VII. There is substantial and credible information that President
Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping
Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she
would have been a witness against him were she to tell the
truth during the Jones case.
The President had an incentive to keep Ms. Lewinsky from
jeopardizing the secrecy of the relationship. That incentive
grew once the Supreme Court unanimously decided in May 1997 that
the case and discovery process were to go forward.
At various times during the Jones discovery process, the
President and those working on his behalf devoted substantial
time and attention to help Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in the
private sector.
A. Evidence
The entire saga of Ms. Lewinsky's job search and the
President's assistance in that search is discussed in detail in
the Narrative section of this Referral. We summarize and analyze
the key events and dates here.
Ms. Lewinsky first mentioned her desire to move to New York
in a letter to the President on July 3, 1997. The letter
recounted her frustration that she had not received an offer to
return to work at the White House.(324)
On October 1, the President was served with interrogatories
asking about his sexual relationships with women other than Mrs.
Clinton.(325) On October 7, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky couriered a letter
expressing dissatisfaction with her job search to the
President.(326) In response, Ms. Lewinsky said she received a late-night call from President Clinton on October 9, 1997. She said
that the President told her he would start helping her find a job
in New York.(327)
The following Saturday, October 11, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky met
with President Clinton alone in the Oval Office dining room from
9:36 a.m. until about 10:54 a.m. In that meeting, she furnished
the President a list of New York jobs in which she was
interested.(328) Ms. Lewinsky mentioned to the President that she
would need a reference from someone in the White House; the
President said he would take care of it.(329) Ms. Lewinsky also
suggested to the President that Vernon Jordan might be able to
help her, and President Clinton agreed.(330) Immediately after the
meeting, President Clinton spoke with Mr. Jordan by telephone.(331)
According to White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, at
some time in the summer or fall of 1997, President Clinton raised
the subject of Monica Lewinsky and stated that "she was unhappy
where she was working and wanted to come back and work at the
OEOB [Old Executive Office Building]; and could we take a
look."(332) Mr. Bowles referred the matter to Deputy Chief of Staff
John Podesta.(333)
Mr. Podesta said he asked Betty Currie to have Ms. Lewinsky
call him, but heard nothing until about October 1997, when
Ms. Currie told him that Ms. Lewinsky was looking for
opportunities in New York.(334) The Ambassador to the United
Nations, Bill Richardson, said that Mr. Podesta told him that
Ms. Currie had a friend looking for a position in New York.(335)
According to Ms. Lewinsky, Ambassador Richardson called her
on October 21, 1997,(336) and interviewed her soon thereafter. She
was then offered a position at the UN.(337) Ms. Lewinsky was
unenthusiastic.(338) During the latter part of October 1997, the
President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed enlisting Vernon Jordan to
aid in pursuing private-sector possibilities.(339)
On November 5, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky met Mr. Jordan in his law
office. Mr. Jordan told Ms. Lewinsky that she came "highly
recommended."(340) Ms. Lewinsky explained that she hoped to move to
New York, and went over her list of possible employers.(341)
Mr. Jordan telephoned President Clinton shortly after the
meeting.(342)
Ms. Lewinsky had no contact with the President or Mr. Jordan
for another month.(343) On December 5, 1997, however, the parties
in the Jones case exchanged witness lists. Ms. Jones's attorneys
listed Ms. Lewinsky as a potential witness. The President
testified that he learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the list late
in the day on December 6.(344)
The effort to obtain a job for Ms. Lewinsky then
intensified. On December 7, President Clinton met with
Mr. Jordan at the White House.(345) Ms. Lewinsky met with
Mr. Jordan on December 11 to discuss specific job contacts in New
York. Mr. Jordan gave her the names of some of his business
contacts.(346) He then made calls to contacts at MacAndrews &
Forbes (the parent corporation of Revlon), American Express, and
Young & Rubicam.(347)
Mr. Jordan also telephoned President Clinton to keep him
informed of the efforts to help Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan
testified that President Clinton was aware that people were
trying to get jobs for her, that Mr. Podesta was trying to help
her, that Bill Richardson was trying to help her, but that she
wanted to work in the private sector.(348)
On the same day of Ms. Lewinsky's meeting with Mr. Jordan,
December 11, Judge Wright ordered President Clinton, over his
objection, to answer certain written interrogatories as part of
the discovery process in Jones. Those interrogatories required,
among other things, the President to identify any government
employees since 1986 with whom he had engaged in sexual relations
(a term undefined for purposes of the interrogatory).(349) On
December 16, the President's attorneys received a request for
production of documents that mentioned Monica Lewinsky by name.
On December 17, 1997, according to Ms. Lewinsky, President
Clinton called her in the early morning and told her that she was
on the witness list, and they discussed their cover stories.(350)
On December 18 and December 23, she interviewed for jobs with New
York-based companies that had been contacted by Mr. Jordan.(351) On
December 19, Ms. Lewinsky was served with a deposition subpoena
by Ms. Jones's lawyers.(352) On December 22, 1997, Mr. Jordan took
her to her new attorney; she and Mr. Jordan discussed the
subpoena, the Jones case, and her job search during the course of
the ride.(353)
The President answered the "other women" interrogatory on
December 23, 1997, by declaring under oath: "None."(354)
On Sunday, December 28, 1997, Monica Lewinsky and the
President met in the Oval Office.(355) During that meeting, the
President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed both her move to New York
and her involvement in the Jones suit.(356)
On January 5, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky declined the United Nations
offer.(357) On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the affidavit
denying the relationship with President Clinton (she had talked
on the phone to the President on January 5 about it).(358) Mr.
Jordan informed the President of her action.(359)
The next day, on January 8, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky interviewed
in New York with MacAndrews & Forbes, a company recommended by
Vernon Jordan. The interview went poorly. Mr. Jordan then
called Ronald Perelman, the Chairman of the Board at MacAndrews &
Forbes. Mr. Perelman said Ms. Lewinsky should not worry, and
that someone would call her back for another interview.
