TABLE OF CONTENTS
Articles of Impeachment Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Narrative
A. The Paula Jones Litigation B. The Relationship Between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky C. The Events of December 5- 6, 1997 - President Clinton Learns Ms.
Lewinsky is on the Witness List D. The Search for a Job for Ms. Lewinsky E. The Events of December 17, 1997 - President Clinton Informs Ms.
Lewinsky that She is on the Witness List F. The Events of December 19, 1997 - Ms. Lewinsky Receives a Subpoena G. The Events of December 28, 1997 - Ms. Currie Retrieves the Gifts H. The Events of January 5- 9, 1997 - Ms. Lewinsky Signs the False
Affidavit and Gets the Job I. The Filing of the False Affidavit J. The Events of January 17, 1998 - President Clinton and Mr. Bennett at the
Deposition K. The Events of Late January, 1998 - The Deposition Aftermath L. The Events of August 17, 1998 - The Grand Jury Testimony M. Answers to the Committeeís Requests for Admission III. Explanation of Articles of Impeachment
A. Article I - Perjury in the Civil Case
1. The Committee concluded that, on August 17, 1998, the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee.
2. The Committee concluded that the President provided prejurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning prior perjurious, false, and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him. 3. The Committee concluded that the President provided perjurious, false, and
misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action.
4. The Committee concluded that the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
a. The President gave perjurious, false and misleading testimony before the grand jury when he denied engaging in a plan to hide evidence that had been subpoenaed in the federal civil rights action against him.
b. The President made false and misleading statements before the grand jury regarding his knowledge that the contents of an affidavit executed by a subordinate federal employee who was a witness in the federal civil rights action brought against him were untrue.
c. The President made false and misleading statements before the grand jury when he recited a false account of the facts regarding his interactions with Monica Lewinsky to Betty Currie, a potential witness in the federal civil rights action brought against him. d. The President made perjurious, false and misleading statements before
the grand jury concerning statements he made to aides regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. 5. Explanation of the Rogan Amendment to Article I
B. Article II - Perjury in the Civil Case 1. The Committee concluded that, in the civil case, the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony in a Federal civil rights action in response to written questions.
2. The Committee concluded that, in the civil case, the President provided
perjurious, false, and misleading testimony in a Federal civil rights action in his deposition.
a. The President lied in his deposition about the nature of his conduct with a subordinate federal employee who was a witness in the federal civil rights action brought against him.
b. The President lied in his deposition after being asked if anyone had reported to him within the past two weeks that they had had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky concerning the Jones v. Clinton lawsuit.
c. The President lied in his deposition about his being alone or in certain locations with a subordinate federal employee who was a witness in the action brought against him.
d. The President lied in his deposition about his knowledge of gifts exchanged between himself and a subordinate federal employee who was a witness in the action brought against him.
e. The President lied in his deposition about his knowledge about whether he had ever spoken to a subordinate federal employee about the possibility that such subordinate employee might be called as a witness to testify in the federal civil rights action brought against him.
f. The President lied in his deposition about his knowledge of the service of a subpoena to a subordinate federal employee to testify as a witness in the federal civil rights action brought against him.
g. The President lied in his deposition about his knowledge of the final conversation he had with a subordinate employee who was a witness in the federal civil rights action brought against him.
h. The President lied in his deposition about his knowledge that the contents of an affidavit executed by a subordinate federal employee who was witness in the federal civil rights action brought against him.
C. Article III - Obstruction of Justice 1. The Committee concluded that on or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
2. The Committee concluded that on or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action
brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
3. The Committee concluded that on or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
4. The Committee concluded that beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.
5. The Committee concluded that on January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.
6. The Committee concluded that on or about January 18 and January 20- 21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. 7. The Committee concluded that on or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998,
William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.
D. Article IV - Abuse of Power 1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him by the Committee. a. Request for Admission Number 19
b.. Request for Admission Number 20
c. Request for Admission Number 24 d. Request for Admission Number 26 e. Request for Admission Number 27 f. Request for Admission Number 34 g. Request for Admission Number 42 h. Request for Admission Number 43 i. Request for Admission Number 52 j. Request for Admission Number 53 2. Explanation of the Gekas Amendment to Article IV IV. The Constitutional Process of Impeachment
A. General Arguments About Impeachment 1. Constitutional Provisions 2. Impeachment is Not Removal from Office 3. Impeachment Does Not Overturn an Election 4. A Senate Trial of an Impeachment is a Constitutional Process B. Articles of Impeachment Against President Clinton
1. Article I - Grand Jury Perjury a. Facts b. Lessons from the Judicial Impeachments of the 1980s
i. Federal Judges v. Presidents ii. Perjurious, False, and Misleading Statements Made Under Oath of Subject to Penalty for Perjury
a. Judge Harry E. Claiborne
b. Judge Walter Nixon c. Judge Alcee Hastings d. Conclusion iii. Conduct Not Related to Official Duties 2. Article II - Perjury in the Civil Case
3. Article III - Obstruction of Justice a. Lessons from the Impeachment of President Nixon b. Federal Obstruction of Justice Statutes 4. Article IV - Abuse of Power V. Committee Consideration of Impeachment Proceedings
A. Votes of the Committee 1. Rollcall No. 1 - Amendment to Article I Offered by Rep. Rogan 2. Rollcall No. 2 - Article I 3. Rollcall No. 3 - Article II 4. Rollcall No. 4 - Article III 5. Rollcall No. 5 - Amendment to Article IV Offered by Rep. Gekas 6. Rollcall No. 6 - Article IV 7. Rollcall No. 7 - Censure Resolution B. Committee Oversight Findings C. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings D. New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures E. Committee Cost Estimate F. Constitutional Authority
VI. Arguments About Censure A. Prohibited Bill of Attainder B. Censure of President Andrew Johnson VII. Appendices
A. House Resolution 525 B. House Resolution 581 C. Correspondence Log D. The Committeeís 81 Requests to the President for Admission, the Presidentís Responses, and Citations to Relevant Parts of the Record Provided by the Committeeís Majority Staff
VIII. Additional and Dissenting Views
I. INTRODUCTION
ìEqual Justice Under Law' ñ That principle so embodies the American constitutional order that we have carved it in stone on the front of our Supreme Court. The carving shines like a beacon from the highest sanctum of the Judicial Branch across to the Capitol, the home of the Legislative Branch, and down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, the home of the Executive Branch. It illuminates our national life and reminds those other branches that despite the tumbling tides of politics, ours is a government of laws and not of men. It was the inspired vision of our founders and framers that the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches would work together to preserve the rule of law. But ìEqual Justice Under Law' amounts to much more than a stone carving. Although we
cannot see or hear it, this living, breathing force has real consequences in the lives of average citizens every day. Ultimately, it protects us from the knock on the door in the middle of the night. More commonly, it allows us to claim the assistance of the government when someone has wronged us -- even if that person is stronger or wealthier or more popular than we are. In America, unlike other countries, when the average citizen sues the Chief Executive of our nation, they stand equal before the bar of justice. The Constitution requires the judicial branch of our government to apply the law equally to both. That is the living consequence of ìEqual Justice Under Law.'
The President of the United States must work with the Judicial and Legislative branches to sustain that force. The temporary trustee of that office, William Jefferson Clinton, worked to defeat it. When he stood before the bar of justice, he acted without authority to award himself the special privileges of lying and obstructing to gain an advantage in a federal civil rights action in
2 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, in a federal grand jury investigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and in an impeachment inquiry in the United States House of Representatives. His resistance brings us to this most unfortunate juncture. So ìEqual Justice Under Law' lies at the heart of this matter. It rests on three essential
pillars: an impartial judiciary, an ethical bar, and a sacred oath. If litigants profane the sanctity of the oath, ìEqual Justice Under Law' loses its protective force. Against that backdrop, consider the actions of President Clinton. On May 27, 1997, the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
unanimously ruled that Paula Corbin Jones could pursue her federal civil rights actions against William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681 (1997). On December 11, 1997, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered President Clinton to provide Ms. Jones with answers to certain routine questions relevant to the lawsuit. Acting under the authority of these court orders, Ms. Jones exercised her rights -- rights that every litigant has under our system of justice. She sought answers from President Clinton to help her prove her case against him ñ just as President Clinton sought and received answers from her. President Clinton used numerous means to prevent her from getting truthful answers.
On December 17, 1997, he encouraged a witness, whose truthful testimony would have helped Ms. Jones, to file a false affidavit in the case and to testify falsely if she were called to testify in the case. On December 23, 1998, he provided, under oath, false written answers to Ms. Jonesís questions. On December 28, 1997, he began an effort to get the witness to conceal evidence that would have helped Ms. Jones. Throughout this period, he intensified efforts to
3 provide the witness with help in getting a job to ensure that she carried out his designs. On January 17, 1998, President Clinton provided, under oath, numerous false answers to
Ms. Jonesís questions during his deposition. In the days immediately following the deposition, he provided a false and misleading account to another witness, Betty Currie, in hopes that she would substantiate the false testimony he gave in the deposition. These actions denied Ms. Jones her rights as a litigant, subverted the fundamental truth seeking function of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and violated President Clintonís constitutional oath to ìpreserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' and his constitutional duty to ìtake care that the laws be faithfully executed.'
Beginning shortly after his deposition, President Clinton became aware that a federal grand jury empaneled by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was investigating his actions before and during his civil deposition. President Clinton made numerous false statements to potential grand jury witnesses in hopes that they would repeat these statements to the grand jury. On August 17, 1998, President Clinton appeared before the grand jury by video and, under oath, provided numerous false answers to the questions asked. These actions impeded the grand juryís investigation, subverted the fundamental truth seeking function of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and violated President Clintonís constitutional oath to ìpreserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' and his constitutional duty to ìtake care that the laws be faithfully executed.'
President Clintonís actions then led to this inquiry. On October 8, 1998, the United States House of Representatives passed House Resolution 581 directing the Committee on the Judiciary to begin an inquiry to determine whether President Clinton should be impeached. As part of that
4 inquiry, the Committee sent written requests for admission to him. On November 27, 1998, President Clinton provided, under oath, numerous false statements to this Committee in response to the requests for admission. These actions impeded the committeeís inquiry, subverted the fundamental truth seeking function of the United States House of Representatives in exercising the sole power of impeachment, and violated President Clintonís constitutional oath to ìpreserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' and his constitutional duty to ìtake care that the laws be faithfully executed.'
By these actions, President Clinton violated the sanctity of the oath without which ìEqual Justice Under Law' cannot survive. Rather than work with the Judicial and Legislative branches to uphold the rule of law, he directly attacked their fundamental truth seeking function. He has disgraced himself and the high office he holds. His high crimes and misdemeanors undermine our Constitution. They warrant his impeachment, his removal from office, and his disqualification from holding further office. II. NARRATIVE
A. The Paula Jones Litigation
On May 6, 1994, Paula Corbin Jones filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against President Clinton in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. This lawsuit arose out of an incident that Ms. Jones alleged occurred in 1991 while she was an Arkansas state employee and President Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. Ms. Jones alleged that then Governor Clinton had an Arkansas state trooper invite Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance toward her and she rejected it.
