Federal Document Clearing House
Following is the statement of David Schippers, majority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, on whether the committee should recommend to the full House that it conduct an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton.
[A]s the chief investigative counsel for the majority, I've been called upon to advise the Judiciary Committee of the results of our analysis and review of the Sept. 9, 1998, referral from the Office of the Independent Counsel in which there was a conclusion that there is substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. ...
In executing the task assigned to us, my staff and I have made a deliberate effort to discount the political aspects of our examination and to ignore any partisan tactics or strategy.
The standard of review was set by me in our very first meeting after the delivery of the materials. I reminded the staff that we are not advocates, that we are professionals asked to perform a professional, albeit distasteful, duty. Therefore, I asked them to review the referral and supporting data in the light most favorable to the president. . . .
Before moving on to the substantive areas of the report, I would like to address two elementary but basic concepts of our constitutional government. These will serve to put our conclusions in the proper perspective.
First, the president of the United States enjoys a singular and appropriately lofty position in our system of government. But that position, by its very nature, involves equally unique and onerous responsibilities among which are included affirmative obligations that apply to no other citizen.
Specifically, the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the president the explicit and affirmative duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Moreover, before entering upon the duties of his office, the president is constitutionally commanded to take the following oath: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president, then, is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Although he is neither above nor below the law, he is, by virtue of his office, held to a higher standard than any other American. Furthermore, as chief executive officer and commander in chief, he is the repository of a special trust.
Second, many defendants who face legal action, whether it be civil or criminal, can honestly believe that the case against them is unwarranted and factually deficient. It is not, however, in the discretion of the litigant to decide that any tactics are justified to defeat the lawsuit in that situation; rather, it is incumbent upon that individual to testify fully and truthfully during the truth-seeking phase. . . .
The sanctity of the oath taken by a witness is the most essential bulwark of the truth-seeking function of a trial, which is the American method of ascertaining the facts. . . .
The subject matter of the underlying case, whether civil or criminal, and the circumstances under which the testimony is given, are of no significance whatever. It is the oath itself that is sacred and must be enforced.
The independent counsel act provides in relevant part that an independent counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. In compliance with the statutory mandate, the Office of the Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, informed the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998, that it was prepared to submit a referral under that statute.
On that day, the independent counsel's office delivered to the House the following material: (A) a referral consisting of an introduction, a narrative of relevant events, and an a identification and analysis of the substantial and credible information that may support grounds for impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; (B) an appendix in six three-ring binders totaling in excess of 2,500 pages of the most relevant testimony and other material cited in the referral; and, © 17 transmittal boxes containing grand jury transcripts, deposition transcripts, FBI reports, reports of interviews and thousands of pages of incidental backup documents.
Pursuant to House Resolution 525, all of this material was turned over to the Committee on the Judiciary to be held in executive session until Sept. 28, 1998, and at that time, the House ordered that all materials be released to the public except those which were withheld by action of the committee.
My staff and the minority staff were then instructed by the committee to review the referral together with all the other evidence and testimony that had been submitted for the purposes of determining whether there actually existed substantial and credible evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton may have committed acts that may constitute grounds to proceed to a resolution for an impeachment inquiry.
Because of the narrow scope of our directive, the investigation and analysis was necessarily circumscribed by the information delivered with the referral. We also considered some information and analysis that was furnished by the counsel for the president. For that reason, we did not seek to procure any additional evidence or testimony from any other source; particularly, we did not seek to obtain or review the material that remained in the possession of the Office of the Independent Counsel. ...
To support the referral, the House has been furnished with grand jury transcripts, FBI interview memoranda, transcripts of depositions, other interview memoranda, statements, audio recordings, and where available, video recordings of all persons named in the referral. In addition, the House was provided with a copy of every document cited and a mass of documentary and other evidence produced by witnesses, the White House, the president, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense.
This report is confined solely to that referral and supporting evidence and the testimonies supplied to the House and then to this committee, supplemented only by the information provided by the president's counsel.
Although the original submission contained a transcript of the president's deposition testimony, no videotape was included. Pursuant to a request by Chairman [Henry] Hyde, a videotape of the entire deposition was later provided to the committee by the district judge. Both that video and the video of the president's testimony before the grand jury have been thoroughly reviewed by all members of my staff and by me, personally.
Apart from the thorough review of President Clinton's deposition and grand jury testimony, the following functions were also performed in preparation for this report: All grand jury transcripts and memoranda of interview of [Betty] Currie, [Vernon] Jordan, [Monica] Lewinsky, the Secret Service agents, and [Linda] Tripp were independently reviewed, compared and analyzed by at least three members of my staff, and those of Ms. Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Tripp, and both appearances of the president by me personally. All of the remaining grand jury transcripts, deposition transcripts, and memoranda of the others interviewed were likewise reviewed, compared, and analyzed. . . .
