President Bill Clinton - Grand Jury Testimony - C-SPAN

Not in the context of sexual harassment. I just reread those four pages, which obviously the grand jury doesn't have. But there was some reference to the fact that this definition apparently bore some, had some connection to some, uh, definition in another context, and that this was being used not in that context, not necessarily in the context of sexual harassment. So I would think that this causes would be what means to force someone to do something. That's what I 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, uh, uh, forced anyone to do anything, and that I, and I did not do that. And so that could not have had any bearing on any questions related to Ms. Winsky. I suppose since you have now read portions of the transcripts again, as you were reminded that you did not ask for any clarification of the term, is that correct? Definition? No, sir. I thought it was a rather, when I read it, I thought it was rather strange, but the definition, uh, 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 Mr. Linsky's name came up, and you asked several questions about her. You remember that? Yes, sir, I do. During those, before those questions actually got started, your attorney, Mr. Bennett, objected to any questions about Miss. And he represented to Judge W, who was presiding. That was unusual, wasn't it? That a federal judge would come and actually, in your experience, that a federal judge would come and preside at a deposition? Mr. Excuse me, could you identify the transcript page on which Mr. Bennett objected to all testimony that Miss Lewinsky, before it got started? The objection, this quote that I am referring to is going to begin at page 54 of the deposition. That is, end the testimony, though, after the testimony about Mr. LSK has begun, is it not? Mr. President, is it unusual for a federal judge to preside over a civil deposition? I think it is, but this wasn't unusual case. I, I believe I know why she did it. Your attorney, Mr. Bennett, objected to the questions about Miss. Ly, didn't. What page is that on, sir? Page 54, where he questions whether the attorneys for Miss Jones had a good faith basis to ask some of the questions that they were closing to. His objections actually begin on page 53. Since the president appointed out the grand jurors correctly do not have a copy of the deposition, I will read the portion, uh, that I'm referring to. And this begins, uh, at line one on page 54. "I question the good faith of council. The innuendo of the question. Council is fully aware that Miss 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 Clint." Where is that? That is on page 54, Mr. Beginning at line one. Midway through line one. Well, actually, in the present tense, that's an accurate statement. Uh, that was an ACC, that was an accurate statement. If, if I don't, I think what Mr. Bennett was concerned about, if I, maybe it would be helpful to you and to the grand jurors, quite apart from these comments, um, if I could tell you what his state of mind was, what my state of mind was, and why I think the judge 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've received from the grand jurors, they are interested in knowing what was going on in your mind when you were reading grand jury exhibit, uh, 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 Mr. Linsky's affidavit, and we'll have that marked, Mr. President, as Grand Jur Exhibit WJC 4. And you remember that Miss Lewinsky's affidavit said that she had had no sexual relationship with you. You remember that? I do. You remember in the deposition that Mr. Bennett asked you about that? This is at the end, the, the, at towards the end of the, uh, deposition, and you indicated, he asked you whether the statement that Miss 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 the case, the judge ruled had no merit, that is this case we're talking about. Uh, 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 Miss Lewinsky's mind at the time she swore it out.

Did you talk with M Lewinsky about what she meant to write in her? I didn't talk to her about how her definition. Did not know what was in this affidavit before it was filled out. Specifically, I did not know what words was, you 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, uh, there was no employment, no benefit in exchange, there was nothing having anything to do with sexual harassment. And if she defined sexual relationship 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 about. But you indicated before that you were aware of what she intended by the term sexual relationship. No, sir. I said I thought that 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, she was not bound by this sexual relations def, which is highly unusual. I think anybody would admit that, uh, when she used two, 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, 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 Mr. Winsky 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 truth. What else would sexual relationship include besides intercourse? Well, that, I think, let me answer what I said before. I think most, 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, uh, before I got into this case, and, uh, 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 me using very document, rer exhibit WJC 4, represented to Judge Wright that his understanding of the meaning of that affidavit, which you indicated you thought Mr. Linsky thought was she was prr just to 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, uh, obviously at this moment with Mr. Bennett. I, I'm not even sure I paid much attention to what he was saying. I was think, 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, 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, if you, you age with that, if he misled Judge Wright in some way, that you would have corrected the record and said, "Excuse me, Mr. Bennett, uh, 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 questions, and, uh, I've told you what I believe about this deposition, which I believe to be true. Uh, and it's obvious, and, and I think by your questions, you have betrayed that the, the, the Jones lawyer 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 drag net 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 this deal was in their case, and they knew what was going to happen. And Judge Wright subsequently threw it out. What they now, let me finish. Mr. Bennett, you, Mr. I mean, you brought this up. Excuse me, Mr. Bitman. 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, 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 be tell you the truth about what happened between Miss 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 has been going on a long time. They knew what our evidence was. They knew what the law was in the circuit in which we were bringing this case. And so they just thought they would take a wrecking ball to me and see if they could do some damage.

Judge Wright and W that the attorneys in the Jones case were 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 responsib 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, uh, with respect. I prepared very well for this deposition on the Jones matters. I prepared very well on that. I did not know, uh, that, uh, Linda Tripp had been involved in the preparation of this deposition, or that all that. Now, no, I don't. I just know that what, 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. Bitman, 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 a when I knew that there was no evidence here of sexual harassment, and I knew what they wanted to do was to leete this, even though it was unlawful to do so.

What president that you had 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 in 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 indicate in your statement that you were alone in Mr. W. Is that right? Yes, sir. How many times were you? Let me begin with the correct answer. I don't know for sure, but if you would like me to, uh, give an educated guess, I will do that. But I do not know for sure. And, and I will tell you what I think based on what I remember, but I can't be held to a specific time because I don't have records of all of them. How many times do you think? Well, you, there are two different periods here. There's the period when she worked in the White House until April of '96, and then there's the period when she came back to visit me from February '97 until late December '97. 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, uh, between February and December, uh, it appears to me that at least I could have seen her approximately, uh, nine times, although I do not believe I saw her quite that many times. At least it could have happened. There were, we, I think there were nine or 10 times when she was in, 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, uh, 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's some formally scheduled meeting that was on the on the calendar for the day. I remember. I'll tell you what I remember. I remember, uh, meeting her, having my first real conversation with her during the government shutdown in November of '95, when she, uh, the, as I explained in my deposition, during the government shutdown, the, the most federal employees were actually prohibited from coming to work, even in the White House. There were most people in the White House couldn't come to work. The chief of staff could come to work, my national security 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, uh, 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 if I could 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 '97. I told you that I've looked at my calendar and I tell you what I think the outer limits are. Uh, I, I would think that's about right. There could be, in on, in that first four-month period, there 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.

Have you reviewed the records for December 28th, 1997? Mr. President? Yes, sir, I have. Do you believe that Mr. Winsky was at the White House and saw you on December 28th, 1997? Yes, sir, I do. And do you remember talking with Miss Lewinsky about her subpoena that she had received for the Paula Jones case on that day? I remember talking with Miss Lewinsky about her testimony, uh, or about the prospect that she might have to give testimony, and, uh, she, uh, she talked to me about that. I remember that. And you also gave her Christmas gifts, is that not correct? Mr. That is correct. They were Christmas gifts, and they were going away gifts. She was moving to New York, uh, to and taking a new job, starting a new life. And, uh, I gave her some gifts. And you actually requested this meeting, is that not correct? I don't remember that, Mr. Bitman, 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 I, 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, uh, get a couple of gifts and before she left town. I don't remember who requested the meeting, though. I'm sorry, I don't. You were alone with her on December 28th, 1997? Yes, sir, I was. The gifts that you gave her was a, we, a canvas bag from the Black Dog restaurant at Marthas Vineyard, is that right? Well, that was just, I, that just something I had in the place to, to contain the gifts, but I believe that the gifts I gave her were, I, I put them in that bag. That's what I had there. And I knew she liked things from the Black Dog, so I gave her, I, 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 in. Did you also give her a Marvel bear, bear's head carving from Vancouver, Canada? I did do that. I remember that. You also gave her a rocket blanket that has the famous rocket from New York. I did do that. I had, I had had that in my possession for a couple of years, but had 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, I, I just don't remember. I remember giving the bear and the throw. I don't remember what else. And it seems to me like it was one other thing in that bag. I, I didn't remember the cherry chocolates. How about a p of the New York skyline? That could have been in there. I, I seem to remember I gave her some kind of pen. What about a pair of joke sunglasses? I don't remember that. I'm not denying it. I just, I'm telling you what I remember and what I don't. You had given Mr. Whky gifts on other occasions, though, is that right? Mr. President? Yes, I have. This though was, you gave her the most gifts that you had ever given her in a single, uh, day, is that right? Well, that's probably true. It was sort of like a going away present and a Christmas present as well. And she had given me a particularly nice book for Christmas, an antique book on presidents. She knew that I collected old books, and it was a very nice thing. And, uh, I just thought I to get up a few things and give them to her before she left.

You mentioned that you discussed her subpoena, Paula Jones case. Tell us specifically, what did you discuss? 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 was, uh, therefore was slated to testify. And she mentioned to me, and I believe it was at this meeting, she mentioned, I, 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, 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, uh, her desire to avoid testifying, 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 being traumatized and dragged through the mud by these Jones lawyers with their drag net strategy. They, and so I, and since she didn't know Paula Jones and knew nothing about sexual harassment and did, certainly had no experience with that, I, I clearly understood why she didn't want to be a part of it. And you didn't want her to testify, did you? You didn't want her to disclose these embarrassing facts of this inappropriate intimate relationship that you have, that right? Well, I did not want her to have to testify and go through that. And of course, I, I had, 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, 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've had with Mr. L at that time? I was unaware that she had told anyone else about it. But if, if I had known that, I would, it would not have surprised me. Had you told anyone? Absolutely. Or not have 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, uh, I did what people do when they do the wrong thing. I tried to do it where nobody else was looking at me. 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, uh, after she left the White House. I do not believe I ever had any inappropriate contact with her in the rest of '96. There was one occasion in '97 when regrettably, that we were together for a few minutes. I think about 20 minutes, and there was inappropriate contact. And after that, to domestic, by memory and belief, it did not occur again.

Did you tell her in the conversation about her being subpoenaed? She was upset about it. You acknowledge that. Um, sorry, you have to the record, yes or no. Do you agree that she was upset about being subpoenaed? Oh, yes, sir. She was upset. She, well, she, we, she didn't, 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, uh, 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 this sub? You've already acknowledged. Yes, sir, I was. And Mr. Jordan informed you with 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, I think the first. 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, as again, as I remember, could we go to that in the defition position? Since you asked me that, actually, I think you're, uh, 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 referring to Mr. Lindsay notifying you that she had been identified as a. Where is that, sir? I don't want to get. I just want. What page is that? Well, actually, it, no, it had to be, because I, I saw a witness list much earlier than that, much earlier than December 28th. Oh, sure. And been earlier than she. I believe '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. Yeah, see, there's on page 68. Did 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 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, which he talked to you about Monica being in Mr. Jordan's office having a copy of the subpoena and being upset about being subpoenaed? I remember that Mr. Jordan was in the White House on December 19th for an event of some kind. That he came up to the residence floor and told me that he had, that Monica had gotten the subpoena and or that Monica was going to have to testify. And I think he told me he recommended a lawyer for him. I believe that's what happened. But it was a very brief conversation. He was there for some other reason. And Mr. Jordan testified that he also spoken to you at around 5:00 p.m. in the White House phone log reflect this, that he called you and around the time he met with Miss Linsky and informed you then that she'd been subpoenaed. Is that consistent with your memory? Also on the 19th. I had a lot of phone conversations with Bronin 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, I just knew that I'd 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 19th. Well, I, 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, uh, and I certainly think he's a truthful person.

Getting back to your meeting with Mr. Linsky on December 28th. You are aware that she's been. You are aware, are you not, Mr. President, of the being a called for the production of, among other things, all the gifts that you had given Mr. Linsky? You were aware of that on December 28th, weren't you? I'm not sure. And I understand this is an important question. I did have a conversation with M. Linsky at some time about gifts, the gifts I'd given her. Uh, 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 the telephone. I have searched my memory for this because I know it's an important issue. Uh, perhaps if you, I can tell you what I remember about the conversation and you can see why I'm having trouble placing today. Please. The reason I'm not sure it happened on the 28th is that my recollection is that, um, Miss Lewinsky said something to me like, "What if they ask me about the gifts you've given me?" That's the memory I have. That's why I'd question whether it happened on the 28th, because she had a subpoena with the 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, that's what the law was. And let me also tell you, Mr. Bitman, that 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, so they could. I was never hung up about this gift issue. Maybe it's because I have a different, different experience. But, you know, the president, I get hundreds of gifts a year, maybe more. I have always given a lot of gifts to people, especially if they give me gifts. And, uh, this was no big deal to me. I mean, I, 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 M gives me gifts all the time. Give me ties, give me books, give me other things. So it was just not a big deal. And I, I told Mr. Winsky that dis capacity. I said, "You know, if, if they ask you for this, you'll have to give them whatever you have." And I think, Mr. Bitman, it must have happened before then, because either that, or Miss Lewinsky didn't want to tell me that she had to 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 hat pen that you had produced? I mean, that you had given her? I don't remember that, sir. 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's the rule. That's what the law is." And I, when I was asked about this in my deposition, even though I was not trying to be helpful to particularly to these people that I thought were not well motivated or being honest or even lawful in their conduct visa 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 it didn't, I wasn't troubled by this gift issue.

