THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
Statement of Sen. DeWine (R-Ohio)
Following is a statement from the Senate's closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, excerpts of which senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record for Friday, Feb. 12.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. Chief Justice, my friends in the Senate, each of the articles before us contains numerous examples of conduct, any of which as alleged would constitute grounds for the President's removal from office. I have determined that most of these allegations have not been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Let me now turn to the three, at least for me, remaining allegations. First is the allegation that the President obstructed justice. When? After his Paula Jones deposition, he had his two, by now very famous, conversations with Betty Currie. The facts are familiar, but they are telling. On January 17, 1998, the President gave his deposition in the Paula Jones case. The Jones lawyers zeroed in on the relationship between Monica Lewinsky and the President. It was clear that the Jones lawyers had specific knowledge of the details of this relationship. In the President's answers, he referred repeatedly to Betty Currie. Further, counsel for Ms. Jones questioned the President in detail about Betty Currie, about her job, her hours at work, et cetera.
I submit that any first year law school student who attended that deposition would know that Paula Jones was a prospective witness or would know that Betty Currie was a prospective witness. In fact, 5 days after the deposition Betty Currie was subpoenaed by the Jones lawyers. When the President returned to the White House after the deposition, he knew Betty Currie was a prospective witness.
Sure enough, within 3 hours of the conclusion of the deposition, the President called Betty Currie at home on a Saturday night and asked her to come to the White House the next afternoon, Sunday. During the course of that Sunday afternoon meeting, the President informed Betty Currie that Monica's name came up during the deposition. According to Betty Currie's testimony, the President said to her--and we are all, of course, familiar with this--`You were always there when Monica was there, right?' `We were never really alone, right?' `Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?' `You could see and hear everything, right?' `She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.'
We are all familiar with that, but I think most significantly, and to me the most telling thing, is that 2 or 3 days later the President again spoke to Betty Currie and again made the same statements and used the same demeanor.
The President does not dispute that he made these statements to Betty Currie. He explained he was just trying to refresh his memory about what the facts were. The President's explanation is simply not credible. It defies logic. Why would the President make five declarative statements to Betty Currie to `refresh his memory' when he knew that Betty Currie could not possibly know whether most of these statements were true? In fact, we know and the President knew that the statements were false.
Betty Currie was a key potential witness who could contradict the President's sworn testimony in the Paula Jones deposition. She was also the President's subordinate. On two separate occasions the President made blatantly false statements to her to try to corrupt the due process of justice and with the intent to corruptly persuade her with the intention to influence her testimony. This charge of obstruction of justice, I believe, has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and I might add it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let me now turn to the second allegation, the allegation that the President committed perjury on August 17, 1998, when he testified about these two post-deposition meetings with Betty Currie. I know there may be some who are still struggling with the perjury charge. I simply say this: If you believe, as I do, that the obstruction of justice charge is made based on the statements made to Betty Currie, then any fair reading of the grand jury testimony will indicate to you that you also have to find he committed perjury.
Here is what he said:
What I was trying to determine is whether my recollection was right and she [Betty Currie] was always in the office complex when Monica was there and whether they thought she could hear any conversation we had, or did she hear any. I thought what would happen is it would break in the press, and I was trying to get the facts down. I was trying to understand what the facts were.
He also says, the President:
I was not trying to get Betty Currie to say something that was untruthful. I was trying to get as much information as quickly as I could.
I submit if the President is guilty of obstruction of justice in his statements to Betty Currie, then clearly, clearly, he also must be guilty of perjury in his account of these events to the grand jury. The two findings are inextricably connected. One cannot reach the first conclusion without reaching the second. I believe it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the President committed perjury. And I might also add, I believe it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence clearly shows that the President obstructed justice and then lied under oath about this obstruction in his grand jury testimony.