Mr. Jordan relayed this message to Ms. Lewinsky, and someone
called back that day.(360)
Ms. Lewinsky interviewed again the next morning, and a few
hours later received an informal offer for a position.(361) She
told Mr. Jordan of the offer, and Mr. Jordan then notified
President Clinton with the news: "Mission accomplished."(362)
On January 12, 1998, Ms. Jones's attorneys informed Judge
Wright that they might call Monica Lewinsky as a trial witness.(363)
Judge Wright stated that she would allow witnesses with whom the
President had worked, such as Ms. Lewinsky, to be trial
witnesses.(364)
In a call on January 13, 1998, a Revlon employee formalized
the job offer, and asked Ms. Lewinsky to provide references.(365)
Either that day or the next, President Clinton told Erskine
Bowles that Ms. Lewinsky "had found a job in the . . . private
sector, and she had listed John Hilley as a reference, and could
we see if he could recommend her, if asked."(366) Thereafter,
Mr. Bowles took the President's request to Deputy Chief of Staff
John Podesta, who in turn spoke to Mr. Hilley about writing a
letter of recommendation. After speaking with Mr. Podesta,
Mr. Hilley agreed to write such a letter, but cautioned it would
be a "generic" one.(367) On January 14, at approximately 11:17
a.m., Ms. Lewinsky faxed her letter of acceptance to Revlon and
listed Mr. Hilley as a reference.(368)
On January 15, the President responded to the December 15
request for production of documents relating to Monica Lewinsky
by answering "none." On January 16, Ms. Lewinsky's attorney sent
to the District Court in the Jones case her affidavit denying a
"sexual relationship" with the President.(369) The next day, on
January 17, the President was deposed and his attorney used her
affidavit as the President similarly denied a "sexual
relationship."
B. Summary
When a party in a lawsuit (or investigation) provides job or
financial assistance to a witness, a question arises as to
possible witness tampering. The critical question centers on the
intent of the party providing the assistance. Direct evidence of
that intent often is unavailable. Indeed, in some cases, the
witness receiving the job assistance may not even know that the
party providing the assistance was motivated by a desire to stay
on good terms with the witness during the pending legal
proceeding.(370) Similarly, others who are enlisted in the party's
effort to influence the witness's testimony by providing job
assistance may not be aware of the party's motivation and intent.
One can draw inferences about the party's intent from
circumstantial evidence. In this case, the President assisted
Ms. Lewinsky in her job search in late 1997, at a time when she
would have become a witness harmful to him in the Jones case were
she to testify truthfully. The President did not act half-heartedly. His assistance led to the involvement of the
Ambassador to the United Nations, one of the country's leading
business figures (Mr. Perelman), and one of the country's leading
attorneys (Vernon Jordan).
The question, therefore, is whether the President's efforts
in obtaining a job for Ms. Lewinsky were to influence her
testimony(371) or simply to help an ex-intimate without concern for
her testimony. Three key facts are essential in analyzing his
actions: (i) the chronology of events, (ii) the fact that the
President and Ms. Lewinsky both intended to lie under oath about
the relationship, and (iii) the fact that it was critical for the
President that Ms. Lewinsky lie under oath.
There is substantial and credible information that the
President assisted Ms. Lewinsky in her job search motivated at
least in part by his desire to keep her "on the team" in the
Jones litigation.
VIII. There is substantial and credible information that the
President lied under oath in describing his
conversations with Vernon Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky.
President Clinton was asked during his civil deposition
whether he had talked to Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's
involvement in the Jones case. The President stated that he knew
Mr. Jordan had talked to Ms. Lewinsky about her move to New York,
but stated that he did not recall whether Mr. Jordan had talked
to Ms. Lewinsky about her involvement in the Jones case. The
testimony was false. A lie under oath about these conversations
was necessary to avoid inquiry into whether Ms. Lewinsky's job
and her testimony were improperly related.
A. President's Testimony in the Jones Case
The President was questioned in his civil deposition about
his conversations with Vernon Jordan regarding Ms. Lewinsky and
her role in the Jones case. Beforehand, the President was asked
a general question:
Q: Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you
that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a
subpoena in this case?
WJC: I don't think so.(372)
The President later testified in more detail about conversations
he may have had with Mr. Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's role in
the case:
Q: Excluding conversations that you may have had with
Mr. Bennett or any of your attorneys in this case,
within the past two weeks has anyone reported to
you that they had had a conversation with Monica
Lewinsky concerning this lawsuit?
WJC: I don't believe so. I'm sorry, I just don't
believe so.
* * * *
Q. Has it ever been reported to you that [Vernon
Jordan] met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about
this case?
WJC: I knew that he met with her. I think Betty
suggested that he meet with her. Anyway, he met
with her. I, I thought that he talked to her
about something else. I didn't know that -- I
thought he had given her some advice about her
move to New York. Seems like that's what Betty
said.(373)
B. Evidence That Contradicts the President's Civil Deposition
Testimony
Vernon Jordan testified that his conversations with the
President about Ms. Lewinsky's subpoena were, in fact, "a
continuing dialogue."(374) When asked if he had kept the President
informed about Ms. Lewinsky's status in the Jones case in
addition to her job search, Mr. Jordan responded: "The two --
absolutely."(375)
On December 19, Ms. Lewinsky phoned Mr. Jordan and told him
that she had been subpoenaed in the Jones case.(376) Following that
call, Mr. Jordan telephoned the President to inform him "that
Monica Lewinsky was coming to see me, and that she had a
subpoena"(377) -- but the President was unavailable.(378) Later that
day, at 5:01 p.m., Mr. Jordan had a seven-minute telephone
conversation with the President:(379)
I said to the President, "Monica Lewinsky called me up.
She's upset. She's gotten a subpoena. She is coming
to see me about this subpoena. I'm confident that she
needs a lawyer, and I will try to get her a lawyer."(380)
Later on December 19, after meeting with Ms. Lewinsky,
Mr. Jordan went to the White House and met with the President
alone in the Residence.(381) Mr. Jordan testified: "I told him that
Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, came to me with a
subpoena."(382) According to Mr. Jordan, the President "thanked me
for my efforts to get her a job and thanked me for getting her a
lawyer."(383)
According to Mr. Jordan, on January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky
showed him a copy of her signed affidavit denying any sexual
relationship with the President.(384) He testified that he told the
President about the affidavit, probably in one of his two logged
calls to the White House that day:(385)
Q: [W]alk us through what exactly you would have said
on the portion of the conversation that related to
Ms. Lewinsky and the affidavit.
VJ: Monica Lewinsky signed the affidavit.
* * * *
Q: [L]et's say if it was January 7th, or whenever it
was that you informed him that she signed the
affidavit,(386) is it accurate that based on the
conversations you had with him already, you didn't
have to explain to him what the affidavit was?
VJ: I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Q: So that it would have made sense that you would
have just said, "She signed the affidavit,"
because both you and he knew what the affidavit
was?
VJ: I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Q: All right. When you indicated to the President
that she had signed the affidavit, what, if
anything, did he tell you?
VJ: I think he -- his judgment was consistent with
mine that that was -- the signing of the affidavit
was consistent with the truth.(387)
Mr. Jordan testified that "I knew that the President was
concerned about the affidavit and whether or not it was signed.
He was, obviously."(388) When asked why he believed the President
was concerned, Mr. Jordan testified:
Here is a friend of his who is being called as a
witness in another case and with whom I had gotten a
lawyer, I told him about that, and told him I was
looking for a job for her. He knew about all of that.
