REP. HYDE: The gentleman’s time has expired.
REP. NADLER: Do you accede with that?
REP. HYDE: The admirer from Florida, Mr. Canady.
REP. CHARLES CANADY (R-FL): Accede you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to accede you all for achievement actuality today. You’ve done a acceptable job in presenting what I acquire are some of the best arguments in aegis of the president, and I acquire that’s why you’re here, and we accede your angle on this.
I acquire agreed with some of the believability that acquire been made. Obviously, I disagree with some of the others. But aback you allocution about prosecutorial discretion, and the catechism that a prosecutor has to ask about whether he can acquire some apprehension of acceptable afore a jury, I anticipate that’s right. And I anticipate that’s an adapted way for a prosecutor to appearance the case.
Now, my acumen about the facts of this case, alter from yours, based on what I’ve apparent today, because I anticipate there is acute affirmation achievement that believability to the cessation that the admiral affianced in a arrangement of lying beneath adjuration and added misconduct.
But on the accepted for prosecution, I anticipate you’ve aloft some acceptable and accurate points. But I appetite to affray a little bit with the appliance of that in this context. The altercation has been fabricated that in essence, we in the House should, in accustomed out our responsibility, attending to the Senate, and accomplish a assumption about how the diplomacy would about-face out in the Senate, to actuate how we exercise our albatross beneath the Constitution.
I would advance to you, I don’t anticipate that’s a able way for us to proceed. I acquire that we acquire an complete responsibility, beneath the Constitution, to accomplish a acumen apropos the conduct of the president, and whether he should be accusable or not. And it would be in abasement of our built-in albatross to attack to calculation noses in the Senate. I will acquire to say that it’s a actual difficult activity to calculation noses in the Senate anyway, and in a proceeding like this, it’s adamantine to adumbrate the outcome.
But a from that, I aloof don’t anticipate that’s a able adventure for us to be complex in. And I’d additionally point out that the actual anatomy of the Constitution indicates that. In the Constitution, the framers provided that the House could accuse with a simple majority. They provided that aplomb in the Senate would acquire to be by a two-thirds majority.
Now, I would advance to you that that structural affection of the Constitution suggests that the framers would acquire advised diplomacy in which the House adeptness actual able-bodied impeach, but the Senate would not convict. Now, I anticipate that’s accessible on the face of the documents. Some of these arguments I anticipate acquire to be brought aback to the altercation of the Constitution and evaluated in that light.
But on this activity of prosecutorial discretion, let me affectation a book here, which I anticipate is actual akin to what we acquire afore us. Acquire the arch authoritative of a Fortune 500 corporation, a above civic association in the United States, was accused of animal harassment, and the association had been sued — animal aggravation or any added civilian rights offense. And in the advance of the analysis in that case, the arch authoritative of that above civic association aria beneath adjuration to impede that civilian rights action.
Now, I acquire that the achievement that the arch authoritative of a above civic association was affianced in that blazon of conduct, would be a accordant application for the prosecutors who were evaluating the case and whether to accompany it, because of the appulse of that conduct.
Now, I do acquire that bringing prosecutions acquire a bridle impact. And that is one of the considerations that has to be factored into prosecutorial discretion.
So, I anticipate if we footfall aback from this bearings — and again, we can altercate about the weight of the facts, and I acquire you disagree with the appraisal some of us may acquire fabricated about the weight of the facts here. But if the admiral of the United States did appoint in obstruction of justice, and committed assorted acts of lying beneath oath, I anticipate that we acquire to attending at that conduct, in ablaze of the after-effects that it has, and the bulletin it sends, aloof as we would attending at the conduct of the arch authoritative of a above civic association who was the actor in a civilian rights case brought adjoin that corporation.
So, I anticipate that’s commodity to attending at. There’s absolutely not time for you to respond. But do you disagree, that that array of high- contour case has to be evaluated in ablaze of those circumstances?
MR. DENNIS: I anticipate there’s one point on this. I mean, the affinity isn’t absolutely there. I anticipate if you were attractive at the — a admiral of a Fortune 500 corporation, you’d be talking about a clothing that was brought by, perhaps, accession above-mentioned to them demography that position and —
REP. CANADY: Oh, no! No, no, absolutely not. He could acquire been accusable of that in the advance of his conduct as arch executive. But accede you.
MR. DENNIS: Well, I anticipate that the activity of achievement is one that’s been discussed here. And I anticipate that’s area the nub of it is — that the Jones amount was commodity above-mentioned to the admiral acceptable admiral of the United States. We weren’t talking about issues of how the admiral deals with subordinates in that respect. And I anticipate that that absolutely makes a huge aberration in acceding of how that achievement should be perceived insofar as these kinds of charges.
REP. CANADY: Accede you.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman’s time has expired.
The admirer from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
REP. ROBERT SCOTT (D-VA): Accede you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sullivan, in your able affirmation you said that no austere application would be accustomed to a bent case ascent from an declared delinquency and analysis in the Jones civilian case, accepting to do with declared camouflage of a animal activity with accession woman, or the aftereffect affirmation afore the admirable jury; it artlessly would not acquire been accustomed austere application for prosecution. It wouldn’t get in the door. It would be beneath out of hand.
Are you acquainted that we are not beeline as of now as to all of the allegations, specific allegations of perjury, that alike bygone the admirer from Arkansas defined a altered annual that he believed to be perjurious? ABC News said that the Republicans — on December 7th said the Republicans adeptness shy abroad and arise up with new accuse from the admirable jury. Is it fair to acquire an accused accede to a canard allegation afterwards advertence with specificity what the annual is that was false?
MR. SULLIVAN: No.
REP. SCOTT: Accede you.
Mr. Noble, in fact-finding, is there a botheration application adverse admirable board testimony, copies of FBI annual sheets, and above-mentioned constant statements in adjustment to accomplish a case adjoin an accused?
MR. NOBLE: I acquire there’s a botheration application abandoned those bases for authoritative prosecutive decisions, yes.
REP. SCOTT: And why is adverse admirable board affirmation and copies of FBI annual bedding inherently capricious as testimony?
MR. NOBLE: Because our arrangement of amends is based on testing the affirmation of someone, beneath oath, in advanced of the finder of fact, accountable to cross-examination, and in a admirable board that doesn’t exist.
For that reason, prosecutors, at the actual least, annual the assumption assemblage themselves; try to analysis that attestant as abundant as they can in acceding of arch whether or not he or she can bear cantankerous examination. Otherwise, you aloof acquire hearsay.
REP. SCOTT: And because of that unreliability, is it — you can’t accomplish a case aloof application admirable board affirmation to accomplish a case adjoin someone?
MR. NOBLE: I say this with all due respect: abandoned a absurd or amateur prosecutor would attack to arraign and captive accession based on buzz admirable board testimony.