Now, on the third charge, I believe the evidence shows that the President further perjured himself in the grand jury to avoid a perjury charge in his prior deposition. This perjury had to do with the nature and details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
I know that many people have come to the well and have expressed concern about how we got here, what brings us here today. I share some of those concerns. Congresses, beginning with this one, will have to deal with the aftermath of this sorry affair: court cases that have weakened the Presidency, a discredited independent counsel law.
You will forgive me if I point out that I was one of the 80-some Members of the House who voted against the independent counsel law when it came up--please forgive me for that aside. I voted against it because I share some of the same concerns we have heard expressed here today and yesterday. We also will have to deal with the Secret Service that is now vulnerable to subpoenas and Presidents who are vulnerable to civil right suits while in office.
These are important issues, but I submit they are issues not for today but rather for another day. None of us wanted to be here, but we are where we are, the facts are what they are, and we know what we know. What we know is that the President obstructed justice and committed perjury. What must we do with this President who has obstructed justice and then committed perjury?
Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice. By obstructing justice and committing perjury, the President has directly, illegally, and corruptly attacked a coequal branch of Government, the judiciary. It has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the President of the United States has committed serious crimes.
But while I have found specific violations of law, it is not insignificant, in my final decision, that these specific criminal acts were committed within a larger context, a larger context of a documented pattern of indefensible behavior--behavior that shows a reckless disregard for the law and for the rights of others.
I have concluded that the President is guilty of behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of his office. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee used those precise words to define an impeachable offense.
I have also concluded that the President is guilty of the abuse or violation of a public trust. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, used those precise words to define an impeachable offense. What the President did is a serious offense against our system of government. It undermines the integrity of his office and it undermines the rule of law.
Here is what Thomas Paine said about the rule of law:
Let a crown be placed on the law by which the world may know that, so far as we approve of monarchy, in America the law is king.
The law is indeed king in America. There isn't one law for the powerful and one for the meek. That is what we mean when we say we are a `nation of laws.' We elect a President to enforce these laws. In fact, the Constitution commands that the President `take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'
How can we allow a man who has obstructed justice and committed perjury to remain as the chief law enforcement officer of our country? How can we call ourselves a nation of laws and leave a man in office who has flouted those laws? We define ourselves as a people not just by what we hold up, not just by what we revere, but we also define ourselves by what we tolerate. I submit that this is something we simply, as a people, cannot tolerate.
Mr. Chief Justice, I will vote to convict the President on both counts and to remove him from office.
I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the Record immediately following these remarks.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF SENATOR DEWINE
Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate: The President has been impeached on two separate articles by the House of Representatives.
Article I charges that the President willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.
Article II charges that the President obstructed justice (1).
Each article contains numerous examples of conduct, any of which, it is alleged, would constitute grounds for the President's removal from office.
I have examined each of these separate grounds or allegations.
I have determined that most of these allegations have not been proven by clear and convincing evidence (2).
I now turn to the three allegations that I believe have the most merit.
I. I examine first the allegation that the President obstructed justice when on January 18 and January 20 or 21, 1998, he related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in the proceeding--Betty Currie--in order to corruptly influence her testimony.
These are the essential facts: On January 17, 1998, the President gave his deposition in the Paula Jones case. Jones' lawyers zeroed in on the relationship between Monica Lewinsky and the President. It was clear that the Jones lawyers had specific knowledge of the details of this relationship. In the President's answers, he referred--repeatedly--to Betty Currie. For example, when asked whether he walked with Ms. Lewinsky down the hallway from the Oval Office to his private kitchen in the White House, the President said Ms. Lewinsky was not there alone or that Betty was there (3); when asked about the last time he spoke with Monica Lewinsky, he falsely testified that he only recalled that she was only there to see Betty (4); when asked whether he prompted Vernon Jordan to speak to Monica Lewinsky, he stated that he thought Betty asked Vernon Jordan to meet with Monica (5); and he said that Monica asked Betty to ask someone to talk to Ambassador Richardson about a job at the United Nations (6). Further, counsel for Ms. Jones questioned the President in detail about Betty Currie, her job, and her hours of work (7).