And your testimony is that Miss 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 ask 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 it just, it, it to me, it, I don't, I don't now see this as a problem. And if she thought it was a problem, I think it must have been from a really, a misapprehension of the circumstances. I certainly never encouraged her not to, to comply lawfully with the subpoena.

Mr. President, if your intent was as you have earlier testified that you didn't want anyone to know about this relationship that you had with M. Linsky, why would you feel comfortable giving her gifts in the middle of discovery in PA of 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 Mr. Linsky, to be a counselor to her, to give her good advice, uh, and to help her. 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, uh, 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 given gifts. I do not think there's anything improper about a man giving a woman a gift or a woman giving a man a gift that necessarily connotes an improper relationship. So it didn't bother me. I wasn't, you know, this was December 28th. I was, I gave her some gifts. I, I wasn't worried about it. I thought it was an all right thing to do.

What about notes and letters, cards, letters and notes for M. Lin after this relationship, this intimate inappropriate intimate relationship between you and Miss Linsky ended? She continued to send you numerous intimate notes, cards, is that right? Well, they were, some of them were were somewhat in them. And I'd say most of them, most of the notes and cards were, uh, were affectionate. All right. But, but she had clearly accepted the fact that there could be no contact between us that was in any way inappropriate. Now, she, uh, 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. She professed her love to you in these cards after the? She said she loved you, sir. The truth is that most of the time, even when she was expressing her feelings for me in affectionate terms, 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. Happened. I can't explain entirely what was in her mind. But most of these messages were not what you would 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." Just question, Mr. 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 can. I don't believe that in most of these cards and letters she professed her love. She might well have. I, but, you know, love can mean different things too, Mr. Bitman. I have, I, there are a lot of women with whom I have never had any inappropriate conduct, who were friends of mine, who will say from time to time, "I love you," and I know that they don't mean anything wrong about that.

Specifically, Mr. President, do you remember a card she sent you after she saw the movie Titanic in which she said that she reminisced or or dreamed about the romantic feelings that occurred in the movie and how that reminded her of you? You remember that? No, sir. But she could have sent it. I just, because I don't remember it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. You're not denying that that? Oh, no. I, I wouldn't deny that. I just don't remember. If you asked me if I remembered, 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, if disclosed, uh, this relationship that you had, and that she shouldn't do it? I remember, um, telling her she should be careful what she wrote because a lot of it was was, uh, clearly inappropriate and would be embarrassing if somebody else read it. I don't remember when I said that. I don't remember what it was in, uh, '96 or when it was. I don't remember. Embarrassing in that it was revealing of 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, uh, that if she wrote things that she should not have written down and someone else read it, that it would be embarrassing. She certainly, she certainly sent you something like that after the relationship began, didn't she? And so therefore, there was at the time she said something inappropriate going on? Well, my recollection is that she, um, 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 in the mail. 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. I, you know, it, she had, from the time I first met her, talked to me about the rest of her personal life. And, uh, 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 with happening or was going to happen. I don't know the answer to that.

After you gave her the gifts of December 28th, did you speak with your secretary, Miss Curry, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that or some some compilation of gifts that Mr. Linsky would have? No, sir. I didn't do that. I did not do that. When you testified in 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 Linsky?" And you answered, "I don't recall." And you were correct. And you pointed out that you actually asked them to prop. Do you know what they were? Yeah, 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 remembered very clearly what the facts were about the Black Dog, um, and I said that I could have given her the, a hat pen and the, a Walt Whitman book. That I did not remember giving her a gold brooch, which was true. I didn't remember. I may have given it to her, but I didn't remember giving it. Um, they didn't ask me about the, about the Christmas, uh, gifts, and I don't know why I didn't think to say anything about them. 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 gifts are incriminating, nor do I think they are wrong. I think it was a good thing to do. I, I'm not, I'm still not sorry I gave Monica Lewinsky gifts.

Why did you assume that that information came from L. Tripp? I didn't. Then you, I thought you just testified. No, no, no. I said I now assume that because of all of the subsequent events. I didn't know. I just knew that. Let me ask that. Some somebody had access to some information, and they may have known more about this than I did.

Let me ask you about the, uh, meeting we have Betty Curry at the White House on Sunday, January 18th, this year, the day after your deposition. First of all, you, you didn't, Miss Curry, your secretary of six years, you never allowed or did you, to watch whatever whatever intimate activity you did with Mr. Liny? Did you? No, sir. Not to my knowledge. And as far as you know, she couldn't hear anything either, is that right? And 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 I, this was after there was all the inappropriate contact had been terminated. I'm talking about the times when you actually had the intimate contact. She was, 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.

believe she probably was, but I'm not sure. But I'm certain that someone was there. I always [knew] 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, if that's correct, I never, I didn't try to involve Betty in that in any way.

Well, 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, I've never, um, and it's almost humorous, sir. I, I, I'd have to be an exhibitionist not to have tried to exclude everyone else. So, if Ms. Curry testified that you approached her on the 18th, where you spoke with her and you said, "You were always there when she was there," she wasn't, was she? That is Mrs. Curry. She was always there in the White House, and I was concerned. Let me back up and say, what about the radio address? Mr. Let me back up and say, Mr. Bitman, I knew about the radio address. I was sick after it was over, and I, I, I was pleased that at that time it had been nearly a year since any inappropriate contact that occurred with Ms. 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, uh, Betty was there at all over times in the, in the complex. And I wanted to know what Betty's memory was about, uh, what she heard, what she could hear. And, uh, what I did not know was, I did not know that, and I was trying to figure out, and I was trying to figure out in a hurry because I knew something was up.

You wanted to check her memory for what she remembered, and that is correct. 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 the, what I was trying to determine was whether my recollection was right, but she was always, uh, in the office complex when Monica was there. And whether, 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 Hearn's office, occupies 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, uh, Mr. Bitman, to a reasonable certainty that I was going to be asked more questions about this. I didn't really, uh, expect you to be in the Jones case at the time. I, 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, the Office of Independent Counsel, and that she might have to be called as a 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 says you told her, 'I was never alone with her,' right?"

Well, I was never alone with her.

You say that, Mr. President? Mr. Bitman, 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. You knew the answer. We've been going for more than an hour. Would you mind if we take a break? I need to go to the restroom. Uh, 238. You're watching President Clinton's grand jury testimony from August 17th. We're about an hour and 10 minutes into this testimony, a little more than 3 hours to go, and we'll be continuing shortly with more of the President's testimony. You're watching C-SPAN, which was created by cable and offered as a public service. The President's testimony, after it completes its airing a little bit after 7:00 Eastern Time, will be followed by open phones, and then the President's testimony in its entirety will re-air in our prime time schedule at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time. And you can also find out more about the President's testimony on our website at www.c-span.org. Through the use of real video and audio, you can watch the President's testimony in its entirety or portions of it. Also, by the end of today, the transcript of the testimony will be available on our web page. Again, the President's grand jury testimony available at www.c-span.org. And again, you're watching the President's testimony from August 17th, continuing now after the President took a short break.

238. Oh, sorry. 48. Excuse me. Cheating. This, Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area, briefly go over something you were talking about. Mr. [Applause] B. The statement of, uh, your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at Paul Jones' deposition. Counsel is fully aware. Page 54, line 5. 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. That statement is made by your attorney in front of Judge Sus. Right?

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" is. 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, uh, if you go back and look at the sequence of this, you will see that the Jones lawyers, uh, 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, I'm quite sure that I didn't follow all the interchanges between the lawyers. All that care. And I, I don't really believe, therefore, that I can say Mr. Bennett's testimony or statement is, is testimony and is imputable to me. I didn't, 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, uh, made a related charge. She was the only person that I think I was asked about who had anything to do with, uh, anything that would remotely approximate sexual harassment. The rest of this, it looked to me like was more a way to harass me.

You're the President of the United States, and your attorney tells the United States District Court judge that there's no sex of any kind in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, and you feel no obligation to do anything about that deposition?

Mr. President, I have told you, Mr. Weisenberg, I will tell you for the 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, if 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, this tense-based distinction you're making?

I, I'm going to check. Any questions about communications with private counsel?

Well, well, the witness has already testified, I think, that Mr. Mr. Bennett didn't know about the inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. And, and I, I guess, uh, well, you'll have to ask him. You know, he was not a sworn witness, and I was not paying that close attention to what he was saying. I, I've told you that repeatedly. I was, I don't, I, 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 questions.

I just want to make sure I understand. Mr. President, do you mean today that because you, you were not engaging in sexual activity with Ms. Lewinsky during the deposition, that the statement of Mr. Bennett might be literally true?

No, sir. I mean that at the time of the deposition, we'd been, 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, uh, an improper relationship, would be telling the truth. If that person said there was not, in the 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 the December 19th meeting and some others. 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.

If 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 with me, if 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, I'm not going to, 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?

But the night that he came to see you?

I don't have independent memory of that. But you would probably know that. I mean, I'm, I'm sure there's a record of when she got her.

If 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 night at the White House to discuss it again, you'd have no reason to doubt him, is that correct?

I've, I believe I've already testified about that, uh, 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 probably got better records.

And when Mr. Jordan met with you in the residence that night, sir, he asked you if you had been involved in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, didn't he?

He, I do not remember exactly what the nature of the conversation was. I do remember that I told him, excuse me, that I told him that there was no sexual relationship between me and Monica Lewinsky, which was true. And, uh, that we then, the, all I remember for the rest is that he said he had referred her to a lawyer, and I believe it was a 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 a 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 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, I, I certainly don't remember him saying that. Now, 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. Uh, 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. I remember that. I don't remember any, uh, at any time when he said this, uh, 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, don't you think, Mr. President?

I think I would, and I'd be happy to share it with you if I did. I only had the one encounter with Ms. Lewinsky, I seem to remember, which was somewhat, maybe reminiscent of that, but, uh, 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, uh, upset with, uh, 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, uh, getting, 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 just, I might well remember it if he had said it. Maybe he said it and I've forgotten, but I don't, 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, Bruce 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, why did you give that testimony under oath in the Jones case, sir?

Well, Mr. Weisenberg, 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. Uh, 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 Ms. 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. Uh, keep in mind, sort of like today, these questions are being kind of put at me rapid fire. But unlike today, I had had the opportunity to prepare at this level of detail. I, I didn't, uh, 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 Willey 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 obviously are 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 of 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 is the first person. It just says, "Did anyone tell you?" Isn't that correct?

That's right. And I, I said Bruce Lindsay because I was trying to struggle with who, 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 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, I did. And instead of trying to trick me, what they should have done is to ask me specific questions. And I, 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 didn't. I'm sorry. I did the best I could.

Can you tell the grand jury what is tricky about the question, "Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you?"

No, there's nothing. I'm just telling, 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. You know, I, 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 six 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. When, 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 a 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, is to tell the whole truth, sir. You, you were recalled, I took the oath here. If Vernon, you even read me a definition of the oath. If Vernon Jordan, uh, 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.

You understand that if you answered, "I don't think so," to the question, "Has anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky has been served with a subpoena in this case?" 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 perjurious?

Mr. Weisenberg, I have testified about this three times now. I will do it the fourth time. I am not going to answer your trick questions. 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 qu-, 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 that that, uh, or not, excuse me, not know if this thing, but I would talk to Vernon Jordan about nearly everything. I was not interested in, uh, if the, the implication of your question is that somehow I didn't want anybody to know I'd ever talked to Vernon Jordan about this, that's just not so. It's also, if I could 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, 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 asked me, "Did you talk to Vernon? When's 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 answered me, "When is the last time you saw, um, 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 that 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. And 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 that was not Mr. Bennett, and I believe it was Bruce Lindsay.

As you yourself recall, just recalled, Mr. President, Vernon Jordan not only discussed the subpoena with you that night, but discussed Frank Carter, the lawyer he got from Ms. Lewinsky, and also, Mr. Jordan discussed with you over the next few weeks after the 19th of December, uh, 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, I have a memory of that, or he seems like he said that she had signed her affidavit.

If he's 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. So that's the affidavit, the lawyer, and the subpoena. And yet, when you were asked, sir, at the Jones deposition about Vernon Jordan, and 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. [Applause] Line 16 is where it starts. Is 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 to talk about this case?" This is your answer, or 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?

Well, that's not the question I was asked. I was not asked any question about, um, 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, uh, 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, uh, told him that she needed some help because she'd gotten a subpoena. I'm not sure I know whether she did that in a meeting or a phone call. And I was not, I was not focused on that. I know that, I know Vernon helped her to get a lawyer, Mr. Carter. And I, I believe that he did it, uh, after she had called him, but I'm not sure. But I knew that the main source of their meetings was about her move 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 pos-, it's a sort of a jumbled answer. It's, it's quite possible that I got mixed up between, uh, 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, um, and that everybody was focused on all the details at the time. Uh, but that's not the way it worked. I was, 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, then 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, 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, 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, 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, I didn't, you know, so all these details.