And it was just a matter of course that he would be
concerned as to whether or not she had signed an
affidavit foreswearing what I told you the other day,
that there was no sexual relationship.(389)
Mr. Jordan summarized his contacts with the President about
Monica Lewinsky and her involvement in the Jones litigation as
follows:
I made arrangements for a lawyer and I told the
President that. When she signed the affidavit, I told
the President that the affidavit had been signed and
when Frank Carter told me that he had filed a motion to
quash, as I did in the course of everything else, I
said to the President that I saw Frank Carter and he
had informed me that he was filing a motion to quash.
It was as a simple information flow, absent a
substantive discussion about her defense, about which I
was not involved.(390)
The President himself testified in the grand jury that he
talked to Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the
case. Despite his earlier statements at the deposition, the
President testified to the grand jury that he had no reason to
doubt that he had talked to Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's
subpoena, her lawyer, and her affidavit.(391)
C. Summary
In his civil deposition, the President stated that he had
talked to Vernon Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's job. But as the
testimony of Mr. Jordan reveals, and as the President as much as
conceded in his subsequent grand jury appearance,(392) the President
did talk to Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the
Jones case -- including that she had been subpoenaed, that
Mr. Jordan had helped her obtain a lawyer, and that she had
signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the
President. Given their several communications in the weeks
before the deposition, it is not credible that the President
forgot the subject of their conversations during his civil
deposition. His statements "seems like that's what Betty said"
and "I didn't know that" were more than mere omissions; they were
affirmative misstatements.
The President's motive for making false and misleading
statements about this subject in his civil deposition was
straightforward. If the President admitted that he had talked
with Vernon Jordan both about Monica Lewinsky's involvement in
the Jones case and about her job, questions would inevitably
arise about whether Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and her future job
were connected. Such an admission by the President in his civil
deposition likely would have prompted Ms. Jones's attorneys to
inquire further into the subject. And such an admission in his
deposition would have triggered public scrutiny when the
deposition became public.
At the time of his deposition, moreover, the President was
aware of the potential problems in admitting any possible link
between those two subjects. A criminal investigation and
substantial public attention had focused in 1997 on job
assistance and payments made to Webster Hubbell in 1994. The
jobs and money paid to Mr. Hubbell by friends and contributors to
the President had raised serious questions about whether such
assistance was designed to influence Mr. Hubbell's testimony
about Madison-related matters.(393) Some of Mr. Hubbell's jobs,
moreover, had been arranged by Vernon Jordan, which was likely a
further deterrent to the President raising both Ms. Lewinsky's
job and her affidavit in connection with Vernon Jordan.
IX. There is substantial and credible information that President
Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by attempting to
influence the testimony of Betty Currie.
In a meeting with Betty Currie on the day after his
deposition and in a separate conversation a few days later,
President Clinton made statements to her that he knew were false.
The contents of the statements and the context in which they were
made indicate that President Clinton was attempting to influence
the testimony that Ms. Currie might have been required to give in
the Jones case or in a grand jury investigation.(394)
A. Evidence
1. Saturday, January 17, 1998, Deposition
President Clinton's deposition in Jones v. Clinton occurred
on Saturday, January 17, 1998. In that deposition, the President
testified that he could not recall being alone with Monica
Lewinsky and that he had not had sexual relations, a sexual
affair, or a sexual relationship with her. During his testimony,
the President referred several times to Betty Currie and to her
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He stated, for example, that the
last time he had seen Ms. Lewinsky was when she had come to the
White House to see Ms. Currie;(395) that Ms. Currie was present when
the President had made a joking reference about the Jones case to
Ms. Lewinsky;(396) that Ms. Currie was his source of information
about Vernon Jordan's assistance to Ms. Lewinsky;(397) and that
Ms. Currie had helped set up the meetings between Ms. Lewinsky
and Mr. Jordan regarding her move to New York.(398)
At the deposition, Judge Wright imposed a protective order
that prevented the parties from discussing their testimony with
anyone else. "Before he leaves, I want to remind him, as the
witness in this matter, . . . that this case is subject to a
Protective Order regarding all discovery, . . . [A]ll parties
present, including . . . the witness are not to say anything
whatsoever about the questions they were asked, the substance of
the deposition, . . ., any details . . . ."(399)
2. Sunday, January 18, 1998, Meeting with Ms. Currie
Because the President referred so often to Ms. Currie, it
was foreseeable that she might become a witness in the Jones
matter, particularly if specific allegations of the President's
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky came to light.(400) Indeed,
according to Ms. Currie, President Clinton at some point may have
told her that she might be asked about Monica Lewinsky.(401)
Shortly after 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, January 17, 1998, two
and a half hours after he returned from the deposition, President
Clinton called Ms. Currie at home(402) and asked her to come to the
White House the next day.(403) Ms. Currie testified that "[i]t's
rare for [President Clinton] to ask me to come in on Sunday."(404)
At about 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, January 18, Ms. Currie went to
meet with President Clinton at the White House. She told the
grand jury:
He said that he had had his deposition yesterday, and
they had asked several questions about Monica Lewinsky.
And I was a little shocked by that or -- (shrugging).
And he said -- I don't know if he said -- I think he
may have said, "There are several things you may want
to know," or "There are things -- " He asked me some
questions.(405)
According to Ms. Currie, the President then said to her in
succession:(406)
"You were always there when she was there, right?
We were never really alone."(407)
"You could see and hear everything."(408)
"Monica came on to me, and I never touched her,
right?"(409)
"She wanted to have sex with me, and I can't do
that."(410)
Ms. Currie indicated that these remarks were "more like
statements than questions."(411) Ms. Currie concluded that the
President wanted her to agree with him.(412) She based that
conclusion on the way he made most of the statements and on his
demeanor.(413) Ms. Currie also said that she felt the President
made these remarks to see her reaction.(414)
Ms. Currie said that she indicated her agreement with each
of the President's statements,(415) although she knew that the
President and Ms. Lewinsky had in fact been alone in the Oval
Office and in the President's study.(416) Ms. Currie also knew that
she could not or did not in fact hear or see the President and
Ms. Lewinsky while they were alone.(417)
In the context of this conversation, President Clinton
appeared to be "concerned," according to Ms. Currie.(418)
The President's concern over the questions asked at the
civil deposition about Ms. Lewinsky also manifested itself in
substantial efforts to contact Monica Lewinsky over the next two
days. Shortly after her meeting with the President, Ms. Currie
made several attempts to contact Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie
testified it was "possible" she did so at the President's
suggestion, and said "he may have asked me to call [Ms. Lewinsky]
to see what she knew or where she was or what was happening."(419)
Later that same night, at 11:01 p.m., the President again called
Ms. Currie at home.(420) Ms. Currie could not recall the substance
but suggested that the President had called to ask whether she
had spoken to Ms. Lewinsky.(421) The next day, January 19, 1998,
which was a holiday, Ms. Currie made seven unsuccessful attempts
to contact Monica Lewinsky, by pager, between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00
a.m.(422) The President called Ms. Currie at home twice, and
Ms. Currie called the President at the White House once that
day.(423)
3. Conversation Between the President and Ms. Currie on
Tuesday, January 20, 1998, or Wednesday, January 21,
1998.
