We will see if the White House will adhere to a time schedule there.
Remember, the press secretary is along with the president in New York today.
Also, the president is scheduled to deliver a speech at NYU Law School in Lower Manhattan.
The subject, the global economy, the time, 430, will be carried live, 430 Eastern, that is, 130 on the Pacific Coast.
Also, kind of a compendium of the president's testimony, an hour, a condensed version of the four-hour testimony we broadcast here.
Same morning supply. A lot of the content will not be family-suitable.
Six o'clock. I'll be back with you, of course, at 9 p.m. for our usual hour-long primetime newscast this evening featuring more of the coverage.
We're going to whip around the country, test some opinion of Americans who have just watched this,
and a lot more, including our legal analysis when our coverage continues after a break.
Stories that capture your attention, experts that put it all in perspective, and a host that's not afraid of a fight.
InterNite tonight at 7 Eastern on MSNBC.
Imagine shaping, toning, and strengthening your body from the comfort of your home or office. Now you can.
I have lost 35 pounds with a total fitness machine, and I feel wonderful.
This sophisticated fitness machine sends impulses that are transmitted through the past.
This stimuli causes the muscles to contract, expending energy which burns calories and fat.
As a result, one will see increased muscularity, definition, and weight loss.
I've lost 20 pounds and 3 inches with a total fitness machine, and I've looked or felt the scrapes of tight skull.
With the adjustable knobs, you control the intensity of your workout.
Whether you're a beginner, intermediate, or at an advanced exercise level, the total fitness machine will work for you.
I've lost 30 pounds and 4 inches in my waistline, and thanks to the total fitness machine, I feel like I'm at the top of my game again.
With regular use and a reasonable diet, you'll start losing weight quickly. To order, call 1-800-811-4968.
Let's talk about family values at your GMC dealer. Bring your family into Meat Harness.
Here's Jimmy, a real looker, quiet, versatile too.
Yukon, bigger, stronger, gets all the attention. And suburban, luxurious, the most accommodating.
Right now, there are sensational GMAC lease offers on GMC's entire family of SUVs.
More of what your family needs, now even more affordable. So hurry to your Tri-State GMC dealer, and welcome to the family.
What you want is a great selection of cars at a great price. What you need is to get to your Tri-State Quality Board Store.
It's the final days of Ford's factory-authorized clearance. You only have days to get both.
Low 0.9% financing plus $1,000 cash back on every Escort, Contour, and ZX2 in stock.
What you want is low 0.9% financing plus $1,000 cash back.
What you need is to hurry to Ford's factory-authorized clearance during the final days.
Visit your Tri-State Quality Board Store now.
The Clinton Tapes have now aired nationally.
An audience of millions of people. An audience that will continue as America comes home from work this evening
and heads into tomorrow morning. We saw the President discuss various aspects of his life, his career in the White House,
and the young woman who is responsible for much of this story having unfolded.
Here now, some of what the President had to say about Monica Lewinsky.
Even if you look at the facts here, in their light, most unfavorable to me,
no one has suggested that there was any sexual harassment on my part.
And I don't think it was wrong to be helping her. Look.
A subpoenaed witness in a case against you?
Absolutely. Look, for one thing, I had already proved in two ways that I was not trying to influence her testimony.
I didn't order her to be hired at the White House.
I could have done so. I wouldn't do it.
She tried for months to get in. She was angry. Secondly.
After I terminated the improper contact with her, she wanted to come in more than she did.
She got angry when she didn't get in sometimes.
I knew that that might make her more likely to speak.
And I still did it because I had to limit the contact.
And thirdly, let me say, I formed an opinion really early in 1996.
And again, well let me finish this sentence.
I formed an opinion early in 1996, once I got into this unfortunate and wrong conduct,
that when I stopped it, which I knew I would have to do, and which I should have done a long time before I did,
that she would talk about it. Not because Monica Lewinsky is a bad person.
She's basically a good girl. She's a good young woman with a good heart and a good mind.
I think she is burdened by some unfortunate conditions of her upbringing.
But she's basically a good person.
And I knew that the minute there was no longer any contact, she would talk about this.
The President talking about his chief accuser in this case, Monica Lewinsky.
We mentioned Americans have all kinds of been watching this testimony for hours this morning live on networks like this and others.
We're going to take kind of the pulse opinion-wise of this nation through our correspondents in three different locations.
Over the next hour's time, Linda Vester watching with people in Philadelphia, where if I'm not mistaken,
there are hundreds of grades of Independence Hall behind her.
Chris Jansing is in Times Square in New York. She's been talking to people there.