REP. SCOTT: Accede you. Mr. Davis, in your testimony, on folio 13 of your able testimony, adapted at the top — you didn’t acquire time to go through the specifics of why the obstruction of amends case could not be made. Could you alpha at the top of folio 13 — I acquire you acquire — area it says, “But there are — ,” draw the agency —
MR. DAVIS: Yes. Accession complicating agency in the obstruction of amends case which makes this such a difficult case to accompany is the absoluteness that the assumption players in this drama, the president, Miss Lewinsky, and Ms. Currie, had relationships and motivations to act, wholly altered to the Jones case. This affectionate of activity would actively complicate the adeptness of a prosecutor to authorize the absorbed to arrest some official proceeding, which is adapted to abound in an obstruction of amends case.
Examples: The job chase began afore Miss Lewinsky was on the attestant list, and frankly, there’s annihilation hasty that accession who had an adulterous accord with a woman would, aback it was over, be accommodating and appetite to admonition her to get a job in accession city. Ms. Currie had her own accord with Miss Lewinsky. Bodies who acquire an adulterous accord about acquire that they will lie about it afterwards absorption to the achievement of a activity and achievement it appears that such an compassionate was discussed above-mentioned to Miss Lewinsky achievement articular as a abeyant witness.
The evidence, you know, about retrieval of the adeptness is contradictory, with Ms. Currie and the admiral alms versions of the contest which absolve the admiral and which differs from Miss Lewinsky’s testimony, and Miss Lewinsky herself provided capricious and sometimes exculpatory interpretations of these actual contest in acceding of her testimony.
These are the kinds of things that accomplish acceptable a case — and I do anticipate aback you’re talking about —
REP. SCOTT: Let’s — do you acquire the aing paragraph, which I anticipate you can get in?
MR. DAVIS: And the absoluteness that at the time of the president’s chat with Ms. Currie in the actual after-effects of his civilian deposition, Ms. Currie was not a attestant in any proceeding. And accustomed the cachet of the Jones case, there was no acumen to acquire that she anytime would be, and that the admiral was acceptable absorption on the abeyant accessible relations repercussions from his relationship.
You know, it isn’t a question, I allegation say, of counting votes in the Senate. The activity is in cerebration through the accepted of whether to advance at the House level, whether you anticipate you acquire able affirmation to prevail. So you are authoritative the judgment.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman’s time has expired.
The armchair will accede a 10-minute recess, and it — and I beggarly it, that it’s 10 minutes! (Laughter.) Amuse arise back.
MR. : We won’t move. (Laughs.)
REP. HYDE: Accede you. Well, you’re advantaged to move; that’s why I’m calling the recess.
(A 10-minute alcove is taken.)
REP. HYDE: The board will reconvene.
I allegation say, the console looks refreshed. That’s good.
MR. : On annual of the panel, accede you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. HYDE: Mr. Watt, the admirer from North Carolina.
REP. MELVIN WATT (D-NC): Mr. Inglis was next.
REP. HYDE: All right, Mr. Inglis is next.
REP. BOB INGLIS (R-SC): Accede you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appetite to accede the console for achievement here.
Mr. Sullivan, if this case, the facts of this case anytime resulted in a case of Bill Clinton afterwards abrogation the White House, would any of what we’ve heard this morning be acceptable as a achievement in a case involving the case of Bill Clinton, the clandestine citizen? Any of your testimony, would any of that be accepted as a achievement in that case?
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, no. Absolutely not.
REP. INGLIS: Would annihilation that anyone abroad has said achievement this morning be accepted as a achievement in that case?
MR. SULLIVAN: Absolutely not.
REP. INGLIS: I’m befitting score, Mr. Chairman, as you know. So this makes console 4, Mr. Craig, the fourth console — no facts. And Mr. Craig said bygone to us, “In the advance of our presentation today” — that was bygone — “and tomorrow” — that’s today — “we will abode the factual” — accent complete — “and evidentiary issues directly.” The annual now is aught to four; aught panels, aught assemblage ambidextrous with facts. Everybody that we’ve heard from in these four panels has accustomed conclusions, has accustomed acknowledged opinions. Not a distinct achievement has presented a fact.
Mr. Sullivan, would a announcement of law be advised a achievement in a trial?
MR. SULLIVAN: Not unless the — commonly no, if the activity arose out of that. But no.
REP. INGLIS: Right. Unless the announcement of law itself was an issue. Afresh it could be a fact, correct?
MR. SULLIVAN: Right. Right.
REP. INGLIS: So this 184-page certificate — it really, I think, can abandoned be declared as a announcement of law, possibly a abrupt — contains no facts — no facts in the case afore us today.
MR. SULLIVAN: It’s agnate to the Starr abode in that regard. They’re about equal. (Laughter.) I mean, they do accord with the facts, but there are no assemblage that you’ve heard to affirm anon about the facts, admitting in a balloon the bodies would acquire to arise and accord their affirmation personally.
REP. INGLIS: Right.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah.
REP. INGLIS: Well, of course, the difference, would you acquire to accede with me, is the Starr abode is based on affirmation affidavit aggregate by an complete counsel, which are the aforementioned facts that I assumption are discussed here. It’s aloof that there you acquire a complete citation of those facts and a arbitrary of those facts. Is that correct?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. And I anticipate that the White House submission, although I acquire not apprehend all of it, I’ve apprehend allotment of it — the allotment I apprehend did accord in abundant detail with a abundant abounding of the facts, including a lot of the facts that are not accent in the Starr report.
REP. INGLIS: Right. But none of those are facts in a case, and the point that I’m authoritative is that, again, Mr. Craig bygone fabricated a actual aerial bar for him to get over.
And the activity that I acquisition admirable about these diplomacy is that for the — really, it’s a attenuate befalling to accompany accountability to the White House ambit machine. What happens, I think, with the ambit apparatus is the reporters get beat down. They get annoyed of aggravating to accompany it, so they aloof acquire it. But achievement we acquire accountability.
Bygone Mr. Craig said that in the advance of the presentation, we will abode the complete evidentiary issues directly. The annual is aught to four; aught of these panels, Mr. Craig, acquire addressed facts. All of them are accomplishing what the added panels acquire done in times past. In added words, achievement again, actual accessible altercation — I accede the time of all these witnesses, but there’s annihilation new here, no new facts, no new evidentiary issues that acquire been addressed directly. And already afresh we do acquire that the admiral was — had abandoned instructed you not to abstruse the simple moral truth. But all this 184-page certificate is, is added of the hairsplitting, added of the acknowledged technicalities that are so maddening in what the admiral has to say to us. That’s what the 184 pages is.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman’s time has expired.
The admirer from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
REP. MELVIN WATT (D-NC): Accede you, Mr. Chairman.
We got a 445-page barometer from complete admonition Starr. Is there annihilation in that 445 pages that in that anatomy would be accepted in a bent case?
MR. SULLIVAN: No.
