From the Starr Referral:
Lewinsky's Aug. 20 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 5 The following is from a transcript of Monica S. Lewinsky's testimony to the grand jury on Aug. 20 as provided by the Associated Press and transcribed by the Federal Document Clearing House from documents supplied by the House Judiciary Committee. Editor's Note: Some of the language in these documents is sexually explicit.
MR. EMMICK: A question in the front?
A JUROR: I guess I would like to know what happened Monday to make you just by Thursday change your mind so completely.
A: I don't think it's so much changed my mind. I think -- it's -- it was very painful for me to watch his speech on Monday night. I -- it's -- it's hard for me to feel that he has characterized this relationship as a service contract and that that was never something that I ever thought it was. And --
A JUROR: I'm sorry, you lost me already.
A: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's -- from my understanding about what he testified to on Monday, not -- just from the press accounts, is that this was a -- that this was a service contract, that all I did was perform oral sex on him and that that's all that this relationship was. And it was a lot more than that to me and I thought it was a lot more than that.
And I think I felt -- I was hurt that -- that he didn't even -- sort of acknowledge me in his remarks. And even also -- I mean, that has to do with directly with me, but I thought he should have acknowledged all the other people that have gone through a lot of pain for seven months.
I feel very responsible for a lot of what's happened, you know, in the seven months, but I tried -- I tried very hard to do what I could to not -- to not hurt him. I'm still not answering your question.
A JUROR:Well, let's -- you said the relationship was more than oral sex. I mean, it wasn't like you went out on dates or anything like that, like normal people, so what more was it?
A: Oh, we spent hours on the phone talking. It was emotional.
A JUROR: Phone sex?
A: Not always. On a few occasions. I mean, we were talking. I mean, interacting. I mean, talking about what we were thinking and feeling and doing and laughing. We were very affectionate, even when -- after he broke the relationship off in May, I mean, when I'd go to visit with him, we'd -- you know, we'd hug each other a lot.
You know, he always used to like to stroke my hair. He -- we'd hold hands. We'd smile a lot. We discussed a variety -- - you know, a wide range of things. So, I mean, it was -- there was a real component of a relationship to it, and I just I thought he had a beautiful soul. I just thought he was just this incredible person, and when I looked at him I saw a little boy and -- I don't know what the truth is any more. And that's, I think, what I took away on Monday, was that I didn't know what the truth was.
And so how could I know the truth of my love for someone if it was based on him being an actor.
A JUROR: I'd like to ask you about Bayani Nelvis.
A JUROR: How much about your relationship with the President did Bayani Nelvis know?
A: I think he knew that ... that we were friends and that I would come to see the President and I gave him things. I don't know -- I don't remember ever getting into any specific details.
Might he have thought that from -- you know, from how much I kind of liked the President? I'm not sure.
But -- and I don't mean this in a racist way, you know, Nel's from another country and so his English is -- while his English is good, it's not perfect, not that anyone's is perfect, so I think that sometimes there was a little bit of a language barrier there, too, so I think he you know, Nel was just a -- is a really nice guy. He's a sweet guy and he -- he's very loyal to the President.
A JUROR: Did you ever tell him at any time that you loved the President?
A: I don't think so, but I might have, But I don't think so.
A JUROR: Okay.
MR. EMMICK: Yes? A question?
A JUROR: You just mentioned real components, the relationship was -- like a real component, you mentioned things like truth. But sometimes I go back and forth not understanding because you yourself were living a lot of secrets, a lot of lies, a lot of paranoia, but yet you wanted truth, a real component?
I'm not understanding these two different things because one time you're sentimental but then again you do just the opposite of what you say you're thinking. Did you ever think that nothing real could come of this relationship?
A: Did I ever think nothing real ...
A JUROR: Anything real, that anything real could -- and truthful and honest -- could have come from this relationship?
A JUROR: With this married man?
A: I did.
A JUROR: But I have a question for you about that.
A JUROR: It's been reported in the papers that you had a relationship before similar to this, where a lot of hurt and pain came out of this, you know, a lot of hurt and pain toward a family. And then you turn around and you do it again. You're young, you're vibrant, I can't figure out why you keep going after things that aren't free, that aren't obtainable.
A: Well, there's sort of two parts to that and just to clarify, the -- the way Andy and Kate Bleiler portrayed everything on TV and through their lawyer was pretty inaccurate, so I don't know how much of that is part of your question.
A JUROR: The only part I know is that he was a married man with a wife and a family.
A: That's true.
A JUROR: Like I know about the President.
A JUROR: He was a married man and it wasn't no secret of that fact. But yet you want to talk about truth, a real component, honesty. It all seems so -- like a fantasy. That's why I asked you earlier about obsession.