And Ann Thompson in the Roddums' hometown, Hillary Roddum Clinton, that is, Park Ridge, Illinois, talking to the people there.
And we're going to begin all of this with Linda Vester on Independence Mall in Philadelphia. Linda?
Brian, you're absolutely right that we are at Independence Hall, since you see that behind us.
Since, of course, that is the place that the Constitution was drafted.
We figured that this is such a momentous moment in our nation's history and in our government's history that it would be a fitting –
it would be fitting to come here to talk to people about what they think of the president's grand jury testimony as they saw it on television today.
So what we did is we asked three students from the University of Pennsylvania Law School to watch the entire testimony as it was broadcast on MSNBC, unedited,
or as it was edited for the public, and to listen closely to the things that he said and to judge for themselves whether or not they thought he was telling the truth.
So we introduced you. We have Ellen Corbo, Kier Gums, and Marty Atia, all students again at University of Pennsylvania Law School.
First of all, I want to ask you all three, did you think the president's testimony was better or worse than you had expected?
Well, I think it was definitely worse. I wasn't anticipating for there to be so much blatant invasiveness and obvious and certain circumstances, lies about certain things.
Kier, Marty?
Clearly worse, very damaging.
Same thing, given the fact that this is going to occur in the public opinion, the fact that he was visibly shaken during the course of the deposition,
it was clear that he was unsure and very unwilling to answer the question truthfully.
Now, there are some people who believe that President Clinton may even have committed illegal acts when he testified before the grand jury.
Did you see anything you thought the president did wrong? For example, do you think that he may have committed perjury during his grand jury testimony?
I don't think there's any doubt. I think even Clinton feels any perjury.
I think especially with regards to the definition of sexual relations, he obviously lied about specific acts and tried to not testify to that when there was direct evidence that those things had occurred,
and I think it was very obvious that he was lying about those things.
Clinton's been criticized for splitting hairs on some of the legal issues that were raised and accusations against him,
and even assuming that his arguments were true, it was still clear from the grand jury investigation that he was lying at some point,
and it contradicted himself as compared to what he said in the deposition during the Paula Jones trial.
Okay, a wrap-up question. Do you guys think that the president is in trouble now?
Definitely.
Definitely.
Slam dunk for Kenneth Starr. He's in big trouble.
I mean, I don't know if these offenses are necessarily, you know, if they weren't impeachment, but I think that he's definitely in a lot of trouble, politically at least.
Okay. Thank you very much, Marty, Kier, Ellen.
Well, you heard it very frankly, Brian, that these students all believe that this potentially was a slam dunk for Ken Starr,
that they thought that the president did do something wrong during his grand jury testimony, and that now we may indeed see impeachment hearings. Brian?
Linda Vester in Philadelphia, and our thanks to the three Penn Law School students interviewed the ominous quote there, as you heard, slam dunk for Ken Starr.
We want to go also to Ann Thompson, who is out in Park Ridge, Illinois, where, Ann, if I'm not mistaken, there's a street corner bearing the Rodham family name in that town, correct?
That's right, Brian. It is the hometown of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it is represented in Congress by Henry Hyde,
who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and many will decide if the Congress should move towards impeachment of President Clinton.
I am here with Judy Gallo, who is an attorney who is no longer practicing. She's now raising her daughter, and I understand that you watched the testimony this morning, Judy.
First of all, let me just get your reaction to what you saw the president do this morning.
I was embarrassed for the president. I was embarrassed for the country, and I was extremely uncomfortable watching his testimony.
What made you uncomfortable? Was it the nature of the testimony, or was it the president's performance?
The president's demeanor, the way he answered the question, and, of course, parts of the subject matter.
Did you get the impression that the president answered the questions truthfully?
No. I think he used the legal definitions and the legal terms of art to get around telling the truth.
Do you think he lied?
Yes.
You do think he lied?
Yes.
And from your knowledge as an attorney, did you feel that that is a case for perjury then?
I think it is, whether it's a high crime and a misdemeanor that would lead to impeachment, that I don't have an opinion on.
But I think that he could definitely be charged with perjury.
Watching the videotape testimony, did that change your opinion about what should happen to President Clinton?
Watching the videotape testimony, no, that didn't change my opinion.
So what do you think should happen to the president?
I think he should resign. I don't believe the country should have to go through the impeachment process.
Thank you, Judy, very much.
Judy Gallo, who is a housewife here in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Brian, Park Ridge, Illinois is overwhelmingly white middle-class Republicans.
And that sentiment that we heard from Judy that the president should resign is one that we have heard many times this morning here at the community center.
Back to you.
