Both Sides Sing Praises of Lewinsky’s Testimony

Excerpts from Saturday’s presentations of evidence in President Clinton’s impeachment trial.

Case Against President

Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale):

“Today, the analysis and the speculation ends. There is only one judgment the Senate must make for history about Monica Lewinsky: Do you believe her?

”. . . It is worth briefly recounting the circumstances that elevated the president’s initial indiscretions to the level of impeachable offenses. The lesson is not complex. It’s quite elementary. In all the things we do in life, life is about making choices. Parents teach children that bad choices bring sorrow and consequences. . . . That simple primer on life encapsulates the political and personal legacy of Bill Clinton. His is a continuing pattern of indulging all choices and accepting no consequences.”

Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.):

“I believe that if you put all of this in context . . . that it was the president’s intent to avoid the workings of the administration of justice, to impede the flow of the truth in the administration of justice for his own benefit. And that is what obstruction of justice is about. That is what people go to jail about. And that is what we are presenting to you as a factual basis for this case. . . . What he is telling a witness [Lewinsky] in a case that is adverse to him [the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit], is that you do not have to tell the truth; you can use the cover stories that we used before. And that might have been in a nonlegal context. But now we’re in a different arena, and [Clinton] says, continue the same lies, even though you’re in a court of law; continue the same pattern. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, in my book that’s illegal. And I hate to say it, but that is obstruction of justice by the president.”

Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.):

“The truth is that a reasonable person should conclude that when Ms. Lewinsky approached [Clinton] about what to do with the gifts [he had given her], he said, ‘I’ll have to think about that.’ And you know what, ladies and gentlemen? He thought about it. And you know what he did after he thought about it? ‘Betty [Currie], go get those gifts.’ And they wound up under the bed of the president’s secretary. . . . Where I come from, you call somebody at 2:30 in the morning [as Clinton did Lewinsky], you’re up to no good. That will be borne out if you listen to the testimony and use your common sense. He was up to no good. He told her: ‘My heart is breaking because you’re on this witness list [in the Jones case],’ and maybe here’s a way to get out of it. That’s the God’s truth. That’s what he did, and that was wrong and that’s a crime. For God’s sake, get to the truth. For God’s sake, figure out what kind of person we have here in the White House. For God’s sake, spend some time to fulfill your constitutional duty so that we can get it right, not for just our political moment, but for the future.”

Case for President

Clinton lawyer Nicole Seligman:

“Let’s look at the facts. In her deposition this week, Ms. Lewinsky reaffirmed her previous testimony and provided extremely useful supplements to that testimony. . . . We asked her no questions. Why? Because there was no need. Her testimony exonerated the president.

”. . . The [GOP House trial] managers have indicated to you that Ms. Lewinsky provided testimony useful to their case with respect to the president’s involvement in the transfer of gifts to Ms. Currie. We must have attended a different deposition. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony provides powerful support for the position that Ms. Lewinsky decided on her own to keep from the Jones lawyers the gifts she had received from the president.

”. . . The managers have cleverly snipped here and there, in an effort to present their story, even if as a result the story they are telling you is not Ms. Lewinsky’s story.

”. . . Manager [Ed Bryant of Tennessee] remarked on Thursday that, after deposing Ms. Lewinsky, he felt like the actor Charles Laughton in the film ‘Witness for the Prosecution.’ As counsel for the president, I would respectfully submit that another famous role of Charles Laughton might be the more fitting reference. It is that of the dogged, tireless, obsessed Inspector Javert, once played by Mr. Laughton in the 1935 movie version of ‘Les Miserables.’ The most recent testimony of Ms. Lewinsky has seriously damaged the managers’ case and has confirmed that it is time for this tireless pursuit of the president to come to an end.”

Clinton lawyer David E. Kendall:

“Mr. Manager Hutchinson [who questioned Clinton friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr.] also asserted, more than once . . . that Mr. Jordan’s testimony will prove that the president was controlling the job search. There is only one problem with these assertions: When you actually look at the videotape and listen to what Mr. Jordan testified to, there is no support for these propositions. There is no direct evidence, and there is no circumstantial evidence. . . . Let’s review the nefarious conspiracy that we’ve heard about today to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. . . . I ask you, where in all this voluminous record is there any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the president somehow tied these things together through Mr. Jordan? It’s a shell game, but the game doesn’t have any shell in it. And I think that this is the loneliest conspiracy in human history, if it was a conspiracy. But it wasn’t.”

Compiled by Times researcher Tricia Ford