On either Tuesday, January 20 or Wednesday, January 21 of
that week, the President again met with Ms. Currie and discussed
the Monica Lewinsky matter. Ms. Currie testified as follows:
BC: It was Tuesday or Wednesday. I don't remember
which one this was, either. But the best I
remember, when he called me in the Oval Office, it
was sort of a recap[it]ulation of what we had
talked about on Sunday -- you know, "I was never
alone with her" -- that sort of thing.
Q: Did he pretty much list the same --
BC: To my recollection, sir, yes.
Q: And did he say it in sort of the same tone and
demeanor that he used the first time he told you
on Sunday?
BC: The best I remember, sir, yes.
* * * *
Q: And the President called you into the Oval Office
specifically to list these things?
BC: I don't know if that's specifically what he called
me in for, but once I got inside, that's what he
--
Q: That's what he told you?
BC: Uh-huh.(424)
B. The President's Grand Jury Testimony
The President was asked why he might have said to Ms. Currie
in their meeting on Sunday, January 18, 1998, "we were never
alone together, right?" and "you could see and hear everything."
The President testified:
[W]hat I was trying to determine was whether my
recollection was right and that she was always in the
office complex when Monica was there, and whether she
thought she could hear any conversations we had, or did
she hear any.
* * * *
I was trying to -- I knew . . . to a reasonable
certainty that I was going to be asked more questions
about this. I didn't really expect you to be in the
Jones case at the time. I thought what would happen is
that it would break in the press, and I was trying to
get the facts down. I was trying to understand what
the facts were.(425)
Later, the President stated that he was referring to a
larger area than simply the room where he and Ms. Lewinsky were
located. He also testified that his statements to Ms. Currie
were intended to cover a limited range of dates:
WJC: . . . . [W]hen I said, we were never alone, right,
I think I also asked her a number of other
questions, because there were several times, as
I'm sure she would acknowledge, when I either
asked her to be around. I remember once in
particular when I was talking with Ms. Lewinsky
when I asked Betty to be in the, actually, in the
next room in the dining room, and, as I testified
earlier, once in her own office.
But I meant that she was always in the Oval
Office complex, in that complex, while Monica
was there. And I believe that this was part
of a series of questions I asked her to try
to quickly refresh my memory. So, I wasn't
trying to get her to say something that
wasn't so. And, in fact, I think she would
recall that I told her to just relax, go in
the grand jury and tell the truth when she
had been called as a witness.
Q: So, when you said to Mrs. Currie that, I was never
alone with her, right, you just meant that you and
Ms. Lewinsky would be somewhere perhaps in the
Oval Office or many times in your back study, is
that correct?
WJC: That's right. We were in the back study.
Q: And then --
WJC: Keep in mind, sir, I just want to make it -- I was
talking about 1997. I was never, ever trying to
get Betty Currie to claim that on the occasions
when Monica Lewinsky was there when she wasn't
anywhere around, that she was. I would never have
done that to her, and I don't think she thought
about that. I don't think she thought I was
referring to that.
Q: Did you put a date restriction? Did you make it
clear to Mrs. Currie that you were only asking her
whether you were never alone with her after 1997?
WJC: Well, I don't recall whether I did or not, but I
assumed -- if I didn't, I assumed she knew what I
was talking about, because it was the point at
which Ms. Lewinsky was out of the White House and
had to have someone WAVE her in, in order to get
in the White House. And I do not believe to this
day that I was -- in 1997, that she was ever there
and that I ever saw her unless Betty Currie was
there. I don't believe she was.(426)
With respect to the word "alone," the President also stated that
"it depends on how you define alone" and "there were a lot of
times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were."(427)
The President was also asked about his specific statement to
Betty Currie that "you could see and hear everything." He
testified that he was uncertain what he intended by that comment:
Q: When you said to Mrs. Currie, you could see and
hear everything, that wasn't true either, was it,
as far as you knew. You've already -- . . .
WJC: . . . My memory of that was that, that she had the
ability to hear what was going on if she came in
the Oval Office from her office. And a lot of
times, you know, when I was in the Oval Office,
she just had the door open to her office. Then
there was -- the door was never completely closed
to the hall. So I think there was -- I'm not
entirely sure what I meant by that, but I could
have meant that she generally would be able to
hear conversations, even if she couldn't see them.
And I think that's what I meant.(428)
The President then testified that when he made the comment
to Ms. Currie about her being able to hear everything, he again
was referring to only a limited period of time:
Q: . . . .you would not have engaged in those
physically intimate acts if you knew that Mrs.
Currie could see or hear that, is that correct?
WJC: That's correct. But keep in mind, sir, I was
talking about 1997. That occurred, to the -- and
I believe that occurred only once in February of
1997. I stopped it. I never should have started
it, and I certainly shouldn't have started it back
after I resolved not to in 1996. And I was
referring to 1997.
And I -- what -- as I say, I do not know --
her memory and mine may be somewhat
different. I do not know whether I was
asking her about a particular time when
Monica was upset and I asked her to stand,
stay back in the dining area. Or whether I
was, had reference to the fact that if she
kept the door open to the Oval Office,
because it was always -- the door to the
hallway was always somewhat open, that she
would always be able to hear something if
anything went on that was, you know, too
loud, or whatever.
I do not know what I meant. I'm just trying to
reconcile the two statements as best I can, without
being sure.(429)
The President was also asked about his comment to Ms. Currie
that Ms. Lewinsky had "come on" to him, but that he had "never
touched her":
Q: . . . . [I]f [Ms. Currie] testified that you told
her, Monica came on to me and I never touched her,
you did, in fact, of course, touch Ms. Lewinsky,
isn't that right, in a physically intimate way?
WJC: Now, I've testified about that. And that's one of
those questions that I believe is answered by the
statement that I made.(430)
Q: What was your purpose in making these statements
to Mrs. Currie, if it weren't for the purpose to
try to suggest to her what she should say if ever
asked?
WJC: Now, Mr. Bittman, I told you, the only thing I
remember is when all this stuff blew up, I was
trying to figure out what the facts were. I was
trying to remember. I was trying to remember
every time I had seen Ms. Lewinsky.