Ann Thompson out in Illinois for us today, sampling reaction there.
Before we take a break, the work of the White House goes on, and sadly the president has been forced to react to a death of a notable athlete in this country today.
The statement from the president reads,
Hillary and I were shocked and saddened by the sudden death of Florence Griffith Joyner.
We were dazzled by her speed, humbled by her talent, captivated by her style.
Though she rose to the pinnacle of the world of sports, she never forgot where she came from.
That statement from the White House, Florence Griffith Joyner, dead today, an apparent heart ailment at age 38.
The news crossing the wires about halfway through the president's testimony.
We're going to take a break when we come back to what they're saying in New York's Times Square about the president's sworn testimony on videotape.
The president's situation right now, please follow the testimony in your bathroom and the truth, the whole truth, and the rest of the truth that he's not.
Imagine shaping, toning, and strengthening your body from the comfort of your home or office.
Now you can.
I have lost 35 pounds with a total fitness machine, and I feel wonderful.
This sophisticated fitness machine sends impulses that are transmitted through the past.
This stimuli causes the muscles to contract, expending energy which burns calories and fat.
As a result, one will see increased muscularity, definition, and weight loss.
I've lost 20 pounds and 3 inches with a total fitness machine, and I haven't looked or felt the scrapes of tight skull.
With the adjustable knobs, you control the intensity of your workout.
Whether you're a beginner, intermediate, or at an advanced exercise level, the total fitness machine will work for you.
I've lost 30 pounds and 4 inches in my waistline, and thanks to the total fitness machine, I feel like I'm at the top of my game again.
With regular use and a reasonable diet, you'll start losing weight quickly.
To order, call 1-800-811-4968.
Do you need cash now?
Thousands of families have turned to J.G. Wentworth for money when they needed it most of all.
For business opportunities, debt consolidation, and new homes.
If you're receiving periodic payments from a structured settlement or annuity and need cash, call now.
Representatives are standing by 24 hours a day to answer all your questions.
If you're receiving structured settlement payments over a long period of time but need cash, call now.
1-800-742-8185.
Introducing the Waterhouse Dow 30 Fund, available only from Waterhouse Securities.
You can invest in 30 of America's leading blue chip companies, companies that are literally household names, like General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Eastman Kodak.
All in one convenient mutual fund investment with no load and no transaction fee.
The initial investment is just $1,000. Or get started with as little as $100 a month with our free periodic investing program.
So own your share of Goodyear, General Motors, and the other companies of the Dow 30.
Call now for your free brochure and prospectus on the Waterhouse Dow 30 Fund.
Only from America's number one ranked discount broker, two years in a row.
Waterhouse Securities, where investors who expect value feel right at home.
Send your packages in two days with FedEx to lots of different places. You get lots of different prices.
Send your packages in two days with UPS to lots of different places. You get lots of different prices.
Send your packages in two to three days with Priority Mail to lots of different places. You get the same price.
You know, $3.
So, what's your priority? Priority Mail from the U.S. Postal Service.
My father works for International Paper in the chemical division.
He's not a famous chef, but he got rid of a bad taste that the whole country had to taste.
International Paper helped develop the adhesive that made self-adhesive stamps possible.
I eat broccoli sometimes. I tried Brussels sprouts once, but waking up that was a big yuck.
International Paper, finding solutions to problems big and small.
New York's been the scene of a wild ride today. The stock market adds the depth of the testimony.
If such a thing could be ascertained, the market was down about 200 points.
It is now up with the testimony all over and the playing of it limited only to repeated sections.
NBC News correspondent Chris Jansing has been in Times Square in Midtown Manhattan all day long taking the pulse of New York.
Hi, Brian. And I think that this is sort of ground zero, one of the most startling contrasts of this most unusual day,
because while William Jefferson Clinton was being presidential, he was just over on the East Side giving an address to the United Nations.
Behind me on this huge, well-known giant television screen called the Jumbotron in the heart of Times Square,
President Clinton's tape testimony was being played.
People did stop to watch, but every single person who stopped was a journalist, many of them foreign journalists.
It's only in the last few minutes, understandably, that we've been talking to people who are at home and saw some of the president's testimony.
Maria is one of them. Did you make a special point today to see the president's testimony?
Actually, I did not make a special point, but when I turned on my television set this morning, there it was, of course.
I would like to know why the country is so fascinated with this more so than the job the president has done since he's been in office.
I think he's done a good job.
What did you think of his demeanor? What is your overall impression of the part of the deposition or the part of the testimony that you saw?
Well, quite naturally, he was quite uncomfortable. He knows that he made not an error, but a big mistake.