I personally read the entire evidence reference and legal reference that accompanied the referral. I analyzed the legal precepts and the theories and read at least the relevant portions of every case cited. In addition to other members of the staff, I personally read and analyzed the 11 specific allegations made by the independent counsel, and I also reviewed the evidentiary basis for those allegations.
Each footnote supporting the charges was checked to ensure that it did, in fact, support the underlying evidentiary proposition. In cases where inferences were drawn in the body of the referral, the validity of those inferences was tested under acceptable principles of federal trial practice. Each of the literally thousands of backup documents was reviewed in order to ensure that no relevant evidence had been overlooked. Meetings of the entire staff were held virtually on a daily basis for the purpose of coordinating our efforts and to synthesize the divergent material into a coherent report.
Having completed all of those tasks assigned to us, we are now prepared to report our findings to you, the members of this committee. . . .
Of course, as members of this committee, you and only you are authorized and encouraged, eventually, to make your own independent judgment on what constitutes impeachable offenses and the standards of proof that might be applicable. My report, then, represents only a distillation and consensus of the staff's efforts and conclusions for your guidance and consideration.
At the outset, one point needs to be made. The witness Monica Lewinsky's credibility may be subject to some skepticism. At an appropriate stage of the proceedings, that credibility will, of necessity, be assessed together with the credibility of all other witnesses in the light of all the other evidence.
Ms. Lewinsky admitted to having lied on occasion to Ms. Tripp, and she also admitted to having executed and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case.
On the other hand, Ms. Lewinsky obtained a grant of immunity for her testimony before the grand jury and therefore has no reason to lie thereafter.
Furthermore, the witness's account of the relevant events could well have been much more damaging. For the most part, though, the record reflects that she was an embarrassed and reluctant witness who actually downplayed her White House encounters. In testifying, Ms. Lewinsky demonstrated a remarkable memory supported by her personal diary concerning dates and events.
Finally, the record includes ample corroboration of her testimony by independent and disinterested witnesses, by documentary evidence, and in part, by the grand jury testimony of the president himself.
Consequently, for the limited purpose of this report, we suggest that Monica Lewinsky's testimony is both substantial and credible.
It has been the considered judgment of my staff and myself that our main focus should be on those alleged acts and omissions by the president which affect the rule of law and the structure and the integrity of our court system. Deplorable as the numerous sexual encounters related in the evidence may be, we chose to emphasize the consequences of those acts as they affect the administration of justice and the unique role the president occupies in carrying out his oath faithfully to execute the laws of the nation. The prurient aspect of the referral is, at best, merely peripheral to the central issues.
The assertions of presidential misconduct cited in the referral, though arising initially out of sexual indiscretions, are completely distinct and involve allegations of an ongoing series of deliberate and direct assaults by Mr. Clinton upon the justice system of the United States and upon the judicial branch of our government which holds a place in the constitutional framework of checks and balances equal to that of the executive and the legislative branches.
As a result of our research and review of the referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of 15 separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. . . .
First, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have been part of a conspiracy with Monica Lewinsky and others to obstruct justice and the due administration of justice by: A) providing false and misleading testimony under oath in a civil deposition and before the grand jury; B) withholding evidence and causing evidence to be withheld and concealed; and C) tampering with prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a federal grand jury.
The president and Ms. Lewinsky had developed a cover story to conceal their activities. On Dec. 6, 1997, the president learned that Miss Lewinsky's name had appeared on the Jones versus Clinton witness list. He informed Miss Lewinsky of that fact on Dec. 17, 1997, and the two agreed that they would employ the same cover story in the Jones case. The president at that time suggested that an affidavit might be enough to prevent Ms. Lewinsky from testifying.
On Dec. 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case. Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the following events took place. One, in the second week of December 1997, Ms. Lewinsky told Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to testify and tried to convince Ms. Tripp to do the same. Two, Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to get Ms. Tripp to contact the White House before giving testimony in the Jones case.
Three, Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false and intentionally misleading affidavit to be filed in the Jones case. Four, Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft affidavit to a third party for approval and discussed changes calculated to mislead. Five, Ms. Lewinsky and the president talked by phone on Jan. 6, 1998, and agreed she'd give false and misleading answers to questions about her job at the Pentagon.
Six, on Jan. 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed a false misleading affidavit. The conspirators intended to use the misleading affidavit to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's giving testimony. Seven, after Ms. Lewinsky's name surfaced, the conspirators began to use code names in their contacts.