Anyone reading the transcript would have to expect the Jones was the President's subordinate. On two separate occasions, the President made blatantly false statements to her to try to corruptly influence the due administration of justice and to attempt to corruptly persuade her with the intent to influence her testimony (8).
This charge of obstruction of justice has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. (Let me state, for the record, it has also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)
II. Let me now turn to the second allegation--that the President committed perjury on August 17, 1998, when he testified about these two post-deposition meetings with Betty Currie.
Here is what the President said to the Grand Jury about these meetings. He first testified that `what I was trying to determine was whether my recollection was right and that she [Betty Currie] 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 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' (9).
The President also testified that `I was not trying to get Betty Currie to say something that was untruthful. I was trying to get as much information as quickly as I could' (10).
When asked again about these statements, the President said: `I was trying to refresh my memory about what the facts were . . . 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' (11).
He was asked this specific question; `If I understand your current line of testimony, you are saying that your only interest in speaking with Ms. Currie in the days after you deposition was to refresh your own recollection?' The President responded: `Yes' (12).
If the President is guilty of obstruction of justice in his statements to Betty Currie, then clearly, he must also be guilty of perjury in his account of these events to the grand jury. The two findings are inextricably connected--one cannot reach the first conclusion without also reaching the second.
It has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the President committed perjury (13). (Let me state for the record that it has also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)
III. The last allegation I would like to discuss is the charge that the President committed perjury on August 17, 1998 before a Federal Grand Jury when he testified concerning the nature
Monica Lewinsky's testimony is just as unequivocal. She describes, in graphic detail, ten separate encounters where such intimate activities occurred (15). Ms. Lewinsky's story is corroborated by numerous consistent contemporaneous statements she made to her friends and counselors. Her testimony is further corroborated by phone logs and White House exit and entry logs.
Counsel for the President have failed to show any motive for Monica Lewinsky to lie about these details.
Conversely, the President clearly had a motive to lie. He could not, in his Grand Jury testimony, admit such sexual activity without directly contradicting his deposition testimony in the Paula Jones case. Such a contradiction would have subjected him to a perjury charge in that case. To avoid a perjury charge concerning the Jones deposition, the President had to carefully craft an explanation so it was clear he did not touch Monica Lewinsky. He had to do this to avoid falling within the definition of `sexual relations' that had been given him in the Jones deposition.
The President's story defies common sense and human experience. This is particularly true if you consider the number of times the President and Monica Lewinsky were alone and, in the President's words, engaged in `inappropriate behavior.' It is also probative that the President's DNA was found on Monica Lewinsky's dress.
The charge of perjury has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. (Let me state, for the record, that it has also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)
That concludes my findings of fact. The evidence clearly shows that the President obstructed justice and then lied under oath about this obstruction in his grand jury testimony. He further perjured himself in the grand jury to avoid a perjury charge in his prior deposition.
I wish this were not true. When I began my examination of this case, I assumed that I would vote not guilty. I assumed that the evidence simply would not be sufficient to convict.
Unfortunately, the facts are otherwise.
Many people, including myself, are deeply concerned about how we got here. Congresses--beginning with this one--will have to deal with the aftermath of this sorry affair: Court cases that have weakened the Presidency; a discredited independent counsel law; a Secret Service vulnerable to subpoenas; and Presidents who are subjects to civil suits while in office.
These are important issues. But they are issues for another day.
None of us wanted to be here. But we are where we are. The facts of the President's misconduct are what they are. We know what we know. And although each of us may find some of the acts more offensive than others, all of them are disturbing, all are very serious, and all lead to the same conclusion: The President obstructed justice and committed perjury.
What must we do with this President who has obstructed justice, and then committed perjury about that obstruction?
Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice. By obstructing justice and committing perjury, the President has directly, illegally, and corruptly attacked a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary.
The requirement to obey the law applies to us all, in all cases. To say a President can obstruct justice is to put the President above the law, and above the Constitution.