But that doesn't take away from the job he's done as president.
Nothing you saw changes your mind about Bill Clinton?
I think that he made a very costly decision.
Did he tell the truth?
In his deposition? I think he did the best that he could. I really do.
I believe that he was trying to cover himself, which anyone else would do.
But again, I look at the president as the president of these United States, and he's done an excellent job.
What he does in private is in private, and I think that Congress should have handled it in that manner.
Maria, thank you very much for being with us.
Brian, we've gotten a whole range of opinions from people.
Some of them saw the whole four hours, thought he was lying.
But the most interesting thing is that to a person, they believe nothing the president said today will change people's minds.
Chris Jansing, in the heart of Times Square in New York, everyone will recognize the U.S. Armed Forces Recruiting Station going back to the 1940s
with some opinions that are very 90s about what we've all seen on the air today.
Our live coverage continues after this.
Hello, I'm Pat Sciarocchi. I hope you'll join me for a new season of the Health Matters television series.
Every week, leading doctors and other health care professionals from St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center
will give you the news you need to help you and your family live longer, healthier lives.
So, tune in this week because at St. Joseph's, life is precious.
Watch Health Matters Wednesday evenings at 8 and Sunday mornings at 9.30 on Channel 6.
Greco, the bad reputation you should know.
Come to Joyce Honda and get to know my mom, Joyce Greco.
We can make a difference.
With competitive prices on a great selection of new and used cars, whether you buy or lease.
And professional service from the entire staff.
Trust Joyce Honda, our name and reputation going in every car we do it.
Greco, the bad reputation you can't trust.
And Denville, New Jersey.
You didn't want her to test the fine, did you?
You didn't want her to disclose the embarrassing facts of this inappropriate intimate relationship, did you?
Is that correct?
Well, I did not want her to have to testify and go through that.
And of course, I didn't want her to do that.
Of course not.
The evidence is out on videotape and in a compendium of still pictures and documents.
Here are several of them.
Monica Lewinsky, another man in the president of the Oval Office.
This believed to be the annual summer barbecue in the backyard for interns, members of the press and staff.
August 10th, 1995.
And there are other photos, some of them of the president and Monica Lewinsky, some of them of pieces of evidence in this case as well.
This is a letter we believe was written but never sent to the code name she sometimes used, the president of the United States.
There is another letter addressed, Mr. President, abbreviated in this case.
Most of them deal with gifts, perhaps visits upcoming and just passed.
And there is a piece of evidence in the second volume of evidence bound, printed, released today.
The blue dress that has been the subject of so much press speculation was the subject of medical testing
and the actual drawing of blood from the arm of the president of the United States in the presence of the independent counsel's office
as performed by presidential physician Dr. Connie Mariano as chronicled on the front page of yesterday's New York Times.
Many aides say that it was the drawing of the blood.
The president knew why. It was to match a DNA sample lifted from the dress that actually taught the president that this case was indeed for real
and was going to proceed with or without his permission or assistance.
We want to take one more look at some of what was said, some of what we broadcast this afternoon in this testimony
with warnings again that much of this content is not suitable for families or children during these mid-afternoon hours in the East and West Coast.
Here now more of what the president testified to earlier today.
I certainly didn't want this to come out if I could help it.
And I was concerned about that. I was embarrassed about it. I knew it was wrong.
And you know, of course I didn't want it to come out.
But you're saying that you didn't say anything, I want to make sure I understand, did you say anything like that once you knew or thought
she might be a witness in the Jones case? Did you repeat that statement or something like it to her?
Well, again, I don't recall and I don't recall whether I might have done something like that.
For example, somebody says what if the reporters asked me or this, that or the other thing.
I can tell you this, in the context of whether she could be a witness, I have a recollection that she asked me,
well, what do I do if I get called as a witness? And I said you have to get a lawyer.
And that's all I said and I never asked her to lie.
Did you tell her to tell the truth?
Well, I think the implication was she would tell the truth.
I've already told you that I felt strongly that she could execute an affidavit that would be factually truthful
that might get her out of having to testify.
Now, it obviously wouldn't if the Jones people knew this because they knew that if they could get this and leak it,
it would serve their larger purposes even if the judge ruled that she couldn't be a witness in the case.
The judge later ruled she wouldn't be a witness in the case.
The judge later ruled the case had no merit.
So I knew that and did I hope she'd be able to get out of testifying on an affidavit?
Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit? No, I did not.
If Monica Lewinsky has stated in her affidavit that she didn't have sexual relationship with you is in fact a lie.
I take it you disagree with that.
