Edition: U.S. / Global

THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL; Excerpts: Senators' Questions and Responses From the Adversaries

Published: January 23, 1999
(Page 6 of 11)

A. I don't know about several times. There was a period when the Republican Congress shut the Government down. The whole White House staff was being run by interns. She was assigned to work back in the chief of staff's office. We were all working there. I saw her on two or three occasions then. And then when she worked at the White House, I think there were one or two times when she brought some documents down to me.

Q. At any time, were you and Monica Lewinsky in the hallway between the Oval Office and the kitchen area?

A. I don't believe so, unless we were walking back to the dining room with pizzas. I -- I just don't remember. I don't believe we were in the hallway, no.

This colloquy goes on and on. I invite the Senate to review the President's deposition testimony. He clearly was giving answers that were false; they were not a part of the record. He wasn't doing it to protect himself from embarrassment, he was doing it to defeat Paula Jones's sexual harassment case.

And when the President testified in August before the grand jury, he never denied the truth of those testimony; he refused to admit that he lied during the deposition; he reiterated the truth of those because he knew he would be subject to perjury. . . .

Civil Deposition

Q. This is a question from Senators Santorum, Smith of Oregon and Thomas to the House managers:

Please respond to the presentation made by counsel to the President, including the argument made by Mr. Craig to the effect that the rejection of Article II had the effect of eliminating that portion of Article I. Did the House conclude that lying in a civil deposition is not impeachable but that lying to the grand jury about whether the witness lied in a civil deposition is impeachable?

MR. ROGAN -- Mr. Chief Justice, I thank the senators for the question and for the opportunity to rebut the presentation a few minutes ago by counsel for the President Mr. Craig.

In his response, he asks the Senate to do specifically what none of the attorneys can do in their presentations, and that is go beyond the record. Specifically, Mr. Craig is asking the Senate to make assumptions as to why the House of Representatives defeated what was then known as Article II, a stand-alone article of impeachment that the President lied during the civil deposition.

And he goes so far in his presentation to say, ''Because the House of Representatives defeated what was then Article II, the Senate should not consider any of the language relating to the President's perjury during the civil deposition.''

First, I ask the Senate not to make those assumptions because, if there was any reasonable inference to be drawn, it would be that it was cumulative. Why is it cumulative? And why did the House not want this to be a stand-alone article?

It is cumulative, because if Mr. Craig would read Article I, he would see that one of the allegations of perjury is that the President committed perjury in the grand jury when he referenced his civil deposition answers and reiterated those to the grand jury. And so the House made a decision not to use a separate stand-alone article, but I would respectfully submit to this body that that is the only inference that can be drawn.

The other thing that I want to mention briefly about Mr. Craig's presentation on that issue is what I found to be a startling admission on his part. Assuming, of course, that the Senate is going to look at Article I as it was drafted and passed by the House and as presented to you, dealing with civil deposition perjury, Mr. Craig said that the President's testimony in the Jones case was ''evasive and incomplete.'' He goes even further in their trial brief to the Senate -- withdraw that, actually.

In his testimony or his statement to the Senate a couple of days ago, and I'm quoting, he said, ''The President's testimony in the Jones case -- the President was evasive, misleading, incomplete in his answers.''

That begs the question, What kind of oath did the President take in the civil deposition? Did he take an oath? Did he raise his hand and swear to tell the truth, the evasive truth, and nothing but the evasive truth? Did he take an oath to tell the truth, the misleading truth and nothing but the misleading truth? Did he take an oath to tell the truth, the incomplete truth, and nothing but the incomplete truth?

Because if he did, if those -- if that was the language that the President used when he took his oath and testified, then perhaps Mr. Craig's position is well taken. But a brief review of the oath that the President took clearly states that he took an oath and was obliged under the law to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not the incomplete or misleading truth. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And so this body has to make a determination, when they review that testimony, both given during the civil deposition and reiterated during the grand jury, whether the President fulfilled his legal obligation in a sexual harassment lawsuit.