. . . I knew this was all going to come
out. . . . I did not know [at the time] that
the Office of Independent Counsel was
involved. And I was trying to get the facts
and try to think of the best defense we could
construct in the face of what I thought was
going to be a media onslaught.(431)
Finally, the President was asked why he would have called
Ms. Currie into his office a few days after the Sunday meeting
and repeated the statements about Ms. Lewinsky to her. The
President testified that although he would not dispute
Ms. Currie's testimony to the contrary, he did not remember
having a second conversation with her along these lines.(432)
C. Summary
The President referred to Ms. Currie on multiple occasions
in his civil deposition when describing his relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. As he himself recognized, a large number of
questions about Ms. Lewinsky were likely to be asked in the very
near future. The President thus could foresee that Ms. Currie
either might be deposed or questioned or might need to prepare an
affidavit.
The President called her shortly after the deposition and
met with Ms. Currie the next day. The President appeared
"concerned," according to Ms. Currie. He then informed
Ms. Currie that questions about Ms. Lewinsky had been asked at
the deposition.
The statements the President made to her on January 18 and
again on January 20 or 21 -- that he was never alone with
Ms. Lewinsky, that Ms. Currie could always hear or see them, and
that he never touched Ms. Lewinsky -- were false, but consistent
with the testimony that the President provided under oath at his
deposition. The President knew that the statements were false at
the time he made them to Ms. Currie. The President's suggestion
that he was simply trying to refresh his memory when talking to
Ms. Currie conflicts with common sense: Ms. Currie's
confirmation of false statements could not in any way remind the
President of the facts. Thus, it is not plausible that he was
trying to refresh his recollection.
The President's grand jury testimony reinforces that
conclusion. He testified that in asking questions of Ms. Currie
such as "We were never alone, right" and "Monica came on to me,
and I never touched her, right," he intended a date restriction
on the questions. But he did not articulate a date restriction
in his conversations with Ms. Currie. Moreover, with respect to
some aspects of this incident, the President was unable to devise
any innocent explanation, testifying that he did not know why he
had asked Ms. Currie some questions and admitting that he was
"just trying to reconcile the two statements as best [he could]."
On the other hand, if the most reasonable inference from the
President's conduct is drawn -- that he was attempting to enlist
a witness to back up his false testimony from the day before --
his behavior with Ms. Currie makes complete sense.
The content of the President's statements and the context in
which those statements were made provide substantial and credible
information that President Clinton sought improperly to influence
Ms. Currie's testimony. Such actions constitute an obstruction
of justice and improper influence on a witness.
X. There is substantial and credible information that President
Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the federal
grand jury investigation. While refusing to testify for
seven months, he simultaneously lied to potential grand jury
witnesses knowing that they would relay the falsehoods to
the grand jury.
The President's grand jury testimony followed seven months
of investigation in which he had refused six invitations to
testify before the grand jury. During this period, there was no
indication that the President would admit any sexual relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky. To the contrary, the President vehemently
denied the allegations.
Rather than lie to the grand jury himself, the President
lied about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky to senior aides,
and those aides then conveyed the President's false story to the
grand jury.(433)
In this case, the President lied to, among others, three
current senior aides -- John Podesta, Erskine Bowles, and Sidney
Blumenthal -- and one former senior aide, Harold Ickes. The
President denied any kind of sexual relationship with Monica
Lewinsky; said that Ms. Lewinsky had made a sexual demand on him;
and denied multiple telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky.
The President, by his own later admission, was aware that his
aides were likely to convey the President's version of events to
the grand jury.
The President's aides took the President at his word when he
made these statements. Each aide then testified to the nature of
the relationship between Monica Lewinsky and the President based
on those statements -- without knowing that they were calculated
falsehoods by the President designed to perpetuate the false
statements that the President made during his deposition in the
Jones case.
The aides' testimony provided the grand jury a false account
of the relationship between the President and Ms. Lewinsky.
Their testimony thus had the potential to affect the
investigation -- including decisions by the OIC and grand jury
about how to conduct the investigation (for example, whether to
subpoena Secret Service agents) and whether to indict particular
individuals.
A. The Testimony of Current and Former Aides >
1. John Podesta
John Podesta, Deputy Chief of Staff,(434) testified that on
several occasions shortly after the media first began reporting
the Lewinsky allegations, the President either denied having a
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky or otherwise minimized his
involvement with her.
Mr. Podesta described a meeting with the President, Chief of
Staff Erskine Bowles, and Deputy Chief of Staff Sylvia Matthews,
in the morning of January 21, 1998.(435) During that meeting, the
President stated: "Erskine, I want you to know that this story
is not true."(436) Mr. Podesta further recalled that the President
said "that he had not had a sexual relationship with her, and
that he never asked anybody to lie."(437)
Several days later, on January 23, 1998, the President more
adamantly told Mr. Podesta that he had not engaged in sex of any
"kind, shape or manner" with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Podesta recalled:
JP: [H]e said to me that he had 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.
Q: How do you mean?
JP: Just what I said.
Q: Okay. Not explicit, in the sense that he got more
specific than sex, than the word "sex."
JP: Yes, he was more specific than that.
Q: Okay. Share that with us.
JP: 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.
JP: --that they had not had oral sex.(438)
Later, possibly that same day,(439) the President made a
further statement to Mr. Podesta regarding his relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Podesta testified that the President "said to
me that after [Monica] left [her job at the White House], that
when she had come by, she came by to see Betty, and that he --
when she was there, either Betty was with them -- either that she
was with Betty when he saw her or that he saw her in the Oval
Office with the door open and Betty was around -- and Betty was
out at her desk."(440) The President relayed to Mr. Podesta one of
the false "cover stories" that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had
agreed to use.
Both the President and Mr. Podesta knew that Mr. Podesta was
likely to be a witness in the ongoing grand jury criminal
investigation.(441) Nonetheless, Mr. Podesta recalled that the
President "volunteered" to provide information about Ms. Lewinsky
to him(443) even though Mr. Podesta had not asked for these
details.(444)
Mr. Podesta "believe[d]" the President, and testified that
it was important to him that the President denied the affair.(445)
Mr. Podesta repeated to the grand jury the false and misleading
statements that the President told him.
2. Erskine Bowles
Mr. Bowles, the White House Chief of Staff,(446) confirmed
Mr. Podesta's account of the President's January 21, 1998,
statement in which the President denied having a sexual
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Bowles testified:
EB: And this was the day this huge story breaks. And
the three of us walked in together -- Sylvia
Matthews, John Podesta, and me -- into the Oval
Office, and the President was standing behind his
desk.