Perjury is also a very serious crime. The Constitution gives every defendant a choice: Testify truthfully, or remain silent. No one can be forced to testify in a manner that involves self-incrimination. But a decision to place one's hand on the Bible and invoke God's witness--and then lie--threatens the judiciary. The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth--so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies--so that injustice may prevail.
It has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the President of the United States has committed serious crimes. But although I have found specific violations of law, it is not insignificant in my final decision that these specific criminal acts were committed within a larger context of a documented pattern of indefensible behavior--behavior that shows a reckless disregard for the law and for the rights of others.
I have concluded that the President is guilty of `Behaving in a Manner Grossly Incompatible with the Proper Function and Purpose of (his) Office.' In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee used those precise words to define an impeachable offense (16).
I have also concluded that the President is guilty of `the
What the President did is a serious offense against the system of government. It undermines the integrity of his office. And it undermines the rule of law.
Here's what Thomas Paine said about the rule of law: `Let a crown be placed (on the law), by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king' (17).
The law is indeed king in America. There isn't one law for the powerful and one for the meek. That's what we mean when we say we are a nation of laws. We elect a President to enforce these laws. The Constitution commands that he `take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'
How can we allow a man who has obstructed justice and committed perjury to remain as the chief law enforcement officer of our country?
How can we call ourselves a nation of laws, and tolerate a man in office who has flouted those laws?
We define ourselves as a people not just by what we revere, but by what we tolerate. This, in my view, is simply not tolerable. I will vote to convict the President on both counts, and to remove him from office.
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of many talented individuals who have helped me address these difficult questions of fact, law, and policy. I have been given able counsel by Karla Carpenter, Helen Rhee, Louis DuPart, Robert Hoffman, Laurel Pressler, and Michael Potemra on my Senate staff; my good friends William F. Schenck, Curt Hartman, Nicholas Wise, and Charles Wise; and my son and valued adviser Patrick DeWine. All deserve my sincere thanks; of course, the responsibility for the conclusions remains mine alone.
1. Specifically, the article charges that `the President has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover-up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.'
2. Each Senator must determine the standard of proof to be applied in judging an impeachment case. In weighing the facts of this impeachment, I have used the standard of proof of `clear and convincing evidence'. The Modern Federal Jury Instruction describes clear and convincing evidence as `proof (that) leaves no substantial doubt in your kind . . . that establishes in your mind, not only the proposition at issue is probable, but also that it is highly probable. It is enough if the party with the burden of proof establishes his claim beyond any `substantial doubt he does not have to dispel every `reasonable doubt'.' Modern Federal Jury Instructions, section 73.01 (1998). I have rejected the standard of proof `beyond a reasonable doubt,' which applies to criminal cases. This standard is not applicable to a case in which the defendant is threatened not with loss of liberty but with loss of office. I have also rejected the standard of `preponderance of the evidence.' This standard, which would provide for conviction if the scales of evidence were tipped ever so slightly against the President, would not treat removal from office with the seriousness and gravity it deserves.
3. Question: Do you recall ever walking with Jane Doe 6 Lewinsky down the hallway from the Oval Office to your private kitchen there in the White House?
Answer: . . . Now, to go back to your question, my recollection is that, that at some point during the government shutdown, when Ms. Lewinsky was still an intern but was working the chief of staff's office because all the employees had to go home, that she was back there with a pizza that she brought to me and to others. I do not believe she was there alone, however. I don't think she was. And my recollection is that on a couple of occasions after that she was there by my secretary Berry Currie was there with her. She and Betty are friends. That's my, that's my recollection. And I have no other recollection of that.
4. Question: When was the last time you spoke with Monica Lewinsky?
Answer: I'm 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.
Question: Stuck your head out of the Oval Office?
Answer: Uh-huh, Betty said she was coming by and talked to her, and I said hello to her.
Question: I believe I was starting to ask you a question a moment ago and we got sidetracked. Have you ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this lawsuit?