5 After Ms. Jones brought the lawsuit, President Clinton claimed that the Constitution requires that any such lawsuit be deferred until his term ended. The parties litigated this question, and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States decided unanimously that Ms. Jones could proceed with her lawsuit without waiting for President Clintonís term to end. Clinton v. Jones,
520 U. S. 681 (1997). The discovery phase of the lawsuit began shortly thereafter. During the discovery phase, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ordered President Clinton to answer certain questions about any history he had of involvement in sexual relationships with state or federal employees. Such questions are standard in sexual harassment lawsuits, and they help to establish whether the defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of harassing conduct. President Clintonís efforts to resist giving truthful answers to these questions gave rise to this matter. B. The Relationship Between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky
Monica Lewinsky, a 21- year- old intern, was working at the White House during the government shutdown in November, 1995. Before their first intimate encounter, she had never even spoken with the President. Sometime on November 15, 1995, Ms. Lewinsky made an improper gesture to the President. Rather than rebuff the gesture, President Clinton invited this unknown young intern into a private area off the Oval Office, where he kissed her. He then invited her back to the same area later that day. When she returned, the two engaged in the first of many acts of inappropriate sexual contact.
Thereafter, the two continued their secret liaisons, and they concocted a cover story to use if they were discovered. If Ms. Lewinsky was seen, she was to say she was bringing papers to the
6 President. That story was false. The only papers she brought were personal messages having nothing to do with her duties or the Presidentís. After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White House to the Pentagon, she and President Clinton disguised her frequent visits to the White House as visits to Betty Currie. Those cover stories play a vital role in the later perjuries and obstruction of justice.
Over the term of their relationship the following significant matters occurred: 1. Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton were alone on at least 21 occasions; 2. They had at least eleven personal sexual encounters, other than phone sex: 3 in 1995, 5 in 1996, and 3 in 1997;
3. They had at least 55 telephone conversations, at least 17 of which involved phone sex; 4. President Clinton gave Ms. Lewinsky 24 presents; and, 5. Ms. Lewinsky gave President Clinton 40 presents.
See generally Appendices at 116- 26. These essential facts form the backdrop for all of the subsequent events. During the fall of 1997, the relationship was largely dormant. Ms. Lewinsky was working at the Pentagon and looking for a high paying job in New York. Discovery in the Paula Jones case was proceeding slowly, and no one seemed to care about the outcome. Then, in the first week of December 1997, things began to unravel.
The sexual details of the Presidentís encounters with Ms. Lewinsky need not be described in detail. However, those encounters are highly relevant because the President repeatedly lied about that sexual relationship in the civil case, before the grand jury, and in his responses to this Committeeís questions. In an effort to support the original lies he told in the civil case, he has
7 consistently maintained that Ms. Lewinsky performed sexual acts on him, while he never touched her in a sexual manner. President Clintonís characterization of the relationship directly contradicts Ms. Lewinskyís testimony, the sworn grand jury testimony of three of her friends, and the statements by two professional counselors with whom Ms. Lewinsky contemporaneously shared the details of her relationship. C. The Events of December 5- 6, 1997 - President Clinton Learns Ms. Lewinsky is on the
Witness List
On Friday, December 5, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky asked Betty Currie, President Clintonís personal secretary, if President Clinton could see her the next day, Saturday. Ms. Currie said that he was scheduled to meet with his lawyers all day. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 107- 08. Later that Friday, Ms. Lewinsky spoke briefly to President Clinton at a Christmas party. Lewinsky 7/ 31/ 98 302 at 1; Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 108.
That evening, Paula Jonesís attorneys faxed a list of potential witnesses to President Clintonís attorneys. The list included the name of Ms. Lewinsky. However, Ms. Lewinsky did not find out that her name was on the list until President Clinton told her ten days later on December 17. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 121- 23. That delay is significant.
After her conversation with Ms. Currie and her conversation with President Clinton at the Christmas party, Ms. Lewinsky drafted a letter to President Clinton terminating their relationship. Lewinsky 7/ 31/ 98 302 at 2. The next morning, Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to the
White House to deliver the letter and some gifts for President Clinton to Ms. Currie. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 108- 09. When she arrived at the White House, Ms. Lewinsky spoke to several Secret Service officers, and one of them told her that President Clinton was not with his lawyers,
8 as she had been told, but rather, he was meeting with another woman. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 111; Mondale 7/ 16/ 98 302 at 1. Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie from a pay phone, angrily exchanged words with her, and went home. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 112- 13; Currie 1/ 27/ 98 GJT at 37. After that phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret Service watch commander that President Clinton was so upset about the disclosure of his meeting with the woman that he wanted to fire someone. Purdie 7/ 23/ 98 GJT at 13, 18- 19.
At 12: 05 p. m. on December 6th, records demonstrate that Ms. Currie paged Bruce Lindsey with the message: ìCall Betty ASAP.' Around that same time, according to Ms. Lewinsky, while she was back at her apartment, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton spoke on the telephone. President Clinton was very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky that no one had ever treated him as poorly as she had. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 113- 14. President Clinton acknowledged to the grand jury that he was upset about Ms. Lewinskyís behavior and considered it inappropriate. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 85. Nevertheless, in a sudden change of mood, he invited her to visit him
at the White House that afternoon. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 114. Ms. Lewinsky arrived at the White House for the second time that day, and she was cleared to enter at 12: 52 p. m. Although, in Ms. Lewinskyís words, the President was ìvery angry' with her during their recent telephone conversation, he was ìsweet' and ìvery affectionate' during this visit. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 113- 15. He also told her that he would talk to Vernon Jordan, a Washinton lawyer and close personal friend of President Clintonís, about her job situation. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 115- 16.
President Clinton also suddenly changed his attitude toward the Secret Service. Ms. Currie informed some officers that if they kept quiet about the Lewinsky incident, they would not
9 be disciplined. Currie 7/ 22/ 98 GJT at 91- 92; Williams 7/ 23/ 98 GJT at 25, 27- 28; Chinery 7/ 23/ 98 GJT at 22- 23. According to the Secret Service watch commander, Captain Jeffrey Purdie, the President personally told him, ìI hope you use your discretion' or ìI hope I can count on your discretion.' Purdie 7/ 17/ 98 GJT at 3, 7/ 23/ 98 GJT at 32. Deputy Chief Charles OíMalley, Captain Purdieís supervisor, testified that he knew of no other incident in his fourteen years of service at the White House in which a President raised a performance issue with a member of the Secret Service Uniformed Division. OíMalley 9/ 8/ 98 Dep. at 40- 41. After his conversation with President Clinton, Captain Purdie told a number of officers that they should not discuss the Lewinsky incident. Porter 8/ 13/ 98 GJT at 12; Niedzwiecki 7/ 30/ 98 GJT at 30- 31.
When President Clinton was questioned before the grand jury about his statements to the Secret Service, he testified ìI donít remember what I said and I donít remember to whom I said it.' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 86. When confronted with Captain Purdieís testimony, the President testified, ìI donít remember anything I said to him in that regard. I have no recollection of that whatever.' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 91.
President Clinton testified before the grand jury that he learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the Jones witness list that evening, Saturday, December 6, during a meeting with his lawyers. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 83- 84. He stood by this answer in response to Request Number 16
submitted by this Committee. The meeting occurred around 5 p. m., after Ms. Lewinsky had left the White House. Lindsey 3/ 12/ 98 GJT at 64- 66. According to Bruce Lindsey, at the meeting, Robert Bennett, the Presidentís attorney, had a copy of the Jones witness list which had been faxed to Bennett the previous night. Lindsey 3/ 12/ 98 GJT at 65- 67.
However, during his deposition, President Clinton testified that he had heard about the
10 witness list before he saw it. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 70. In other words, if President Clinton testified truthfully in his deposition, then he knew about the witness list before the 5 p. m. meeting. It is reasonable to infer that hearing Ms. Lewinskyís name on a witness list prompted President
Clintonís sudden and otherwise unexplained change from ìvery angry' to ìvery affectionate' that Saturday afternoon. It is also reasonable to infer that it prompted him to give the unique instruction to a Secret Service watch commander to use ìdiscretion' regarding Ms. Lewinskyís visit to the White House, which the watch commander interpreted as an instruction to remain silent about the incident. Purdie 7/ 17/ 98 GJT at 20- 21.
D. The Search for a Job for Ms. Lewinsky
Ms. Lewinsky had been searching for a highly paid job in New York since the previous July. She had not had much success despite President Clintonís promise to help. In early November, Ms. Currie arranged a meeting with Mr. Jordan who was supposed to help.
On November 5, Ms. Lewinsky met for 20 minutes with Mr. Jordan. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 104. No action followed, no job interviews were arranged, and Ms. Lewinsky had no further contacts with Mr. Jordan at that time. Mr. Jordan made no effort to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, it was so unimportant to him that he testified that he ìhad no recollection of an early November meeting' and that finding a job for Ms. Lewinsky was not a priority. Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 50, 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 76. Nothing happened during the month of November because Mr. Jordan was either gone or would not return Ms. Lewinskyís calls. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 105- 06. During the December 6 meeting with President Clinton, Ms. Lewinsky mentioned that she had not been able to reach Mr. Jordan and that it did not seem he had done anything to help her.
11 Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 84. President Clinton responded by stating, ìOh, Iíll talk to him. Iíll get on it,' or something to that effect. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 116. There was still no urgency to help Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan met President Clinton the next day, December 7, but the meeting had nothing to do with Ms. Lewinsky. Jordan 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 83, 116.
The first activity calculated to help Ms. Lewinsky actually get a job took place on December 11. Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky and gave her a list of contact names. The two also discussed President Clinton. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 119- 20. Mr. Jordan remembered that meeting. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 41. Mr. Jordan immediately placed calls to two prospective employers. Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 54, 62- 63. Later in the afternoon, he even called President Clinton to report on his job search efforts. Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 64- 66. Suddenly, Mr. Jordan and President Clinton were now very interested in helping Ms. Lewinsky find a good job in New York. Jordan 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 95.
Something happened that changed the priority assigned to the job search. On the morning of December 11, 1997, Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered President Clinton to provide information regarding any state or federal employee with whom he had, proposed, or sought sexual relations. To keep Ms. Lewinsky satisfied was now of critical importance. E. The Events of December 17, 1997 - President Clinton Informs Ms. Lewinsky that She is on the Witness List
On December 17, 1997, between 2: 00 and 2: 30 in the morning, Monica Lewinskyís phone rang unexpectedly. It was President Clinton. He said that he wanted to tell Ms. Lewinsky two things. One was that Ms. Currieís brother had been killed in a car accident. Second, he said that he ìhad some more bad news' ñ that he had seen the witness list for the Jones case and Ms.
12 Lewinskyís name was on it. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 123. He told Ms. Lewinsky that seeing her name on the list ìbroke his heart.' He then told her that ìif [she] were to be subpoenaed, [she] should contact Betty and let Betty know that [she] had received the subpoena.' Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 123. Ms. Lewinsky asked what she should do if subpoenaed. President Clinton responded: ìWell, maybe you can sign an affidavit.' Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 123. Both knew that the affidavit would have to be false and misleading to avoid Ms. Lewinskyís having to testify.
Then, the President made a pointed suggestion to Monica Lewinsky, a suggestion that left little room for compromise. He did not say specifically ìgo in and lie.' What he did say is ìyou know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters.' To understand the significance of this statement, one must recall the cover stories that President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky had previously agreed on to deceive those who protected and worked with the President.
Ms. Lewinsky was to say that she was simply delivering papers when she visited President Clinton. When she saw him, she would say: ìOh, gee, here are your letters,' and he would answer, ìokay thatís good.' After Ms. Lewinsky left employment at the White House, she was to return to the Oval Office under the guise of visiting Betty Currie, not President Clinton. Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky promised him that she would always deny the sexual relationship and
always protect him. The President would respond ìthatís good' or similar language of encouragement.