Q: About what time of day is this?
EB: This is approximately 9:00 in the morning, or
something -- you know, in that area. And he
looked up at us and he said the same thing he said
to the American people. He said, "I want you to
know I did not have sexual relationships [sic]
with this woman Monica Lewinsky. I did not ask
anybody to lie. And when the facts come out,
you'll understand."(447)
Mr. Bowles testified that he took the President's statements
seriously: "All I can tell you is: This guy who I've worked for
looked me in the eye and said he did not have sexual
relationships with her. And if I didn't believe him, I couldn't
stay. So I believe him."(448) Mr. Bowles repeated the President's
false and misleading statement to the grand jury.
3. Sidney Blumenthal
Sidney Blumenthal, an Assistant to the President,(449)
similarly testified that the President made statements to him
denying the Lewinsky allegations shortly after the first media
report.
Mr. Blumenthal stated that he spoke to Mrs. Clinton on the
afternoon of January 21, 1998, and to the President early that
evening. During those conversations, both the President and Mrs.
Clinton offered an explanation for the President's meetings with
Ms. Lewinsky, and President Clinton offered an explanation for
Ms. Lewinsky's allegations of a sexual relationship.(450)
Testifying before the grand jury, Mr. Blumenthal related his
discussion with President Clinton:
I said to the President, "What have you done wrong?"
And he said, "Nothing. I haven't done anything wrong."
. . . And it was at that point that he gave his account
of what had happened to me and he said that Monica --
and it came very fast. He said, "Monica Lewinsky came
at me and made a sexual demand on me." He rebuffed
her. He said, "I've gone down that road before, I've
caused pain for a lot of people and I'm not going to do
that again."
She threatened him. She said that she would tell
people they'd 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
wouldn't be the stalker any more.(452)
Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President appeared "upset"
during this conversation.(453)
Finally, Mr. Blumenthal asked the President to explain
alleged answering machine messages (a detail mentioned in press
reports).
He said that he remembered calling her when Betty
Currie's brother died and that he left a message on her
voice machine that Betty's brother had died and he said
she was close to Betty and had been very kind to Betty.
And that's what he recalled.(454)
According to Mr. Blumenthal, the President said that the call he
made to Ms. Lewinsky relating to Betty's brother was the "only
one he could remember."(455) That was false: The President and Ms.
Lewinsky talked often on the phone, and the subject matter of the
calls was memorable.
A grand juror asked Mr. Blumenthal whether the President had
said that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky included any kind of
sexual activity. Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President's
response was "the opposite. He told me that she came on to him
and that he had told her he couldn't have sexual relations with
her and that she threatened him. That is what he told me."(456)
Mr. Blumenthal testified that after the President relayed
this information to him, he "certainly believed his story. It
was a very heartfelt story, he was pouring out his heart, and I
believed him."(457) Mr. Blumenthal repeated to the grand jury the
false statements that the President made to him.
4. Harold Ickes
Mr. Ickes, a former Deputy Chief of Staff,(458) also related to
the grand jury a conversation that he had with the President on
the morning of January 26, 1998,(460) during which the President
denied the Lewinsky allegations.
Regarding that conversation, Mr. Ickes testified: "The two
things that I recall, the two things that he again repeated in
public -- had already said publicly and repeated in public that
same Monday morning was that he had not had -- he did not have a
-- or he had not had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and
that he had done nothing -- now I'm paraphrasing -- had done
nothing to ask anybody to change their story or suborn perjury or
obstruct justice."(461)
Mr. Ickes recalled that the President probably volunteered
this information.(462) Mr. Ickes repeated the President's false
statements to the grand jury.
B. The President's Grand Jury Testimony
The President admitted to the grand jury that, after the
allegations were publicly reported, he made "misleading"
statements to particular aides whom he knew would likely be
called to testify before the grand jury. The President testified
as follows:
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?
WJC: I recall telling a number of those people that I
didn't have, either I didn't have an affair with
Monica Lewinsky or didn't have sex with her. And
I believe, sir, that -- you'll have to ask them
what they thought. But I was using those terms in
the normal way people use them. You'll have to
ask them what they thought I was saying.
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?
WJC: No.
The President 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 21st when the Post article
broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into
this, you knew that they might be witnesses. You
knew that they might be called into a grand jury,
didn't you?
WJC: That's 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 I'll also --
whenever anybody asked me any details, I said,
look, I don't want you to be a witness or I turn
you into a witness or give you information that
would get you in trouble. I just wouldn't talk.
I, by and large, didn't talk to people about this.
Q: If all of these people -- let's leave out Mrs.
Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid
Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erskine
Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the story broke,
after Judge Starr's involvement was known on
January 21st, have said that you denied a sexual
relationship with them. Are you denying that?
WJC: No.
Q: And you've told us that you --
WJC: I'm just telling you what I meant by it. I told
you what I meant by it when they started this
deposition.
Q: You've told us now that you were being careful,
but that it might have been misleading. Is that
correct?
WJC: 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 let's 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.(463)
C. Summary
The President made the following misleading statements to
his aides:
The President told Mr. Podesta that he had
not engaged in sex "in any way whatsoever"
with Ms. Lewinsky, "including oral sex".
The President told Mr. Podesta, Mr. Bowles, and
Mr. Ickes that he did not have a "sexual
relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President told Mr. Podesta that "when
[Ms. Lewinsky] came by, she came by to see
Betty [Currie]."
The President told Mr. Blumenthal that
Ms. Lewinsky "came on to him and that he had
told her he couldn't have sexual relations
with her and that she threatened him."
The President told Mr. Blumenthal that he
couldn't remember making any calls to
Ms. Lewinsky other than once when he left a
message on her answering machine.
During the President's grand jury testimony, the President
admitted that his statements to aides denying a sexual
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky "may have been misleading."(464) The
President also knew his aides likely would be called to testify
regarding any communications with him about Ms. Lewinsky. And he
presumably expected his aides to repeat his statements regarding
Ms. Lewinsky to all questioners, including to the grand jury.
Finally, he himself refused to testify for many months. The
combination of the President's silence and his deception of his
aides had the effect of presenting a false view of events to the
grand jury.
The President says that at the time he spoke to his aides,
he chose his words with great care so that, in his view, his
statements would be literally true because he was referring only
to intercourse. That explanation is undermined by the
President's testimony before the grand jury that his denials "may
have been misleading" and by the contradictory testimony by the
aides themselves -- particularly John Podesta, who says that the
President specifically denied oral sex with Ms. Lewinsky.
