ASHINGTON -- Following are excerpts from the presentation Saturday by Representative Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, in the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton, as recorded by the Federal News Service, a private transcription agency:

What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means? It's not very scholarly, but I think it's the truth.

I think that's what they meant by high crimes.

Doesn't even have to be a crime.

It's just when you start using your office and you're acting in a way that hurts people, you've committed a high crime.

When you decide that a course of conduct meets the high crimes standard under our Constitution for the President, what are we doing to the Presidency? I think we're putting a burden on the Presidency and you should consider it that way: that if you determine that the conduct and the crimes in this case are high crimes, you need to do so knowing that you're placing a burden on every future occupant of that office and the office itself.

So do so cautiously, because one branch of the government should never put a burden on another branch of the government that's not fair and they can't bear.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, if you decide from the conduct of this President that henceforth, any officeholder who occupies the office of President will have this burden to bear, let me tell you what it is.

You don't lie under oath to a Federal grand jury when many in the country are begging you not to.

Can the occupant bear that burden?

I am a child of the South.

The civil rights litigation in matters that came about in the 60's were threefold.

There was legislation passed in Congress, there were judicial decisions that were rendered and the executive branch came in to help out.

Remember when Governor Wallace was standing in the doors of the University of Alabama? Remember how he was told to get aside? What went on? It was a constitutional dance of magnificent proportions.

You had litigation that was resolved for the individual citizen so they could go in and acquire the rights and full benefits of a citizen of that state.

You had legislation coming out of this body. And you had defiance against the Federal Government from the state level.

And you had the President and executive branch federalizing the National Guard.

And Governor Wallace stepped aside.

When it was nine to nothing that Bill Clinton had to be a participant in a lawsuit, and he chose to cheat in every manner you could cheat in a lawsuit, his conduct needs to be regulated and it needs to be brought to bear under the Constitution.

And if you put him in jail after his office, that would not solve the constitutional problem he created.

The constitutional conduct exhibited by the executive when he was told by the judicial branch, "You've got to participate in a lawsuit," was so far afield of what's fair, what's decent, that it became a high crime.

And it happened to be against a little person.

The Senate has spoken before about perjury and obstruction of justice and how it applies to high government officials, and those government officials were judges.

Before we start this analysis, it's important to know -- and some of you know this better than I'll ever hope to know -- the history of the Senate, the history of this body, and how it works and why it works; that when a judge is impeached in the United States of America, the same legal standard -- treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors -- is applied to that judge's conduct, as it is to any high official just like the President.

So we are comparing apples to apples. The Claiborne Trial

Now, in Judge Claiborne's trial, they seized upon the language -- "Judges shall hold their office during good behavior." And the defense was trying to say, unlike the President and other high government officials, the impeachment standard for judges is "good behavior." That's the term; it's a different impeachment standard.

You know these cases better than I know these cases.

And you said: "Wrong. The 'good behavior' standard doesn't apply to why you will be removed; it's just a reference to how long you will have your job." Our President is two terms.

A judge is for life, conditioned on good behavior.

What gets you out of office is whether or not you violate the constitutional standard for impeachment, which is treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.

So as I talk to you about these cases and what you as a body did, understand we are using the same legal standard, not because I said so, but because you said so.

Judge Claiborne.

Convicted and removed from office by the Senate 90-7, for what? Filing a false income-tax return "under penalties of perjury."

One thing they said in that case was: "Well, I am a judge.

And filing false income-tax returns has nothing to do with me being a judge.

And I ought not lose my job unless you can show me, or prove, that I did something wrong as a judge." They were saying, "Cheating on your taxes has nothing to do with being a judge."

Do you know what the Senate said? "It has everything to do with being a judge." And the reason you said that is because you didn't buy into this idea that the only way you can lose your job as a high government official under the Constitution, is to engage in some type of public conduct directly related to what you do every day.

You took a little broader view, and I'm certainly glad you did because this is not a country of high officials who are technicians. This is a country based on character, this is a country based on having to set a standard that others will follow willingly.

This is Manager Fish: "Judge Claiborne's actions raise fundamental questions about public confidence in and the public's perception of the Federal court system.

They serve to undermine the confidence of the American people in our judicial system.

Judge Claiborne is more than a mere embarrassment; he is a disgrace, an affront to the judicial office, and to the judicial branch he was appointed to serve."

That's very strong language.

Apparently you agreed with that concept because 90 of you voted to throw him out.