A: That's a hard question to answer because obviously there's -- there's work that I need to do on myself. There are obviously issues that -- that -- you know, a single young woman doesn't have an affair with a married man because she's normal, quote-unquote. But I think most people have issues and that's just how mine manifested themselves. It's something I need to work on and I don't think it's right, it's not right to have an affair with a married man. I never expected to fall in love with the President. I was surprised that I did.
And I didn't -- my intention had really been to come to Washington and start over and I didn't want to have another affair with a married man because it was really painful. It was horrible. And I feel even worse about it now.
A JUROR: Monica, I'd like to change the topic, if I can.
A: Did I answer --
A JUROR: Yes.
A JUROR: And I also -- I want to let you know that we're not here to judge you in any way, I think many of us feel that way.
A: I appreciate that. But I understand that every -- you know, this is -- this is a topic that -- there are a lot of people think it's wrong and I think it's wrong, too. I understand that.
A JUROR: I had to ask you that question because I've had to ask other questions and it wouldn't have been right for me not to ask you the question --
A JUROR: -- that I've had to ask.
A: I think it's fair and I think you should -- I think it's a fair question. It's a hard one to answer. No one likes to have their weaknesses splayed out for the entire world, you know, but I understand that. And I'd rather you understand where I'm coming from, you know, and you'd probably have to know me better and know my whole journey to how I got here from birth to now to really understand it. I don't even understand it. But I understand. I respect your having to ask that question and I appreciate what you're saying, whatever your name is.
A JUROR: We're here only to assess the credibility of your testimony.
A: Sure. But I -- I can see how that would be a factor.
A JUROR: I wanted to go back to the issue of ties. It's my understanding that you testified earlier this morning that your agreement, your immunity agreement, with the office of the Independent Counsel includes an understanding that you -- that you and your legal team need prior approval to disseminate information to the press.
A JUROR: And in looking over Exhibit ML-2, I don't see that provision. Can you look at that?
A: Is that my agreement?
A JUROR: Yes.
MR. EMMICK: Sure.
A: I know that portion of it very well.
A JUROR: I may be missing something.
A: There have been many times I've wanted to defend myself and the lies that have been spewed out.
MR. EMMICK: I think the reference is to part 1B.
A JUROR: Okay.
MR. EMMICK: Where it says "Will not make any statements -- " "Neither Ms. Lewinsky nor her agents will make any statements about this matter to witnesses, subjects, or targets of the OIC's investigation or their agents or to representatives of the news media without first obtaining the OIC's approval."
A JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. EMMICK: Other questions? Yes, ma'am?
A JUROR: I'd also like to return for a minute -- if you have that package out -- to something that was discussed this morning, earlier this morning, and that refers to your proffer. Do you have a copy of the proffer? The proffer?
MR. EMMICK: We do. Sure.
MR. EMMICK: I'm placing Exhibit ML-1 before A..
A: Thank you.
A JUROR: Monica, if you could look at paragraph 11, I'm not sure what page it is, but it's paragraph 11.
A: Okay. Yes. Okay.
A JUROR: As I understood our discussion this morning, you said that you offered to deny the relationship and the President didn't discourage you, but said something like "That's good."
As I read your proffer here, it says "The President told Ms. L to deny a relationship if ever asked." And that seems to me slightly different.
A: I forgot this. So that's true.
A JUROR: Is this proffer statement correct, that he did tell you to deny a relationship?
A: Yes. I don't -- I don't -- when I answered the question earlier, that was what first came to my mind. But, I mean, I know that this is true.
I just at that point -- and I -- really reading it, I know it's true because I was truthful in my proffer, but sitting here right now, I can't remember exactly when it was, but it was something that was certainly discussed between us.
A JUROR: And what about the next sentence also? Something to the effect that if two people who are involved say it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Do you recall him saying that to you?
A: Sitting here today, very vaguely. I can hear -- I have a weird -- I'll explain to you guys that I have a weird sense of -- for me, my saying I remember something, if I can see it in my mind's eye or I can hear him saying it to me, then I feel pretty comfortable saying that that's pretty accurate, that I remember that. And I can hear his voice saying that to me, I just can't place it.
A JUROR: Is it --
A: And this was -- I mean, this was early -- this was all throughout our relationship. I mean, it was -- obviously not something that we discussed too often, I think, because it was -- it's a somewhat unpleasant thought of having to deny it, having it even come to that point, but --
A JUROR: Is it possible that you also had these discussions after you learned that you were a witness in the Paula Jones case?
A: I don't believe so. No.
A JUROR: Can you exclude that possibility?