You mean, excuse me, I'm sorry, her 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.

But 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, I had at the time they asked me the question. That's the only answer I can give you, sir. And, 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, uh, Linda Tripp's, uh, 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.

You, well, you're not telling our grand jurors that if you think the case was a political case or a setup, Mr. President, that that would give you the right to commit perjury?

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 that 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. The question, 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, 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. Uh, 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 depositions, 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. Now, 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, uh, you could, you could say as part of, you're 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, up to them, even if you weren't telling the truth, to do a follow-up and to 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'd first heard this. I wasn't hung up about talking about this. All I'm saying is the, it, 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've worked hard on this. You've worked for a long, long time. You've gotten all the facts. You've seen a lot of evidence that I haven't seen. And it's, it's an embarrassing and personally painful thing, the truth about my relationship with Ms. 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, I don't have the memory that you assume that I should about some of these things.

I want to talk to you for a bit, Mr. President, about the North incident that happened at the Northwest Gate of the White House on December 5th, uh, sorry, December 6th, 1997. Give me just a moment. Uh, that was a, let me ask you first, in early 19, in early December 1997, the Paula Jones case was pending, correct?

Yes, sir.

You were represented by Mr. Bennett, of course?

Yes, that's correct. Yes.

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, um, 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, uh, 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 and not the content of.

I understand. We're not talking about the content. There was a, there was a period, uh, 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. A witness list came out on December 5th of 1997 with Monica Lewinsky's name on it. Mr. President, uh, 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, on the 6th. That's what I believe. I've, I've 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, whether I knew it on the 6th and if so, at what time. I don't, I had a meeting in the late afternoon on the 5th, on the 6th, excuse me, on the 6th. And I, I believe that's when I learned about it.

Now, on the morning of the 6th, Monica Lewinsky, uh, came to the Northwest Gate and found out that, uh, you were being visited by Ellen Mondale at the time and had an extremely angry reaction. You know that, sir, now, don't you?

I have, I have. I know that Monica Lewinsky came to the gate on the 6th and, uh, 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, uh, Betty Curry over the telephone, isn't that correct, sir?

That Betty told me that. And she then later expressed her anger to you in one of her telephone conversations with Betty Curry?

You mean, did I talk 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, 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, uh, 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, uh, Monica was very upset. She got upset from time to time. And, um, and I was, you know, I couldn't see her. I had, I was doing, as I remember, uh, I had some other work to do that morning, and 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 was, 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, uh, 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 day. I knew 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, uh, 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, uh, the uniform Secret Service, if that is in fact what happened, and I will 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, uh, 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, I don't remember what I said, and I don't remember to whom I said it. It, it would be an inappropriate thing, sir.

And that leads it to my next question: Is that why Mrs. Curry, on your instructions, later that day, told many of the Secret Service officers involved that it never happened, to forget about it? Then what never happened? The incident that you were so irate about earlier, the incident of somebody disclosing to Mrs. to Ms. 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 um I don't know you don't recall that you later gave orders uh to the effect that we're going to pretend this never happened or something like that sir.

No sir, I don't recall that. I 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 and uh I I I remember as I usually do when I'm met. I I after a while, I wasn't so mad about it. And I'm I'm quite aware that Ms. Glinsky has a way of getting information out of people when she's uh either charming or determined. And um it I I could have just said, well, I'm not so mad about it anymore. But I 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 Ell Rondale was there. I I learned either that day or later that one of the uniform division uh personnel had told her. I do. 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 know, you could just tell them not to do that anymore. In fact, it would kind of be an overreaction to get irate or terminate somebody for revealing to a former White House staffer who visits uh where the president is, don't you think, sir?

Well, it would depend upon the facts. I think on the whole, people in the uniform civil uh Secret Service have 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 uh she was there if that's what you're saying. I could care less about that. But I think that the uh the schedule itself that the these uniform people, you know, somebody shouldn't just be able to come up on the street and because they know who the Secret Service agent is, he says who the president's with. I don't think that's proper.

I agree. But on the other hand, I I did, you know, I I wanted to know what happened. I think we found out what happened. And then they were, I think, 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?

So I'm not sure anybody ever told that to me. I mean, I thought you were asked. 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. That by by by anybody. Incidental it happened to be Monica Lewinsky. And that that whatever I said, I don't recall. But then thinking that the appropriate thing to do was to say, look, let's just, 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, 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.

What does that mean, anything to that effect?

Well, Mr. President, you you've told us that you were not going to try to help the Jones' attorneys. And I think it's clear from your testimony that you were pretty literal at times. So that's why I'm saying I don't necessarily know the exact words.

The question, the question was, do you have any knowledge of the fact of the fact that later in the day on Saturday, the 6th of December, 1997, Secret Service people were then 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 and I 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 Pie, while you were standing in the doorway between the Oval Office and Betty Curry's office, did you tell Captain Pie of the Uniform 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 u in that regard. I have no recollection of that whatever.

Let's take a break now. Thank you. Um, you're watching President Clinton's August 17th grand jury testimony. We're about two hours into this tape testimony, about two hours to go, and we'll continue shortly with more of the president's testimony. I'd like to remind you that when this airing is over, at about 7:15 Eastern Time, we have a segment of open phones for your reaction to what you've heard from the president's taped testimony. And then the testimony in its entirety will reair beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 5:00 p.m. for our viewers on the West Coast. And you can learn more about the testimony on our website, www.span.com. To the original in uh uh Office of the uh Independent Council's report will be available on our website again, www.span.com. [Applause] are from the grand jurors um and let me tell you that the uh grand jurors want you to be more specific uh about the inappropriate conduct. The first question was um, one of the grand jurors has said that you referred to what you did with Miss Lewinsky as inappropriate contact. What do you mean by that?

I mean just what I said. But I 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 uh painful to me. This has been tough enough already on me and on my family. Although 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 that were inappropriate and wrong. But that they did not include any activity that I that was within the definition of sexual relations that I was given by Judge Wright in the deposition. I I said that I did not do those things that were in that within that definition. And I testified truthfully to that. And that's all I can say about it now. You know, 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 uh within that definition?

As I understood it, it was not.

No. The grand jurors uh would like to know upon what basis, what legal bases you're declining to answer more specific questions about this. I've mentioned to you that uh obviously you have privileges, privileges against self-incrimination. Um, 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 um 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 Miss 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 subornation of perjury. And I'm prepared to answer all questions that I 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. You 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 uh and that I think frankly go too far uh in trying to criminalize my private life.

If 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 relations?

If the person being deposed, in this case me, directly touch 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 clothing?

Well, I 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. I I maybe I should read it again just to make sure because this basically says that there was any direct contact with an intent to arouse or gratify. If 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?

That's correct, sir.

If the person being deposed uh touched the genitalia of another person, would that be with the intent to arouse the uh sexual desire, arouse or gratify, as defined in uh definition one, uh 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 have 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 L?

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 um insertion of an object into the genitalia of another person with the desire to gratify sexually would fit within the definition used in the Jones case as sexual relations? That 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 u under the definition as you understood it then, under the definition as you understand it now, pardon me, just a moment, Mr. President, deposition exhibit one, question one, under the uh in the Jones case definition of sexual relations, that before you, Mr. President, excuse me.

Do, sir. I I've got it right here. I'm looking at it. As you understood the definition then, and as you understood it now, would it include sticking an object into the genitalia of another person in order to arouse or 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 uh would is that it would not be covered. That activity would not be covered. That's right. 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 uh 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 or rule that you're wrong, that the insertion of an object into somebody else's genitalia with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person is within definition one?

Mr. Weisberg, 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. He may answer. I'll be happy to rephrase it. If you're wrong, and it's within definition one, uh did you engage in sexual relations under the definition with Monica Lewinsky?

But Mr. Weisberg, I have said all along that I would say what I thought it meant. And you can infer that I didn't. Uh, this is an unusual question, but it's a slippery slope. Uh, I we can I have tried to to deal with some very delicate areas here. And and and in one case, and I've given you a very forthright answer about what I thought that was not within here. Um, 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 I tried to read this carefully. I can tell you what I thought it covered. And I can tell you that I I do not believe I did anything that I thought was covered by this.

As I understand your testimony, Mr. Mr. President, um, touching somebody's breast with the intent to arouse, um, with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire of any person is covered. Kissing the breast is covered. Touching the genitalia is covered. Correct?

In fairness, 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 um that uh the grand jury um will consider your not answering the questions more directly and their determination of whether or not they're going to issue uh another subpoena. Let me switch the topic and talk to you about uh John Podesta um and some of the other aides you met, you met with and spoke to after this story became public on January 21st, 1998, the date of the Washington Post story. Do you recall meeting with him around January 23rd, 1998, Friday a.m. in your study, two days after the was a Post story, and extremely explicitly telling him that you didn't have engage in any kind of sex in any way, shape or form with Monica Lewinsky, including oral sex?

I meet with uh John Podesta almost every day. I meet with uh a number of people. The only thing I what happened in a couple of days after 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 or 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 and I it might be that John Podesta was one of them, but I do not remember the specific meeting about which what you ask or the specific comments to which you referred.

You don't remember seven months ago?

I'd have no way to remember.

No. 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 needed to hear them, but I tried to 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, sir. 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, um, 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, uh wouldn't that have been a falsehood?

Now, Mr. Weisberg, I told you in response to a 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 are 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 uh that is the purpose that we have to ask them for.

That's not, Mr. Weisberg, 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, one of the nice things about um, one of the uh normal things about an investigation in 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 to decline to answer these questions. And I'll uh uh ask you again, uh uh to answer the question.

I'm unaware of any legal basis for you not to.

Just restate the question. 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 Miss 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.

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. Whatever the answer to it is, would 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.

Not declining to tell you anything he said to John. The, you denied the, the witness is not declining to tell me anything. Did you deny oral sex in any way, shape or form to uh 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, uh the 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. No. And 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 um Monica Lewinsky to the following people: Harry Thomasson, Erskin Bowles, Harold Ickes, Mr. Podesta, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Jordan, Miss Betty Curry? Do you recall denying uh any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to those individuals?

I recall telling a number of those people that I didn't have either I didn't have an affair with Monica Lewinsky or didn't have sex with her. And I believe, sir, that well, 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 relations or relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or if they've told this that you denied that, do you have any reason to doubt them?

In the days after the story broke, do you have any reason to doubt?

No. The, let me say this. It's no secret to anybody that I hope that this relationship would never become public. It's 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 not, Mr.?

Let me finish. So what I did not want to mislead my friends, but I wanted to find language where I could say that. I also frankly did not want to turn any of them into witnesses. Because I, and sure enough, they all became witnesses. Well, you knew they were witnesses. And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship. That I used in the in the language I used. I said, there's nothing going on between us. That was true. I said, uh, 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 um 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?

So 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 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 a witness or give you information that could get you in trouble. I just wouldn't talk. I 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, Erskin Bowles, Harry Thomasson, 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. And you told, 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 uh we have seen uh this four-year, $40 million investigation come down to parsing the definition of sex, I think it might have been. I 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 uh and all the talking uh with people who talked about this, including a lot who have been quite sympathetic to your operation, said, well, this is not really a story about sex, or this is a story about subornation of perjury. And these talking points and all this other stuff. So I what I was trying to do was to to give them something they could that would be true, even if misleading in the context of this deposition, and keep them out of trouble. And let's deal and deal with the what I thought was the almost ludicrous suggestion that U 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 no. And I 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, say. I won't I won't answer under the previous grounds or or to answer the question. You see, because we only have four hours and your answer is 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'll let me say this to the grand jury and to you. And I don't think it's disrespectful at all. It's I've had a lot of time to think about this. But go ahead and ask you a question.

Question is, if Monica, and 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 Miss Lewinsky. And I'm staying on my former statement about that. If she, my my 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 you 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 that I don't believe this.

Let me read, 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. And 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 the 13th, 1998, Mr. President, ask Erskin Bowles to ask John Hilly if he would, would give a recommendation for Monica Lewinsky in 1998?

Yes. On or about January 13th, 1998, did you ask Erskin 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 Erskin Bowles about whether Monica Lewinsky could get a recommendation uh 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 I think yes. At some point I talked to Erskin Bowles about this. I do not know what the date was. At some point I did talk to him.

And if Erskin Bowles has said 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 I don't know when the date was. Okay. I'm not in a position to deny it. I won't deny it. I'm sure that they're both truthful men. I'm I I I don't know when the date was.

You recall asking Erskin Bowles to?

I recall talking to Erskin Bowles uh about that. And my my recollection is, sir, that Miss 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 Erskin if we could get her a recommendation that just 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 it already listed Mr. Hilly 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 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 uh 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 Mara Scott, among others. 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. Um, 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 she would 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 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 Erskin about. Now, that's my entire memory of this.

All right. I want to go back briefly to the December 28th conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. I believe he testified to the effect uh 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.