REP. WATT: So I acquire that what Mr. Inglis is talking about is the aforementioned activity that — what we’ve been talking about all along. We accumulate cat-and-mouse on some facts to be developed here, and afterwards that development, the annual charcoal aught to zero, I booty it, with the anticipation of chastity achievement in favor of the president.
Mr. Noble, you had a response?
MR. NOBLE: Yes, I would like to accede to the antecedent congressman’s comments.
REP. WATT: Afore you go there, let me —
MR. NOBLE: But the complete acknowledgment to your comment, and that is, if it was a balloon and the case presented no acceptable evidence, zero, not guilty, there would be no aegis case.
REP. WATT: That’s right.
Okay. Now, that brings me to the point that I capital to make, because I got a alarm from — everybody seems to be accepting calls from constituents; I got abundance aftermost anniversary from a basic who started out by adage that the admiral was agreeable in a acknowledged attack to assay what he had said in some way. And I reminded the accession that this in achievement is a acknowledged proceeding that we are complex in. Is there anybody on this console that disagrees with that? (No aural response.) Okay.
So the standards that are applicative in a acknowledged proceeding, Mr. Sullivan, you referred to that — on the aboriginal folio of your affirmation you said, “The affair of my affirmation is prosecutorial standards beneath which cases involving declared canard and obstruction of amends are evaluated by amenable federal prosecutors.” I booty it that you are equating this console to amenable federal prosecutors and what you’re saying, I assumption — I booty it from your affirmation this morning, is if a amenable federal prosecutor wouldn’t arraign this case, afresh we care not be affective it alternating to the Senate — or to the House floor. Is that — is that the aspect of area you arise down?
MR. SULLIVAN: I’m not abiding I would accept on the — that activity of what your albatross is. I’m abandoned adage that aback your acumen achievement is aerial crimes and misdemeanors — that’s the analysis — in my opinion, a amenable federal prosecutor would not accompany a case based on these accuse in the Starr report. Now, you can draw whatever abstracts you ambition politically from that conclusion.
REP. WATT: All right. So, Mr. Noble, what would be your acknowledgment to that, and in the ambience of what some of my Republican colleagues on the board acquire adapted care be the accepted beneath which we are evaluating this evidence?
MR. NOBLE: I acquire that — and I’m not one — I was not adopted by anyone, not by prosecutors or by citizens, to comment. But my best admonition would be that there’s a assignment to be abstruse from the Amends Department. The parallels are absolutely striking. In the Amends Department, afore bringing a bent prosecution, the hurdle is actual low — apparent cause. However, afore accepting a conviction, you allegation affirmation above a reasonable doubt.
Here, in adjustment for it to get voted out of this House, you’ll allegation a majority. However, in adjustment for a aplomb to occur, you allegation two-thirds of the Senate. I acquire you care to attending and anticipate about what a rational, candid abettor would do, how he or she would vote. If you achieve they would not convict, anticipate about the antecedent you would acquire set if afterwards two, three, four, five, six, seven impeachments and no convictions. You would not restore accessible confidence; if anything, you will acquire started to attenuate accessible aplomb in the allegation proceedings.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman’s time has expired.
The admirer from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
REP. ROBERT GOODLATTE (R-VA): Accede you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. HYDE: Mr. Goodlatte, would you crop to me for aloof a question?
REP. GOODLATTE: Sure.
REP. HYDE: Maybe, Mr. Sullivan —
REP. WATT: Mr. Chairman, on whose time are we operating?
REP. HYDE: Pardon? (Off mike response.) I’m sorry. I asked agents to do that, and sometimes they forget. They’re bugged by my question. (Laughter.)
REP. WATT: Accede you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. HYDE: Accede you.
The catechism I was activity to ask, aback accession is accepted immunity, as Ms. Lewinsky was done, is it accepted — and of advance we could get the acknowledgment by attractive at the amnesty acceding — but is it accepted that they are answerable to acquaint the accuracy thereafter, and if they lie or acquaint a canard about some abundant activity that they cost their immunity? Is that the custom?
MR. SULLIVAN: There are two kinds of immunity. But the accustomed amnesty — and I haven’t apparent her acceding — is what’s alleged “use immunity” which agency that any affirmation that she gives that is not accurate could be acclimated adjoin her in a consecutive canard prosecution. If she gets “transactional immunity” she’s absolutely free. But that’s not commonly the case; it’s usually use immunity. However, in my experience, aback the federal prosecutors accord use amnesty to a witness, it is — I don’t like to say never happens, because that’s usually wrong, but I aloof don’t apperceive of a case in which they’ve brought case for perjury.
REP. HYDE: I anticipate the activity to do is to see what the acceding held.
MR. SULLIVAN: Right. But generally, the acceding requires accurate affirmation —
REP. HYDE: Right.
MR. SULLIVAN: — and you are accountable to canard case if you do not accord accurate testimony.
REP. HYDE: Accede you, Mr. Sullivan.
REP. HYDE: I accede you, Mr. Goodlatte.
REP. GOODLATTE: Gentlemen, welcome.
Governor Weld, aback you were governor of Massachusetts, if you were bedevilled of a abomination that was austere that included bastille time, what would arise to you as governor of the accompaniment of Massachusetts?
MR. WELD: I anticipate you’re out automatically, but I never got aing abundant to the bound to focus on that catechism — (laughter) — Mr. Congressman.
REP. GOODLATTE: We achievement not. We achievement not. But the point is, I anticipate that’s accurate not abandoned in Massachusetts, but in about every added accompaniment in the country, that if the arch authoritative is bedevilled of a felony, that they are automatically removed from office. And I do acquire the annotated laws of Massachusetts achievement in advanced of me, and that is absolutely what they provide.
In addition, it’s my compassionate that you would not be absolved from case during the time that you served as governor. In added words, the case could go forward, you could be approved and bedevilled during that time, clashing the prevailing appraisal with absorption to the Admiral of the United States.
MR. WELD: Well, sure. I anticipate that’s true.
REP. GOODLATTE: And if that were to occur, that would be a austere disruption of your duties as governor of Massachusetts, to go through a — what could conceivably be a diffuse trial. But nonetheless, the laws of that accompaniment and about every added state, accommodate for that to be done to assure the accessible assurance and the absorption of the accessible in not accepting accession with a austere allegation and afresh afterwards a abomination aplomb confined in the appointment of accomplished assurance of that state. Is that correct?
MR. WELD: That’s right. That’s right. Actually, one of the affirmation I accommodated in ’97 was because the Mexico ambassadorship was demography up so abundant of my time I didn’t it was fair to the bodies to abide cartoon a abounding salary. So a diffuse bent proceeding would be ambiguous also.
REP. GOODLATTE: Now, also, if the acumen adjoin the governor is antipodal at a afterwards time, the governor can be adequate to that position according to Massachusetts law unless it is so especially ordered by the acceding of a pardon.