When President Clinton called Ms. Lewinsky to tell her she was on the witness list, he made sure to remind her of those prior cover stories. Ms. Lewinsky testified that when he brought up the misleading story, she understood that the two would continue their pre- existing
13 pattern of deception. President Clinton had no intention of making his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky a public affair. He would use lies, deceit, and deception to ensure that the truth would not be known.
When the President was asked by the grand jury whether he remembered calling Monica Lewinsky at 2: 00 a. m., he responded: ìNo sir, I donít. But it would - it is quite possible that that happened. . .' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 116. When he was asked whether he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to continue the cover stories of ìcoming to see Betty' or ìbringing the letters,' he answered: ìI donít remember exactly what I told her that night.' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 117.
Six days earlier, he had become aware that Ms. Jonesís lawyers were now able to inquire about other women. Ms. Lewinsky could file a false affidavit, but it might not work. It was absolutely essential that both parties tell the same story. He knew that he would lie if asked about Ms. Lewinsky; and he wanted to make certain that she would lie also. But President Clinton had an additional problem. It was not enough that he and Ms.
Lewinsky simply deny the relationship. The evidence was accumulating. And the evidence was driving the President to reevaluate his defense. By this time, the evidence was establishing, through records and eyewitness accounts, that President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky were spending a significant amount of time together in the Oval Office complex. The unassailable facts were forcing President Clinton to acknowledge the relationship. But at this point, he still had the opportunity to establish an explanation for their meetings that did not reveal the sexual relationship. He still had this opportunity because his DNA had not yet been identified on Ms. Lewinskyís blue dress. For that reason, President Clinton needed Ms. Lewinsky to go along with the cover story to provide an innocent explanation for their frequent meetings. And that innocent
14 explanation came in the form of ìdocument deliveries' and ìfriendly chats with Betty Currie.'
When the President was deposed on January 17, 1998, he used the exact same cover stories that Ms. Lewinsky had used. In doing so, he maintained consistency with any future Lewinsky testimony while also maintaining his defense in the Jones lawsuit. In his deposition, he was asked whether he was ever alone with Ms. Lewinsky. He responded: ìI donít recall. . . She it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there.' Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 52- 53 (emphasis added). Additionally, whenever questions were posed regarding Ms. Lewinskyís frequent visits to
the Oval Office, President Clinton never hesitated to bring Betty Currieís name into his answers: A. And my recollection is that on a couple of occasions after [the pizza party meeting], she was there [in the oval office] but my secretary, Betty Currie, was there with her.
Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 58. Q. When was the last time you spoke with Monica Lewinsky? A. Iím trying to remember. Probably sometime before Christmas. She came by to see Betty sometime before Christmas. And she was there talking to her, and I stuck my head out, said hello to her. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 68. Or in another example:
Q. Mr. President, before the break, we were talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office?
A. I donít recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes theyíd bring me things on the weekends. She ñ it seems to me she brought
things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I donít have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there,
15 weíre working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the day of the weekends in the afternoon.
Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?
A. Yes, thatís correct. Itís possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. Thatís possible.
..... Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone in the hallway between the Oval Office and this kitchen area?
A. I donít believe so, unless we were walking back to the back dining room with the pizza. I just, I donít remember. I donít believe we were alone in the hallway, no.
..... Q. At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House?
A. I think I testified to that earlier. I think that there is a, it is ñ I have no specific recollection, but it seems to me that she was on duty on a couple of occasions working for the legislative affairs office and brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend. Thatís ñ I have a general memory of that.
Q. Do you remember anything that was said in any of those meetings? A. No. You know, we just have conversation, I donít remember. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 52- 53, 58- 59. F. The Events of December 19, 1997 - Ms. Lewinsky Receives a Subpoena
President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky realized their greatest fears on December 19, 1997, when Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena to testify in a deposition on January 23, 1998 in the Jones case. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 128. It also called for her to produce gifts given to her by President Clinton, including a hat pin. Extremely distraught, she immediately called Mr. Jordan.
16 Ms. Lewinsky testified that President Clinton previously told her to call Ms. Currie if she were subpoenaed. She called Mr. Jordan instead because Ms. Currieís brother recently died, and Ms. Lewinsky did not want to bother her. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 128- 29. Mr. Jordan invited Ms. Lewinsky to his office and she arrived shortly before 5 p. m. She
was still extremely distraught. Sometime around this time, Mr. Jordan called President Clinton and told him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. Jordan 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 145. During the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, which Mr. Jordan characterized as ìdisturbing,' she talked about her infatuation with President Clinton. Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 100, 150. Mr. Jordan also decided that he would call a lawyer for her. Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 161. That evening, Mr. Jordan met with President Clinton and relayed his conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. The details are important because President Clinton, in his deposition, testified that he did not recall that meeting.
Mr. Jordan told President Clinton again that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, that he was concerned about her fascination with President Clinton, and that Ms. Lewinsky had asked Mr. Jordan if he thought President Clinton would leave the First Lady. He also asked President Clinton if he had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 169. President Clinton was asked:
Q. Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in this case?
A. I donít think so. Q. Did you ever talk with Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case?
A. Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she was, I think maybe thatís the first person told me she was. I want to be as accurate as I can.
17 Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 68- 69.
In the grand jury, President Clinton first repeated his denial that Mr. Jordan told him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 39. Then, when given more specific facts, he admitted that he ìknows now' that he spoke with Mr. Jordan about the subpoena on the night of December 19, but his ìmemory is not clear.' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 41- 42. In an attempt to explain away his false deposition testimony, the President testified in the grand jury that he was trying to remember who told him first. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 41. But that was not the question. So his answer was again false and misleading. When one considers the nature of the conversation between President Clinton and Mr. Jordan, the suggestion that President Clinton forgot it defies common sense.
G. The Events of December 28, 1997 - Ms. Currie Retrieves the Gifts
December 28, 1997 is a crucial date because the evidence shows that President Clinton made false and misleading statements to the federal court, the federal grand jury and the Congress of the United States about the events on that date. He also continued his course of obstructing justice. President Clinton testified that it was ìpossible' that he invited Ms. Lewinsky to the White
House for a visit on this date. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 34. He admitted that he ìprobably' gave Ms. Lewinsky the most gifts he had ever given her on that date and that he had given her gifts on other occasions. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 35. Among the many gifts the President gave Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 was a bear that he said was a symbol of strength. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 176. Yet on January 17, just three weeks later, the President forgot that he had given any gifts to Monica:
18 Q. Well, have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky? A. I donít recall. Do you know what they were? Q. A hat pin? A. I donít, I donít remember. But I certainly could have. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 75.
As an attorney, he knew that the law will not tolerate someone who says ìI donít recall' when that answer is unreasonable under the circumstances. He also knew that, under those circumstances, his answer in the deposition could not be believed. When asked in the grand jury why he was unable to remember, though he had given Ms. Lewinsky so many gifts only three weeks before the deposition, the President gave a contrived explanation: A. I think what I meant there was I donít recall what they were, not that I donít recall
whether I had given them. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 51. President Clinton adopted that same answer in Response No. 42 to the Committeeís Requests for Admissions. He was not asked in the deposition to identify the gifts. He was simply asked, ìHave you ever' given gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. The law does not allow a witness to insert ìunstated premises' or mental reservations into the question to make his answer technically true, if factually false. The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. His false testimony with respect to gifts also extends to whether Ms. Lewinsky gave him
gifts. President Clinton was asked in the deposition if Ms. Lewinsky ever gave him gifts. Q. Has Monica Lewinsky ever given you any gifts? A. Once or twice. I think sheís given me a book or two.
19 Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 76- 77. This is also false testimony. He answered this question in his Response Number 43 to the Committee by saying that he receives numerous gifts, and he did not focus on the precise number. The law again does not support the Presidentís position. An answer that ìbaldly understates a numerical fact' in ìresponse to a specific quantitative inquiry' can be deemed ìtechnically true' but actually false. For example, a witness is testifying falsely if he says he went to the store five times when in fact he had gone fifty, even though technically he had gone five times also. So too, when the President answered once or twice in the face of evidence that Ms. Lewinsky brought him 40 gifts, he was lying. On December 28, one of the most blatant efforts to obstruct justice and conceal evidence
occurred. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she discussed with President Clinton her having been subpoenaed and the subpoenaís calling for her to produce gifts. She recalled telling him that the subpoena requested a hat pin and that that caused her concern. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 151- 52. He told her that it ìbothered' him, too. Lewinsky 8/ 20/ 98 GJT at 66. Ms. Lewinsky then suggested that she take the gifts somewhere, or give them to someone, possibly Ms. Currie. The President answered: ìI donít know' or ìLet me think about that.' Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 152- 53. Later that day, Ms. Lewinsky got a call from Ms. Currie, who said: ìI understand you have something to give me' or ìthe President said you have something to give me.' Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 154- 55. Ms. Currie has an unclear memory about this incident, but says that ìthe best she can remember,' Ms. Lewinsky called her. Currie 5/ 6/ 98 GJT at 105. Key evidence shows that Ms. Currieís unclear recollection is wrong. Ms. Lewinsky said that she thought Ms. Currie called from her cell phone. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 154- 55. Ms. Currieís cell phone record corroborates Ms. Lewinsky and proves conclusively that Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky from
20 her cell phone several hours after she had left the White House. The evidence strongly suggests that President Clinton directed her to do so.
Ms. Currieís actions buttress that conclusion. There is no evidence that she asked why Ms. Lewinsky would have called her for this strange task. Rather, she simply took the gifts and placed them under her bed without asking a single question. Currie 1/ 27/ 98 GJT at 57- 58, 5/ 6/ 98 GJT at 105- 08, 114.
President Clinton stated in his Response to Requests for Admissions No. 24 and 25 from this Committee that he was not concerned about the gifts. In fact, he said that he recalled telling Ms. Lewinsky that if the Jones lawyers request gifts, she should turn them over. He testified that he is ìnot sure' if he knew the subpoena asked for gifts. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 42- 43. There would be no reason for Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton to discuss turning over gifts to the Jones lawyers if Ms. Lewinsky had not told him that the subpoena asked for gifts. On the other hand, knowing the subpoena requested gifts, his giving Ms. Lewinsky more
gifts on December 28 seems odd. But Ms. Lewinskyís testimony reveals why he did so. She said that she never questioned ìthat we were ever going to do anything but keep this private' and that meant to take ìwhatever appropriate steps needed to be taken' to keep it quiet. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 166. The only logical inference is that the gifts -- including the bear symbolizing strength - were a tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship -- even in the face of a federal subpoena.
Furthermore, President Clinton, at various times in his deposition, seriously misrepresented the nature of his meeting with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28. First, he was asked: ìDid she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in this case?' He answered flatly:
21 ìNo. I donít know she had been.' Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 68.
He was also asked if he ìever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility of her testifying.' ìIím not sure...,' he said. He then added that he may have joked to her that the Jones lawyers might subpoena every woman he had ever spoken to, and that ìI donít think we ever had more of a conversation than that about it....' Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 70. Not only does Ms. Lewinsky directly contradict this testimony, but President Clinton also directly contradicted himself before the grand jury. Speaking of his December 28, 1997 meeting, he said that he ìknew by then, of course, that she had gotten a subpoena' and that they had a ìconversation about the possibility of her testifying.' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 35- 36. He had this conversation about her testimony only three weeks before his deposition. Again, his version is not reasonable.