He never told her anything to this effect that Monica has something um to give you that 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 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 they were that were 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 uh that Ms. Curry knew that that's what she had uh at all. But I'm not saying she did. I'm just saying I had it. It is if Monica Lewinsky did that after they had been subpoenaed and she knew what she was doing, she should not have done that. And if, and I 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 uh 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 would it this it would 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. I remember that. And I know it was in the middle of uh December. And I 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 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 anytime, uh anytime 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 I 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 a relationship that we had had, which had been over for many, many months by the time this incident occurred.

Did you tell her anytime 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. Uh, I can tell what I do remember saying if you want to know, but I don't. We might have talked about what to say in a in a non-legal context at some time in the past, but I have no specific memory of of that conversation. I I do remember what I said to her about possible testimony.

You would agree with me that 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'm that I don't know if I said or not, without knowing whether the whole 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 Miss 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 I was concerned about that. I was embarrassed about it. I knew it was wrong. And uh 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 the other thing? I can tell you this, when in the context of whether she could be a witness, I have a recollection that she asked me, "What do I do if I get called as a witness?" And I said, "You have to get a lawyer." I that 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, judge later ruled she wouldn't be a witness in the case, judge later ruled the case had no merit. U so I knew that. And what 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 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, common sense, ordinary meaning 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've 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 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. Mr. President, and all I can tell you, and and you know, those people both testified under oath. So if there had been a special prosecutor, they could, 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 Miss 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. I I I 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 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, I would. But isn't that why Vernon Jordan asked you on December 19th 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?

I don't know. I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that at all. Particularly since, uh, 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. 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, 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, uh, 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, the—let me finish the sentence. I formed an opinion early in 1996. [Music] Once I got into this unfortunate and wrong conduct, that when I, uh, 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, her upbringing, but she's basically a good person. 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, 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.

That's okay. Um, so we're about three hours into the President's grand jury testimony from August 17th. We'll continue in a moment with more of that testimony. Now, after the taped proceedings, we'll have more open phones. That's at about 7:00 Eastern Time. Then the BBC newscast from London on the President. The testimony will replay at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time in its entirety, plus more of your phone calls after that, about midnight Eastern Time. Another reminder here about the C-SPAN website. You can watch and listen with real live audio and video, transcripts, appendices, and all sorts of other information concerning President Clinton's grand jury testimony. Our web address is www.c-span.org. And we now return to the testimony. We have about an hour left.

Two hours and 55 minutes. Thank you. Uh, Mr. President. Uh, apparently we have 1 hour and 5 minutes left if we stick to the 4-hour time frame. 30 seconds. 30 seconds. You gave me about 30 seconds soliloquy. So I have 30 seconds more. Very generous. Uh, that actually segues very nicely into, to, uh, one of the grand jurors asked, pointed out actually, that you indicated at the beginning of the deposition that you would, uh, you would answer all the grand jurors, you wanted to answer all the grand jurors' questions. And they want, wanted to know whether you would be willing to stay beyond the 4-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.

Okay. Let me, uh, draw your attention to early January this year. Uh, after Christmas, uh, before your deposition. Uh, you remember talking, uh, 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, I'm not sure that I do remember that, but go ahead.

This is 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, uh, before she signed something. And then you do indeed, uh, talk to Monica that day on the telephone?

I, I did talk to her that day. Yes.

Excuse me. 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, sir, that she signed this affidavit about this time. And sometimes, time in the first week of January, um, I may have talked to her before she did it. I don't know. I, I talked to her a number of times between, uh, the time Betty's brother died, Christmas. Then I saw her on December 28th. I, I may have talked to her, but I don't remember the specific conversation.

You would have talked about, uh, the, uh, 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 she said that you said you liked it a lot?

I did like it a lot. I, 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. Uh, and then, as I remember, I went to Bosnia and, uh, for some reason, she wasn't there around Christmas time. But anyway, I, maybe I didn't get it till 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 arranged with her. And her attorney said that if she is deposed, that they were going to ask her how she got her job at Pendot. And Monica then asked you, "What do you think I should say? How, how do I answer that question? How did I get the job at the Pen?" Did you talk to Monica about that possibility?

I don't believe, no. I, I don't remember her asking me that. But if she, uh, if she had asked me that, I would have told her to tell the truth. I, uh, and I didn't. You know, I don't, I don't know exactly how she got her job at the Pentagon. I know Evelyn Lieberman wanted to transfer out of the job she had, and somebody must have arranged that, but I didn't arrange it.

That's actually enough. 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.

Question or answers that would reveal your relationship?

Oh, no, sir. I don't remember that. Maybe somebody, maybe she did, but I only remember, uh, well, I don't remember that. That's all I can tell you. I don't remember that.

Are you saying, uh, Mr. President, that you did not then say to Miss Lewinsky, "You could always say the 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, I want to say, I, 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 don't, 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 Miss Lewinsky, promised to her, that you would do your best to get her back into the White House after the 1996 presidential election?

What I told Miss Lewinsky was that I would, I would do what I could to see if she had a good record at the 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, uh, 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 Miss 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. And I, I, I wouldn't do that. It wouldn't be right.

When you received the book, this gift from Monica, Presidents of the United States, this book that you liked, and you talked with Monica about, did it come with a note? Do you remember the note that it came with?

Mr. President. No, sir. I don't.

You remember that in the note, uh, she wrote that, uh, she expressed, uh, 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." Ever say anything like that to Miss Lewinsky?

Oh, I, I believe I did say something like that to Miss Lewinsky. I don't remember doing something as late as you suggest. Uh, 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, uh, 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 was not improperly affectionate, I would say so. 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, uh, one of the earlier breaks, right before one of the earlier breaks. And that is your meeting with, uh, Mrs. Curry on January 18th. This is the Sunday after your deposition in Paula Jones' case. Yeah. You said that you spoke to her, uh, in an attempt to refresh your own recollection about the events involving Miss 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. Then on Sunday morning, the, uh, this Drudge Report came out, which used Betty's name. And, uh, I thought that we were going to be dead used by press comments. And I was trying to, to refresh my memory, uh, 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, uh, because there were, 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 Miss Lewinsky, when I asked Betty to be in the, actually, 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 the, 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, "I was never alone with her," right, you just meant that you and Miss Lewinsky would be somewhere, perhaps in the Oval Office, uh, many times in your back study, is that correct?

That's right. We were in the back study. And then keep in mind, sir, I just want to make, 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, uh, you were never alone with her after 1997?

Well, I don't recall whether I did or not. But I, I assumed if I didn't, I assumed she knew what I was talking about because it was the point at which Miss Lewinsky was out of the White House and had to have someone wave her in in order to get in the White House. And I, 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 depends, again, on how you define "alone." Yes, we were alone from time to time, time, even during 1997, even when there, there was absolutely no improper contact occurring. Yes, there, that is accurate. Uh, but there were also a lot of times when, um, even though we, no one could see us, the doors were open to the halls on both ends of the hall, people could hear, uh, 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, when, 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? You've already—my memory of that, not there. My memory of that was that 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 there was the door was never completely closed to the hall. So I think there was a, I'm, 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, one particular time I remember when Miss Lewinsky 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 this, 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 Miss Lewinsky?

As far as I, I know, she was unaware of what happened on the, on the occasions when I saw her in 1996 when something improper happened. And she was unaware of the, uh, one time that I recall in 1997 happened. I think she was quite well aware that I was determined to impose the appropriate limits on the relationship when I was trying to do it. And if you know, anybody would would hope that this wouldn't become public. Although I frankly, from 1996 on, always felt that, uh, if I severed inappropriate contact with Miss Lewinsky, sooner or later, if it would get public. And I know, thought it would be part of the Jones case. I never even thought about that. I never thought, I certainly never thought it'd be part of your, uh, responsibilities.

My question, 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, you tried to keep the nature, 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 in mind, sir, I was talking about 1997. That occurred to the, and I believe that occurred only once in February in 1997. I stopped it. I never should have started. And I certainly shouldn't have started it back after I resolved not to in 19, 1996. And I was referring to 1997. And I, what I, I, 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, or whether I was had reference to the fact that if she kept her door open to the Oval Office, because there 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, you know, 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? And I think you began to testify about that before. That was at the radio address.

I'm not sure of that. But in, in that case, there was, there was certainly someone else there. I don't know.

Would you be testifying Mrs. Curry's memory about whether someone else was there?

Well, I can say this. If, if I'm in the Oval, my belief is that there was someone else there, somewhere in the Oval Office complex. I've, I've looked at our, I've looked at the film. This, this night has become legendary now, you know. I've looked at the, I've looked at the film we have. I've looked at my schedules. I've seen the people with the radio address. I, 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 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. I, that, that would be my guess. I don't know. I'm, 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.

Then, Mr. President, if there is a semen stain belonging to you on a dress of Miss Lewinsky, how would you explain that?

Well, Mr. Bitman, I, I don't, first of all, when you asked me for a blood test, I gave you one promptly. You came over here and got it. That's, we met that night, talked. So that's a question you already know the answer to. Not if, but you know whether. And, um, the main thing I can tell you is that doesn't affect the opening statement I made. Uh, 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. Um, I, I do not believe that I violated the definition of sexual relations I was given by directly touching those parts of her, uh, body with the intent to arouse or gratify. And that's all I have to say. I think for the rest, you know, 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 Miss Lewinsky?

I have nothing to add to my statement about it, sir. You, you know whether you know what the facts are. There's 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 you testified that you told her, 'Monica came on to me and I never touched her.'" You did, in fact, of course, touch Miss Lewinsky, isn't that right? In a physically intimate way.

Now, I've testified about that, and, uh, that's one of those questions that I, 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. Bitman, 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 Miss Lewinsky once this thing was in Drudge. And there was this argument about what it was. It was not going to be in Newsweek. That was a, uh, clear, uh, signal to me because Newsweek, frankly, was had become almost a sponsoring media outlet for the Paula Jones case and had a journalist who had been trying so far fruitlessly to find me in some sort of wrongdoing. And, uh, so I knew this was all going to come out. I was trying, 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. And 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, that she had been through a terrible time. She'd lost her brother. She'd lost her sister. Her mother was in the hospital. I said, "Ready, just don't worry about me. Just relax. Go in there and tell the truth. You'll be fine." Now, that's 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. Lewinsky?

Well, as I remember, I, I do believe in fairness that that, uh, you know, she may have felt some ambivalence about how to react because there was some times when, uh, she seemed to say yes when I'm not sure she meant yes. There was a time, 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, 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 21st, why would you have had, had another conversation with Betty Curry asking for, making the exact same statements to her?

I don't know that I did. I remember having this one time. I would, I was, I don't know that I did.

So if Mrs. Curry says you did, are you disputing that?

No, sir. I'm not. Excuse me. Is your representation that she testified that that conversation was was when? I'm not making a representation as to what Mrs. Curry said. I'm asking the President if Mrs. Curry testified two or three days later that that, two or three days after the conversation with the President on January 18th, 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, uh, Mrs. Curry?

If she made, I do not remember how many times I talked to about Curry. When I don't, 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, 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 do to make her understand that I didn't want her to, to be untruthful to the grand jury. And if her memory was different from mine, it was fine. Just go in there and tell them what she thought. So that's all I remember.

Mr. President, my name is Jackie Bennett. If I understand, uh, your current line of testimony, you're saying that your only interest in speaking with, uh, Mrs. Curry in the, uh, days after your deposition was to refresh your own recollection?

Yes.

Is not to impart instructions on how she was to recall things in the future?

No.

And certainly not under oath?

That every day, sir. Mr. Bennett, uh, in, in the White House and in every other political organization, when you're subject to a barrage of press questions of any kind, and you always try to make the best case you can consistent with the facts, that is, while being truthful. But nothing. 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 or 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, learn about the Drudge 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 on the 18th of the Drudge Report.

Very early morning hour, sir. Now, my deposition was on the 17th, is that right? On 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 Drudge Report hit the wire?

I did.

Did you call her home?

I did.

Was that the night of the 17th? Night of the 17th? Early morning hours of the 18th?

Okay. Yes. That's because, 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 by putting 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.

Can we take a two-minute break, please?

Can I ask one question? I think it's confused on dates. That's all. That's what I. I, I didn't think it was the night of the 17th.

Can we have a break and I could get straightened out?

Sure.

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, uh, they wanted to know whether they want us to clarify that the, the President's knowledge, your knowledge, Mr. President, as to, um, 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 Miss Lewinsky, 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 pressed 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. Who told you?

This is, this is, this is not a fair question. When you say "you were told," who told you? Who told me what?

Our conversation. Yes. Our conversation. Yes. That was in substance related to the grand jurors.

And what, what's your question to me?

Mr. Bennett, whether you were aware of the facts that I just described?

Yes, sir. Let, 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, uh, when I said I did not have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky as defined in that legal definition one in this, uh, 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 of 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. And said, 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, is somewhat unusual. But I would say to the grand jury, to put yourself in my position. This is not a typical grand jury testimony. I, 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, 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 a grand jury and still protect myself, my family, and my office.