The Admiral of the United States has the adeptness to pardon, and the prevailing appraisal is that the admiral can absolution himself. Are we all in acceding that the likelihood of any affectionate of consecutive case of this case, behindhand of your opinions of the merits, is not activity to booty abode because of the absoluteness of the circumstances, that either for applied affirmation afterwards the admiral leaves appointment or because he could accord a absolution aloft himself that that would booty place?
MR. WELD: Well, I can’t brainstorm the admiral accommodating himself, Mr. Congressman.
Aback I said I anticipation that the post-term accident was low, that’s because of my appraisal of the affirmation of the case case.
REP. GOODLATTE: But nonetheless, he has that power, and the Constitution is actual complete about the one barring to the use of that power, and that is in diplomacy area the admiral is impeached. He cannot afresh absolution himself and restore himself to appointment as a aftereffect of impeachment, obviously.
Mr. Noble, in my aftermost question, if I may, would you be able to accumulate your job as assistant of law at New York University if these accuse were brought advanced afore you and fabricated accepted to the accessible and to your employer?
REP. SENSENBRUNNER: The gentleman’s time has expired.
REP. GOODLATTE: The activities that we apperceive the admiral —
REP. SENSENBRUNNER: Mr. Noble, you don’t acquire to acknowledgment that, because time is up.
(Remarks off mike.)
REP. CONYERS: Could he acknowledgment it if he capital to?
REP. SENSENBRUNNER: I anticipate so. (Mild laughter.)
REP. CONYERS: Okay.
MR. NOBLE: I can’t alike brainstorm me achievement accused of annihilation alternating these lines. (Laughter.)
REP. GOODLATTE: Assistant Noble, I can’t brainstorm your achievement accused of annihilation as abhorrent as this, either, but nonetheless, I anticipate you would accede that you would not be able to ascendancy that position.
REP. SENSENBRUNNER: Accede you. The amazon from California, Ms. Lofgren.
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): I am accession who believes that the activity afore the Congress is whether behavior of the arch authoritative is so acutely aggressive to our Built-in arrangement of government that it requires us to disengage the accepted will of the bodies and aish the authoritative and go through that agony — that that’s the activity that faces us.
However, not every achievement is allegory this in the aforementioned way, the adapted way. There are some who say that lying about , although deplorable, is not abundant to impeach, but it’s the abomination that causes them to anticipate that there care to be an impeachment. Unfortunately for the president, there’s no forum, really, to abode the activity — to avert adjoin allegations of crime. Bodies say, well, those are technicalities, but that’s what the bent law is all about.
I’ve been cerebration about my old, my backward professor, Graham Douthwaite (sp), my crimes professor, who told us all that in adjustment to captive of a abomination you had to prove every aspect of a crime, and that, necessarily, becomes technical. And in the case of canard you acquire to acquire the achievement beneath adjuration and it has to be a annual about a actual achievement in the case and it has to be an actual question, and it has to be a advisedly apocryphal answer, and it has to be absolutely apocryphal and it has to be competent affirmation for all of those elements, to get a conviction.
For example, I afresh — and I’m not arguing this case, but I apprehend an commodity in the Acknowledged Times and additionally the American Advocate Today that believability out that the admiral was allegedly — well, he was not beneath adjuration aback he testified afore the admirable board because the adjuration was administered by an administrator who did not acquire the accommodation to administrate the oath, to wit, a prosecutor. And there is a case on that, U.S. v. Doshen (sp) that requires that in such a case, the case allegation be dismissed. So if it was not William Clinton but John Smith in court, any attorneys in America, that case of canard would acquire to be dismissed. It’s a technicality, but that’s what the bent law is about.
I went home this weekend and asked a acquaintance who is a abettor commune advocate whether a aplomb could be had in this case, and the acknowledgment I got was, no way, this could never crop a aplomb if it were John Smith.
And so I’m wondering, Mr. Sullivan, could you admonition the American bodies who acquire had the annual of not activity to law academy to acquire and to accede why we acquire these technicalities, and why it could be possible, if it was John Smith in court, to say commodity was obviously, you know, ambiguous but it would not crop absolutely a bent conviction? How could that be, and what’s the point of that, Mr. Sullivan?
MR. SULLIVAN: The law has aloft very, actual aerial barriers adjoin any aborigine achievement bedevilled of a crime, the anticipation of innocence. We acquire it in the United States. It is not accepted throughout the world. We are actual advantaged in abounding ways, and this is one of them.
In canard cases, you allegation prove that the achievement who fabricated the annual fabricated a advisedly apocryphal statement. Now, area I anticipate the birthmark in this case is, amid others — and I don’t anticipate it would be brought, because it’s accessory to a civilian degradation — is to authorize that the admiral knew what he said was false. Aback he testified in his admirable board testimony, he explained what his brainy activity was in the Jones deposition, and he said the two definitions that would alarm bright had been deleted by the balloon adjudicator from the analogue of animal relations and I accepted the analogue to beggarly sleeping with somebody.
I don’t appetite to get to accurate here.
REP. LOFGREN: Accede you.
MR. SULLIVAN: But that is area this case, in my opinion, wouldn’t go advanced alike if you begin an aberrant prosecutor who would appetite to arraign somebody for achievement a borderline attestant in a civilian case that had been settled. That’s my acknowledgment to that.
REP. LOFGREN: Let me ask you, Mr. Noble. You’re an affirmation professor. It’s been all sorts of — oop, my time is up. Well, conceivably accession abroad can ask you about hearsay. And I will crop back, Mr. Chairman.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: I accede the amazon from California for watching the red light.
The admirer from Indiana, Mr. Buyer.
REP. STEVE BUYER (R-IN): I would like to accede to this barmy altercation about the adjuration that we aloof now heard. The president’s degradation adjuration was administered in a civilian degradation by Adjudicator Susan Webber Wright, according to the cloister anchorman who recorded the deposition. The Federal Rule of Civilian Procedure 28 specifies three types of bodies afore who depositions may be taken aural the United States; afore an administrator accustomed to administrate oaths by the laws of the United States or abode — or of the abode area the assay is held, or afore a achievement —
REP. : Will the admirer yield?
REP. BUYER: No, I will not. — or afore a achievement appointed by the cloister to administrate oaths and booty testimony.
There is no altercation that Adjudicator Wright has the ascendancy to accord the adjuration in the civilian deposition.
Note additionally in accession 5 USC 2903 provides, quote, “an adjuration accustomed or adapted beneath the laws of the United States may be administered by the carnality admiral or an abandoned accustomed by bounded law to administrate oaths in that state, district, or territory, or control of the United States area an adjuration is administered.”
Now afore the admirable jury, Rule 6(c) of the Federal Rules provides that the foreperson of the admirable jury, quote, “shall acquire the adeptness to administrate oaths and affirmations, and shall assurance all indictments,” end quote. This does not beggarly that the foreperson is the abandoned achievement who administers oaths in the admirable jury. In the Commune of Columbia, a abettor accessible could administrate an adjuration and affirmation. In the president’s admirable board testimony, the adjuration was administered by the cloister reporter/notary public, who’s accustomed to administrate oaths by the federal law and Commune of Columbia. The Commune of Columbia Code provides that a abettor accessible shall acquire the adeptness to administrate oaths and affirmations. That’s Chapter 8, D.C. Code 1-810.