Moreover, on January 24, 1998, the White House issued talking
points for its staff, and those talking points refute the
President's literal truth argument: The talking points state as
the President's view the belief that a relationship that includes
oral sex is "of course" a "sexual relationship."(465)
For all of these reasons, there is substantial and credible
information that the President improperly tampered with witnesses
during the grand jury investigation.
XI. There is substantial and credible information that President
Clinton's actions since January 17, 1998, regarding his
relationship with Monica Lewinsky have been inconsistent
with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully
execute the laws.
Before, during, and after his January 17, 1998, civil
deposition, the President attempted to conceal the truth about
his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky from the judicial process in
the Jones case. Furthermore, the President has since lied under
oath to the grand jury and facilitated the provision of false
information to the grand jury by others.
The President also misled the American people and the
Congress in his public statement of January 26, 1998, in which he
denied "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. The President
misled his Cabinet and his senior aides by denying the
relationship to them. The Cabinet and senior aides in turn
misled the American people and the Congress by conveying the
President's denials and professing their belief in the
credibility of those denials.
The President promised in January 1998 to cooperate fully
with the grand jury investigation and to provide "more rather
than less, sooner rather than later." At that time, the OIC was
conducting a criminal investigation and was obligated to report
to Congress any substantial and credible information that may
constitute grounds for an impeachment.
The President's conduct delayed the grand jury investigation
(and thereby delayed any potential congressional proceedings).
He asserted, appealed, withdrew, and reasserted Executive
Privilege (and asserted other governmental privileges never
before applied in federal criminal proceedings against the
government). The President asserted these privileges concerning
the investigation of factual questions about which the President
already knew the answers. The President refused six invitations
to testify voluntarily before the grand jury. At the same time,
the President's aides and surrogates argued publicly that the
entire matter was frivolous and that any investigation of it
should cease.
After being subpoenaed in July, the President made false
statements to the grand jury on August 17, 1998. That night, the
President again made false statements to the American people and
Congress, contending that his answers in his civil deposition had
been "legally accurate." The President then made an implicit
plea for Congress to take no action: "Our country has been
distracted by this matter for too long."(466)
The President has pursued a strategy of (i) deceiving the
American people and Congress in January 1998, (ii) delaying and
impeding the criminal investigation for seven months, and
(iii) deceiving the American people and Congress again in August
1998.
A. Beginning on January 21, 1998, the President misled the
American people and Congress regarding the truth of his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
On January 21, 1998, the day the Washington Post first
reported the Lewinsky matter, the President talked to his long-time advisor Dick Morris. With the President's approval,
Mr. Morris commissioned a poll that evening. The results
indicated that voters were willing to forgive the President for
adultery but not for perjury or obstruction of justice.(467) When
the President telephoned him that evening, Mr. Morris explained
that the President thus should not go public with a confession or
explanation.(468) According to Mr. Morris, the President replied,
"Well, we just have to win, then."(469)
The next evening, the President dissuaded Mr. Morris from
any plan to "blast[] Monica Lewinsky 'out of the water.'" The
President indicated that "there's some slight chance that she may
not be cooperating with Starr and we don't want to alienate
her."(470)
The President himself spoke publicly about the matter
several times in the initial days after the story broke. On
January 26, the President was definitive: "I want to say one
thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm
going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with
that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a
single time. Never. These allegations are false."(471)
The President's emphatic denial to the American people was
false. And his statement was not an impromptu comment in the
heat of a press conference. To the contrary, it was an
intentional and calculated falsehood to deceive the Congress and
the American people.(472)
B. The First Lady, the Cabinet, the President's staff, and the
President's associates relied on and publicly emphasized the
President's denial.
After the President lied to the American people, the
President's associates argued that the allegations against the
President were false and even scurrilous.
Mrs. Clinton forcefully denied the allegations on January
27, 1998, one day after the President's public denial. She
admitted that the American people "should certainly be concerned"
if a President had an affair and lied to cover it up. She
acknowledged that it would be a "very serious offense." But she
emphasized that the allegations were false -- a "pretty bad"
smear. She noted that the President "has denied these
allegations on all counts, unequivocally." And Mrs. Clinton
shifted the focus away from the President, indicated that "this
is a battle" and stated that "some folks are going to have a lot
to answer for" when the facts come out.(473)
The most senior officials in the Executive Branch served as
additional (albeit unwitting) agents of the President's
deception. The Cabinet and White House aides stated emphatically
that the allegations were false. For example, White House
spokesperson Michael McCurry was asked whether the President's
denial covered all forms of sexual contact, and Mr. McCurry
stated that "I think every American that heard him knows exactly
what he meant."(474) So, too, White House Communications Director
Ann Lewis said on January 26, 1998: "I can say with absolute
assurance the President of the United States did not have a
sexual relationship because I have heard the President of the
United States say so. He has said it, he could not be more
clear. He could not have been more direct."(475) She added: "Sex
is sex, even in Washington. I've been assured."(476)
After a Cabinet meeting on January 23, 1998, in which the
President offered denials, several members of the Cabinet
appeared outside the White House. Secretary of State Albright
stated: "I believe that the allegations are completely
untrue."(477) Coupled with the President's firm denial, the united
front of the President's closest advisors helped shape perception
of the issue.
C. The President repeatedly and unlawfully invoked the
Executive Privilege to conceal evidence of his personal
misconduct from the grand jury.
When the allegations about Ms. Lewinsky first arose, the
President informed the American people that he would cooperate
fully. He told Jim Lehrer that "we are doing our best to
cooperate here."(478) He told National Public Radio that "I have
told people that I would cooperate in the investigation, and I
expect to cooperate with it. . . . I'm going to do my best to
cooperate with the investigation."(479) He told Roll Call "I'm
going to cooperate with this investigation. . . . And I'll
cooperate."(480)
Such cooperation did not occur. The White House's approach
to the constitutionally based principle of Executive Privilege
most clearly exposed the non-cooperation. In 1994, White House
Counsel Lloyd Cutler issued an opinion that the Clinton
Administration would not invoke Executive Privilege for cases
involving personal wrongdoing by any government official.(481) By
1998, however, the President had blended the official and
personal dimensions to the degree that the President's private
counsel stated in a legal brief filed in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: "In a very real
and significant way, the objectives of William J. Clinton, the
person, and his Administration (the Clinton White House) are one
and the same."(482)
After the Monica Lewinsky investigation began, the President
invoked Executive Privilege for the testimony of five witnesses:
Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills, Nancy Hernreich, Sidney Blumenthal,
and Lanny Breuer. These claims were patently groundless. Even
for official communications within the scope of the privilege,
the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1974 in United States v.
Nixon(483) that the Executive Privilege gives way in the face of the
compelling need for evidence in criminal proceedings.