Thank you. There's about another half hour left in the President's grand jury testimony from August 17th. We'll have the rest in a moment. After that taped testimony, more open phones, your phone calls at 7:00 Eastern Time. The BBC newscast out of London on the story. Then the testimony itself will replay at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time in its entirety, once again followed by more of your phone calls. That's about midnight Eastern Time. And one more reminder about the C-SPAN website. You can watch and listen, real audio and video, you can get transcripts, appendices, all types of information on this story. The C-SPAN web address is www.c-span.org. Now we go back to the testimony recorded at the White House. There's about a half an hour left.

Now, President, before we broke, we were talking about the sequencing, uh, of your, uh, conversations with Betty Curry following your deposition on Saturday, January 17th. You recall that?

I do.

All right. Uh, 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, is 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. Bitman, Mr. Weisenberg have 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 they, I did talk to her as soon as I realized that the deposition had become more about Monica Lewinsky than Paula Jones. Um, I asked her, you know, if she knew anything about this. I said, uh, you know, obviously 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, uh, ask some questions.

Well, in fairness, it was, it would be more than a matter of, uh, simple press speculation, isn't that so, Mr. President? There was, there was a question about whether you had testified fully, completely, and honestly on the preceding day in your deposition.

Actually, Mr. Men, I didn't think about that then. I, um, this has been a rather unprecedented development, and I, I wasn't even thinking about the, the, uh, Independent Counsel getting into this. Uh, so at that moment, I knew nothing about it. And I was more interested in what the facts were and, uh, uh, whether Miss Curry knew anything about it, knew anything about what Monica Lewinsky knew about it.

Mr. President, you've told us, uh, at least, uh, a little bit about your understanding of how the term "sexual relations" was used and what you understood it to mean in the context of your deposition, isn't that correct?

That is correct.

And you've told us that was a lawsuit Paula Jones filed 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 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 rulings. 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 contact is with, 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 me. 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, uh, 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, uh, that's what I thought. And I think that's what most people would think reading that.

Would you have been prepared to, if asked by the, uh, 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, by the way.

Do you believe that the Jones litigant had the same understanding of sexual relations that, uh, you claim you had?

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, 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, 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, uh, 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 on. I knew what our evidence was. But 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 be giving, 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, uh, these are 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, uh, uh, hours and days following the end of your deposition on the 17th, isn't that fair to say?

Well, I was, had a little anxiety the next day, of course, because of the Drudge Report. And, um, I had an anxiety after the deposition because it was more about Monica Lewinsky than than it was about Paula Jones.

The specificity of the questions relating to Monica Lewinsky, uh, 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, um, uh, as, 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, have you turned over in response to the grand jury subpoenas all, 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 by 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, 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, what necktie was it?

The necktie you wore on August 6th, sir.

Well, I don't know that it was the necktie Monica Lewinsky gave me.

Can you describe it to me?

Well, I, I don't want to take time at this point, but we will, uh, provide you with, uh, photographic evidence of.

Mr. President, if you give me, I don't believe that's accurate, Mr. Bennett. So let me ask a question. But if you give it to me, and I look at it and remember that she gave it to me, I'll be happy to produce it. I do not believe that's right.

Um, 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 ask you what the tie was. I have no earthly idea. I believe that, uh, that I did not wear a tie she gave me on August the 6th.

Can you tell us why Bayani 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 Bayani 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, uh, what you're telling us?

Oh, absolutely not. Let, let me, 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 get, 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 a growing number of ties in my closet. What I normally do is, someone gives me a tie as a gift, is 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, 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, uh, Glenn and Nelvis, who work in the kitchen back in the White House, or the gentlemen who are my stewards, or the butlers, or the, are the people who run the elevators. And I give a lot of ties away a year. I bet I, 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, Nelvis 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, uh, 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?

Say, 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. I believe I had met her before then because, uh, Governor Wilder, I believe that was his last year as Governor. I think that's right. '92, '93. I believe that I met her in connection with her involvement with Governor Wilder. And, uh, I have the impression that, just it's kind of a vague number, but I had the impression that I had, that I'd 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 not meet her there. I'm quite sure of that.

Mr. President, you've seen television footage of you standing on a rope line with Donald Byer, Lieutenant Governor Donald Byer, asking Mr. Byer, uh, uh, for the name of Kathleen Willey? You've seen that footage, haven't you?

I don't know, but I've seen, but I am aware that it exists.