H. The Events of January 5- 9, 1997 - Ms. Lewinsky Signs the False Affidavit and Gets the Job
President Clinton knew that Monica Lewinsky was going to sign a false affidavit. He was so certain of the content that when she asked if he wanted to see it, he told her no, that he had seen fifteen of them. Lewinsky 8/ 2/ 98 302 at 3. He got his information in part from his attorneys and in part from discussions with Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan about the content of the affidavit. Besides, he had suggested the affidavit himself and he trusted Mr. Jordan to be certain the mission
was accomplished. In the afternoon of January 5, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky met with her lawyer, Mr. Frank Carter, to discuss the affidavit. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 192. Mr. Carter asked her some hard questions about how she got her job. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 195. After the meeting, she called Ms. Currie, and said that she wanted to speak to President Clinton before she signed anything.
22 Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 195. Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton discussed the issue of how she would answer under oath if asked about how she got her job at the Pentagon. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 197. He told her: ìWell, you could always say that the people in Legislative Affairs got it for you or helped you get it.' Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 197. That was another lie.
Mr. Jordan also kept President Clinton advised as to the contents of the affidavit. Jordan 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 224. On January 6, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky picked up a draft of the affidavit from Mr. Carterís office. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 199. She delivered a copy to Mr. Jordanís office because she wanted Mr. Jordan to look at the affidavit in the belief that if he approved, President Clinton would also. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 194- 95. Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan conferred about the contents and agreed to delete a paragraph Mr. Carter inserted which might open a line of questions concerning whether she had been alone with President Clinton. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 200. By contrast, Mr. Jordan said he had nothing to do with the details of the affidavit. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 12. He admits, though, that he spoke with President Clinton after
conferring with Ms. Lewinsky about the changes made to her affidavit. Jordan 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 218. The next day, January 7, Monica Lewinsky signed the false affidavit. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98
GJT at 204- 05. She showed the executed copy to Mr. Jordan that same day. Jordan 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 222. She did this so that Mr. Jordan could report to President Clinton that it had been signed and another mission had been accomplished. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 26.
On January 8, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky had an interview arranged by Mr. Jordan with MacAndrews and Forbes in New York. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 206. The interview went poorly. Afterwards, Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan and informed him. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at
23 206. Mr. Jordan, who had done nothing from early November to mid December, then called the chief executive officer of MacAndrews and Forbes, Ron Perelman, to ìmake things happen, if they could happen.' Jordan 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 231. Mr. Jordan called Ms. Lewinsky back and told her not to worry. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 208- 09. That evening, MacAndrews and Forbes called Ms. Lewinsky and told that she would be given more interviews the next morning. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 209. The next morning, Ms. Lewinsky received her reward for signing the false affidavit. After
a series of interviews with MacAndrews and Forbes personnel, she was informally offered a job. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 210. When Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan to tell him, he passed the good news on to Ms. Currie -- Tell the President, ìMission Accomplished.' Jordan 5/ 28/ 98 GJT at 39. Later, Mr. Jordan called President Clinton and told him personally. Jordan 5/ 28/ 98 GJT at 41. After months of looking for a job -- since July according to the Presidentís lawyers -- Mr.
Jordan makes the call to a CEO the day after the false affidavit is signed. Mr. Perelman testified that Mr. Jordan had never called him before about a job recommendation. Perelman 4/ 23/ 98 Dep. at 11. Mr. Jordan on the other hand, said that he called Mr. Perelman to recommend for hiring: 1) former Mayor Dinkins of New York; 2) a very talented attorney from his law firm, Akin, Gump; 3) a Harvard business school graduate; and 4) Ms. Lewinsky. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 58- 59. Even if Mr. Perelmanís testimony is mistaken, Ms. Lewinsky does not have qualifications that would merit Mr. Jordanís direct recommendation to a CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Mr. Jordan knew that the people with whom Ms. Lewinsky worked at the White House did not like her and that she did not like her Pentagon job. Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 43- 44, 59. Mr.
24 Jordan was asked if at ìany point during this process you wondered about her qualifications for employment?' He answered: ìNo, because that was not my judgment to make.' Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 44. Yet when he called Mr. Perelman the day after she signed the affidavit, he referred to Monica as a bright young girl who is ìterrific.' Perelman 4/ 23/ 98 Dep. at 10. Mr. Jordan said that she had been hounding him for a job and voicing unrealistic expectations concerning positions and salary. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 37- 38. Moreover, she narrated a disturbing story about President Clinton leaving the First Lady and how the President was not spending enough time with her. Yet, none of that gave Mr. Jordan pause in making the recommendation. Jordan 3/ 3/ 98 GJT at 156- 57. People like Mr. Jordan do not call CEOs for marginal employees unless there is a compelling reason. The compelling reason was that President Clinton told him this was a top priority, especially after Ms. Lewinsky received a subpoena.
I. The Filing of the False Affidavit
Ms. Lewinskyís false affidavit was important to President Clintonís deposition. It enabled him, through his attorneys, to assert at his January 17, 1998 deposition that ì . . . there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton . . . .' Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 54. When his own attorney questioned him in the deposition, the President stated specifically that the now famous paragraph 8 of Ms. Lewinskyís affidavit was ìabsolutely true.' Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 204. President Clinton later affirmed the truth of that statement when testifying before the grand jury. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 20- 21. Paragraph 8 of Ms. Lewinskyís affidavit states: I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have
a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual
25 relationship. Appendices at 1235- 36.
Ms. Lewinsky reviewed the draft affidavit on January 6, and signed it on January 7 after deleting a reference to being alone with President Clinton. She showed a copy of the signed affidavit to Mr. Jordan who called President Clinton and told him that she signed it. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 24- 26, 5/ 5/ 98 GJT at 222.
Getting the affidavit signed was only half the battle. To have its full effect, it had to be filed with the Court and provided to President Clintonís attorneys in time for his deposition on January 17. On January 14, the Presidentís lawyers called Mr. Carter and left a message, presumably to find out if he had filed the affidavit with the Court. Carter 6/ 18/ 98 GJT at 123. On January 15, President Clintonís attorneys called Mr. Carter twice. When they finally reached him, they requested a copy of the affidavit, and asked him, ìAre we still on time?' Carter 6/ 18/ 98 GJT at 123. Mr. Carter faxed a copy on January 15. Carter 6/ 18/ 98 GJT at 123. President Clintonís counsel knew of its contents and used it powerfully in the deposition.
Mr. Carter called the Court in Arkansas twice on January 15 to ensure that the affidavit could be filed on Saturday, January 17. Carter 6/ 18/ 98 GJT at 124- 25. He finished the Motion to Quash Ms. Lewinskyís deposition in the early morning hours of January 16, and mailed it to the Court with the false affidavit attached for Saturday delivery. Carter 6/ 18/ 98 GJT at 134. President Clintonís lawyers called him again on January 16 telling him, ìYouíll know what itís about.' Carter 6/ 18/ 98 GJT at 135. President Clinton needed that affidavit to be filed with the Court to support his plans to mislead Ms. Jonesís attorneys in the deposition. On January 15, Michael Isikoff, a Newsweek reporter, called Ms. Currie and asked her
26 whether Ms. Lewinsky had been sending gifts to her by courier. Currie 5/ 6/ 98 GJT at 123; Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 228. Ms. Currie then called Ms. Lewinsky and told her about it. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 228- 29. President Clinton was out of town. Later, Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky back and asked for a ride to Mr. Jordanís office. Lewinsky 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 229; Currie 5/ 6/ 98 GJT at 130- 31. Mr. Jordan advised her to speak with White House Deputy Counsel Bruce Lindsey and White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 71. Ms. Currie testified that she spoke immediately to Mr. Lindsey about Mr. Isikoffís call. Currie 5/ 6/ 98 GJT at 127.
J. The Events of January 17, 1998 - President Clinton and Mr. Bennett at the Deposition
President Clinton also provided false and misleading testimony in the grand jury when he was asked about his attorney, Robert Bennettís representation to Judge Wright, the judge in the Jones case, that President Clinton is ìfully aware' that Ms. Lewinsky filed an affidavit saying that ìthere is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton....' Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 54. In the grand jury, President Clinton was asked about his lawyerís
representation in his presence and whether he felt obligated to inform Judge Wright of the true state of affairs. President Clinton answered that he was ìnot even sure I paid much attention to what [Mr. Bennett] was saying.' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 24. When pressed further, he said that he did not believe he ìeven focused on what Mr. Bennett said in the exact words he did until I started reading this transcript carefully for this hearing. That moment, the whole argument just passed me by.' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 29.
This last statement by President Clinton is critical. First, he had planned his answer to the grand jurors. He spent literally days with his attorney going over that deposition in detail and
27 crafting answers in his mind that would not be obviously false. Second, he knew that he could only avoid an admission that he allowed a false affidavit to be filed by convincing the grand jury that he had not been paying attention. The videotape of the deposition shows clearly that President Clinton was paying close attention and that he followed his lawyerís argument.
President Clinton had every reason to pay attention. Mr. Bennett was talking about Ms. Lewinsky, at the time the most dangerous person in his life. If the false affidavit worked and Ms. Jonesís lawyers could not question him about her, the Lewinsky problem was solved. President Clinton was vitally interested in what Mr. Bennett was saying. Nonetheless, when he was asked in the grand jury whether Mr. Bennettís statement was false, he still was unable to tell the truth - even before a federal grand jury. He answered with the now famous sentence, ìIt depends on what the meaning of the word ëisí is.' Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 58. But President Clinton reinforced Ms. Lewinskyís lie. Mr. Bennett read to him the
paragraph in Ms. Lewinskyís affidavit in which she denied a sexual relationship with President Clinton:
Q. In paragraph eight of her affidavit, she says this, ìI have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.' Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?
A. That is absolutely true. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 204. When asked about this in the grand jury and when questioned about it by this Committee, the President said that if Ms. Lewinsky believed it to be true, then it was a true statement. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 21. First, Ms. Lewinsky admitted to the grand jury that the paragraph was false. Lewinsky
28 8/ 6/ 98 GJT at 204. Second, President Clinton was not asked about Ms. Lewinskyís belief. Rather, he was asked quite clearly and directly by his own lawyer whether the statement was true. His answer was unequivocally, yes. That statement is false. Lastly, President Clinton asserts that according to his reading of the definition of ìsexual
relations' given to him at the deposition, he did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. His reading of the definition was an afterthought conceived while preparing for his grand jury testimony. His explanation to the grand jury, then, was also false and misleading.
Apart from that defined term, President Clinton does not explain his denial of an affair or a sexual affair ñ he cannot. Neither can he avoid his unequivocal denial of sexual relations in the answers to interrogatories in the Jones case ñ answered before the definition of sexual relations used in the deposition had been developed.
Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? A. No. Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?
A. Itís certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth. Q. I think I used the term ìsexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?
MR. BENNETT: I object because I donít know that he can remember ñ JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, itís real short. He can ñ I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one. A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Iíve never had an affair with her.
29 Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 78. K. The Events of Late January, 1998 - The Deposition Aftermath
By the time President Clinton concluded his deposition, he knew that someone was talking about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He also knew that the only person who could be talking was Ms. Lewinsky herself. The cover story that he and Ms. Lewinsky created and that he used during the deposition was now in jeopardy. He needed not only to contact Ms. Lewinsky, but also to obtain corroboration from his trusted secretary, Ms. Currie. At around 7 p. m. on the night of the deposition, the President called Ms. Currie and asked that she come in the following day, a Sunday. Currie 7/ 22/ 98 GJT at 154- 55. Ms. Currie could not recall the President ever before calling her that late at home on a Saturday night. Currie 1/ 27/ 98 GJT at 69.