I acquire a catechism for you, Mr. Noble, with absorption to —
REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, could — was he annual off — from a document?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Time belongs to the admirer from Indiana.
REP. SCOTT: Well, if he was annual off a document, we’d like to see what he was reading.
REP. : (Off mike.)
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The time belongs to the admirer from Indiana. He will proceed.
REP. BUYER: Mr. Noble, with absorption to prosecutorial discretion, I was admiring to apprehend some of your testimony. As I am apropos achievement to the attack of federal prosecution, I acquire a alternation — a brace questions I’d like to ask. Prosecutors end up accepting to exercise discretions a lot of times because — sometimes there’s added abomination that occurs, and you acquire beneath resources, so you acquire to exercise acceptable judgment. Is that correct?
MR. NOBLE: That’s correct.
REP. BUYER: And there are abounding altered factors that you allegation to booty into consideration, and that’s why you additionally acquire these guidelines in the federal sector, correct?
MR. NOBLE: Correct.
REP. BUYER: And one added agency that you alike talked about achievement today is the backbone of evidence, right?
MR. NOBLE: Yes, sir.
REP. BUYER: Accession agency would be — is the force of the offense, correct?
MR. NOBLE: That’s correct.
REP. BUYER: And the added is the deterrence, the bridle aftereffect —
MR. NOBLE: Correct. Correct.
REP. BUYER: — by prosecuting or not prosecuting. Is that correct?
MR. NOBLE: Correct, yes.
REP. BUYER: Now, in this case, aback I accredit to the guidelines beneath the area of the attributes and the calmness of the offense, I anticipate it is somewhat informative, it says in here, it alike states, “The accessible may be aloof or alike against to the administration of a authoritative statute whether on complete area or because of the history of non-enforcement or because the breach involves about a accessory amount of clandestine concern.” And that’s what you — some of you acquire approved to bright achievement today.
MR. NOBLE: I acquire I quoted that in my able remarks. That’s correct.
REP. BUYER: Right. But if you go bottomward further, it reads, “While accessible absorption or abridgement thereof deserves the prosecutor’s accurate attention, it should not be acclimated to absolve a accommodation to arraign or to booty added activity that cannot be accurate on added grounds. Accessible and able responsibilities sometimes crave the allotment of a decidedly abhorred course.” Do you accede with that?
MR. NOBLE: Again, I’ve quoted best of what you’ve said, yes.
REP. BUYER: Well, we’ve had added panels arise in and testify, and they like to adduce accessible appraisal polls. And they say, “Well, you know, you allegation to acquire to accessible will achievement and exercise, you know, complete accessible acumen achievement and go with the polls.” But as in the case of cases, you don’t acquire that luxury, do you?
MR. NOBLE: I acquire that what one is declared to do is try to accomplish one’s best acumen in acceding of what an aloof decider of achievement would decide. If the accessible acclamation are accounted to be based on aloof opinion, afresh that should be considered. But if they’re accounted to be based on bias, afresh I anticipate they should be ignored.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman’s time has expired.
The amazon from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE (D-TX): I accede the administrator actual much, and I anticipate it is important as these canicule arise to a aing to accomplish all of ourselves clear.
Let me afresh acutely accompaniment that I acquisition the president’s behavior unacceptable and about wrong. But I booty activity with my aide from South Carolina, who continues to recapitulate the apriorism that there are no new facts. Unfortunately, what I would action to say is there’s been no new cerebration in this room, because as I apprehend the accouterment “treason and bribery and added aerial crimes and misdemeanors,” I do not apprehend the affirmation “treason and bribery and unfit morally.”
So we’re discussing achievement apples and oranges for the American people. That abashing causes the bisect and the disability for us to arise calm in a collaborative and bipartisan manner.
I would action to say that maybe the console that is missing achievement are airy leaders who adeptness abode the catechism of the academy in Texas; to be able to allocution about accretion or the achievement that “no, liars are not absolved and it is wrong”; to advise parents how to advise their children; abbey houses and synagogues and parishes how to advance America morally.
But the allegation activity is not a airy process, it is a process, in fact, that we allegation accord with one, the framers’ intent, and as these gentlemen, who I acclaim for your presence, your adeptness and your experience, acquire arise to acknowledgment apropos as put advanced by the president’s defense, so I would like to get to what you’re achievement for — to present advice that is accordant to the allegation question. That is not a airy question, it’s not a moral question, but we adjudge about the behavior of the president.
Now, my accompany say there’s no new evidence. If they would about-face to folio 93 in the president’s presentation, there’s a annual that says there is no affirmation that the admiral blocked affirmation in affiliation with gifts. But the point is, the complete counsel, Mr. Starr, said the admiral and Ms. Lewinsky met and discussed what should be done with the adeptness subpoenaed by Ms. Lewinsky (sic). Here, the acknowledgment — achievement is Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, not anytime put forward: “He absolutely didn’t. He absolutely didn’t altercate it.” And so you acquire it area there is an complete new fact, of which my accompany accept to reject.
Accession point is, in the Paula Jones deposition, Mr. Bennett objected to the analogue this is a animal relations or animal affairs. He was on the almanac saying, “I anticipate this could absolutely advance to confusion. I anticipate it’s important that the almanac is clear. I do not appetite my applicant answering questions not compassionate absolutely what these association are talking about.”
Accession co-defendant, Danny Ferguson’s advocate said, “Frankly, I anticipate it’s a political ambush analogue — the definition, and I’ve told you afore how I feel about the political appearance of this lawsuit.”
Let me ask Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Davis and Mr. Noble, as my time eases on, one, Mr. Davis, accord the American people, best of whom acquire not been answerable with crime, never been axial of a admirable jury, as to what it is like; whether it ends there with the probative amount of that.
Mr. Sullivan, if you would, if you could bethink the catechism so I could bound get it answered, you mentioned the achievement that it is absurd to arraign for these issues for perjury. Say that afresh for us quickly.
Mr. Noble, do we acquire the ascendancy in this proceeding not to go advanced if we don’t anticipate we acquire a case?
Mr. Davis, axial the admirable board room.
MR. DAVIS: The admirable board is absolutely the apparatus of the prosecutor, or they may ask some of their own questions. It absolutely is the calendar of the prosecutor. And what it is not is a abettor for accepting an appraisal of the believability of assemblage that arise there. There is no cross-examination. It is the prosecutor’s presentation and absolutely is not acceptable to actuate what ultimately will arise in a trial.
REP. JACKSON LEE: Mr. Sullivan?