All right. And and you can see him, you can read his lips, he's saying the name Kathleen Willey 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 Hearn, 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? Well, let, 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 Herri 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 Don Byer if he was on the ROP line with me, who she was, because I thought I had seen it before, or I knew I'd seen it before, and I didn't remember her name. Now I do. That all the time. Mr. and women, I'm sorry. Do you recall that you sent Nancy Hearr to get her telephone number? No, I don't. All right. Uh, do you recall having received your 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. You recall where you stayed in Richmond, Virginia, during the, uh, debate you told us about? No, 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, 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. You know of any reason Kathleen Wily's telephone number would appear on your toll records from your room in, in Williamsburg? No. You didn't call? No. There, I'm not denying that I called her, sir. You asked me, uh, a specific question. I, I won't deny that I called her. I don't know whether I did or not. Not 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, uh, that you called her and invited you invited her to come to your room that night? Sir, I don't believe I did that, sir. If, uh, Kathleen Willie has said that she's, uh, 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 I, uh, it seems to me that at some point, that's, is why I believe I'd met her before, too. But at some point, I had some actual person-to-person conversation with her about, uh, 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. Is this the chicken soup conversation, Mr. President? Well, I don't know if I would come. 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 did, and I, I, I'm sorry, I don't, I can'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, I just, uh, I met her and Doug Wilder. I remember that she and her husband were asked for Governor Wilder, and that's about all I remember, except that I had a conversation with her around the Rich debate. I do remember talking to her there. Mr. President, let's move ahead to the episode, uh, on November 29, 1993, in which, uh, Mrs. Willie met you in your office at the Oval. Um, the, uh, the subject matter of the 60 Minutes broadcast a few months ago. You recall that episode? I certainly do. Uh, Mr. President, in fact, on that date, you did make sexual advances on Kathleen Willie. Is that not correct? That's false. Uh, you did grab her breast as she said? I did not. Uh, you did place your hand on her growing 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 Wily'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, uh, the documents that were released and information that came out, uh, from people in Richmond, etc., after the 60 Minutes, uh, piece was broadcast. Um, as a matter of fact, you were required under the Court's rulings to produce those documents, uh, in response to document requests by the Jones litigant. Is that correct? No, I believe the Jones litigant, the request for production of documents to me ran to 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. Uh, as a matter of fact, when that story first ran, sir, uh, before 60 Minutes was, uh, back in July or so of '97, 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, and to her, after the, the Newsweek ran the story, because her friend Julie Steel was in the story saying she asked her, she, Kathleen and 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, have you made a decision on whether to stay beyond the 4 hours we agreed to to accept questions from the grand jury? Uh, we have made an agreement, Mr. Bennett, to give you 4 hours. We're going to do that. By my watch, there are about 12 minutes left, I guess. That's no. Is that correct, Mr. Kendall? Yes, that's correct. Uh, could, may I ask you a question? Could I have a two-minute break? Mr. President, at various times in this investigation, uh, 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, I would like the grand jury to know something. Um, in, in the cases where we raised the law, your client privilege or executive privilege, or where the Secret Service raised their privilege, and when I, I had nothing to do with that. I did not authorize it, approve 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 believe that, um, there was an honest difference between Judge Star and the Office of Independent Counsel and, uh, Mr. Ruff, my counsel, and I about what the proper balance was in the Constitutional framework, and 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 in the grand jury. It's free to conclude whether they believe that the testimony they gave was damaging to me. But I don't, I don't imagine it was, and I wasn't worried about it. It was an honest difference of constitutional principle between Judge Star and the Office of Independent Counsel in the White House. Mr. President, a couple of very brief questions, given our time. Uh, the White House outside counsel, Mr. Edlon, withdrew the White House's appeal of 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. Lindsay. Were you informed of that fact that the appeal had been withdrawn? I was informed of it, and, uh, as a matter of fact, I was consulted about it, and I strongly supported it. I didn't want to appeal it. Uh, it was, uh, I have my, my main difference, Judge Star, as you know, with you is, is, and with some of the court decisions, is on the extent to which members of the White House counsel staff, like Mr. Lindsay, 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. Uh, but I didn't really want to advance an executive privilege claim in this case, uh, beyond having it litigated so that we would, we had not given up on principle this matter without having some, uh, judge rule on it. So I made, excuse me. 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, 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 grand jurors is one that, uh, they would like answered, uh, 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 a, not the first time that question's been asked. But since I believe, and I think any reasonable person would believe, that that is not covered in the definition of sexual relations I was given, uh, I'm not going to answer except to refer to my statement. I had intimate, uh, 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 is August 6, is that correct? 1998. The day that Monica Lewinsky appeared at the grand jury. And, uh, my question to you on that is, were you sending some kind of a signal to her by wearing? No, sir. One of the ties. Let, let me finish, if you don't mind. Sure. I'm sorry. My apologies. Were you sending some kind of a signal to her, uh, by wearing a tie she had given you on the day that she appeared in front of the grand jury? No, sir. I, I don't believe she gave me this tie. And if I was sending a signal, I'm about to send a terrible signal, and maybe you ought to invite her to talk again. I don't, 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, I, I, I don't remember it, and this is the very first I've ever heard of it. Okay. Did you realize when you can I just have for the record, what are the, uh, exhibit number? Yeah. Should [Music] be all right. Mr. Bennett has some more questions. Mr. President, we were talking about your responses, uh, to document requests in the Jones litigation, and I had just, uh, asked you about, uh, turning over, uh, Kathleen Willie correspondence. You recall that? Yes, sir, I do. Uh, and if I understand your testimony, you did not believe that the request for documents compelled you, uh, to search for those documents in the White House. Mr. Bennett, I, I want to answer this question in a way that is completely satisfactory, uh, to you and the grand jury, without violating the law, your client privilege, uh, which is still intact. It was my understanding that in the requests 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, I don't know how the distinction is made between, excuse me, 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, to search and, uh, turn over evidence, or excuse me, documents that was, that were in my personal file, but not in the White House files. And I believe that the letters to which you refer, Miss Wily's letters and Miss Wily's phone messages, uh, were in the White House file, and therefore, I was instructed, at least they were, that we had fully complied with the Jones lawyers, 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. Oh, I, I can only tell you what I remember. I remember being told that, 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. Um, and so we didn't. So you're saying somebody told you that you didn't have to produce White House documents? Question to witness: That this question should not invade the sphere of the attorney-client privilege and any conversations with with counsel. Let, let me say that maybe, Mr. Kendall, we need a break here. I'm not trying, I'm trying to avoid invading the lawyer-client privilege. I can just tell you that I did, I did the best I could to comply with, uh, this, uh, and when eventually we did make all of this public, and it, it was damaging to Miss 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, I myself was surprised. But you knew there were letters? I did, sir. And the White House is under your control, isn't it, Mr. President? Well, Mr. Bennett, again, I'm not trying to be, uh, some days I think it's under my control, some days I'm not so sure. But if you're asking me as a matter of law, uh, I don't want to discuss that because that's, I mean, I mean, I'd be glad to discuss it, but I'm not the person who's, who should make that decision. I, 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. Mr. President, how, how are the, uh, letters from Kathleen Willie that, uh, that surfaced after the 60 Minutes episode here, any different from the, uh, correspondence and other matters, tangible items, tangible things, uh, of Monica Lewinsky? Well, the, the items you asked for from Monica Lewinsky that I produced to you, you know, the, the, there was a tie, a coffee cup, a number of other things. I had then, I told you there were some things that had been in my possession that I no longer had. I, I don't know if I did that. It was one book I remember, uh, that I left on vacation last summer. The same documents that the Jones L against asked you for. But at any rate, they were different. That they were in my, the gifts were in my personal possession. Clearly in your office at the O? Well, in the books now, that the presidential books were with my other books that belong to me personally. They were in the O. Where do you draw the line, sir, between personal and White House? You're talking about some documents that are in the, uh, the Oval Office, and we, we don't see where you're drawing the line. Well, Mr. Bennett, I don't think these, I think the Lewinsky gifts were all non-documents. And you, you can time, just, 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, you could call them up, and they could answer it under oath for you. There is some, uh, way of disaggregating what papers are personal to the president and what papers are part of the White House official, uh, archives of papers, and I don't know how the distinction is made. I just don't. Direct that personnel, Nancy Heich, or anyone else, make a search for correspondence from Kathleen Willie and Monica Lewinsky when those documents were called for in the Jones litigation, sir? Did you direct that somebody on the White House staff look for those documents? Uh, I don't believe that I was in charge of doing that. The document search, sir, so it, the strict answer to your 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 won't object. The argumented the question will allow the witness to answer it. We are now over time, even 30 seconds. So this will be 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 5 and a half years have been devoted to my job. Now, during that 5 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, uh, 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, Miss 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. Well, 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 4 hours. We've not counted the break time against that. And, 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. Uh, I wanted them down here. I wanted them to be able to see me directly. I wanted 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, uh, satellite transmission and the, uh, taping, isn't that so? I don't know about the taping, Mr. Bennett. I, 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. I just, for the record, the invitation to the grand jury was contingent upon us not videotaping, and we had to videotape because we have an absent grand jury. Thank you. Is that the only reason, Mr. Weinberg, you have to video? Well, yeah. You want to answer that? Thank you very much. We have about 45, maybe 50 minutes now for more of your calls. We'd like to hear your reaction to what you've heard and seen so far from the president. From August 17th, phone numbers on the bottom of the screen there. Liberals can call 202-624-11. If you are a conservative, 624-1115. And if you consider yourself a moderate, you can call 202-737-6734. In about 15 or 20 minutes, the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation's newscast from this evening on this issue. And at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, another replay of the president's testimony again in its entirety. For now, your thoughts. We first go to the liberal line at Dallas, Texas. Good evening. Good evening. Um, I was just, I would just like to say that, uh, uh, this really sad me that the, uh, president of the United States, uh, uh, is reducing himself into semantics about, uh, the, the legal system that he's supposed to be the leader of. Um, he's supposed to be leading our nation and our, uh, judicial system, and which he shows nothing but contempt for. Um, he, he obviously is doing whatever he can to lie and sneak his way out of this, and instead of just coming straight forward and beginning saving the nation a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of money, and just admitting to what he did wrong and moving on. You're calling, you're calling on the liberal line. Did you, uh, vote for the president? Yes, I did. Both times. Yes. Mhm. And basically, I would like to apologize for that. Um, the, the, I, I support him through everything else, through, you know, all the, uh, talking because you have to give the president the reason, the, the, a reasonable doubt that, uh, that, um, he's a good man and he's going to tell the truth and that he's not lying. Maybe everyone else is. Appreciate your time, Dallas. We move on to the conservative line to Byron, California. Hi. Hi. How are you? Well, go ahead. Um, yeah, I have watched the entire testimony today, and I find it absolutely disgusting. I think that the president has made a mockery out of us, and I can't believe that there are still people standing behind him when it's quite obvious, just by the looks on his face when he's asked specific questions about the sexual relationship, which he denies having to this day. I just can't believe that there's still people that'll back him up and want him to run our country and be a more, a role model for our children. Appreciate you calling in as well. Moving on to the moderate line now, Brookville, Maryland. Go right ahead. Hi. Uh, I'm a Republican, uh, who would not like to see the president removed from office, but, um, I believe he committed perjury at one point. He speculated why the Paula Jones attorneys never followed up on questions during his Paula Jones deposition. And I quote it: "It appears that they didn't because they were afraid I'd give them a truthful answer." Unquote. I think he, he did commit perjury. I think he should be punished, but I think the punishment should fit the crime. As Professor Curley of Georgetown has suggested, he probably should be impeached. However, I think he should not be acquitted by the U, I think he should be acquitted by the U.S. Senate. Thanks. Moving on now to Orange, California, back to the liberal line. Hello. Good evening. Uh, I'd just like to say that, uh, it's interesting the language Mr. Clinton used. I just took a few notes. He said 17 times that I counted, "I did not know you were, you all were going to be involved," meaning the special prosecutor's office. He thought he was only testifying in front of the civil case, the Paula Jones attorneys. Um, at one point, he compares himself to Clarence Thomas, dubious best, um, in reference to Betty Curry's testimony and the direct contradiction between Betty Curry and what he's saying. He talks about how two people can have diametrically opposed stories and yet both be telling the truth. He, uh, calls Betty Curry into the office and asks her, um, "Were we, we were never alone, Monica Lewinsky and I, right?" But he's asked by the prosecutors, "You knew at the time when you called Betty Curry in that you had been alone with Monica Lewinsky and that you had been having intimate contact with her?" And he had to admit to that. He kept saying, "I'd rather be whipped like a, I'd rather be bull-whipped," he said, "than to have had to admit to the GIF for flowers incident." I think that's what we're going to have to do to get the truth out of them in this incident. All right, thank you for weighing in with your opinion as well. Moving on to the conservative line again, to Chilla Cathy, Ohio. Hi. How you doing? Good. Uh, I don't know about him. I, I, I never voted for him, but now I'm kind of, kind of feeling sorry for the guy. He, it seems like he does try, try to be honest, and I know if I was in trouble, I, I'd want somebody representing me that would kind of act like him. And he, he's just trying to represent himself on his own best behalf. There, Co, did you watch the whole thing? One and a half times. Yeah. Do you think, uh, this will have any impact on the overall process? And if you do, what do you think that impact would be? I, I don't know about the politicians, but I know like the impact on me. Had to, I, I still don't believe him. I think I, I think he lied to the grand jury, and for that, I think he ought to be reprimanded or punished somehow. But I don't think for, for this, for, for just that, that he should be kicked out of office. Um, if they'd found something on Watergate or something like that's why I thought this was, was going to end up being on, but, uh, they, they didn't come up with nothing more than sex. All right, going to let you go. We've got some other folks who want to get through, including another caller from Dallas, Texas, on the moderate line. Hello, Dallas. Hello. Yes, go right ahead. No, I'm from Fredonia, Arizona. Well, nonetheless. Sorry about that. Nonetheless, go right ahead with your comments. All right. Uh, I, I hate to see him impeached simply for the reason I think we have the wrong party with Gore, and our country is in deeper trouble. But I would like to see him punished, paying back what he has cost us as taxpayers, and deny him his presidential retirement. I, I think it's sad that everybody's a liar but him. I, I just, uh, I'm thoroughly disgusted with him. And we have a call from Ontario, California, on the liberal line. Hello. Hi. Yeah, I'd like to agree with the, uh, lady from Arizona. He has been doing a great deal for this country, uh, over the past seven, eight years, and I don't think that he should be impeached. I should, I think that he should be punished in some way for perjuring himself. Yeah, because he did lie to America. America did believe that he didn't have sexual relations or whatever. I honestly believe that he didn't until he came out and said that he did, and I was kind of felt embarrassed that I voted for him. Then, when I think about all the things that he's done for this country, he's working on world peace, he's, you know, doing a lot for welfare reform and Medicare reform and stuff like that. I just think they'd be punished for, you know, for his perjuring. All right, appreciate your thoughts as well. It's a live picture from the White House, the, uh, South End near the Ellipse there, on this, uh, Monday evening. The president spoke at the United Nations in New York City today. We're going to have that speech over on C-Span 2 at about 8:00 Eastern Time tonight, about 40 minutes or so, if you want to watch that. The president will stay in New York tonight and will meet tomorrow with the Prime Minister of Japan at the Rockefeller family estate up in Terrytown, New York, just north of the city, and we'll be back at the White House midafternoon tomorrow. Moving on now to more of your phone calls. Spring Hill, Florida, you're on the conservative line. Thanks for hanging on. Yeah, go right ahead, sir. Yeah, hi. Hi. Um, I just, I just wanted to say that again, since Whitewater, what's been happening here is a total political smear against the president. What we have is a Republican party that is really not paying attention to what's going on in this economy and has really just caused the stock market and everything else just to go, uh, terribly hell in a hand basket. What do you think is going to happen now? Gosh, I'm hoping for some stability here, but again, with the other world economies having problems, this is just added to the fire instead of being behind a president who's done so well as far as in economic policies. A personal indiscretion is something not to be judged, you know, uh, as it has been by this expanded, uh, jury just, uh, uh, investigating him unnecessarily. It's been a personal vindication. I mean, Republicans are just after him. All right, going to let you go. Going to move on now to Fort Collins, Colorado, on the moderate line. Good evening. Hello. I, uh, I've been listening to a couple of the callers, and they seem particularly distressed by the, the president's facial features or the way he moves his hands or just his mannerisms in general when he's asked these difficult questions. Um, it's not surprising at all to me. If, uh, you put any one of us in front of a council that was, uh, questioning us, putting us under scrutiny about decisions that we made or something that we did, I'm sure we would fuss and fidget as well. Um, I, I don't think this is an issue that should be decided by the media. I don't think this is an issue that should be decided, uh, by a, you know, half-hour, two-hour, four-hour of pictures on a TV screen. Uh, the language that he's using is somewhat evasive. There, the council is asking him yes/no questions, and he's giving very broad answers. And I think that's what we've all come to expect. We've all come to expect very broad answers, uh, on very simple subjects from politicians in general. I don't think he's acting in any other way than any other politician has that we've seen so far. Uh, politicians seem to use evasive answers, and it's not surprising to me at all. And we have a call this evening from Wisconsin. Is it Harland, Wisconsin? Yes, it's Heartland, Wisc. Hi. You're on the liberal line. What are your thoughts? Well, um, first of all, I, I'm really surprised. I thought that there would be more of a smoking gun that we would see today. Uh, I think the president, his demeanor was, was very good, which I was very pleased. I voted for Clinton twice. There's no doubt he made mistakes. I think my problem is with the questions. Think the questions were improper to begin with. It personally is none of our business. I truly believe that. Um, also, I'm, I'm a little upset a couple of, a couple of callers I had heard that, uh, seem to think the president of the United States has to have a different, a higher set of morals than the average person. And I suggest if we're looking for role models for our children, politics probably isn't the area that we should be looking at. Um, I think we should be looking at our own homes, and, uh, maybe with our teachers, because they're the ones who are really shaping the youth. Thanks. Let's go to, uh, Richmond, Missouri, on the conservative line. Hello, Richmond. Are you there? Yes, yes, I am. This is actually Virginia Beach, Virginia. Oh, sorry about that. Nonetheless, go right ahead. I think we lost that, uh, Missouri call, but you go right ahead. Um, I've just been listening, and I, I, I guess what I want to say is that it's pretty much come down after five and a half years of them investigating him as an affair. And what infuriates me is that there's plenty of men and women out there that have affairs and yes, lied, but who's going to tell the truth right up front? Um, I just think that he's a lawyer, and he was answering the questions as a lawyer, and he's had legal counsel telling him what to say. So what more can the American public, um, expect? Four hours of tape of the, uh, president from August 17th. Going to replay that at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time again, in its entirety. It's the third airing of us by us today. Uh, we put the tape on as it was being fed to us, and all the other news organizations. We replayed it again at 3:00. It will be replayed at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Five minutes before we go to the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation's newscast from this evening. Time for a couple more calls. Back to the conservative line. Front Royal, Virginia. Hi. Hi. I just wanted to say right now, I'm pretty disappointed in government in general. Of course, you have to be disappointing the president, but I'm not disappointed in the fact he had a sexual relationship with somebody other than his wife because look at how many presidents we've had that have done the same, and people have known about it. JFK and and FDR. But it disappoints me that he lied. He spent a lot of money and cost the taxpayers a lot of money because of his lies. But it also disappoints me in the Republican side because they just won't let the issue die. You know, they keep bringing it up, and it's become such a, a political thing now that is, it's just, it's, it's sickening, really. And it also bothers me when callers call in and and they say that, you know, the president has lost his his status as a role model. Well, I'm only 20 years old, but, you know, none of me, and none of my friends who are my age look to the president as a role model. You know, he's human, he's going to make mistakes. You know, don't look to a president or or a human for a role model. You know, each one is accountable for his own actions, and, you know, we need to realize that and and accept the responsibility for it. I appreciate your opinion, uh, Virginia. We're moving on to Maryland. Derwood, Maryland, on the liberal line. This is, I'm from Derwood, Maryland. I want to say that I think President Clinton has been an excellent president. I am in his corner and would very definitely vote for him again if he ever ran. I think he has been railroaded by the Republicans all the way, and I would not ever vote for a Republican ever again because of what they've done to this man, man who has done a fine job. I would have behaved the same way he did had I been in his position. And we'll stay in, uh, Maryland for the next call. Baltimore, on the conservative line. Hello. Hello. Hi. I'd just like to say that, uh, I don't know why everybody thinks that, uh, we wasted a lot of money and the Republicans won't let it die. When if Clinton keeps lying, we can't let it die. Uh, I think he's done a good job on everything else, but, you know, he just hedged around every question that he had today. It's, I just can't see it any other way. And as far as role models, you have to look at humans for role models because we are human. Thank you. Moving on now to, uh, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, back to that moderate line. Good evening to you. Good evening. One thing that, uh, kind of bothers me that everybody seems to be forgetting is that, uh, he has opened the, uh, by his conduct, he's opened up the office of the presidency to blackmail. And he's got privy to all kinds of defense secrets. He's got privy to all kinds of money, uh, information between Russia and Asia. And he's got the the ability to give all kinds of people jobs. Nobody talks about the fact that the office was opened up to blackmail. Why does a lady keep dresses and, uh, tape conversations if not blackmail, possibly? In M. Moving on now to Boston, on the liberal line. What are your thoughts? Well, um, I'm in favor, favor of the president of the United States. I'll tell you why, because this Lewinsky case is only distracting him but doing his duties as the president of the United States, as he did in Afghanistan, and he did in, uh, uh, overseas in, uh, uh, Saudi Arabia, and he has the job to do. He doesn't need this distraction. And as far as I'm concerned, she was an accomplice to this situation. She agreed, she was with him. Whether he did it, whether he was right or wrong, he's still the president of the United States, and I back him 100%. One last call now before we go to the, uh, BBC. A town called Northeast, Maryland, on the conservative line. Uh, yes. Hi. I'd just like to say that I'm, uh, behind the president, uh, even though it seems that he did lie, and I think he should be punished for his perjury. I just like to say that he's done a very good job, and, you know, I'd vote for him again. But, um, like I said, he should be punished for lying. Um, but I think he's just, uh, the Republicans, they've been after him ever since he got in office, it seems like. And that's about all I have to say about that. I think it's pretty disgusting the way he's, you know, been railroaded. So, thanks. And we want to thank all of our viewers and listeners around the country for phoning in during this segment. We'll be back in about 10 or 15 minutes with more of your phone calls, and again at 8:00, a replay of the president's testimony, uh, 4 hours of it, uh, in its entirety, again, 8:00 Eastern Time. We have received several international news feeds today, and, uh, many or most of them have led with this story. We have about 13 minutes of tape here from the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC News, as they, uh, discuss this story. [Music] Good evening. Millions of people around the world have been able to watch the most powerful man on Earth being interrogated about an illicit relationship with a young woman assistant for 4 hours. Videotapes of President Clinton's testimony to the grand jury about what he did and didn't do with Monica Lewinsky and whether he lied about it went out on television. His defense rested on an intricate definition of what amounted to sex. His tone ranged from embarrassment to evasion and defiance. Tonight, he awaits the verdict of public opinion, which could decide whether he'll be allowed to complete his term in the White House. Our world affairs editor, John Simpson, is in Washington. Righty. The truth, I do. It turned out to be perhaps the most searching and humiliating public inquisition any American president has ever undergone, and there'll be very few Americans who won't have seen some part of it by the end of the day. The tapes, 4 hours and 3 minutes long, were delivered from the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee to a nearby television studio. It was 10:09 in the morning Washington time, and the tapes would be played live on several networks. At the time they were recorded, Mr. Clinton was under a real disadvantage. He hadn't known exactly what evidence his questioners had amassed. "When I was alone with Miss 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 not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition, but they did involve inappropriate intimate contact." But the weakest parts of his evidence and of his battle for public opinion were his hair-splitting definitions. For instance, that sex was sexual intercourse and nothing else. 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 then there was his lawyer's statement that there was no sexual affair between Mr. Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. "It depends upon what the meaning of the word is." Yes. If the, 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. And then there was a disastrous sequence of questioning for him. "Is if Monica, and Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area, you touched her breast, which she be-" "Lying?" "That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did not have sexual relations with Miss Winsky, and I'm staying on my former statement about that." "If she says my, my, 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 L-" "I'm going to revert to my former statement." Okay. And so on. Half a dozen questions in all, the same answer. Yet those were the bad moments. Much of Mr. Clinton's evidence was very effective. He was good at presenting himself as the victim of a determined political onslaught. "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 in the circuit in which we were bringing this case, and so they just thought they would take a wrecking ball to me and see if they could do some damage." For most of the 4 hours, he seemed thoroughly in command, but there were times when he sweated and seemed tense, and towards the end, the strain told. "I'm sorry to body, but this, I know we're getting to the end, but I need the tape was cut." Given that he once called her "that woman," Mr. Clinton was almost affectionate towards Monica Lewinsky, and also quite revealing. "I formed an opinion early in 1996 once I got into this unfortunate and wrong conduct that when I, uh, stopped it, which I knew I'd had 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, her upbringing, but she's basically a good person. But I-" And he seemed frank in other ways, too. "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." As well as the video, there were 2,800 pages of printed evidence, Monica Lewinsky's sworn testimony, for instance, and a series of pictures, her dress stained with DNA that matched the president, the existence of which has put him in real trouble, and other pictures which seemed to link Monica Lewinsky and her family with the president in ways which were stronger than previously thought. It's been, all in all, a rather better day than many of Mr. Clinton's supporters had feared. He didn't reveal anything really new, and he didn't dig himself any deeper than he is already. As a purely legal performance, his appearance on the tape.

