The senate. Fall of 1998, the house of representatives taking up articles of impeachment against William Jefferson clinton. Well see some highlights but joining us in the studios is alexis simendinger. Lets begin with the political environment in 1998. What led to the impeachment of clinton . One of the interesting things we might forget all this time, forward, is that bill clinton was under investigation or almost his entire presidency. And ken starr became the counsel. Nt ken starr had begun to investigate the whitewater 1994. Ment deal back in so by the time were in the fall clinton and ident his entire house were very used to being under investigation for a whole variety of allegations relating to his past in arkansas. And even his Fundraising Efforts when he was president. Fall of 1998, he was elected to a second term but into the midterm what ken starr as the independent counsel had of vered was a whole series alleged relationships that the president had had in the past, investigated, and then he had heard about an intern named Monica Lewinsky. So by the time that the impeachment inquiry was and in the house, 31 democrats went along with it really interesting, ken starr had a whole report to and turned over an entire investigation to the House Republicans who were in then. Jority so the background was fraught with politics. Doing very well. Bill clinton was actually very opular but republicans felt that they really were forced to act because of the nature and details in the starr report. The question that continued this e up, did relationship rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors . What was the republican argument from the rargument Clinton House . Remember, president clinton first so the defense evolved over time. He republicans, though, were asserting that the report required them to investigate. Not necessarily because this was sex or sexual contact, but because it was a violation of president s oath of office because the allegations were hide it, and to subsequently during a deposition a grand jury, the allegation was that he had lied that. Encourage others o lie for him, including his secretary at the time, white house secretary betty currie, tried to e had basically find a job for monica through a friend to keep her quiet so the whole inquiry n set in this suggested to republicans that they were compelled under the pursue this, and he president s denial was that this was a witchhunt. This was a political act. To these no substance allegations, and that this first. Or didnt exist at so to that point you mentioned witchhunt. What ere parallels to weve been seeing today here in washington and as you look at the investigation, is there a what we saward from in 1998 and what were seeing today . Interesting to hear the echo of some of the talkingms and words and points that we listen to in 1998 1999. President clinton at the time, as we remember vividly, did a his own defense. He came to his own defense. E actually spoke at the microphone and pointed his finger and said that he did not that exual relations with woman, Monica Lewinsky. I want to say one thing to the American People. I want you to listen to me. Im going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations woman, ms. Monica lewinsky. I never told anybody to like, time. Single never. These allegations are false, and for d to go back to work the American People. Thank you. [applause] as a talked about it political coup detat. That it was a witchhunt, political act. Of the same words, the same actual concept of making a strong effort both in the clinton impeachment and in inquiry, have s been focused on trying to make it look as partisan as possible. Mentioned to you that when the house authorized the inquiry nder president clinton, remember, they voted to support 31 democrats iry, cross at the aisle and supported that. What weve seen with president really strong republican effort to stand with voted in republicans september for the inquiry. Lets talk about the timeline. Election year, 1998. Hat happened in november of 1998 . The republicans, of course, of the houseontrol of representatives. Speaker Newt Gingrich is the that time period. What happened . Gingrich had begun to outlive the patience of his midterm cause in the elections the democrats picked up seats which was considered really unusual. Elections usually the party in power in the white house loses seats and the effectively used impeachment as a weapon. Weapon, and speaker gingrich began to lose the confidence of his caucus and here was an internal effort to push him out and he realized hat his days were numbered as speaker. And then the Republican Caucus waiting, new speaker in Bob Livingston. Bob livingston initially had tremendous support, and then everyones shock and mazement, when they got ready to begin the impeachment discussion of articles of mpeachment, Bob Livingston to everyones shock really truly, it was a drama, said that he was going to resign. He was going said to resign is because he, too, in his past of xtramarital relations, and, at that time, larry flinch was offering big, big money to who would provide information about any of the republican impeachment managers those involved who were basically, had feet of clay that. In had had relationships the past, too, and it was surprising how many of them had, judiciary he committee chairman, henry hyde ho said an extramarital relationship that he had when he was 40 was a youthful indiscretion. Of impeachment in a moment. Well let our audience listen to debate of the house Judiciary Committee in september 1998. Lets talk about the proceedings and the hearings. Before the Judiciary Committee, were they televised . Did these f reaction hearings receive . They were televised. Clinton me that bill was facing this, cable existed and there was a lot of cable news coverage. Of course, a lot of basic mainstream news coverage. There was a lot of discussion among the house about how many articles