No, I told you before what I thought the issue was there.
I think the issue is how do you define sexual relationship?
And there was no definition imposed on her at the time she executed the affidavit.
Therefore, she was free to give it any reasonable meaning.
And if she says she was lying in a common sense ordinary meeting that you talked about earlier, Mr. President,
that most Americans would have, if she says sexual relationship, saying I didn't have one was a lie
because I had oral sex with the President, I take it you would disagree with that.
Now we're back to where we started and I have to invoke my statement.
The President invoking the statement he read at the top of his testimony about inappropriate behavior with this former intern, Monica Lewinsky.
We're joined by former special White House counsel Lanny Davis.
And Lanny, you and I both know that many Americans watching this will think this man is genetically perhaps incapable of telling the truth
and a man who perhaps because of a career in the law is incapable of speaking clearly.
Things like I'd hope she could execute an affidavit that was factually truthful.
Who would say that and not just say, tell them what you know?
Look, Brian, Jack Ford had it exactly right.
People who are favorable to President Clinton are going to view this more sympathetically and people who are unfavorable will view it worse.
But I do agree with you.
There is no way to escape the conclusion that the President was evasive and less than truthful in parsing those words out.
That being said, I think the American people have already decided that before this videotape.
And the issue now is whether there is an impeachable offense.
It's interesting to me that even in the interviews that we just viewed,
that those that regard the President as outright lying still aren't prepared to say he should be impeached
because the Constitution requires some element of abuse of government power in order to remove a president.
And that's really the arena we're in right now. And the jury is out on that.
Corollarily, do you think this tape changes no minds?
I don't think it will change many minds.
I think clearly the parts regarding the parsing of those words are very harmful politically.
And there may be some sway voters that will lean against him because of that.
I also think there's a sympathy factor to the way he was questioned, to the position he was in.
And we've heard Americans all over the country say, of course you lie about sex in a situation like that.
Those sorts of people, I think, might feel sympathetic to the situation he was in.
On the whole, the House of Representatives still faces the question whether you remove a president on this ground.
And I still believe most Americans do not want him removed and don't believe there's an impeachable offense.
We'll see what happens.
Lanny, two things could happen.
Americans have a funny way of deciding for themselves when they have had it, quite frankly, with the President.
And members of Congress can also tell the President or ask rhetorically,
what did you hope to get through this place, this year or next, by way of legislation?
Can he constitutionally, and small c constitutionally in this case,
ever be convinced that it is over and his time may be better spent passing the baton?
Brian, let me say this now, and I hope that you will ask me this question as we perhaps talk later on today and this evening.
Howard Baker and many other distinguished Republicans have said under no circumstances
should a president resign as the politics of the moment seem to go south on him.
That is not our system. That's a parliamentary system.
The House has a responsibility to address whether there's an impeachment required here.
And then, if necessary, the Senate should act.
In 1974, the only time that we've had a president resign in office,
it was only after the inquiry was completed.
And it was clear that there weren't any votes in the Senate that would have acquitted President Nixon.
Under no circumstances should a president resign just because there's a political turmoil
that is causing him to be an ineffective president. That is not our system.
How about a matter of law?
Surely. And that is the process we ought to be in right now.
We have a House Judiciary Committee with a Republican leadership
that pushed all this information out exactly the opposite of what was done in 1974 with Watergate.
No one can believe that there would have been this kind of rush if we were looking at this after the election.
It's obvious that they rushed to get this out to affect the election.
I think it taints the process as a possibly partisan one that undermines our Constitution.
I hope that they'll come to their senses, create a consensus with the Democrats, and follow the Constitution.
Lanny Davis joining us, and it'll come as a surprise to many that there are other attorneys
waiting to share their opinions with us right after we take a break.
What does the man who wrote the book on the president's private life think of his videotape performance?
Clinton biographer David Marinus on The Big Show with Keith Olbermann tonight at 8 Eastern and Pacific on MSNBC.
The video America is talking about is now on MSNBC.com.
Log on and see moving video of the president's testimony live on your desktop now on MSNBC.com.
By now you've heard that lowering your monthly bills with 125 percent no equity second mortgage is a smart decision.
But who should you call? Which lender has the best deal?
At Dytec Funding, we've made that decision easier by offering an interest rebate on all our new 125 no equity second mortgages.
You pay Dytec, and Dytec pays you. It's your money. It's your decision.
Call Dytec Funding at 1-800-71-FIX for your 125 second mortgage rebate savings now.
When it comes to your health, never compromise, even when choosing a laxative.
You need one that's strong enough to work overnight, but also gentle.