Answer. I'm not sure, and let me tell you why I'm not sure. It seems to me the, the--I want to be as accurate as I can here. Seems to me the last time she was there to see Betty before Christmas we were joking about how you-all, with the help of the
Mr. Bennett: We can't hear you, Mr. President.
Answer: and I said that you-all might call every woman I ever talked to and ask them that, and so I said you would qualify, or something like that . . .
Question: Was anyone else present when you said something like that?
Answer: Betty, Betty was present, for sure. Somebody else might have been there, too, but I said that to a lot of people. I mean that was just something I said.
5. Question: You know a man named Vernon Jordan?
Answer: I know him well.
Question: You've known him for a long time.
Answer: A long time.
Question: Has it ever been reported to you that he met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about this case?
Answer: 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.
Question: So Betty, Betty Currie suggested that Vernon Jordan meet with Monica Lewinsky?
Answer: I don't know that.
Question: I thought you just said that. I'm sorry.
Answer: No, I think, I think, I think Betty told me that Vernon talked to her, but I, but my impression was that Vernon was talking to her about her moving to New York. I think that's what Betty said to me.
Question: Did you do anything, sir, to prompt this conversation to take place between Vernon Jordan and Monica Lewinsky?
Answer: I can tell you what my memory is. My memory is that Vernon said something to me about her coming in, Betty had called and asked if he would see her and he said he would, he said he would, and then she called him and then he said something to me about it . . .
Question: My question, though, is focused on the time before the conversation occurred, and the question is whether you did anything to cause the conversation to occur.
Answer: I think in the mean--I'm not sure how you mean the question. I think the way you mean the question, the answer to that is no, I've already testified. What my memory of this is, if you're asking did I set the meeting up, I do not believe that I did. I believe that Betty did that, and she may have mentioned, asked me if I thought it was all right if she did it, and if she did ask me I would have said yes, and so if that happened, then I did something to cause the conversation to occur. If that's what you mean, yes. I didn't think there was anything wrong with it. It seemed like a natural thing to do to me, But I don't believe that I actually was the precipitating force. I think that she and Betty were close, and I think Betty did it. That's my memory of it.
6. Question: Have you ever asked anyone to talk to Bill Richardson about Monica Lewinsky?
Answer: I believe that, I believe that Monica, what I know about that is I believe Monica asked Betty Currie to ask someone to talk to him, and she, and she talked to him and went to an interview with him. That's what I believe happened.
Question: And the source of that information is who?
Answer: Betty. I think that's what Betty--I think Betty did that. I think Monica talked to Betty about moving to New York, and I, my recollection is that that was the chain of events.
Question: Did you say or do anything whatsoever to create a possibility of Monica Lewinsky getting a job at the U.N.?
Answer: To my knowledge, no, although I must say I wouldn't have thought there was anything wrong with it. You know, she was a--she had worked in the White House, she had worked in the Defense Department, and she was moving to New York. She was a friend of Betty. I certainly wouldn't have been opposed to it, based on anything I knew, anyway.
7. Question: How long has Betty Currie been your secretary?
Answer: Since I've been president.
Question: How is her work schedule arranged? Does she have a certain shift that she works, or do you ask her to work certain hours the following day? Please explain how her schedule is determined.
Answer: She works, she comes to work early in the morning and normally stays there until I leave at night. She works very long hours, and then when I come in on the weekend, or on Saturday, if I work on Saturday, she's there, and normally if I'm, if I'm working on Sunday and I'm having a schedule of meetings, either she or Nancy Hernreich will be there. One of them is always there on the weekend. Sometimes if I come over just with paperwork and work for a couple of hours, she's not there, but otherwise she's always there when I'm there.
Question: Have you ever met with Monica Lewinsky in the White House between the hours of midnight and six a.m.?
Answer: I certainly don't think so.