In the early morning hours of January 18, 1998 -- i. e. the night of the deposition, President Clinton learned about the Drudge Report mentioning Ms. Lewinsky released earlier that day. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 142- 43. Between 11: 49 a. m. and 2: 55 p. m., Mr. Jordan and President Clinton had three phone calls. At about 5 p. m., Ms. Currie met with President Clinton. Currie 1/ 27/ 98 GJT at 67. He told her that he had just been deposed and that the attorneys asked several questions about Ms. Lewinsky. Currie 1/ 27/ 98 GJT at 69- 70. This, incidentally, violated Judge Wrightís gag order prohibiting any discussions about the deposition testimony. He then made a series of statements to Ms. Currie: (1) I was never really alone with Monica, right?
(2) You were always there when Monica was there, right? (3) Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right? (4) You could see and hear everything, right?
30 (5) She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that. Currie 1/ 27/ 98 GJT at 70- 75, 7/ 22/ 98 GJT at 6- 7. During Betty Currieís grand jury testimony, she was asked whether she believed that the
President wished her to agree with the statement: Q. Would it be fair to say, then - based on the way he stated [these five points] and the demeanor that he was using at the time that he stated it to you - that he wished you to agree with that statement?
A. I canít speak for him, but ñ Q. How did you take it? Because you told us at these [previous] meetings in the last several days that that is how you took it.
A. (Nodding) Q. And youíre nodding you head, ìyes', is that correct? A. Thatís correct. Q. Okay, with regard to the statement that the President made to you,ì You remember I was never really alone with Monica, right, was that also a statement that, as far as you took, that he wished you to agree with that?
A. Correct. Currie 1/ 27/ 98 GJT at 74.
In the grand jury, President Clinton was questioned about his intentions when he made those five statements to Ms. Currie in his office on that Sunday afternoon. He stated:
And what I wanted to establish was that Betty was there at all other times in the complex, and I wanted to know what Bettyís memory was about what she heard, what she could hear. And what I did not know was - I did not know that. And I was trying to figure out in a hurry because I knew something was up. ....
So, I was not trying to get Betty Currie to say something that was untruthful. I was trying
31 to get as much information as quickly as I could. .... . . . I thought we were going to be deluged by the press comments. And I was trying to refresh my memory about what the facts were.
Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 54, 56, 131. Though Ms. Currie would later intimate that she did not necessarily feel pressured by President Clinton, she did state that she felt he was seeking her agreement (or disagreement) with those statements. Currie 7/ 22/ 98 GJT at 27.
Logic tells us that his plea that he was just trying to refresh his memory is contrived and false. First, consider his options after he left his deposition:
(1) He could abide by Judge Wrightís order to remain silent and not divulge any details of his deposition;
(2) He could defy Judge Wrightís order, and call Ms. Currie on the phone and ask her open ended questions (i. e., ìWhat do you remember about ...?'); or
(3) He could call Ms. Currie and arrange a Sunday afternoon meeting ñ a time when the fewest distractions exist and the presence of White House staff is minimal. He chose the third option.
He made sure that this was a face- to- face meeting ñ not a telephone call. He made sure that no one else was present when he spoke to her. He made sure that he had the meeting in his office, an area where he was comfortable and could utilize its power and prestige to influence her potential testimony.
When Ms. Currie testified before the grand jury, she could not recall whether she had another one- on- one discussion with President Clinton on Tuesday, January 20 or Wednesday,
32 January 21. But she did state that on one of those days, he summoned her back to his office. At that time, he recapped their Sunday afternoon discussion in the Oval Office. When he spoke to her in this second meeting, he spoke in the same tone and demeanor that he used in his January 18 Sunday session. Currie 1/ 27/ 98 GJT at 70- 75, 7/ 22/ 98 GJT at 6- 7. Ms. Currie stated that the President may have mentioned that she might be asked about Monica Lewinsky. Currie 1/ 24/ 98 302 at 8.
During these meetings, President Clinton made short, clear, understandable, declarative statements telling Ms. Currie what his testimony was. He was not interested in what she knew. Rather, he did not want his personal secretary to contradict him. The only way to ensure that was by telling her what to say, not asking her what she remembered. One does not refresh someone elseís memory by telling that person what he or she remembers. One certainly does not make declarative statements to someone regarding factual scenarios of which the listener was unaware.
Ms. Currie could not possibly have any personal knowledge of the facts that the President was asking. Ms. Currie could not know if they were ever alone. If they were, Ms. Currie was not there. She could not know that the President never touched Monica.. President Clinton was not trying to refresh his recollection ñ instead, it was witness tampering pure and simple.
President Clinton essentially admitted to making these statements when he knew they were not true. Consequently, he painted himself into a legal corner. Understanding the seriousness of the President ìcoaching' Ms. Currie, his attorneys have argued that those statements to her could not constitute obstruction because she had not been subpoenaed, and the President did not know that she was a potential witness at the time. This argument is refuted by both the law and the facts.
33 The Eighth Circuit rejected this argument stating: [A] person may be convicted of obstructing justice if he urges or persuades a prospective
witness to give false testimony. Neither must the target be scheduled to testify at the time of the offense, nor must he or she actually give testimony at a later time. United States v. Shannon, 836 F. 2d 1125, 1128 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U. S. 1058 (1988),
citing, e. g., United States v. Friedland, 660 F. 2d 919, 931 (3d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U. S. 989 (1982). Indeed, under the witness tampering statute, there need not even be a proceeding pending, 18 U. S. C. ß 1512( e)( 1). As discussed, President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky concocted a cover story that brought Ms. Currie into the fray as a corroborating witness. True to this scheme, President Clinton invoked Ms. Currieís name frequently as a witness who could corroborate his false and misleading testimony about the Lewinsky affair. For example, during his deposition, when asked whether he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky, he said that he was not alone with her or that Ms. Currie was there with Ms. Lewinsky. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 58. When asked about the last time he saw Ms. Lewinsky, which was December 28, 1997, he falsely testified that he only recalled that she was there to see Ms. Currie. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 70. He also told the Jones lawyers to ìask Betty' whether Ms. Lewinsky was alone with him or with Ms. Currie in the White House between the hours of midnight and 6 a. m. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 64- 66. Asked whether Ms. Lewinsky sent packages to him, he stated that Ms. Currie handled packages for him. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 64. Asked whether he may have assisted in any way with Ms. Lewinskyís job search, he stated that he thought Ms. Currie suggested Mr. Jordan talk to Ms. Lewinsky, and that Ms. Lewinsky asked Ms. Currie to ask someone to talk to Ambassador Richardson about a job at the United Nations. Clinton 1/ 17/ 98 Dep. at 72- 74. Ms. Currie was a prospective witness, and President Clinton clearly wanted her to be
34 deposed, as his ìask Betty' testimony demonstrates. He claims that he called Ms. Currie into work on a Sunday night only to find out what she knew. But he knew the truth about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and if he had told the truth during his deposition the day before, then he would have no reason to worry about what Ms. Currie knew. More importantly, the Presidentís demeanor, Ms. Currieís reaction to his demeanor, and the suggested lies clearly prove that the President was not merely interviewing Ms. Currie. Rather, he was looking for corroboration for his false cover- up, and that is why he coached her.
Soon after his Sunday meeting with Ms. Currie, at 5: 12 p. m., the flurry of telephone calls began looking for Ms. Lewinsky. Between 5: 12 p. m. and 8: 28 p. m., Ms. Currie paged Ms. Lewinsky four times. At 11: 02 p. m., President Clinton called Ms. Currie at home to ask if she has reached Ms. Lewinsky. Currie 7/ 22/ 98 GJT at 160. The following morning, January 19, Ms. Currie continued to work diligently for President
Clinton. Between 7: 02 a. m. and 8: 41 a. m., she paged Ms. Lewinsky another five times. After the 8: 41 a. m. page, Ms. Currie called President Clinton at 8: 43 a. m. and said that she was unable to reach Ms. Lewinsky. Currie 8/ 22/ 98 GJT at 161- 62. One minute later, at 8: 44 a. m., she again paged Ms. Lewinsky. This time, Ms. Currieís page stated: ìFamily Emergency,' apparently in an attempt to alarm Ms. Lewinsky into calling back. That may have been President Clintonís idea because Ms. Currie had just spoken with him. He was quite concerned because he called Ms. Currie only six minutes later, at 8: 50 a. m. Immediately thereafter, at 8: 51 a. m., Ms. Currie tries a different tactic sending the message: ìGood news.' Ms. Currie said that she was trying to encourage Ms. Lewinsky to call, but there was no sense of ìurgency.' Currie 7/ 22/ 98 GJT at 165. Ms. Currieís recollection of why she was calling was again unclear. She said at one point
35 that she believes President Clinton asked her to call Ms. Lewinsky, and she thought she was calling just to tell her that her name came up in the deposition. Currie 7/ 22/ 98 GJT at 162. Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. It was no surprise that her name came up in the deposition. There was another and more important reason the President needed to get in touch with her.
At 8: 56 a. m., President Clinton telephoned Mr. Jordan who then joined in the activity. Over a course of twenty- four minutes, from 10: 29 to 10: 53 a. m., Mr. Jordan called the White House three times, paged Ms. Lewinsky, and called Ms. Lewinskyís attorney, Frank Carter. Between 10: 53 a. m. and 4: 54 p. m., there are continued calls between Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinskyís attorney, and individuals at the White House.
Later that afternoon, matters deteriorated for President Clinton. At 4: 54 p. m., Mr. Jordan called Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter informed Mr. Jordan that he had been told he no longer represented Ms. Lewinsky. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 141. Mr. Jordan then made feverish attempts to reach President Clinton or someone at the White House to tell them the bad news, as represented by the six calls between 4: 58 p. m. and 5: 22 p. m. Mr. Jordan said that he tried to relay this information to the White House because ì[ t] he President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job,' and he thought it was ìinformation that they ought to have.' Jordan 6/ 9/ 98 GJT at 45- 46. Mr. Jordan then called Mr. Carter back at 5: 14 p. m. to ìgo over' what they had already talked about. Jordan 3/ 5/ 98 GJT at 146. Mr. Jordan finally reached the President at 5: 56 p. m., and tells him that Mr. Carter had been fired. Jordan 6/ 9/ 98 GJT at 54. This activity occurred because it was important for the President of the United States to
find Monica Lewinsky to learn to whom she was talking. Ms. Currie was in charge of contacting Ms. Lewinsky. President Clinton had just completed a deposition in which he provided false and
36 misleading testimony about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. She was a co- conspirator in hiding this relationship from the Jones attorneys, and he was losing control over her. He never got complete control over her again.
But President Clintonís efforts to obtain false corroboration did not end there. On Wednesday, January 21, 1998, the Washington Post published a story entitled ìClinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jonesí Lawyers.' The White House learned the substance of the Post story on the evening of January 20, 1998.
After President Clinton learned of that story, he made a series of telephone calls. At 12: 08 a. m. he called his attorney, Mr. Bennett, and they had a conversation. The next morning, Mr. Bennett was quoted in the Post stating: ìThe President adamantly denies he ever had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and she has confirmed the truth of that.' He added, ìThis story seems ridiculous and I frankly smell a rat.'
After that conversation, President Clinton had a half hour conversation with White House Deputy Counsel Bruce Lindsey. At 1: 16 a. m., he called Ms. Currie and spoke to her for 20 minutes. He then called Mr. Lindsey again. At 6: 30 a. m. the President called Mr. Jordan. After that, he again conversed with Bruce Lindsey.