Try Dr. Recommended Dulcolax. It's both strong and gentle.
It even has a special comfort coating to protect your stomach.
In fact, doctors recommend Dulcolax most, more than Corectol and Senacod combined.
Don't compromise. Get strong. Get gentle. Get Dr. Recommended Dulcolax.
And for strong and gentle relief in minutes, get Dulcolax Suppositories.
Ha! Ha! Ha! So, I hear your mutual fund is down, maybe over the short term.
You're not worried?
My fund invests in Real Estate Investment Trust, solid long-term investments.
You still think CGM Realty Fund is the way to go?
It's up more than 98% over the past four years.
So, maybe now is the time to buy.
Ha! My point exactly.
For a prospectus call 1-888-CALL-CGM.
Those people who pay attention to the English language probably found much to talk about in the taped testimony we played for you on this network
and will continue to with warnings along the line that much of the content is not suitable for children and families.
At one point, the argument dissolved into a discussion over the exact definitions of certain words like sexual relations, words like alone,
and in this particular passage, the word is.
That statement is a completely false statement whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
The statement that there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement.
Is that correct?
It depends upon what the meaning of the word is.
If is means is and never has been, that is one thing.
If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
But as I have testified, I'd like to testify again.
It is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked about his lawyer's statements instead of the other way around.
I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange.
I was focusing on my own testimony.
If you go back and look at the sequence of this, you will see that the Jones lawyers decided that this was going to be their Lewinsky deposition,
not the Jones deposition.
Given the facts of their case, I can understand why they made that decision.
That is not how I prepared for it.
That is not how I was thinking about it.
I am not sure, Mr. Weisenberg, as I sit here today, that I sat there and followed all these interchanges between the lawyers.
I am quite sure that I didn't follow all the interchanges between the lawyers all that carefully.
I don't really believe, therefore, that I can say Mr. Bennett's testimony or statement is testimony and is imputable to me.
I don't know that I was even paying that much attention to it.
A Yale Law School student, former Rhodes Scholar, former constitutional law teacher,
Mr. Clinton knows his way around a statement and a sentence and a paragraph and proved it in the videotaped testimony,
once secret before the federal grand jury that we saw unfold here today.
We have two attorneys with us to talk about it from Washington.
Victoria Tenzing, who has been with us often, as has Cynthia Oxney, former federal prosecutor.
Cynthia, you are here in our studios. You have been watching this for hours along with us.
I am curious as to what your first and foremost thoughts are.
Well, the portion you just played I think is a bad portion for the president.
And the other portion that is bad, where he clearly had a very strong reaction to the question,
is when he is talking about Betty Curry and the series of questions that he asked her following his deposition.
On the other things, I think he did much better than expected.
He did not seem to lose his temper. We all expected he was going to throw his pen down
or take his tie off and run out of the room was the report. That didn't happen.
He was very polite and respectful to Ms. Lewinsky and seemed to be sending an olive branch to her.
So there were good things for him. But the section that you just played, I think is very bad for the president.
And Victoria?
Well, Brian, I get concerned when people are told the law is something that it is in fact not,
preliminarily, that it was announced by the White House today that just releasing this testimony
was in violation of the grand jury's 60 rule. It is not.
Three judges said that they okayed the release of the testimony, but not only that.
When it went to Congress, Congress voted 88 percent to release it and 66 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
So it is perfectly fine for this grand jury testimony to be released.
And we shouldn't be talking about it in any context that it is quote unquote illegal.
Now, let me also talk about what the law is when you are really in a grand jury situation.
Because in just about any prosecutor's grand jury in this country, if a witness had come in and said,
I don't want to talk about this, or I'm going to rely just on this statement, I'm not going to tell you that,
I don't want to talk about that because it's private, the prosecutor would have taken the witness down before the judge
and said, this witness is in contempt. And he's tell the witness to answer the question,
and then they would have gone back before the grand jury.
The court would have either found the witness had answered the question or that the witness was in contempt.
That didn't happen here, but because this was a different kind of a situation.
Victoria, you know, we could argue for days, and they have been in Washington, candidly,
whether or not this should have been released, whether or not the president had the rational expectation of privacy
while sitting there, and he referenced this problem. Let's, if we can, distance ourselves from the back and forth
kind of legal tennis match of it. Narrow in for me on what you think the biggest area of damage will be for him.
Brian, I think it's really the common sense area because that's what we're in. We're in the political context.
We're really not in the legalese. Legally, as I said, it would have gone off in another direction with a contempt charge.
And so by being in Congress, and I think that the president's lawyers took the chance,
that Ken Starr and the independent counsel's office just was not going to push this any further, and they were absolutely right.