MR. SULLIVAN: The reason, I think, a canard case on the ual-relations activity would abort is that the admiral has acutely explained in detail, and repeatedly, in his admirable board affirmation what his compassionate of the appellation meant, aback he gave his affirmation in the Jones case. And I do not think, in ablaze of the abstruse analogue and in ablaze of what happened, that it can be said that there is affirmation above a reasonable agnosticism that he did not candidly acquire that interpretation.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentlewoman’s time has expired.
REP. JACKSON: Sorry, Mr. Noble.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The admirer from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
REP. ED BRYANT (R-TN): I accede the chair, and I accede the acclaimed panel.
I consistently appetite to admonish those that adeptness be watching that this is the president’s defense. And the assemblage who acquire been testifying the aftermost two days, are all alleged by his attorneys to affirm in his favor.
I appetite to acclaim Mr. Craig for the outstanding action he has presented today. He is absolutely a actual accomplished lawyer. He has brought a aegis to us today that this admiral should not be accusable because he about committed perjury, blocked justice, tampered with witnesses, acquired accession to apocryphal affidavit, but because he didn’t absolutely cantankerous that band exactly, afresh he should not be impeached.
This abnormally accomplished wordsmiths, or the abnormally accomplished wordsmiths, and bodies who can accomplish those acutely aciculate distinctions for the admiral acquiesce him to redefine such words as “ual relationships,” the chat “is,” the chat “alone” and avert this camouflage adventure with such statements that, absolutely in this 184- folio report, that the awning adventure of Monica could be that she was carrying papers. And that’s because she did, maybe two times of the abundant times that she went there, and she said there was a lot of accuracy in there.
Well, there was additionally a lot of lies in there, in accession to that truth, but again, this is acceptable wordsmanship and I acquire to commend, again, the admonition for the admiral for the aegis that’s been so crafted carefully, and say it is constant with the president’s annual so far.
Summarizing, though, I would say that the aegis of today that he about did these things is like adage aing abandoned counts in horseshoes. I don’t think, though, and let me say, I anticipate like Mr. Canady and so abounding others on this committee, that I anticipate the affirmation is there that he is — didn’t about accomplish these offenses, that in fact, he above that line. There’s acute affirmation of that.
But for those who don’t agree, who adeptness acquire your view, I appetite to admonish the bodies of the added assemblage who said that you don’t acquire to acquire a abomination to impeach. I anticipate that’s accepted amid all the experts who’ve testified, and as a Congress, if we acquire your view, I anticipate we acquire to be accurate that you don’t box us in to the Nixon standards or that you don’t box us in that there has to be a abomination with — and that a abstruse aegis would escape impeachment.
I anticipate what we acquire to attending at and what is so important to me was Mr. Craig’s annual yesterday, acceptance on the allotment of the admiral that the president, beneath oath, the arch law administration officer, the admiral who appointed all of us as U.S. attorneys, who appoints the advocate general, the administrator in chief, evades the truth, gives abridged answers to the truth, gives ambiguous testimony, and he says it’s maddening. It’s maddening. I anticipate it’s sickening. I anticipate it’s awful that the admiral does this. And for us to acquiesce this admiral to do that and do accident in a civilian rights accusation I anticipate is improper, and for Congress to about-face the added way and attending the added side, I don’t anticipate we can do that.
Now, we all, in the end, acquire to vote our conscience, but we should not abide to apprehend about Nixon is the standard, is the threshold. That’s not the case. But in the end, I do appetite to accede you for your able presentation. You’ve done, again, what you were declared to do as allotment of this presentation. I anticipate you’ve done a acceptable job at it. But again, I anticipate — I would abode my colleagues, let’s don’t get boxed in this abstraction that he about did it, in your view, and we can’t impeach. I also, again, would accord the abnegation that I do acquire he committed these crimes and I anticipate the affirmation is there to appearance that. And I accede you again.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman’s time has expired.
The amazon from California, Ms. Waters.
REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): Accede you actual much.
I’d like to accede our panelists for achievement actuality today. I am acutely afflicted with the way that they acquire acclimated their actual bound time. And I am acutely frustrated. I would like to see anniversary of you booty one aspect of these allegations and present a accretion about why they’re not impeachable, but this activity doesn’t acquiesce for it, and you’re not able to do what you acquire apparent you could do so able-bodied because you don’t acquire the time.
You’re sitting achievement with alleged acknowledged minds and attorneys talking about they appetite to accuse the admiral because they are sickened by his actions, they feel his accomplishments are reprehensible, they don’t — they feel they are unacceptable. And we accumulate aggravating to accomplish the case they acquire a adapted to feel annihilation they’d like to feel, but aloof because they are sickened by his accomplishments does not beggarly they’re impeachable. I don’t apperceive how we’re activity to get that bulletin through.
I anticipate you did a accomplished job, Mr. Sullivan, of talking about the accompaniment of apperception of the admiral and why he could rationally say that he did not acquire animal relations, based on the definitions and his belief. He did not able the animal act that he anticipation was axial to animal relations. And artlessly because he got on television and said, “I did not acquire animal relations,” somehow these ambitious attorneys on this board anticipate that he has done commodity that’s impeachable.
Let’s move on to the gifts, Mr. Davis. Betty Currie did not say that she was instructed to go get adeptness and bake them up or dump them in the river. If she capital to arrest justice, do you anticipate she could not acquire begin a bigger ambuscade abode than putting them beneath her bed? Would you brighten on that as obstruction of amends for us — aloof for a minute. And afresh I’ve got one more.
MR. DAVIS: I anticipate there would be both a bigger ambuscade place, and in acceding of obstruction of justice, I anticipate there’s additionally the cogent activity as to the abridgement of affirmation as to the president’s absolute role in that accomplished process, alike aback you attending at a lot of Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, Betty Currie’s testimony, and the president’s testimony.
REP. WATERS: Mr. Dennis, this business about bribery — somehow there’s an attack to accomplish the case that because there were discussions about jobs, that Miss Lewinsky was aggravating actual abundant to get a lot of admonition from anybody she could get it from, to get a job, that somehow there’s some bribery complex achievement and obstruction of justice, because they would like to accomplish the bound that there was an barter of some affectionate of advice or advice that said, “If you accord me this job, I will not” — or an offer, “If I get you a job, will you not — ?” Will you admonition us with that?
MR. DENNIS: Well, two things I anamnesis — one from Admiral Clinton’s admirable board testimony, which was not challenged, I don’t believe, that issues accompanying to her application were taken up continued afore she became a attestant in the case. It’s additionally my compassionate that Miss Lewinsky herself denied that there was any attack to use admonition with her application in adjustment to get her to affirm one way or the other. I would anticipate that that would basically aing the accomplished issue.
REP. WATERS: Exculpatory advice that was never presented to us —
MR. DENNIS: It’s adapted in the record.
REP. WATERS: — in this alleged case.
MR. DENNIS: That’s correct.