This flurry of activity was a prelude to the stories which President Clinton would soon inflict on top White House aides and advisors. On the morning of January 21, 1998, he met with White House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles and his two deputies, John Podesta and Sylvia Matthews. Mr. Bowles recalled entering the Presidentís office at 9: 00 a. m. that morning. He then recounts President Clintonís immediate words as he and two others entered the Oval Office:
37 And he looked up at us and he said the same thing he said to the American people. He said, ìI want you to know I did not have sexual relationships with this woman, Monica Lewinsky. I did not ask anybody to lie. And when the facts came out, youíll understand.' Bowles 4/ 2/ 98 GJT at 84. After he made that blanket denial, Mr. Bowles responded:
I said, ìMr. President, I donít know what the facts are. I donít know if theyíre good, bad, or indifferent. But whatever they are, you ought to get them out. And you ought to get them out right now.'
Bowles 4/ 2/ 98 GJT at 84. When counsel asked whether President Clinton responded to Bowlesís suggestion that he tell the truth, Mr. Bowles responded: ìI donít think he made any response, but he didnít disagree with me.' Bowles 4/ 2/ 98 GJT at 84.
Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta also recalled a meeting with President Clinton on the morning of January 21, 1998. He testified before the grand jury as to what occurred in the Oval Office that morning:
A. And we started off meeting ñ we didnít - I donít think we said anything. And I think the President directed this specifically to Mr. Bowles. He said, ìErskine, I want you to know that this story is not true.'
Q. What else did he say? A. He said that - that he had not had a sexual relationship with her, and that he never asked anybody to lie.
Podesta 6/ 16/ 98 GJT at 85. Two days later on January 23, 1998, Mr. Podesta had another discussion with the President:
I asked him how he was doing, and he said he was working on this draft and he said to me that he never had sex with her, and that - and that he never asked - you know, he repeated the denial, but he was extremely explicit in saying he never had sex with her.
Podesta 6/ 16/ 98 GJT at 92. Then Mr. Podesta testified as follows:
38 Q. Okay. Not explicit, in the sense the he got more specific than sex, than the word ìsex.'
A. Yes, he was more specific than that. Q. Okay, share that with us. A. Well, I think he said - he said that - there was some spate. Of, you know, what sex acts were counted, and he said that he had never had sex with her in any way whatsoever Q.
Okay. A. That they had not had oral sex. Podesta 6/ 16/ 98 GJT at 92. Later in the day on January 21, 1998, President Clinton called Sidney Blumenthal to his
office. His lies became more elaborate and pronounced when he had time to concoct his newest line of defense. When the President spoke to Mr. Bowles and Mr. Podesta, he simply denied the story. By the time he spoke to Mr. Blumenthal, he had added three new angles to his defense strategy: (1) he now portrays Ms. Lewinsky as the aggressor; (2) he launches an attack on her reputation by portraying her as a ìstalker'; and (3) he presents himself as the innocent victim being attacked by the forces of evil.
Mr. Blumenthal recalled in his June 4, 1998 testimony: And it was at this point that he gave his account of what had happened to me and he said that Monica - and it came very fast. He said, ìMonica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me.' He rebuffed her. He said, ìIíve gone down that road before, Iíve caused pain for a lot of people and Iím not going to do that again.' She threatened him. She said that she would tell people theyíd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker
among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldnít be the stalker anymore.
Blumenthal 6/ 4/ 98 GJT at 49. Mr. Blumenthal said President Clinton told him moments later: And he said, ìI feel like a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who is surrounded by
39 an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me and I canít get the truth out. I feel like the character in the novel Darkness at Noon.'
And I said to him, ìWhen this happened with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone?' He said, ìWell, I was within eyesight or earshot of someone.'
Blumenthal 6/ 4/ 98 GJT at 50. At one point, Mr. Blumenthal is asked by the grand jury to describe the Presidentís manner and demeanor during the exchange. Q. In response to my question how you responded to the Presidentís story about a threat
or discussion about a threat from Ms. Lewinsky, you mentioned you didnít recall specifically. Do you recall generally the nature of your response to the President?
A. It was generally sympathetic to the President. And I certainly believed his story. It was a very heartfelt story, he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him.
Blumenthal 6/ 25/ 98 GJT at 16- 17. President Clinton also implemented a win- at- all- costs strategy. Former presidential advisor Dick Morris testified that on January 21, 1998, he spoke to President Clinton and they discussed the turbulent events of the day. President Clinton again denied the accusations against him. After further discussions, they decided to have an overnight poll taken to determine if the American people would forgive the President for adultery, perjury, and obstruction of justice. When Mr. Morris received the results, he called the President:
And I said, ìTheyíre just too shocked by this. Itís just too new, itís too raw.' And I said, ìAnd the problem is theyíre willing to forgive you for adultery, but not for perjury or obstruction of justice or the various other things.'
Morris 8/ 18/ 98 GJT at 28. Mr. Morris then recalls the following exchange: Morris: And I said, ìTheyíre just not ready for it.' meaning the voters. President Clinton: Well, we just have to win, then. Morris 8/ 18/ 98 GJT at 30. President Clinton cannot recall this statement.
40
L. The Events of August 17, 1998 ñ The Grand Jury Testimony
On August 17, the last act of the tragedy took place. After six invitations, President Clinton appeared before a grand jury of his fellow citizens and took an oath to tell the truth. He equivocated and engaged in legalistic fencing, but he also lied. Actually, the entire testimony was calculated to mislead and deceive the grand jury and eventually the American people. On August 16, 1998, President Clintonís personal attorney, David Kendall provided the
following statement regarding his testimony: There is apparently an enormous amount of groundless speculation about the Presidentís testimony tomorrow. The truth is the truth. Period. And thatís how the President will testify.
Kendall 8/ 16/ 98 Statement. The untruthful tone, however, was set at the very beginning. Judge Starr testified that in a grand jury a witness can tell the truth, lie, or assert a legal privilege. President Clinton was given a fourth choice. The President was permitted to read a statement:
When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17 th deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact.
These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter.
I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct, and I will take full responsibility for my actions.
While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters.
41 I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; questions about my understanding of the term ìsexual relations,' as I understood it to be defined at my January 17 th , 1998 deposition; and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses. That, Mr. Bittman, is my statement.
Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 8- 10. That statement itself is false in many particulars. President Clinton claims that he engaged in wrongful conduct with Ms. Lewinsky ìon certain occasions in early 1996 and once in 1997.' He does not mention 1995. There was a reason. On the three ìoccasions' in 1995, Ms. Lewinsky was a twenty- one year old intern. As for being alone on ìcertain occasions,' he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky more than twenty times at least. The President also told the jurors that he ìalso had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included sexual banter.' Actually, the two had at least fifty- five phone conversations, many in the middle of the night and
in seventeen of these calls, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton engaged in phone sex. Again, President Clinton carefully crafted his statements to give the appearance of being candid, when actually he intended the opposite. In addition, throughout the testimony whenever he was asked a specific question that could not be answered directly without either admitting the truth or giving an easily provable false answer, he said, ìI rely on my statement.' Nineteen times he relied on this false and misleading statement; nineteen times, then, he repeated those lies. For example: Q. Getting back to the conversation you had with Mrs. Currie on January 18 th , you told
her ñ if she testified that you told her, Monica came on to me and I never touched her, you did, in fact, of course, touch Ms. Lewinsky, isnít that right, in a physically intimate way?
A. Now, Iíve testified about that. And thatís one of those questions that I believe is answered by the statement that I made.
42 Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 138. He also admitted to the grand jury that, after the allegations were publicly reported, that
he made ìmisleading' statements to particular aides whom he knew would likely be called to testify before the Grand Jury:
Q. Do you recall denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to the following people: Harry Thomasson, Erskine Bowles, Harold Ickes, Mr. Podesta, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Betty Currie? Do you recall denying any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky to those individuals?
A. I recall telling a number of those people that I didnít have, either I didnít have an affair with Monica Lewinsky or didnít have sex with her. And I believe, sir, that - youíll have to ask them what they thought. But I was using those terms in the normal way people use them. Youíll have to ask them what they thought I was saying.
Q. If they testified that you denied sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or if they told us that you denied that, do you have any reason to doubt them, in the days after the story broke; do you have any reason to doubt them?
A. No. .... Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 104- 05. President Clinton then was specifically asked whether he knew that his aides were likely to be called before the grand jury:
Q. It may have been misleading, sir, and you knew though, after January 21 st when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that they might be witnesses. You knew that they might be called into a grand jury, didnít you?
A. Thatís right. I think I was quite careful what I said after that. I may have said something to all these people to that effect, but Iíll also - whenever anybody asked me any details, I said, look, I donít want you to be a witness or I turn you into a witness or give you information that would get you in trouble. I just wouldnít talk. I, by and large, didnít talk to people about it.
Q. If all of these people - letís leave Mrs. Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erskine Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the story broke, after Judge Starrís involvement was known on January 21 st , have said that you denied a sexual relationship with them. Are you denying that?
43 A. No. Q. And youíve told us that you ó A. Iím just telling you what I meant by it. I told you what I meant by it when they started this deposition.
Q. Youíve told us now that you were being careful, but that it might have been misleading. Is that correct?
A. It might have been .... So, what I was trying to do was to give them something they could - that would be true, even if misleading in the context of this deposition, and keep them out of trouble, and letís deal - and deal with what I thought was the almost ludicrous suggestion that I had urged someone to lie or tried to suborn perjury, in other words.
Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 106- 08. As the President testified before the grand jury, he maintained that he was being truthful with his aides:
Q. You donít remember denying any kind of sex in any way, shape or form, and including oral sex, correct?
A. I remember that I issued a number of denials to people that I thought needed to hear them, but I tried to be careful and to be accurate, and I do not remember what I said to John Podesta. .....
Q. Did you deny it to them or not, Mr. President? A. Let me finish. So, what ñ I did not want to mislead my friends, but I wanted to find language where I could say that. I also, frankly, did not want to turn any of them into witnesses, because I ñ and, sure enough, they all became witnesses.
Q. Well, you knew they might be ñ A. And so ñ Q. ñ witnesses, didnít you? A. And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship. That I used ñ in
44 the language I used, I said, thereís nothing going on between us. That was true. I said, I have not had sex with her as I defined it. That was true. And did I hope that I would never have to be here on this day giving this testimony? Of course.
But I also didnít want to do anything to complicate this matter further. So, I said things that were true. They may have been misleading, and if they were I have to take responsibility for it, and Iím sorry. Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 GJT at 100, 105- 06. He stated that when he spoke to his aides, he was careful
with his wording. He stated that he wanted his statement regarding ìsexual relations' to be literally true because he was only referring to intercourse.
However, John Podesta said that President Clinton denied sex ìin any way whatsoever' ìincluding oral sex.' He told Mr. Podesta, Mr. Bowles, Ms. Williams, and Harold Ickes that he did not have a ìsexual relationship' with that woman. Seven days after the Presidentís grand jury appearance, the White House issued a document entitled, ìTalking Points January 24, 1998.' This ìTalking Points' document outlines proposed questions that the President may be asked. It also outlines suggested answers to those questions. The ìTalking Points' purport to state the Presidentís view of sexual relations and his view of the relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The ìTalking Points' state in relevant part as follows:
Q. What acts does the President believe constitute a sexual relationship?
A. I canít believe weíre on national television discussing this. I am not about to engage in an ìact- by- act' discussion of what constitutes a sexual relationship.
Q. Well, for example, Ms. Lewinsky is on tape indicating that the President does not believe oral sex is adultery. Would oral sex, to the President, constitute a sexual relationship?
A. Of course it would.
Based upon the foregoing, the Presidentís own talking points refute the Presidentís ìliteral
45 truth' argument.