So now that we're in the congressional arena and the political sphere, the problem is people are listening to this,
and as we heard the comments from the people that MSNBC has had on, it defies common sense.
This isn't sex because it's this and this and it depends on who does what. I don't want to get into the graphics.
But his testimony defies common sense, and that's going to be his biggest problem right now with it in the congressional arena.
Cynthia, it does stand to reason that it's now beyond the legal realm, that this enters an area, very ephemeral,
that you attorneys aren't used to, and that is public opinion and feeling, the way this strikes Americans as they watch it on television.
I think that's right, and that's why the expectations game is so important in politics.
You know, everybody had the vision that the president was going to really lose his temper and be unreasonable and generally argumentative,
and that wasn't the feeling that you saw at all from him.
He seemed to be doing his best to answer questions, even though he clearly is parsing some of these definitions to the point of ridiculousness.
But we'll see what people think about it in the end.
I thought he made a very good case that the Paula Jones case was a political prosecution, better than I expected him to make.
And also there was a general feeling that the independent counsel was so interested in the Paula Jones case
that they had become an arm of the discovery and enforcement mechanism for the Paula Jones case,
and he made me get some hay out of those two arguments, which went over much better than I expected them to.
But in most grand jury situations, the prosecutor would never have allowed a witness to go on and on in the political sense, as the president did.
They would have cut him off right away.
That's true, but in most grand jury situations, you wouldn't get a tape, and you certainly wouldn't get a tape of a target, and then you wouldn't be able to release it.
Witnesses like these are rare, they tell us anyway.
Victoria, Cynthia, thank you.
We're going to continue after a break. We're going to go down to Washington and talk about some of the political aspects of all of this right after this.
Will America change its mind after seeing and hearing their president on videotape?
Watch the news with Brian Williams tonight at 9 Eastern and Pacific on MSNBC.
Tired of seeing the rich get richer? This could be your chance to realize huge profits in the foreign currency markets.
Find out how the big banks and financial institutions have been trading in the foreign exchange market for years.
For example, with a predetermined risk and unlimited profit potential, with some recent moves in the Japanese yen, an investment of $5,000 properly positioned could have returned 50, 100, 200 percent, even more.
Call ICG International now for a free information package.
Call toll free, 1-888-697-1144 now for your free information package.
See how an investment of $5,000 properly positioned could return 50, 100, 200 percent, even more.
The proceedings of mathematical leverage example does not mean that clients can or will achieve similar results.
People can and do lose money in these markets. Only risk capital should be used.
Let ICG International show you how an aggressive investor can take advantage of this financial opportunity in these exciting markets.
Call now, 1-888-697-1144.
Friday night, dinner and a movie dishes up a tasty combination.
Mmm.
One popular movie.
Cool.
Two hungry hosts.
Check, please.
And lots of savory dinner conversation.
Let's get another shrimp on the balbe.
Mmm.
I think we're getting into a weird area here.
Dinner and a movie, Friday night, delicious television, only on the Superstation.
To advertise on the Superstation, call Cablevision Advertising at 201-337-0379.
Hello, I'm Pat Sciarocchi.
I hope you'll join me for a new season of the Health Matters television series.
Every week, leading doctors and other health care professionals from St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center
will give you the news you need to help you and your family live longer, healthier lives.
So, tune in this week, because at St. Joseph's, life is precious.
Watch Health Matters, Wednesday evenings at 8 and Sunday mornings at 9.30 on Channel 6.
I go down to Washington, NBC News Washington Bureau Chief, Moderator of Meet the Press, Tim Russert.
Tim, this is the first chance we've had to get a reading from you on how you think this is going to be viewed.
There were so many Americans having watched this from coast to coast
and planning on watching it when they come home from work.
I find, having spoken to people, Democrats, Republicans, and I think objective observers over the last hour or so,
they all agreed on one thing.
There was no smoking gun.
No one can rush forward and say, interrupt the network, the President should resign,
or the President has saved himself.
The President exhibited a whole panoply of emotions.
And if you want him removed from office,
you can seize upon his evasiveness and waffling and some might even say lying under oath.
If you want him to stay in office, there was plenty of contrition
and reasonable explanation of political persecution that you can latch onto.
So I think it's pretty much status quo in terms of the political debate,
which means it grinds forward, which means that Congress will be voting for inquiry or hearings in a matter of weeks.
And they would have to make that vote before they go home for October.
And people seem to be dug in.
And they basically will confirm or affirm their judgment based on what they saw today.