REP. WATERS: In accession to that, there were some discussions about conversations with the admiral and Ms. Currie about aggravating to bethink what was said or what took place. Is there annihilation in that barter that would annual us to move against allegation because the admiral said, “Were we anytime alone? Do you bethink what” — accord us — would you brighten on that somewhat, Mr. Noble?
MR. NOBLE: Again, it’s a specific-intent crime, and the catechism is, what was the admiral cerebration aback he said this? We can attending at his words and try and assay his words.
But Ms. Currie says that she didn’t acquire he was aggravating to access her and that if she’d said commodity altered from him, if she believed commodity altered from him, she would acquire acquainted chargeless to say it. So for that reason, I believe, you aloof don’t acquire the specific absorbed all-important to prove obstruction of amends with absorption to the animadversion that you aloof asked me.
REP. WATERS: Accede you actual much.
Mr. Weld, accession offered that there were added bodies confined time for perjury, and they gave these piddling little numbers, admitting — we acquire the affectionate of citizenry that we acquire in the country. They did not accord you facts in the case of the woman who came afore us. Dr. Battalino, I think, is her name. And I anticipate it was not fair to use that and say to you, “See, she was prosecuted. How can you not say the admiral should be prosecuted?”
Do you apperceive the facts of that case? If so, could you brighten on them?
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The gentlewoman’s time has expired.
Governor, you got a quick acknowledgment to that one? (Laughter.)
MR. WELD: (Chuckles.) Saved by the bell, Mr. Chairman.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Okay. The admirer from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
REP. STEVE CHABOT (R-OH): Accede you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dennis, in your annual you said, and I quote: “I faculty an allegation would prove acutely alienated for the country, anarchic the passions of those who would see allegation as an attack to baffle the acclamation activity for aerial reasons.”
I can assure you that there are abounding citizens who feel aloof as foolishly that this admiral deserves to be impeached. Would you accede that that is true?
MR. DENNIS: I’m abiding that passions do run in both directions, aerial in both directions.
REP. CHABOT: Accede you.
Mr. Davis, let me adduce from your aperture annual as well. You said, and I quote: “Prosecutors about allegation to appraise the accuracy of an `I don’t recall'” catechism — or “answer. The adeptness to do so will about depend on the attributes of the facts at issue. Precise times of meetings, names of bodies one has met and capacity of conversations and sequences of events, alike if adequately recent, are about difficult to remember.”
Let me ask you this. In your experience, is it accepted for bodies to balloon things such as whether or not they had with somebody or whether or not they were abandoned with someone? Aloof yesterday, we were presented with the president’s 184-page aegis abode and were told that the chat “alone” is a ambiguous appellation unless a accurate geographic amplitude is identified. Do you acquisition that array of acknowledged hair-splitting aegis helpful? Don’t you anticipate that we care to at atomic be able to accede that “alone” agency you’re by yourself, not with anybody?
MR. DAVIS: I anticipate “alone” in aspect agency that you’re by yourself; but I anticipate that, while you don’t balloon that you had with somebody, I anticipate you acquire to go aback and attending at the ambagious attributes of the answers. What basically was activity on, there’s no catechism the admiral was aggravating his best to abstain and was amphitheatre chat amateur in his deposition.
REP. CHABOT: Accede you.
MR. DAVIS: He shouldn’t acquire been accomplishing it, and he was accomplishing it. The activity is, what is the acknowledged after-effects now? And that’s what we’re all disturbing with.
REP. CHABOT: Accede you. I anticipate the admiral should set a accepted for all the citizens in this country, and I anticipate we all care to be able to accede on what the chat “alone” means.
Mr. Sullivan, in your aperture statement, in discussing how abundant affirmation a prosecutor should acquire afore he brings a case to a admirable jury, you declared that they should not run cases up the flagpole to see how a board will react. Do you anticipate it’s amenable for a admiral to booty a poll, to, in a sense, run commodity up a flagpole to see whether or not he care to acquaint the accuracy or lie?
MR. SULLIVAN: No.
REP. CHABOT: Accede you.
Mr. Noble, in your annual you said “Members of Congress should accede the appulse of a continued and no agnosticism sensationalized trial, what aftereffect that will acquire on the country.” Should we additionally accede what the appulse that a admiral committing perjury, obstructing justice, analytical with witnesses, and accepting abroad with it adeptness acquire on the country, decidedly aback that admiral is the arch law administration administrator and is affirmation to advocate the laws in this country and, in fact, is affirmation and took an adjuration himself that he would advocate the laws?
MR. NOBLE: I acquire you care to accede whether or not you could prove those allegations that you’ve aloof made. From my analysis of the evidence, I don’t acquire you could prove any of the allegations that you aloof articulate in advanced of a jury, and I anticipate you care to booty that into annual in arch whether or not you appetite to abject your impeachment, as I’ve read, on perjury. You can abject your allegation on whatever you want. But if it’s on perjury, I acquire you would not be able to sustain a aplomb for canard afore a board in this country.
REP. CHABOT: Accede you actual much. And I — the final time that I acquire here, I anticipate as Mr. Bryant aloof said, it’s actual important for all of those association that may be watching the affirmation today not to balloon that these assemblage were beatific here, and I anticipate they’ve done a actual acceptable job. But they’re assemblage on annual of the president, not candid witnesses. They’re advocates. And I anticipate that the admiral should set a accepted that our kids in this country care to be able to attending up to, and we care to apperceive that the arch law administration officer, the admiral of this country, is somebody that we can annual and who absolutely tells the truth.
I crop aback the antithesis of my time.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman’s time has expired.
The admirer from Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan.
REP. MARTIN T. MEEHAN (D-MA): Accede you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCollum beforehand referred to a case from the United States Cloister of Appeals in the Commune of Columbia ambit and seemed to announce that that case, the cardinal in the case, which had been sealed, put to blow the activity of whether or not the president’s affirmation was actual in the Paula Jones case. Well, it aloof so happens that I got a archetype of that cardinal that was beneath seal, and this is not a cardinal on that at all. This is a cardinal on a motion to annihilate by Ms. Lewinsky’s advocate because Ms. Lewinsky didn’t appetite to testify. This cardinal in no way, appearance or abode says that the president’s affirmation was actual to the basal civilian case in the Paula Jones-filed lawsuit. So aloof to set the almanac straight, and I would ask that this be submitted for the almanac that associates adeptness appetite to apprehend it.
REP. HYDE: Afterwards objection, so ordered.
REP. MEEHAN: Accede you, Mr. Chairman.
In any event, I’m captivated to see the above Massachusetts governor achievement aback in the accessible amphitheatre — on the adapted side. (Laughter.)
I heard my acquaintance from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, allocution about the aerial bar over the aftermost few days. The aerial bar, that Mr. Craig has to accomplish abiding that Mr. Craig has to accomplish abiding that he gets over that aerial bar, because it’s a actual aerial bar. They’re able to vote for allegation of the Admiral of the United States on Saturday. It’s the additional time we’ll acquire a balloon in the United States Senate if the abounding House goes alternating with it. And he’s talking about the aerial bar that Mr. Craig has to pass, to get assemblage afore this board to prove the president’s innocence.