of impeachment to actually put forward. It turned out that they ended up floating four of them. There was discussion internally about how many they were going actually have enough votes to proceed on, and there was back trading among the House Republican managers, and committee, it was Straight Party line vote to approve four of them but by the got to the house floor nly two of them actually were endorsed by the entire republican conference. By the time it went to the floor. Viewed as highly partisan . They were painted as being entirely partisan by certainly defenders of the president. Whether there was enough evidence to support what they were alleging so the articles of impeachment basically were perjury, lying was an th, there obstruction of justice, related describing, the president s efforts to hide his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Thats the debate well see in just a moment but please continue. There was a third article dealt with perjury but it had to do with written the paula jones civil litigation that the was being riginally accused of lying, ken starr was oath ine had lied under the civil litigation, and then the fourth was abuse of power. Basically there was an allegation that the president and his team had lied to abused his power as president. Nd the house Judiciary Committee passed all four. As i said, along party lines but time that it moved forward to the house, the full those loor, only two of survived and they were basically a perjury and an obstruction. Do you remember . Whats your overall takeaway of that time period more than 20 years ago . I was covering the white house, so my perspective talking to the president and his team, and there were a couple of things i remember vividly. Is, when the story about onica lewinsky broke, you may remember that this was an investigative story. To break was trying but actually there had been a pause to make sure the reporting it was ly complete, and then fed to drudge, which was a randnew website which opened the door to what were seeing now. Actually remember going upstairs to the lower ress office talking to the president s senior staffers. A an remember asking question, paul, who was absolutely sure that this had ot happened and was absolutely so frustrated that reporters were willing to even consider that this had happened. Relationship with the intern. And they were furious. Top aides were furious and some actually left, never got over it. Thing i remember about t from the perspective of the entire process is that president linton believed that denying for as long as he did, seven months, and circling the wagons, getting his surrogates out there to defend him, actually helped him to survive. Clinton was a big fighter and there was no question in his ind that he was going to resign. That was so clear. He was going to fight it until did and felt proud of himself for doing it. He considered himself in the end defending the constitution but it wasnt certain how it would turn out and the televised were salacious and it was about sex but the thing i emember is that president clinton had unbelievable support. He was actually impeached his job approval was 73 . People had made their judgment. Hey had they were past his reelection. They were heading to the end of they nal two years and just thought it was personal behavior and that it was too much. Gone too icans had far, and the economy was very good and they were just willing to look the other way. It, i her element of think, thats so interesting, the about President Trump, American People were not shocked hat president clinton liked women. Young women, any women, right . This was not a surprise to them. Ways, the ome president profitted by not only it but also having a reputation that the American People understood that. This was part of his past. The ll continue conversation, but with that background, from december 11 of judiciary ouse committee taking up four articles of impeachment. To see te youre about including one of those articles dealing with obstruction of justice. Committee will now consider article 3. Amendments to article 3 . If not, i will chairman the gentleman from virginia. Well, asking for move to strike the last word. Recognized eman is minutes. Okay. Are there any amendments. No it is the chairs intention article to sh this adjourn for the evening. Does anybody else want to speak . At 9 00 a. M. Ck tomorrow morning. I just wanted to announce that scheduling purposes. Seek oes anyone recognition . Was that mr. Scott . Yes, mr. Scott. Word. E to strike the last recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, i ought to reflect a bit about the facts on this article. We have things like a false affidavit and false statements. The gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, has spared me the ecessity of quoting from the dictionary about certain words but Monica Lewinsky was not with a definition that the judges and lawyers argued over. She said what she believed and there ds to mean is evidence in this case, the tape recording, when she didnt recorded or being being set up by linda tripp , thought what she certain words meant and linda tripp , who knew they were being her to , tried to get change her mind about the definition but Monica Lewinsky wouldnt. We also in the witness there has to be a witness for there to be tampering, and after you review conflicting, uncrossexamined, hearsay and make s inferences used to the other elements of this to place u still have the articles, the allegations in impeachment. F our authority to do what some wanted to do but couldnt do at defeat bill at is, clinton, that authority is limited to treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Now how is a word that doesnt that isnt used very much in america, because its an english word against the state. The experts at our hearing also close attention to another word in the phrase, and that is other. Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanor. Treason, bribery and stuff like that, in its effect our government. That means it has to be a subversion of the constitution. Danger for the a president staying in office. That is, the president must be treason, cause of bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanor. Ell later be subject to the rule of law just like everybody else and when we review these they are s to see if Impeachable Offenses we have to remember what impeachment is for. Protect our nation. So we look at the history of impeachment and look at what offenses have been Impeachable Offenses and we look at watergate and see the corrupt irs, f the f. B. I. , c. I. A. , official use of those agencies and lying about it have been Impeachable Offenses in but 500 million tax fraud, where the evidence according to those who were overwhelming, and certainly stronger than the hearsay and inferences were they did today but not support the article involving half Million Dollar which was certainly a crime a serious crime but not a high crime. Furthermore, our experts unanimously agreed that the term other high ibery or crimes and misdemeanors, does not cover all felonies so we remove a president faithfullyfailed to execute the laws when we cant stand him being president anymore. The rule of law restricts our authority to act to treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. So even if we believe the that we nd inferences have before us there has been no showing that the conduct constitute as threat to our form of ional government and thats why historians and legal scholars told us that whether or not these allegations are true, they Impeachable Offenses. I yield back the balance of my time. Thehe gentleman yields back balance of his time. I rise in support of the article and recognize myself for five minutes. This article of impeachment, article 3, is the one that relates to obstruction by president clinton. There are seven specifically instances of alleged obstruction of justice that are contained in this article. And it does have the words one or more in that, so we dont of making that interpretation. There will be members on the of the aisle e that will specifically address hemselves to each of these instances of obstruction of justice. Looked atk that if we it from the criminal context, which were not here, there have to be three elements of what makes obstruction of justice. Be a pendinghas to federal judicial proceeding. In this case, with the paula jones civil rights lawsuit. Secondly, the defendant had to know of the proceeding. The civil was defendant in that lawsuit. He had been served the papers on third, that the defendant acted corruptly and with intent to obstruct and with the proceeding or the due administration of justice. Instancesof the seven that are contained in article 3 december 17, bit 1997, William Jefferson clinton encouraged a witness in a federal civil Rights Action execute aainst him to sworn affidavit in that roceeding that he knew to be precurious, false and misleading. In his deposition testimony in year, the this president said that he spoke with Monica Lewinsky before while he wasd that not sure that she would be alled to testify in the paula jones civil suit she might qualify or Something Like that. Encouragingt denied by Monica Lewinsky to lie falling a false affidavit but in nswer to the 81 questions submitted to this committee he id say that he told her other witnesses had executed affidavits and there was a chance they would not have to testify. Hinthint. Ms. Monica lewinsky was more her tic on the subject in grand jury testimony. When she asked the president what she should do, if she was testify, he said, well, maybe you can sign an affidavit. Would be to deter, to prevent me from being disposed could range anywhere between just somehow entioning innocuous things or going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of relationship. Tolds what Monica Lewinsky the grand jury. She further stated that she was sure, a percent hundred percent sure that the president suggested she might sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. An independent counsel interview, false a tements of which are federal crime. Also noted ewinsky that the president never instructed her to lie about the matter. Her to he never told file an affidavit detailing the true nature of their sexual only onship which would invite humiliation and prove damaging to the president in the case. Jones she contextually understood that the president wanted her to lie. In the oic referral. Furthermore, attorneys for paula evidence of eking sexual relationships the president may have had with or federal employees. Such information is often deemed harassment sexual lawsuits to help prove the plaintiff. Claim, the it was ruled that paula jones was entitled to this Information Purposes of discovery. Consequently, when the president ncouraged Monica Lewinsky to file an affidavit, he knew that it would have to be false for lewinsky to avoid testifying. If she filed a truthful acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president , she certainly would as a deposition witness and her subsequent ruthful testimony would have been damaging to the president both politically as well as legally. Of i yield back the balance my time. Mr. Chairman . For what purpose, the gentleman from michigan rise. I rise to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized five minutes. In reviewing article 3 thats us, obstruction of the seven review clauses and its almost like weve come here this evening and have never examined the facts in the matter. These have all been gone through repeatedly. Carefully n be very answered. By filing of an affidavit miss lewinsky. Is there anyone here who doesnt she swore that no one ever asked her to lie and that as to what the affidavit should contain was a by her alone, and that the president said that lewinsky might be able to avoid testifying by filing a affidavit. T truth