M. Answers to the Committeeís Requests for Admission
In an effort to avoid unnecessary work and to bring this inquiry to an expeditious end, this Committee submitted to the President eighty- one requests to admit or deny specific facts relevant to this investigation. Although, for the most part, the questions could have been answered with a simple ìadmit' or ìdeny', President Clinton chose to follow the pattern of selective memory, reference to other testimony, blatant untruths, artful distortions, outright lies and half truths he had already used. When he did answer, he engaged in legalistic hairsplitting in an attempt to skirt the truth and to deceive this Committee.
Thus, on at least twenty- three questions, President Clinton professed a lack of memory despite the testimony of several witnesses that he has a remarkable memory. In at least fifteen answers, he merely referred to ìWhite House Records.' He also referred to his own prior testimony and that of others. He answered several of the requests by merely restating the same deceptive answers that he gave to the grand jury. These half- truths, legalistic parsings, and evasive and misleading answers were calculated
to obstruct the efforts of this Committee. They have had the effect of seriously hampering this Committeeís ability to ascertain the truth. President Clinton has, therefore, added obstruction of an inquiry by the Legislative Branch to his obstructions of justice before the Judicial Branch.
III. EXPLANATION OF ARTICLES
46
I. Article I - Perjury in the Civil Case
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
1. The Committee concluded that, on August 17, 1998, the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee.
On August 17, 1998, the President gave perjurious, false, and misleading testimony regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky before a Federal grand jury. Such testimony includes the following:
Q. Mr. President, were you physically intimate with Monica Lewinsky? A. Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save theñ you and the grand jurors a lot of time if I read a statement, which, which I think will make it clear what the nature of my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was and how it related to the testimony I gave, what I was trying to do in that testimony. And I think it will perhaps make it possible for you to ask even more relevant questions from your point of view. And, with your permission, Iíd like to read that statement.
Q. Absolutely. Please, Mr. President. A. When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of
47 sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17 th , 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact.
These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter.
Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, pp. 8- 9, H. Doc. 105- 311, pp. 460- 61. The President referred or reverted to this perjurious, false, and misleading statement many times throughout his grand jury testimony. For examples, see p. 37, lines 23- 25, p. 38, lines 1- 6; p. 101, lines 11- 21; p. 109, lines 6- 25, p. 110, lines 7- 13; p. 138, lines 16- 23; p. 166, lines 23- 25, p. 167, lines 1- 12.
This statement is misleading. The fact that it was prepared beforehand reveals an intent to mislead. The purpose of the statement was to avoid answering specific questions related to the Presidentís conduct with Ms. Lewinsky. This is evident from the fact that the President reverted to his statement 19 times in lieu of answering direct questions required by a grand jury witness. He used a prepared statement in order to justify the perjurious answers he gave at his deposition,
which were intended to affect the outcome of the Jones case. See Article II analysis. The above quoted testimony reveals some direct lies. For example, the sexual contact between the President and Ms. Lewinsky was not limited to 1996 and 1997. It began in 1995, when Monica Lewinsky was a 21 year old intern. The President and Ms. Lewinsky were not alone only on ìcertain occasions.' They were alone at least 20 times, and had 11 sexual encounters. The ìoccasional' telephone conversations that included ìsexual banter' actually included 55 phone conversations, during 17 of which they engaged in phone sex.
These direct lies, however, taken alone, do not constitute the heart of the perjury
48 committed by the President. Rather, the fact that he provided to the grand jury a half- true, incomplete and misleading statement as a true and complete characterization of his conduct (as required by the oath), and used that statement as a response to direct questions going to the heart of the investigation into whether he committed perjury and obstructed justice related to his deposition, constitutes a premeditated effort to thwart the investigation and to justify prior criminal wrongdoing. The President also provided the following perjurious, false, and misleading testimony regarding the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate employee:
Q. Did you understand the words in the first portion of the exhibit, Mr. President, that is, ìFor the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in ësexual relationsí when the person knowingly engages in or causes'?
Did you understand, do you understand the words there in that phrase? A. Yes. My ñ I can tell you what my understanding of the definition is, if you want me to ñ
Q. Sure. A. ñ do it. My understanding of this definition is it covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas, if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify. Thatís my understanding of the definition.
Q. What did you believe the definition to include and exclude? What kinds of activities? A. I thought the definition included any activity by the person being deposed, where the person was the actor and came into contact with those parts of the bodies with the purpose or intent or gratification, and excluded any other activity.
Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, pp. 14- 15, H. Doc. 105- 311, pp. 466- 67. This statement is perjurious. At the deposition of the President, his attorney Mr. Bennett, in characterizing the affidavit of Monica Lewinsky in which she stated that she did not have
49 ìsexual relations' with the President, stated that ìsexual relations' in that affidavit meant ìthere is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.' The President would have the grand jury, and now the House of Representatives believe that the purposely broad definition of sexual relations, meant to address the affidavit filed, and chosen by the court in the Jones case, meant something different than the same words in Ms. Lewinskyís affidavit and that it took into account contorted and strained interpretations of words and meanings. It is unrealistic to contemplate that the President, at his deposition, honestly and without a desire to mislead, gave the meaning to the definition of ìsexual relations' that he testified to before the grand jury. During his deposition in the Jones case, President Clinton, having knowledge of the false
affidavit executed by Ms. Lewinsky denying any relationship, asserted the same falsehood contained in that affidavit which he encouraged her to file. He denied having a ìsexual affair, a sexual relationship or sexual relations' with Monica Lewinsky. Deposition Testimony of President in the Jones case, 1/ 17/ 98, pp. 78, 204. Thus, the question of whether there was a sexual relationship between the President and this subordinate employee became part of the OIC investigation into whether the chief law enforcement officer of the country committed perjury and obstructed justice, undermining the rule of law in a civil rights sexual harassment case. The OIC proceeded to gather a substantial body of evidence proving that the President did
indeed subvert the judicial system by lying under oath in his deposition and obstructing justice. This evidence includes Ms. Lewinsky's consistent and detailed testimony given under oath regarding 11 specific sexual encounters with the President, confirmation of the President's semen stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress, and the testimony of Monica Lewinsky's friends, family members and counselors to whom she made near contemporaneous statements about the
50 relationship. Ms. Lewinskyís memory and accounts were further corroborated by her recollection of times and phone calls which were shown to be correct with entrance logs and phone records. (For a summary of testimony and citations to the record, see the OIC Referral, pp. 134- 40). As indicated, contrary to this compelling corroborated evidence, President Clinton
testified before the grand jury that he did not have ìsexual relations' with Ms. Lewinsky. The Committee has concluded that the President lied under oath in making this statement. The obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth requires a complete answer and does not allow a deponent to hide behind twisted interpretations that a reasonable person would not draw. Such ìtechnical accuracy,' as defined by the President, may pose an even greater affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings because it makes it impossible to achieve the truth- seeking purpose of such a proceeding. Legal hairsplitting used to bypass the requirement of telling the complete truth directly challenges the deterrence factor of the nationís perjury laws, denying a citizen her right to a constitutional orderly disposition of her claims in a court of law.
While the President attempted to justify his perjurious deposition testimony regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by continuing to supply misleading answers concerning the definition of ìsexual relations' used in the deposition, he lied before the grand jury about his contact with her even under his misleading interpretation of that definition:
Q. If the person being deposed kissed the breast of another person, would that be in the definition of sexual relations as you understood it in the Jones case.
A. Yes, that would constitute contact...
51 Q. So, touching, in your view then and now ñ the person being deposed touching or kissing the breast of another person would fall within the definition?
A. Thatís correct sir. Q. And you testified that you didnít have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the
Jones deposition, under that definition, correct? A. Thatís correct, sir. Q. If the person being deposed touched the genitalia of another person, would that beñ
and with the intent to arouse the sexual desire, arouse or gratify, as defined in definition (1), would that be, under your understanding then and nowñ
A. Yes, sir. Q. ñSexual relations? A. Yes, sir. Q. Yes it would? A. Yes, it would. If you had direct contact with any of these places in the body, if you had direct contact with intent to arouse or gratify, that would fall within the definition. Q. So, you didnít do any of those three thingsñ
A. You ñ Q. ñ With Monica Lewinsky? A. You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined.
Q. Including touching her breast, kissing her breast, or touching her genitalia? A. Thatís correct. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton 8/ 17/ 98 p. 94- 95, H. Doc. 105- 311 p. 546- 47. Another example of such perjurious, false, and misleading grand jury testimony regarding
the nature of this relationship can be found on p. 92, lines 13- 17. The President thus testified that
52 even under his strained and unrealistic interpretation of the definition of ìsexual relationship', intended to cover that term as used in Ms. Lewinskyís false affidavit, the touching of her breasts and genitalia would fall under that definition and thus would constitute sexual relations. While it is curious that the President would assert that oral sex would not constitute sexual relations, but the touching of breasts would constitute such relations, even under his tortured reconstruction of the definition, the President committed perjury. He denied before the grand jury that he engaged in ìsexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17 th , 1998 deposition.' As mentioned above, he invoked this statement 19 times. Ms. Lewinsky testified under oath on
several occasions that the President and she did engage in conduct that involved the touching of breasts and genitalia and therefore did constitute sexual relations even under the Presidentís admitted interpretation of the definition.
Ms. Lewinsky had every reason to tell the truth to the grand jury. She was under a threat of prosecution for perjury not only regarding her statements made on these occasions, but on the statements made in her admittedly false affidavit if she did not tell the truth, since truthful testimony was a condition of the immunity agreement she made. As indicated, her testimony is also corroborated. The vague and evasive responses given by the President were made in violation of the oath
he took to tell ìthe truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.' He asserted in his grand jury testimony that because of his interpretation behind the motives for the lawsuit being brought, he was entitled in his deposition to answer in a manner that was less than completely truthful. This argument has no basis in law and is detrimental to the purpose of the oath. The technical and hair- splitting legal arguments advanced by the President that he did not have an obligation to tell
53 the complete truth unless a question was posed in a way that he had no choice but to give the complete truth, or that he did not ìtechnically' perjure himself in his deposition, defy the common sense and human experience which must be applied by any prospective fact- finder in this case.
The President did not have to answer untruthfully in the grand jury. The Constitution provided him with the opportunity to assert his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to respond based on his opinion that a completely truthful answer would tend to incriminate him for prior acts of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was apprised of this right in the grand jury proceeding:
Q. You have a privilege against self- incrimination. If a truthful answer to any question would tend to incriminate you, you can invoke the privilege and that invocation will not be used against you. Do you understand that?
A. I do. Q. And if you donít invoke it, however, any answer that you give can and will be used against you. Do you understand that, sir?
A. I do. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, pp. 4- 5, H. Doc. 105- 311, pp. 456- 57.
Instead of invoking his right, the President chose to place his own personal and political interests ahead of the interests of justice and the nation and continued to assert that he did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. He also, as indicated infra, lied about the truthfulness of his prior testimony and his efforts to influence others related to the Jones action.
The Committee has concluded that the Presidentís statements to the grand jury denying that he had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky were calculated to avoid difficult questions regarding his conduct and to project the appearance that he was being forthright with the grand jury and the American people. In fact, his premeditated and carefully prepared statements were
54 perjurious, false and misleading in light of corroborated evidence to the contrary.
2. The Committee concluded that the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him.
On August 17, 1998, the President gave perjurious, false, and misleading testimony regarding prior statements of the same nature he made in his deposition. Such testimony includes the following:
Q. Now, you took the same oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on January 17th, 1998 in a deposition in the Paula Jones litigation; is that correct, sir?
A. I did take an oath then. Q. Did the oath you took on that occasion mean the same to you then as it does today? A. I believed then that I had to answer the questions truthfully, that is correct. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, pp. 6- 7, H. Doc. 105- 311, pp. 457- 58. Q. Youíre not going back on your earlier statement that you understand you were sworn
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the folks at that deposition, are you, Mr. President?