And what did he do? Cheated on his taxes by making false statements under oath. . . .

If you're a Federal judge, and you cheat on your taxes and you lie under oath, it's true that it had nothing to do with your courtroom in a technical sense, but you're going to be judging others, and they're going to come before you with their fate in your hands, and we don't want somebody like you running our courtroom, because people won't trust the results.

The Nixon Case

et's go to Judge Nixon, try to get you out so we can all have some lunch here.

Judge Nixon. Judge Walter Nixon, convicted and removed from office for what? Perjury before a grand jury.

What was that about? He tried to fix a case for a business partner's son in state court.

He went to the prosecutor, who was in state court, and tried to fix the case.

When they investigated the matter, he lied about meeting with the prosecutor.

He lied about doing anything related to trying to manipulate the results.

He was convicted. And he was thrown out of office by the United States Senate. . . .

The question becomes, If a Federal judge can be thrown out of office for lying and trying to fix a friend's son's case, can the President of the United States be removed from office for trying to fix his case? That's not a scholarly word, but that's what happened. He tried to fix his case.

He turned the judicial system upside down, every way but loose.

He sent his friends to lie for him. He lied for himself.

Any time any relevant question came up, instead of taking the honorable route, he just lied, and he dug a hole, and we're all here today because of that. . . .

The Hastings Impeachment

udge Hastings.

This Federal judge was convicted and removed from office by the United States Senate.

But you know what's interesting about this case to me? He was acquitted before he got here.

He was accused of conspiring with another person to take money to fix results in his own court.

He gave testimony on his own behalf. The conspirator was convicted, but he was acquitted.

And you know what the United States Senate and the House said? "We believe your conduct is out of bounds, and we're not bound by that acquittal.

We want to get to the truth. And we don't want Federal judges that we have a strong suspicion or reasonable belief about that are trying to fix cases in their court."

So the point I'm trying to make is you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.

Thank God you did that, because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office.

Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

The remedy of prosecuting William Jefferson Clinton has no effect on the problem you are facing here today, in my opinion.

Now, every case was tried before it got here, with different results.

Two of them were convicted, one of them was acquitted. You had a factual record to go upon.

I urge you, ladies and gentlemen of the United States Senate, that that cannot happen in this case unless we have a trial in its true sense of the word. . . .

But there's another thing that you'll have to decide: Has the factual record been developed enough that I can acquit with good conscience -- that I can convict and remove with good conscience? In these judge cases, there was a full-blown trial before it ever got here.

Because we can't prosecute the President criminally, because we can't do the things that happened in the judges' cases, we don't have that record.

So I would just commit that to you for your wisdom. . . .

To set aside an election is a very scary thought in a democracy. I do not agree with this President on most major policy initiatives. I did not vote for this President.

But he won; he won twice.

To undo that election is tough.

Let me give you some of my thoughts.

How many times have you had to go to a child, a grandchild, somebody who works for you, and give them a lecture that goes along the lines, "Don't do as I do.

Do as I say?"

What effect will that have? I think it will be devastating.

This case is the butt of a thousand jokes.

This case is requiring parents and teachers to sit down and explain what lying is all about.

This case has created confusion.

This case has hit America far harder than America knows it's been hit.

And it is tempting to let the clock tick.

But I would suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, that if you believe he's a perjurer, that he obstructed justice in a civil rights lawsuit, the question is not "should he stay?" but "what if he stays?" If you believe this president committed perjury before a grand jury when he was begged not to, and with people in this body telling him, don't do it, because your political career is at stake, if you believe he obstructed justice in a civil rights lawsuit, don't move the bar any more. We have moved the bar for this case a thousand times.

Remember how you felt when you knew you had a perjurer as a judge? When you knew you had somebody who had fundamentally ran over the law that he was forced to uphold -- or responsible for upholding? Remember how you felt when you knew that judge had gotten so out of bounds that you couldn't put him back in court, even though it was unrelated to his court, because you would be doing a disservice to the citizens that would come before him?

A judge has a duty to take care of the individuals fairly that come before their court.

The President, ladies and gentleman of the Senate, has a duty to see that the law applies to everyone fairly -- a higher duty, a higher duty in the Constitution. . . .

Cleanse this office.

The vice president will be waiting outside the doors of this chamber. Our constitutional system is simple, and it's genius all at the same time.

If that vice president is asked to come in and assume the mantle of chief executive officer of the land, chief law enforcement officer of the land, it will be tough, it will be painful, but we will survive and we will be better for it.