wasn't really too bad, and there are real points in his favor, too. The only reason that the tape of the grand jury hearing exists at all, for instance, is because one jury member happened to be away that day, and the investigating team insisted that the whole thing should be recorded. And now it's been made public, the president's supporters find that extremely dubious. Still, the president hasn't managed to dispel suspicions that he tried to get people to lie for him. All the same, this isn't a legal process so much as a battle for public opinion, and now the people of the United States are the jury.

John Simpson, BBC News, Washington.

At the precise moment that Mr. Clinton's testimony was being broadcast, he was arriving at the United Nations in New York to address the General Assembly in front of an audience of world leaders. They gave him a standing ovation, but the reaction of the American public will be harder to assess. The most powerful man on Earth could scarcely have walked into the UN General Assembly at a more embarrassing moment. All eyes outside were on the video, but inside, world leaders and international diplomats gave the president a sympathetic standing [Music] ovation. No such enthusiasm in the cafes and public places where Americans watched Bill Clinton, the alleged criminal, fend off deeply personal grand jury questions.

"So it's painful to watch, but I just feel compelled to just, you know, keep my eyes on it and absorb it. Some of his answers are totally evasive. I mean, at the beginning, when they were trying to sort of work out the definition of of sexual relations and what did that mean in the last, you know, testimony and what does that mean now, it was unbelievable how he just was asked a question by the lawyer and then totally didn't really answer it."

Did Mr. Clinton perform? As the four hours of video testimony drew to a close, opinion pollsters questioned whether it would make a difference.

"To me, people think what President Clinton did was very wrong. 70% said in one of our polls, what he did is very wrong. There hasn't been majority support for impeachment or resignation at at this point. Um, that may grow in the coming days. This afternoon, we found no sign of a major shift of opinion amongst those who'd seen the Clinton tapes."

"I think we all are human, and we all make mistakes, and I don't think it has anything to do with really the job. And I would like to see some of those congressmen, uh, you know, be put in the same place as the president, and then we'll see what happens."

Many of those congressmen are away from Capitol Hill today in their home districts, gauging the impact of the videotape. One member who advocated release of the tape says he has no regrets.

"It's not a pretty sight. It's it's sad to see the president in circumstances such as this. That's something that I feel, and I think that that's an appropriate response. But the the key thing we've all got to focus on, I believe, is what is the truth? Did he lie under oath? Did he obstruct justice? And and that's what the process here in the House of Representatives is designed to find out."

Members of Congress justified the release of this Clinton videotape by saying Americans had a right to see virtually all of the evidence underpinning the Starr report. But politicians here, even the most fervent Republican critics of Mr. Clinton, simply have no idea how the public will react in the coming days. Mr. Clinton was at his statesmanlike best at the UN today, but American attention was elsewhere, on a presidency possibly damaged beyond repair.

Steven Scker, BBC News, Washington.

The Prime Minister has also been at the United Nations today. He offered to host an international anti-terrorism summit in London in the autumn. Mr. Blair, in a speech to American business leaders this evening, said that recent economic turmoil showed that the world financial system needed to be reformed. Tony Blair is in America for little more than 12 hours. He could hardly have come to the United Nations at a worse time to launch big ideas for global reform. The Prime Minister doggedly refuses any comment on President Clinton's survival chances, but Mr. Blair's private support for an ally and friend does conflict with his overwhelming need for powerful American leadership. His central message to the United Nations: that a world in trouble, facing economic turmoil and international terrorism, demands decisive action.

"But above all, we need political will and a sense of urgency. The problems of our modern world are too pressing, their consequences are too immediate, their impact too far-reaching for us to hesitate or to look away any longer."

But few were listening, even here at the UN. Instead, the Clinton videotapes were playing all around the building. But Mr. Blair took his main message of the day to the New York Stock Exchange, where most are still much more interested in market turmoil and the global economic crisis spreading from Asia to Russia and South America. The Prime Minister wants nothing less than a redesign of the world's central financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, in place for over 50 years.

"They were never equipped to cope with the massive speculative flows of money sweeping away currencies and economies around the world. Crisis in one part of the world affects economies in virtually every other part of the world. As the impact is international, so has the response to be international. Together, we have therefore to design a new and different, an improved international financial architecture for a new international financial age."

So Mr. Blair keeps calling out for strong world leadership at the very moment when America doubts most profoundly that it can supply any. Mr. Blair's most difficult meeting is still to come: face to face with his friend, President Clinton. All eyes will be trying to judge if the popular Prime Minister means to help a wounded President.

James Robbins, BBC News, of the United Nations in New York.

[Music]

That was today's newscast from the British Broadcasting Corporation out of London. We are also getting feeds from Germany, from French TV, and from the CBC, and we'll have portions of those newscasts on tonight and in the overnight, actually the morning part of the, uh, program schedule here on C-SPAN. In about 20 minutes, we're going to replay the president's grand jury testimony from August, August 17th, 8:00 Eastern Time, 4 hours, uh, unedited in its entirety, and we'll follow that at midnight with your phone calls. We have more of your phone calls right now for the next 20 minutes or so on this issue.

Waco, Texas. You've been hanging on on the liberal line. Thanks for calling in tonight.

"Thank you for listening to me. I believe that adultery is breaking God's law, and I believe that is strictly between God and his wife and his family. I believe that money could have been spent more likely to go to the research for, uh, to find out why young women get it and why they die. All this money has been spent to satisfy somebody's ego, to try and embarrass the United States, which they have done a very good job doing. I think the money should have been used for something better, for cancer. Uh, like I say, I think it's an ego trip, and I think all this time and money was wasted, and the dirty laundry does not need to be out there for all the countries of the world to see."

All right, caller, going to let you go. Move on to Tallahassee, Florida on the conservative line. Thank you for checking in.

"Hi, I just want to say I'm quite disgusted with our president and the leadership that is, um, uh, in our country today. One comment about the teachers in America that was made, I really don't feel it's the teachers. I feel it's it's on up the ladder. Um, I'm also wondering what has happened to the godly morals and values that our country was founded upon. I think those have been put on the back burner. Um, I'd like to see the Christians in America step up and take a stand here to what our president has done."

We have a call from Bloomington, Illinois on the moderate line. What do you think of the tape?

"Uh, the tape, I didn't have too much interest in the tape, but I have something to say about the situation. That he is the supreme commander of the Army, Navy, and Marines. There have been Marines and Army and a woman that was a great flyer that was thrown out of the service because of adultery. This man committed adultery, and he should be thrown out just like they were. Thank you."

Yardley, Pennsylvania on the liberal line.

"Um, yes, I just went to call and say that I think it's really unfortunate that, um, we've gone to this level where, you know, no one's going to want to be involved in the political process anymore because they're going to, we're not going to be getting people who have good ideas and good leadership skills who want to move this country ahead because they're going to be afraid that they're going to be investigated for, you know, five, six, seven years, and their personal life is just going to be opened up. And, um, you know, I think that our government is basically for the people, by the people, and we want people, not saints, ruling the government. And we want people with the best ideas, not necessarily, you know, no personal, uh, indiscretions."

All right, thank you for weighing in with your opinion as well. And we have a call here from Arlington, Virginia on the conservative line.

"Hi, I'd just like to say that, uh, when Bill Clinton first ran, I didn't vote for him. And, uh, in his second election, I didn't vote for him. But now, I believe that this is nothing more than sexual McCarthyism and an insult to the American people's intelligence. I think this is very sad, and I, I hope and pray that Bill Clinton will be strong and we beat this, because I, it would, it would be very sad to imagine what would happen if, God forbid, he were to resign or even worse, if they actually impeach the president, who is, by the way, doing an excellent job. And this is coming from a conservative that never voted for him, and someone that would be scared to see what would, what kind of repercussions this would have on our economy and on the way I live my life. Thank you very much."

Thank you, Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington. We'll read the phone numbers once again here for anyone who's listening and not necessarily watching. Some of the folks in the Washington area listening on WCSP, our radio station. If you are a liberal, you can call 202-624-1111. Conservatives, 624-1115, and moderates can call area code 202-737-6734. About 15 more minutes of your calls, and then we're going to replay the president's testimony, followed by more of your calls at around midnight Eastern Time.

Long Island, New York on the moderate line. Hello, Long Island.

"Yeah, hi. I was just, uh, I watched before, and I just feel that the president's been railroaded, missed all these years with Whitewater and everything else. They haven't gotten anything on him. What he did was stupid. It affected his family, his wife, uh, but I just think that, you know, how many questions like that are going to ask on TV is ridiculous. Thanks a lot."

Somerville, South Carolina on the liberal line.

"Yes, uh, I would like to say, doesn't it seem ironic that the world leaders give him a standing ovation today while he's being condemned by his country?"

Thanks, caller. That caller mentioning the president's United Nations speech. He helped open the 53rd, uh, meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations up in New York. He spoke. President Mandela of South Africa spoke. We're going to show both of those speeches at 8:00 Eastern Time on our companion network, C-SPAN 2. And the president's going to stay in New York overnight and meet with the Prime Minister of Japan tomorrow. Just north of New York City, he'll be back in Washington by tomorrow about mid-afternoon. Moving on now to Cherry Valley, Arkansas on the moderate line.