A. No, sir, but I think we might as well put this out on the table. You tried to get me to give a broader interpretation to my oath than just my obligation to tell the truth. In other words, you tried to say, even though these people are treating you in an illegal manner in illegally leaking these depositions, you should be a good lawyer for them. And if they donít have enough sense to write ñ to ask a question, and even if Mr. Bennett invited them to ask follow- up questions, if they didnít do it, you should have done all their work for them.
Now, so I will admit this, sir. My goal in this deposition was to be truthful, but not particularly helpful. I did not wish to do the work of the Jones lawyers. I deplored what they were doing. I deplored the innocent people they were tormenting and traumatizing. I deplored their illegal leaking. I deplored the fact that they knew, once they knew our
evidence, that this was a bogus lawsuit, and that because of the funding they had from my political enemies, they were putting ahead. I deplored it.
55 But I was determined to work through the minefield of this deposition without violating the law, and I believe I did.
Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, pp. 79- 80, H. Doc. 105- 311, pp. 531- 32. The President did not believe that he had given truthful answers in his deposition testimony. If he had, he would not have related a false account of events to Betty Currie, his secretary, who he knew, according to his own statements in the deposition, might be called as a witness in the Jones case. He would not have told false accounts to his aides who, he admitted, he knew would be called to testify before the grand jury. The President understood from previous conversations with Monica Lewinsky that her affidavit, stating that they did not have ìsexual relations', was false. He knew that the definition in the Jones case was meant to cover the same activity as that mentioned in the affidavit. In fact, the affidavit was directly mentioned in the Presidentís deposition. Rather than tell the complete truth, the President lied about his relationship, the cover stories, the affidavit, the subpoena and the search for a job for Ms. Lewinsky at his deposition. He then denied committing perjury at his deposition before the grand jury. The President thus engaged in a series of lies and obstruction, each one calculated to cover the one preceding it.
Throughout his grand jury testimony, the President acknowledged that he was bound to tell the truth during the January 17,1998, deposition in the Paula Jones case, as well as before the grand jury on August 17, 1998:
Q. Mr. President, you understand that your testimony here today is under oath? A I do. Q. And do you understand that because you have sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, that if you were to lie or intentionally mislead the grand jury,
56 you could be prosecuted for perjury and/ or obstruction of justice? A. I believe that's correct. . . .
Q. You understand that it requires you to give the whole truth, that is, a complete answer to each question, sir?
A. I will answer each question as accurately and fully as I can. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, pp. 457, H. Doc. 105- 311.
The President did not answer each question as accurately and fully as he could have. In contrast to his assertions that he testify truthfully when deposed on January 17, 1998, the record reflects that the President did not ìwork through the minefield of [his deposition in the case of
Jones v. Clinton] without violating the law. In fact, the Committee has concluded that President Clinton made multiple perjurious, false and misleading statements during his deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton. Thus, his assertion before the grand jury that he did not violate the law in the deposition is itself a perjurious, false, and misleading statement and evidence of his continuing efforts to deny and cover- up his criminal wrongdoing. The details of the Presidentís perjurious, false, and misleading statements made during his deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton are set forth in Article II, Paragraph 2.
3. The Committee concluded that the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action.
The President made perjurious, false and misleading statements before the grand jury when he testified he did not allow his attorney to refer to an affidavit before the judge in the Jones case that he knew to be false:
Q. Mr. President, I want to before I go into a new subject area, briefly go over something
57 you were talking about with Mr. Bittman. The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Paul Jones deposition, ìcounsel is
fully aware' - itís page 54 line 5 ñ ìcounsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton? That statement is made by your attorney in front of Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
A. Thatís correct. Q. That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was ìno sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton,' was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
A. It depends on what the meaning of the word ìis' is. If the ñ if he ñ if ìis' means is and never has been, that is not ñ that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. But, as I have testified, and Iíd like to testify again, this is ñ it is somewhat unusual for a
client to be asked about his lawyerís statements, instead of the other way around. I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange. I was focusing on my own testimony.
Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ l 7/ 98, pp. 57- 58, H. Doc. 105- 3 11, pp. 509- 510. Further perjurious, false and misleading statements from the Presidentís grand jury testimony regarding this issue can be found on p. 24, lines 6- 20; p. 25, lines 1- 6; p. 59, lines 16- 23; p. 60, lines 4- 15, and p. 61, lines 4- 15.
On January 15, 1998, Robert Bennett, attorney for President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, obtained a copy of the affidavit Monica Lewinsky filed in an attempt to avoid having to testify in the case of Jones v. Clinton. Grand Jury Testimony of Frank Carter, 6/ 18/ 98, pp. 1 12- 13, H. Doc. 105- 3 16, pp. 420- 21. In this affidavit, Monica Lewinsky asserted that she had never had a sexual relationship with President Clinton. At the President's deposition on January
58 17, 1988, an attorney for Paula Jones began to ask the President questions about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Bennett objected to the ìinnuendo' of the questions and he pointed out that Ms. Lewinsky had signed an affidavit denying a ìsexual relationship' with the President. Mr. Bennett asserted that this indicated ìthere is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form,' between the President and Ms. Lewisnky, and after a warning from Judge Wright he stated that, ìI am not coaching the witness. In preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Jane Doe 6's affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know.' Mr. Bennett clearly used the affidavit in an attempt to stop the questioning of the President about Ms. Lewinsky. The President did not say anything to correct Mr. Bennett even though he knew the affidavit was false. Judge Wright overruled Mr. Bennett's objection and allowed the questioning to proceed. Deposition of President Clinton in the Jones case, l/ 17/ 98, p. 54.
Later in the deposition, Mr. Bennett read the President the portion of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit in which she denied having a ìsexual relationship' with the President and asked the President if Ms. Lewinsky's statement was true and accurate. The President responded: ìThat is absolutely true.' Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/ l 7/ 98, p. 204. The grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky, given under oath and following a grant of transnational immunity, confirmed that the contents of her affidavit were not true: Q. Paragraph 8 . . . [of the affidavit] says, 'I have never had a sexual relationship with the
President. Is that true? A. No. Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/ 6/ 98, H. Doc. 105- 311, p. 924.
When President Clinton was asked during his grand jury testimony how he could have
59 lawfully sat silent at his deposition while his attorney made a false statement (ì there is no sex of any kind, in any manner shape or form') to a United States District Court Judge, the President first said that he was not paying ìa great deal of attention' to Mr. Bennett when he said this. The Presidentís videotaped deposition, however, shows the President paying close attention and squarely looking in Mr. Bennett's direction while Mr. Bennett was making the statement about ìno sex of any kind.' The President then argued that when Mr. Bennett made the assertion that there ìis no sex of any kind. . . ,' Mr. Bennett was speaking only in the present tense, as if he understood that to be the case at the time the remark was made, and when he was allegedly not paying attention to the remark. The President stated, ìIt depends on what the meaning of the word ëisí is, and that ì[ i] f it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.' Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ l 7/ 98, pp. 57- 61, H. Doc. 105- 3 11, pp. 509- 5 13; see also id., pp. 24- 25, H. Doc. 105- 3 11, pp. 476- 77.
It is clear to the Committee that the President perjured himself when he said that Mr. Bennettís statement that there was ìno sex of any kind' was ìcompletely true' depending on what the word ìis' is. The President did not want to admit that Mr. Bennettís statement was false, because to do so would have been to admit that the term ìsexual relations' as used in the Lewinsky affidavit meant ìno sex of any kind.' Admitting that would be to admit that he perjured himself previously in his grand jury testimony and in his prior deposition. Thus, the President engaged in an evolving series of lies in sworn testimony in order to cover previous lies he told in sworn testimony and previous obstructive conduct. In all of this, it was the intention of the President to thwart the ability of Paula Jones to bring a case against him and to sidetrack the OIC
60 investigation into his misconduct.
4. The Committee concluded that the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
a. The President gave perjurious, false and misleading testimony before the grand jury when he denied engaging in a plan to hide evidence that had been subpoenaed in the federal civil rights action against him.
The President made the following perjurious, false, and misleading statements before the grand jury regarding efforts to hide evidence that had been subpoenaed in the case of Jones v. Clinton.
Q. Getting back to your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28, you are aware that sheís been subpoenaed. You are aware, are you not, Mr. President, that the subpoena called for the production of, among other things, all the gifts that you had given Ms. Lewinsky? You were aware of that on December 28, werenít you? A. Iím not sure. And I understand this is an important question. I did have a
conversation with Ms. Lewinsky at some time about gifts, the gifts I had given her. I do not know whether it occurred on the 28 th , or whether it occurred earlier. I do not know whether it occurred in person or whether it occurred on the telephone. I have searched my memory for this, because I know itís an important issue. Perhaps if you ñ I can tell you what I remember about the conversation and you can see
why Iím having trouble placing the date. Q. Please. A. The reason Iím not sure it happened on the 28 th is that my recollection is that Ms. Lewinsky said something to me like, what if they ask me about the gifts youíve given me. Thatís the memory I have. Thatís why I question whether it happened on the 28 th , because she had a subpoena with her, request for production. And I told her if they asked for gifts, sheíd have to give them whatever she had, that thatís
what the law was. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, p. 42- 43, H. Doc. 105- 3 11, p. 494- 495.
61 Essentially the same perjurious, false, and misleading testimony is repeated by the President later in his grand jury testimony, p. 45, lines 11- 23.
The following testimony was also given: Q After you gave her the gifts on December 28 th , did you speak with your secretary,
Ms. Currie, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that were some compilation of gifts that Ms. Lewinsky would have- A
No, sir, I didnít do that. Q ñto give to Ms. Currie? A I did not do that. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, p. 50, H. Doc. 105- 311, p. 502.
Similar perjurious, false, and misleading grand jury testimony of President Clinton can be found on p. 113, lines 16- 25, p. 114, lines 1- 25 of the transcript from that grand jury testimony of 8/ 17/ 98.
On December 19, 1997, Monica Lewinsky was served with a subpoena in connection with the case of Jones v. Clinton. The subpoena required her to testify at a deposition on January 23, 1998. The subpoena also required her to produce each and every gift given to her by President Clinton. On the morning of December 28, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky met with the President for about 45 minutes in the Oval Office. By this time, President Clinton knew Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. At this meeting they discussed the fact that the gifts had been subpoenaed, including a hat pin, the first gift Clinton had given Lewinsky. Monica Lewinsky testified that at some point in this meeting she said to the President, "'Well, you know, I -maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe Betty. And he sort of said -I think he responded, 'I don't know' or 'Let me think about that. 'And left that topic." Grand Jury
62 Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/ 6/ 98, p. 152, H. Doc. 105- 311, p. 872; See also 7/ 27/ 98 OIC Interview of Monica Lewinsky, p. 7, H. Doc. 105- 3 11, p. 1395. President Clinton provided the following explanation to the grand jury and this Committee
regarding this conversation: "Ms. Lewinsky said something to me like, what if they ask me about the gifts you've given me," but I do not know whether that conversation occurred on December 28, 1997, or earlier. Whenever this conversation occurred, I testified, I told her "that if they asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had...." I simply was not concerned about the fact that I had given her gifts. Indeed, I gave her additional gifts on December 28, 1997. Request for Admission number 24; see also Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/ 17/ 98, p. 43, H. Doc. 105- 3 11, p. 495. The President's statement that he told Ms. Lewinsky that if the attorneys for Paula Jones asked for the gifts, she had to provide them is perjurious, false and misleading. It simply strains logic to believe the