A: I pretty much can. I really don't remember it. I mean, it would be very surprising to me to be confronted with something that would show me different, but it was 2:30 in the -- I mean, the conversation I'm thinking of mainly would have been December 17th, which was ...
A JUROR: The telephone call.
A: Right. And it was, you know, 2:00, 2:30 in the morning. I remember the gist of it and I I really don't think so.
A JUROR:Thank you.
A JUROR: I have some questions about the Paula Jones lawsuit. Going back to the period before you even had any idea that you might be a witness in that, did you follow the Paula Jones lawsuit fairly closely?
A: I followed it. I don't know "fairly closely" but -- I think it maybe depended more on was there something in the paper and that happened to be a day that I sat and read all the papers because I had nothing to do. I did follow it, but I wasn't -- I didn't follow it as much as I follow this case. I mean, in terms of -- no, but I mean, I'm just saying as a gauge, you know.
A JUROR: So you were holding down a full-time job and everything at that time, but you did read the papers.
A: I did read the papers every day and it was -- sure, I followed it. I didn't know the ins and outs of it, but I followed it.
A JUROR: Did you in that period -- again, even before anyone knew that you would be a witness, did you discuss that with the President? Was he aware that you followed it? Was that something ...
A: No. Really, the time that I remember we discussed it was on the 17th.
A JUROR: December 17th?
A: And when I told him my sort of stupid idea for how he should settle it. So that was -- but, no. He wasn't -- we didn't -- I -- and I think in general just to give you guys a flavor, because there have been different subjects that have come up, when we spent time together, I know I certainly made an effort unless I was angry with him about something, that there were topics that I wanted to stay away from, and the time that I spent with him was precious to me. So things that were unpleasant I didn't bring up unless I had to.
A JUROR: Exactly what date again did you get your subpoena to be a witness?
A: The 19th of December.
A JUROR: The 19th? Okay. Now, when -- and if you could retell for me the conversation you had with the President about the gifts.
A: Okay. It was December 28th and I was there to get my Christmas gifts from him. Excuse me. I'm sorry. And we spent maybe about five minutes or so, not very long.,: talking about the case. And I said to him, 'Well, do you think -- "
What I mentioned -- I said to him that it had really alarmed me about the hat pin being in the subpoena and I think he said something like,, "Oh, you know, that sort of bothered me, too. That bothered me, You know, That bothers me." Something like that.
And at one point, I said, "Well, do you think I should -- I don't think I said "get rid of," I said, "But do you think I should put away or maybe give to Betty or give to someone the gifts?"
And he -- I don't remember his response. I think it was something like, "I don't know," or "Hmm" or there really was no response. I know that I didn't leave the White House with any notion of what I should do with them, that I should do anything different than that they were sitting in my house.
And then later I got the call from Betty.
A JUROR: Now, did you bring up Betty's name or did the President bring up Betty's name?
A. I think I brought it up. The President wouldn't have brought up Betty's name because he really didn't -- he didn't really discuss it, so either I brought up Betty's name, which I think is probably what happened, because I remember not being too, too shocked when Betty called. Somewhat surprised, I guess, that he hadn't said -- you know, it would have seemed easier to sort of have said something maybe then, but I wasn't too surprised when she called.
A JUROR: Thank you.
MR. EMMICK: I think there was a question in the front. Did you have a question?
MS. IMMERGUT: Did you have a question?
A JUROR: Yes. Back to the contacts?
A JUROR: On page 7, on the 29th of March
A: On the -- sorry, what date?
A JUROR: The 29th of March. Sunday.
MR. EMMICK: Then 29th of March.
A JUROR: "Private encounter, approximately 1:30 or 2:00 p.m., study. President on crutches. Physical intimacy including oral sex to completion and brief direct genital contact." Brief direct genital contact, could you just elaborate on that a bit?
A JUROR: I understand
A: Oh, my gosh. This is so embarrassing.
A JUROR: You could close your eyes and talk.
A JUROR: We won't look at you.
A: Can I hide under the table? Uh I had -- I had wanted -- I tried to -- I placed his genital next to mine and had hoped that if he -- oh -- this is just too embarrassing. I don't --
A JUROR: Did you think it would lead to intercourse?
A: Not on that day.
A JUROR: Was that sort of the reason for doing the gesture --
A JUROR: -- or trying to -- moving his closer to yours?
A: Then I -- not that we would have intercourse that day, but that that might make him want to.
A JUROR: Okay. Were you wearing clothes at the time or underwear at the time?
A JUROR: And was he? Or his were pulled down?
A JUROR: So was there direct skin-to-skin contact between your genitals and his?
A: I think very briefly. It was -- he's really tall and he couldn't really bend because of his knee, so it was --
A JUROR: It was more of a grazing?
Copyright © 1998 The Washington Post Company