Tim, what about the view that as a legislative engine,
as an engine of social change and reform and all the things they have talked about for so many years,
the Clinton presidency is over.
It's over.
And so is the Republican Revolution.
Congress is doing nothing.
The president is doing nothing legislatively, substantively.
It is simply now a matter of whether or not Bill Clinton will remain as president.
Many Republicans are urging resignation.
You have heard the president's people saying no way, no how.
Other Republicans are urging impeachment.
The White House, Mike McCurry, saying what in here is an impeachable offense?
And when you push Democrats, including Joe Lieberman, who has been extremely critical of President Clinton's behavior,
if you ask Joe Lieberman, do you believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense, he will say, I don't think so.
So we're at a standstill in many ways.
And that's where the vast middle, the partisan Republicans have made their comment,
the partisan Democrats have made theirs, the vast middle is now saying at this moment,
before they saw this tape this morning and how it plays out all day,
that they believe the president should stay in office with a severe censure, reprimand, rebuke, whatever.
The Republicans believe, Brian, that they can wait this out, go to November, win significantly in the November elections.
That will affect the Democratic thinking on this and put enormous pressure on Bill Clinton to resign.
Tim Russert, our Washington bureau chief, moderator of Meet the Press, whose opinion has been called on all day and will right into the evening.
These are very dangerous times, what was a dark day as so described by both sides of the political aisle today.
I want to let you know what is coming up as we continue here.
In a few minutes' time, we are scheduled to have a briefing by White House press secretary Mike McCurry,
though it is looking less and less likely that we're going to hit the appointed hour.
The first briefing is supposed to be from the national security adviser, Sandy Berger.
Then MSNBC will be bringing you live coverage later this afternoon.
The president is due to give a speech in lower Manhattan during his visit to New York to the NYU Law School.
The topic of the address is supposed to be the global economy.
We will judge the reception of the president there.
6 p.m. tonight, a compilation of all of the major portions of the president's once-secret videotape testimony.
Of course, we'll be back with you tonight at 9 Eastern, 6 Pacific time, live for our newscast,
repeated throughout the evening on CNBC, of course.
I'm Brian Williams. Until our coverage continues, good afternoon.
He's been getting a rise out of people every morning for years.
Be quiet.
What's the matter with you?
But has Don Imus finally met his match?
Don't let you ask him of your politically correct tree-hugging people that you have on this show that you suck up to.
After Imus on MSNBC, Laura Ingraham breaks down the door of TV's Boys Club with a fresh look at politics and culture today.
Now, doesn't that set the stage just perfectly?
Watch it with Laura Ingraham weekday mornings after Imus at 9 Eastern, 6 Pacific on MSNBC.
When you ship with priority mail, it's a great way to save money.
But what about other parts of the world?
There's global priority mail.
And here's the best part.
Give us a few days more, and you can save up to 70% over FedEx or UPS.
So, what's your global priority?
Try global priority mail from the U.S. Postal Service.
Every moment, every dream, every challenge, for every step you take in life, there's GE, a financial partner you can trust.
Take advantage of our expertise in insurance and investments, and get the innovation you've come to expect.
So think of GE when you think of insurance and investments, for every step you take.
What does the man who wrote the book on the president's private life think of his videotape performance?
Clinton biographer David Marinus on The Big Show with Keith Olbermann tonight at 8 Eastern and Pacific on MSNBC.
The video America is talking about is now on MSNBC.com.
Log on and see moving video of the president's testimony live on your desktop now on MSNBC.com.
Imagine shaping, toning, and strengthening your body from the comfort of your home or office.
Now you can.
I have lost 35 pounds with a total fitness machine, and I feel wonderful.
This sophisticated fitness machine sends impulses that are transmitted through the past.
This stimuli causes the muscles to contract, expending energy which burns calories and fat.
As a result, one will see increased muscularity, definition, and weight loss.
I've lost 20 pounds and 3 inches with a total fitness machine, and I haven't looked or felt the scrapes of tight skull.
With the adjustable knobs, you control the intensity of your workout.
Whether you're a beginner, intermediate, or at an advanced exercise level, the total fitness machine will work for you.
I've lost 30 pounds and 4 inches in my waistline, and thanks to the total fitness machine, I feel like I'm at the top of my game again.
With regular use and a reasonable diet, you'll start losing weight quickly.
To order, call 1-800-811-4968.
Life's a trip, and it takes money to get where you're going.
That's what mutual funds are for.
At Janus, making money means looking for breaks nobody else saw coming, jumping on and writing them in.
No matter what the market's doing, there are great companies to invest in.
Janus finds them, so you can get there.
Janus Mutual Funds