Question: Have you ever met--
Answer: Now, let me just say, when she was working here, during, there may have been a time when we were all--we were up working late. There are lots of, on any given night, when the Congress is in session, there are always several people around until later in the night, but I don't have any memory of that. I just can't say that there could have been a time when that occurred, I just--but I don't remember it.
Question: Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have
Answer: No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.
Question: It would be extraordinary, wouldn't it, for Betty Currie to be in the White House between midnight and six a.m., wouldn't it?
Answer: I don't know what the facts were. I meant I don't know. She's an extraordinary woman.
Question: Does that happen all the time, sir, or rarely?
Answer: Well, I don't know, because normally I'm not there between midnight and six, so I wouldn't know how many times she's there. Those are questions you'd have to ask her. I just can't say.
8. There are two statutes regarding obstruction of justice that are relevant to the facts of this case: 18 U.S.C. 1503 which provides `Whoever corruptly . . . influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice . . .' shall be guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice and 18 U.S.C. 1512 which provides `Whoever knowingly . . . corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to--(1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding . . .' shall be guilty of the crime of witness tampering.
9. President's Grand Jury testimony, August 17, 1998, pp. 55-56.
10. Ibid., p. 56.
11. Ibid., pp. 131-2.
12. There are two federal perjury statutes relevant to the facts of this case: 18 U.S.C. 1621 which provides that `Whoever--having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, . . . or person, in any case, in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, . . . willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true . . .' shall be guilty of an offense against the United States; and 18 U.S.C. 1623 which provides that `Whoever under oath . . . in any proceeding before . . . any . . . court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration . . .' shall be guilty of an offense against the United States. A statement is material `if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to whom it is addressed.' A statement is no less material because it did not or could not confuse or distract the decision maker. In this case, the President made false statements to a grand jury investigating `whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses or otherwise violated federal law other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case Jones v. Clinton.' [January 16, 1998 Order of the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to expand the jurisdiction of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.] The President's false statements strike at the very heart of what the grand jury was investigating--perjury and obstruction of justice--and are material.
13. Grant Jury Testimony, President Clinton, 8/17/98, pp. 593-94.
14. Question: So, touching, in your view then and now--the person being deposed touching or kissing the breast of another person would fall within the definition?
Answer: That's correct sir.
Question: And you testified that you didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Jones deposition, under that definition, correct?
Answer: That's correct, sir.
Question: If the person being deposed touched the genitalia of another person, would that be 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 now----
Answer: Yes, sir.
Question: --Sexual relations?
Answer: Yes, sir.
Question: Yes, it would?
Answer: 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.
Question: So, you didn't do any of those three things----
Question: --With Monica Lewinsky?
Answer: You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined.
Question: Including touching her breast, kissing her breast, or touching her genitalia?
Answer: That's correct.
Grant Jury Testimony, President Clinton, 8/17/98, p. 94-95.
15. These incidents occurred on November 15th, 1995 (Deposition Testimony, Monica Lewinsky, 8/26/98, p. 6, lines 22-25; p. 7, 11.1-21); November 17th, 1995 (Ibid., p. 10, 11.20-25; p. 11, 11.1-25); December 31st, 1995 (Ibid., p. 16, 11.2-10); January 7th, 1996 (Ibid., p. 18, 11.15-19); January 21st, 1996 (Ibid., p. 24, 11.11-23); February 4th, 1996 (Ibid., p. 28, 11.23-25; p. 29, 11.1-20); March 31st, 1996 (Ibid., p. 36, 11.2-24); April 7th, 1996 (Ibid., p. 39, 11.19-25; p. 40, 11.1-6); February 28th, 1997 (Ibid., p. 45, 11.23-25; p. 46, 11.1-15); and March 29th, 1997 (Ibid., p. 49, 11.5-14).
16. See House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 18 (Comm. Print 1974).
17. Quoted in Maxwell Taylor Kennedy, ed., Make Gentle the Life of This World: The Vision of Robert F. Kennedy. p. 106.
© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company