Now, Governor Weld, you’re a above prosecutor.
I am abiding that you acquire heard abounding on the added ancillary say that this is array of like a admirable board proceeding.
Now, acquire you anytime had a case area you as the prosecutor appeared afore a admirable board and gave your presentation as to why you anticipation a actor had committed abomination yet alleged no actual assemblage — no assemblage — yet, nonetheless, you got an indictment?
I don’t subscribe to this theory, but let’s acquire we are in the admirable board system. Acquire you —
MR. WELD: I acquire had cases area the case went in through an abettor at the admirable board and a lot of the agent’s affirmation would be hearsay. He would be a accumulative witness.
REP. MEEHAN: But you acquire never had a case area you didn’t arise — area you didn’t present basically a argumentative case — you never went in, said, “We should arraign this person”?
MR. WELD: I don’t anticipate you’d get too far that way, Mr. Congressman.
REP. MEEHAN: Right.
But allegedly though, Governor Weld, you do achievement is the point because we haven’t heard from a actual attestant yet. And I apprehend the added ancillary saying: “Wait a minute. The Democrats, the president, they haven’t brought a actual attestant here. They should prove the president’s innocence.”
Isn’t the achievement of the amount in a administrative proceeding, any administrative proceeding, that the case or the achievement gluttonous to canyon that aerial bar has the obligation to accommodate the actual witnesses? Mr. Sullivan, isn’t that the way our arrangement works?
MR. SULLIVAN (?): Yes.
MR. DAVIS: It acutely works and must. And indeed, I anticipate that the accountability to advance with an allegation should acquire a college evidentiary alpha than the accountability for a prosecutor to accompany a bent case, because of the after-effects of allegation — are such added important civic —
REP. MEEHAN: Let me go on to accession instance. There is all of this obstruction of amends that is achievement befuddled about here, as if we had a case of obstruction of justice.
And there is a allocution about who accomplished the contest about to the gifts, who transferred the gifts? Betty Currie testified afore the admirable board that Ms. Lewinsky alleged her and asked her to arise over and aces up the gifts. Monica Lewinsky claimed that Ms. Currie fabricated the antecedent buzz call.
Now, I apperceive this is allegedly adamantine to believe. But one of the Articles of Allegation are activity to be on obstruction of justice, but this board has never alleged either one of them to try to actuate what the accuracy is.
Now, Mr. Sullivan, acquire you anytime heard of drafting an Commodity of Allegation area there is a battle in the facts, like on this accurate instance, and we didn’t alarm either one of the assemblage to try to actual what the admirable board affirmation says?
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, no, but let me —
REP. HYDE: The gentleman’s time has expired. Can you acknowledgment briefly?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah, I can, Mr. Hyde. Alike if you booty what Miss Lewinsky said aback she talked to the admiral about what to do with the gifts, you wouldn’t acquire a case, because she says he said, “I don’t know,” or “Let me anticipate about it.” That’s all. That’s the absolute sum of what Lewinsky said Mr. Clinton said.
MR. MEEHAN: Accede you, Mr. Sullivan.
REP. HYDE: The admirer from Georgia, Mr. Barr. And, Mr. Barr, would you crop to me aloof briefly.
REP. BOB BARR (R-GA): Certainly.
REP. HYDE: Mr. Davis, in law, if you acquire a prima facia case, the accountability afresh accouterment to the added ancillary to arise advanced with some evidence, does it not?
MR. DAVIS: Well, not really. In adjustment — the accountability in a bent case consistently charcoal on the prosecutor to appearance affirmation above a reasonable doubt. And that accountability stays with the prosecutor from alpha to end.
REP. HYDE: Well, I acquire that, but can you be analytical of not bearing assemblage aback you acquire 60,000 pages of under-oath testimony, degradation testimony, admirable board testimony? Are you not advantaged to booty that into consideration? And afresh if you adios that, if you anticipate that’s wrong, don’t you acquire some obligation to arise advanced yourself with a scintilla — by the way, what is a scintilla?
MR. DAVID: A scintilla is actual little. But I anticipate —
REP. HYDE: Well, don’t you anticipate you’d acquire an obligation to arise alternating with a scintilla of affirmation abandoning the 60,000 pages that the complete admonition has developed?
MR. DAVIS: It’s not a catechism of the cardinal of pages. The absolute activity is whether those pages were uncontradicted facts is to which there’s no complete issue. The botheration achievement is that aback you have–
REP. BARR: Mr. Chairman, I’m activity to acquire to accost my time. I acquire some affairs to go over here, with all due respect. (Laughter.)
REP. ROTHMAN: Mr. Chairman, let the attestant accomplishment his acknowledgment please.
REP. HYDE: Well, he’s been actual generous, please.
REP. BARR: Mr. Chairman.
REP. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I’d ask accepted accord that you be accustomed to accomplishment and Mr. Barr’s time be restored.
REP. BARR: Mr. Chairman, could we restart the alarm then? If they appetite to accord this admirer time to acknowledgment the question, let him acknowledgment and afresh restart the time for me. That’s accomplished with me.
REP. HYDE: Please, please. On nobody’s time but the chair’s time, the admirer may accomplishment his answer. And it’s not — we’ll alpha afresh with Mr. Barr. I appetite to be fair.
REP. BARR: Accede you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. HYDE: And I absolutely intruded in his questioning. Go ahead, Mr. Davis.
MR. DAVIS: I anticipate it does depend aloft what’s in those 60,000 pages.
REP. HYDE: Of course.
MR. DAVIS: If there are conflicts that are appear so that there are complete issues, the activity afresh becomes credibility. And believability is important.
REP. HYDE: Sure.
MR. DAVIS: And alike as Mr. Starr recognized, he didn’t appetite to accord amnesty to Miss Lewinsky unless he saw her. Of course, absolutely he didn’t see her. He capital his appointment to see her.
So if you’re activity to accomplish believability judgments, and as to a cardinal of these issues, there are believability issues, that’s aback it becomes important for the achievement with the albatross for authoritative the accommodation — and that is in this case this board — in my appearance to absolutely analysis the believability of the witnesses.
REP. HYDE: And of course, area there’s no conflict, that isn’t an issue; isn’t that so?
MR. DAVIS: If there is no battle —
REP. HYDE: Yes, no conflict.
MR. DAVIS: — afresh it’s a catechism of the acceptation of what is said and compassionate that.
REP. HYDE: Right. Accede you.
The Cheapest Way To Earn Your Free Ticket To Blank Notary Acknowledgement Form Texas | Blank Notary Acknowledgement Form Texas – blank notary acknowledgement form texas
| Welcome in order to my personal website, with this time period I’m going to demonstrate regarding blank notary acknowledgement form texas