"Hello, Arkansas. Yes, you're on the air. Okay. Uh, I'm calling from the president's home state. I never met President Bill Clinton, but if, uh, Kenneth Starr and or the Republican Party cared anything about America, they would not drag our president of the United States through this kind of smut. Now, everybody's guilty. We all know that. He's done such a good job in other, uh, areas. And as whether or not he lied, I believe if any one of us and the investigators was on TV in front of God, the wife, and everybody that had done something like this, they would have denied it also. And thank you a lot."

Stafford Springs, Connecticut on the conservative line.

"Yes, I just like to say that the president's done a very good job leading the country, but he must be held responsible for the decisions that he's made. He made a decision that went against the moral judgment of this country, and he needs to be held responsible. I feel he should resign. Thank you."

Houston on the liberal line.

"I, this is, this is from Houston, Texas, and, uh, I feel very sad for the United States to destroy the best president we ever had. And I think Monica Lewinsky wanted this. Nobody pushed her. Nobody, nobody tried to make her make love to the president. I think all the stations should stop embarrassing the best president in the world. I moved away from my own country to the United States because this is supposed to be the best country for everybody. And I think it is very sad that the Republicans to do such a dirty game on him. And I will vote for him, not once, not twice. We, I'm in a house with full of people, they all will vote for him if he ever runs for president again. And I think then y'all need to stop, much line, y'all need to stop embarrassing the best country in the world, the United States. Thanks."

Caller, going to let you go so we can move on to some other calls. We have another one from Arkansas. That's Mena, Arkansas.

"Yes, that's right. Hi, you're on the conservative line. What do you think about all this?"

"Well, I think that we are forgetting that we put this man in office. He is our employee. If I suspected that an employee was having sex in my office, I think that he would be terminated. I think that he is forgetting that, uh, he is the leader, and as a leader, he should represent our values. And just because he makes a lot of money or he does a lot of good for the country, let's just turn our back on everything and say, 'Fine, he's doing a good job, he's making his money, let's forget everything.' And that's my opinion. Thanks for your opinion."

Let's get the opinion of, uh, someone in Ohio. Baltimore, Ohio. You're on the moderate line.

"Hi. Hi. I just wanted to say that I believe he has done an excellent job running the country. He has given us our welfare and taken it down to a level that is unreal. He has worked for healthcare. He has also made a moral judgment that was wrong, but that is something I think that has to be dealt with between him and Hillary. Um, I think that he has been through enough, and people ought to realize that as far as running our country, he has done an excellent job. That's my opinion. Thank you."

All right, let's go out to California on the moderate line. Is it, uh, Al Tolema, California?

"That's correct. Go right ahead, sir."

"I'll be very brief. I travel to many countries, and what I hear in those countries is very consistent. When a leader has no honor, a country has no honor. President Clinton should resign before he does further damage to the way we are viewed throughout the world and to the way we view ourselves internally. Thank you."

Warner Robbins, Georgia. Go right ahead. You're on the liberal line.

"Oh, okay. Um, thanks. Uh, I just like to say that, uh, I am, uh, 100% in favor of President Clinton remaining in office. I do not think he should resign. I do not think he should be impeached. Uh, if the people would read and know what the Constitution of the United, turn it up, I can hear it, but the Constitution of the United States is, uh, this is not an, an impeachable offense. And I feel that, uh, the economy is so much better than whenever Reagan was in. This is not an Iran-Contra deal where you sold arms for hostages. And the people are traveling more, they eat out more, they, uh, have better cars, better homes, and all of this at, uh, President Clinton's own, uh, doing along with, uh, Vice President Gore. So the people better think twice. And, uh, the Congress, they better call their congressmen and the senators and the Judiciary Committee and speak out before it's too late, because we haven't had a good president like this in a long time. And I do not condone what he did, but I do not condone what Henry Hyde did. And I don't think that Henry Hyde, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, set in judgment of the president. I am 100% in favor of President Clinton remaining in office."

All right, thank you very much for your thoughts. I'm going to try to squeeze in a couple more calls here before the replay at 8:00. Fayetteville, North Carolina. You're on the conservative line.

"Good evening."

"Good evening. I'd just like to make a comment about the president's woes. Um, I think he brought them on his, uh, and of course, I had, uh, one of my neighbors, a Democrat, say the other day that he was truthful, but there's very little truth in the man. The truth actually came out through the DNA. That's about all I got to say."

Moving on now to, uh, the state of Wisconsin, on the moderate line. We'll try the pronunciation here. Is it, uh, Wausau, Wisconsin?

"That's correct. Go right ahead."

"I'm calling on the moderate line, although I'm really an independent. Historically, I've voted liberal, Democratic about 75% of the time, and Republican about 25% of the time. Uh, I am, I am totally disgusted with this man's disregard for honesty. I think he should resign or be impeached. But I'm even more disgusted with the Democrats who are being totally partisan and cannot speak of the importance of truth and honesty. Thank you."

Thanks for calling. Uh, Arlington, Virginia, once again on the liberal line.

"Hello. Uh, I watched the tapes today, and I think it was a waste of our money to spend taxpayers' money on this kind of thing. It was a political witch hunt on the Republicans' part to release these tapes ahead of time before there was any decision decided on it. If this is what our country is coming to, and a grand jury testimony was the releasing evidence before any decisions released on the testimonies and all this, it's just what everybody else is expecting in their new process. And this is the best president we've had in 50 years, and it's all politically motivated by the Republicans, and I think it's a shame. Thank you."

Back out to California on the conservative line. Hawthorne, California.

"Hello."

"Hi. Yes, I'm calling. Um, I think this country, the people in this country need to take a good look at what this society teaches our, our young men. Men like, well, President Clinton, when he was a boy, what we teach our boys about honesty and lying and truth and so on. Because on one hand, we're teaching our young children and and girls too, we're teaching our young men, though, okay, it's, you shouldn't lie and cheat and on tests and so on when you go to school, or you should grow up to be truthful and decent people. And then on the other hand, we're turning around and we're letting our boys not taking the time, we're teaching them to, um, if they want a girl, say, want to be with a girl, no matter what age they are. We start this at a very young age. We're teaching them to to lie to the girls. I mean, it's acceptable in society for them to say anything to get into a girl's pants. It's acceptable in society for them to do anything. It's acceptable for athletes to be with as many girls or as many females, it doesn't matter the age or whatever that they want to. No one says anything. It's acceptable for entertainers to do the same thing, our musicians. Why do all our children, our young boys, our young girls, why do they all, especially the young men, want to be in these fields and in politics?"

Caller, thank you very much, Hawthorne, California. Let's stay out west here. Montana, Great Falls. You're on the moderate line.

"Yes, good evening."

"Good evening. I would like to say that did we, the American people, vote for the president, president as a man to lead, to be a leader of our country, or do we vote for him to, uh, into his sex problems? He's done really good for our country. Uh, I believe the Kenneth Starr and all the, the grand jury and prosecutors and everybody, why would they look into their sex, you know, and see what's going on there? Thank you."

Great Falls, Montana. And one last call for this segment before the replay of the president. Call from right outside Washington, Bethesda, Maryland on the liberal line.

"Yeah, hi. I just wanted to respond to some of the people that are saying that this should be a morality issue and that Christians should look at their president and see what damage he's done to Christians everywhere. That there's a reason why our government has separated church from state, so things like this and other liberties that we have are not thwarted by the, uh, belief of individuals. It's true, the president did make a mistake, but he's a man like everyone else, and he should not be punished for something that a lot of us have done or would do. Um, I believe a lot of, uh, politicians in this place would have done the same thing and would not like to have their public lives made, uh, public. Thank you."

Appreciate your call, Bethesda, Maryland. And thanks for all your calls. If you didn't get through, there's plenty more opportunity to weigh in with your comments. Uh, we're going to have more open phones at midnight tonight Eastern Time, following the replay of the president's remarks, and on the Washington Journal tomorrow, two hours and 15 minutes of your calls straight through. And then we're going to hear from Jim Norman, who is polling editor at USA Today. So, midnight tonight, 7:00 AM tomorrow, more on this, uh, story regarding the president, or anything else you want to talk about tomorrow morning on the Washington Journal. I want to remind you as well about the C-SPAN website. If you go to www.cspan.org, you can click on President Clinton's testimony. What you're going to find there is the president's complete testimony in RealAudio and RealVideo, which means that you can either watch the entire four hours or listen to it if you're busy with other things. You can, uh, read the complete text of his testimony, the Kenneth Starr report, and lots of background information on, um, Chairman Henry Hyde of the Judiciary Committee, the entire committee procedures for impeachment, and some of the other proposals that are being called for regarding the president. So again, www.cspan.org will get you all of that information at our website.

It's about 8:00 Eastern Time here in Washington. You're watching C-SPAN, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. We were created by the cable television industry, and we come to you as a public service. We have a long evening of programming, live and taped, for you this evening. Coming next, the entire four-hour testimony that President President Clinton gave to the grand jury on August 17th. The testimony was transmitted on secure lines from the White House Map Room to the grand jurors paneled at the Federal District Courthouse in August. And as you remember, the House Judiciary Committee last Friday decided to make that tape, those tapes, public. The first thing we're going to see here for a moment is today's delivery of the video tapes to the television technicians in the Rayburn House Office Building. They acted as what's called a pool, and the tapes to the TV networks. Hopefully, we can see that video in just a minute. If not, we'll show it to you a bit later. The, uh, pool tapes were fed to the TV networks and to C-SPAN. We're going to, uh, show you the president's remarks now, the deposition, four hours, and then more of your phone calls just after midnight. We'll talk to you later.

Is a session, uh, there is a forum. There are no persons in the grand room. Thank you.

[Music]

Mr. Truth. The truth. Truth. I... [Music] ...do.

Good afternoon, Mr. President.

Good afternoon. Could you please, uh, state your full name for the record, sir?

William Jefferson Clinton.

My name is Saul Weisenberger. I'm a Deputy Independent Counsel with the Office of Independent Counsel. With me today are, uh, 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 get it. Do you understand?

So, yes, I do.

Uh, this proceeding is subject to Rule 6E 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. Weisenberger, excuse me. You referred to Judge Johnson's order. I'm not familiar with that order. Have we've been served that or not?

No, my understanding is that, uh, uh, that is an order that, uh, the judge is going to sign today. She didn't have the name of a Waka, uh, a p, a person. And basically, my understanding is that, uh, it will, uh, cover all of the, uh, attorneys here, uh, today, and the technical people in, so that they will be authorized persons permitted to hear grand jury testimony that they otherwise wouldn't be authorized here.

Thank you. The, uh, grand jury, Mr. President, has been impaneled by a United States District Court for the District of Columbia. You understand that, sir?

I do. And, uh, among other things, is currently, uh, investigating, under the authority of the Court of Appeals, upon application by the Attorney General, whether Monica Lewinsky or others obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or committed other crimes related to the case of Jones versus Clinton. Do you understand that, sir?

I do.

Thank you. Today, uh, you'll be receiving questions not only from attorneys on the OICC staff but from, uh, some of the grand jurors, too. You understand?

Yes, sir, I do.

I'm going to talk briefly about your rights and responsibilities as a grand jury witness. Uh, normally, grand jury witnesses, while not allowed to have attorneys in the grand jury room with them, uh, can stop and consult with their attorneys. Under our arrangement today, uh, your attorneys are here and present for consultation, and you can break to consult with them as necessary, but it won't count against our total time. You understand that?

I do understand that.

You have a, uh, privilege against self-incrimination. The truthful answer to any question would tend to incriminate you, uh, 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. You understand that?

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, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, uh, 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, uh, I have stated to you regarding your rights and responsibilities that you would like me to clarify that you don't?

No, sir.

Mr. President, I'd like to read for you, uh, a portion of Federal Rule of 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.

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, uh, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, on January 17th, 1998, in a deposition in the Paula Jones litigation. Is that correct, sir?

I did take an oath then.

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 believed I was bound to be truthful, and I tried to.

[Music]

At the, uh, Paula Jones deposition, you were represented by, uh, Mr. Robert Bennett, your counsel, is that correct?

That is correct.

He was authorized by you to be your representative there, your attorney, is that correct?

That is correct.

Uh, your counsel, Mr. Bennett, indicated that, 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 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, a sexual harassment case, is entitled to have the truth?

I believe when a witness is under oath, uh, 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. B, our office.

Mr. President, good afternoon. Mr. President. Mr. Bitman. My name is Robert Bitman. I'm an attorney with the Office of Independent Counsel. Mr. President, we are first going to turn to some of the details of your relationship with Monica Lewinsky and follow up on your deposition that you provided to Paula Jones case. Uh, as was referenced on January 17th, 1998. 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. Bitman, I think maybe I can save the view and the grand jury a lot of time if, uh, I read a statement which I think will make it clear what the nature of my relationship with Miss 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.

[Music]

[Music]

When I was alone with Miss 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 17th, 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 Miss Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter. 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 Miss Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the term sexual relations as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition, and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses. That, Mr. Bitman, is my statement.

Thank you, Mr. President. And with that, we would like to take a break. Would you like to have this?

Yes, please.

Why we have that marked as Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-1. So we're going to take a break. Take a break.