The President's assertion of Executive Privilege for
Ms. Hernreich, an assistant who manages the secretarial work for
the Oval Office,(484) was frivolous. At the time that the President
was asserting Executive Privilege for one assistant, the
President's other assistant (Betty Currie) had already testified
extensively.
Based on Nixon, the OIC filed a motion to compel the
testimony of Hernreich, Lindsey, and Blumenthal. The United
States District Court held a hearing on March 20. Just before
the hearing, the White House -- without explanation -- dropped
its Executive Privilege claim as to Ms. Hernreich.(485)
On May 4, 1998, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled
against the President on the Executive Privilege issue.(486) After
the White House filed a notice of appeal, the OIC filed an
expedited petition for certiorari before judgment in the Supreme
Court. The President thereupon dropped his claim of Executive
Privilege.
The tactics employed by the White House have not been
confined to the judicial process. On March 24, while the
President was traveling in Africa, he was asked about the
assertion of Executive Privilege. He responded, "You should ask
someone who knows." He also stated "I haven't discussed that
with the lawyers. I don't know."(487)
This was untrue. Unbeknownst to the public, in a
declaration filed in District Court on March 17 (seven days
before the President's public expression of ignorance), White
House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff informed Chief Judge Johnson that
he "ha[d] discussed" the matter with the President, who had
directed the assertion of Executive Privilege.(488)
The deception has continued. Because the President withdrew
his Executive Privilege claim while the case was pending in the
Supreme Court of the United States, it was assumed that the
President would no longer assert Executive Privilege. But that
assumption proved incorrect. White House attorney Lanny Breuer
appeared before the grand jury on August 4, 1998, and invoked
Executive Privilege. He would not answer, for example, whether
the President had told him about his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky and whether they had discussed the gifts he had given to
Monica Lewinsky.(489) On August 11, 1998, Chief Judge Johnson
denied the Executive Privilege claim as a basis for refusing to
testify, and ordered Mr. Breuer to testify.(490)
On August 11, 1998, Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills
testified and repeatedly asserted Executive Privilege at the
President's direction.(491) The breadth of the claim was striking:
The privilege was asserted not only for Ms. Mills's
communications with the President, senior staff, and staff
members of the White House Counsel's Office -- but also for
Ms. Mills's communications with private lawyers for the
President, private lawyers for grand jury witnesses, and Betty
Currie.(492)
On August 17, the President testified before the grand jury.
At the request of a grand juror, the OIC asked the President
about his assertions of Executive Privilege and why he had
withdrawn the claim before the Supreme Court. The President
replied that "I didn't really want to advance an executive
privilege claim in this case beyond having it litigated, so that
we, we had not given up on principal [sic] this matter, without
having some judge rule on it. . . . I strongly felt we should
not appeal your victory on the executive privilege issue."(493)
Four days after this sworn statement, on August 21, 1998,
the President filed a notice of appeal with respect to the
Executive Privilege claim for Lanny Breuer that Chief Judge
Johnson had denied ten days earlier (and six days before the
President's testimony). In addition, Bruce Lindsey appeared
again before the grand jury on August 28, 1998, and the President
again asserted Executive Privilege with respect to his testimony
-- even though the President had dropped the claim of Executive
Privilege for Mr. Lindsey while the case was pending before the
Supreme Court of the United States in June.(494)
The Executive Privilege was not the only claim of privilege
interposed to prevent the grand jury from gathering relevant
information. The President also acquiesced in the Secret
Service's attempt to have the Judiciary craft a new protective
function privilege (rejecting requests by this Office that the
President order the Secret Service officers to testify). The
District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit rejected the privilege claim. The litigation
was disruptive to the Secret Service and to the grand jury. The
frivolity of the claim is evidenced by the Chief Justice's
decision to reject the Secret Service's request for a stay
without even referring the matter to the full Court. All of that
litigation would have been unnecessary had the President
testified in February instead of August, or had he taken the
position that relevant facts should be fully available to the
grand jury.
D. The President refused six invitations to testify to the
grand jury, thereby delaying expeditious resolution of this
matter, and then refused to answer relevant questions before
the grand jury when he testified in August 1998.
>This Office extended six separate invitations to the
President to testify before the grand jury. The first invitation
was issued on January 28, 1998. The OIC repeated the invitations
on behalf of the grand jury on February 4, February 9, February
21, March 2, and March 13. The President declined each
invitation. His refusals substantially delayed this Office's
investigation.
Finally, in the face of the President's actions, this Office
asked the grand jury to consider issuing a subpoena to the
President. The grand jury deliberated and approved the issuance
of a subpoena. On July 17, 1998, the OIC served the subpoena, in
accordance with the grand jury's action, on the President's
private counsel. The subpoena required the President to appear
on July 28.
The President sought to delay his testimony.(495) Shortly
after a hearing before the District Court on the President's
motion for a continuance, the President and the OIC reached an
agreement by which the President would testify on August 17 via
live video feed to the grand jury. In a Rose Garden ceremony on
July 31, 1998, the President stated to the country: "I'm looking
forward to the opportunity . . . of testifying. I will do so
completely and truthfully."(496)
At the outset of his grand jury appearance, the President
similarly stated: "I will answer each question as accurately and
fully as I can."(497) The President then read a prepared statement
in which he admitted "inappropriate intimate contact" with
Ms. Lewinsky.(498) Despite his statement that he would answer each
question, the President refused to answer specific questions
about that contact (other than to indicate that it was not
intercourse and did not involve the direct touching of
Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitals).(499)
E. The President misled the American people and the Congress in
his public statement on August 17, 1998, when he stated that
his answers at his civil deposition in January had been
"legally accurate."
The President addressed the Nation on the evening of August
17, 1998, after his grand jury appearance. The President did not
tell the truth. He stated: "As you know, in a deposition in
January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica
Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not
volunteer information."(500) As this Referral has demonstrated, the
President's statements in his civil deposition were not "legally
accurate," and he could not reasonably have thought they were.
They were deliberate falsehoods designed to conceal the truth of
the President's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The President's claim that his testimony during the civil
deposition was legally accurate -- which he made to the grand
jury and to the American people on August 17 -- perpetuates the
deception and concealment that has accompanied his relationship
with Monica Lewinsky since his first sexual encounter with her on
November 15, 1995.
F. Summary
In this case, the President made and caused to be made false
statements to the American people about his relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. He also made false statements about whether he had
lied under oath or otherwise obstructed justice in his civil
case. By publicly and emphatically stating in January 1998 that
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and these
"allegations are false," the President also effectively delayed a
possible congressional inquiry, and then he further delayed it by
asserting Executive Privilege and refusing to testify for six
months during the Independent Counsel investigation. This
represents substantial and credible information that may
constitute grounds for an impeachment.
Next: End Page