Eight, on Dec. 8, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky and the president met at the White House and discussed the subpoena she had received. Ms. Lewinsky suggested that she conceal the gifts that she'd received from the president. Shortly thereafter, the president's personal secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky.
Betty Currie hid that box of gifts under her bed at her home.
Eleven, the president gave false and evasive answers to questions contained in interrogatories in the Jones case.
Twelve, on Dec. 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, at the suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft notes that she'd made up to the president. She had already been subpoenaed to testify in the Jones case.
Thirteen, on Jan. 17, 1998, the president's attorney produced Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at the president's deposition and the president adopted it as true.
Fourteen, on Jan. 17, 1998, in his deposition, the president gave false and misleading testimony under oath concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts she had given him and several other matters.
Fifteen, the president, on Jan. 18, 1998, and thereafter, coached his personal secretary Betty Currie to give a false and misleading account of the Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.
Sixteen, the president narrated elaborate, detailed, false accounts of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with the intention that those false accounts would be repeated in testimony.
Seventeen, on Aug. 17, 1998, the president gave false and misleading testimony under oath to a federal grand jury on the following points: his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; his testimony in the Jan. 17, 1998, deposition; his conversations with various individuals; and his knowledge of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit and its falsity.
At this point, I would like to illustrate some of the details concerning the events immediately before and after the president's deposition on Jan. 17, 1998.
On Jan. 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit and it was furnished to Mr. Clinton's civil lawyer. The president reviewed it so he knew that she had denied categorically their relationship when the deposition began. During the questioning, however, it became more and more apparent to the president that Ms. Jones' attorneys possessed a lot more specific details than the president had anticipated.
When the president returned to the White House late on the afternoon of Jan. 17, the calls began. After completing his deposition testimony on Jan. 17, 1998, the president and Vernon Jordan exchanged three telephone calls. The president also called Betty Currie and asked her to meet with him in the Oval Office on the following day.
On Sunday, Jan. 18, at a little after 6 o'clock in the morning, the president learned of the existence of the Linda Tripp tapes through an article in the "Drudge Report." At 11:49 a.m., Vernon Jordan telephones the White House and, within 40 minutes, he meets White House counsel Bruce Lindsey for lunch.
At approximately 1 p.m., the president calls both Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie at their homes. Between 2:15 and 2:55, the records show that Vernon Jordan placed one call to the White House and one call to the president himself. And at 5 o'clock, the president meets with Betty Currie.
In that meeting, the president informs Ms. Currie that he had been questioned at his deposition about Monica Lewinsky. During the next three hours and 16 minutes, Betty Currie places four pages to Monica Lewinsky's pager. Requesting that Monica call Kay, a previously-agreed-upon code name that was being used by Ms. Currie and Miss Lewinsky.
At 10:09 p.m., Monica Lewinsky finally phoned Betty Currie at home. She told Betty Currie she was not in a position to be able to talk, but that she would call back later.
At 11:02 p.m., the president telephoned Betty Currie at home as well. That evening Vernon Jordan called Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills.
Although the following day, April, or Jan. 19, 1998, was a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the flurry of activity continued. Between 7:02 and 8:33 a.m., Betty Currie places three pages to Monica Lewinsky's, instructing to her to, "Please call Kay."
When Ms. Currie receives no response, she places another page four minutes later stating, "Please call Kay at home. It's a social call. Thank you."
Four minutes after that page, Ms. Currie pages Monica again with the message "Kay is at home. Please call."
Ms. Currie received no response to either of those pages or any two minutes later Ms. Currie telephones the president from her home.
Immediately following her phone call to the president, Ms. Currie places another page to Ms. Lewinsky telling her to, "Please call Kay re: family emergency."
At 8:50 a.m., six minutes later, the president calls Ms. Currie at home. Immediately after the phone call from the president, Ms. Currie once again pages Monica and states, "Message from Kay, please call. Have good news."
Six minutes after the president calls Ms. Currie at her home, he places a call to Vernon Jordan at his home.
During a 24-minute span from 10:29 to 10:53 a.m., Vernon Jordan places five calls. Three of those calls are placed to the White House, one of which is to Deputy Assistant to the President Nancy Hernreich and one to White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. Mr. Jordan also pages Monica Lewinsky instructing her to call him at his office.
Mr. Jordan's final call in this time period is to Ms. Lewinsky's attorney Frank Carter. After Mr. Jordan concludes his call to Mr. Carter, he receives a phone call from the president.
Between 11:04 and 11:17 a.m., Vernon Jordan places two calls to Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey; Mr. Jordan again pages Monica Lewinsky with the message, "Please call Mr. Jordan."
At 12:31 p.m., Mr. Jordan uses his cellular phone to once again contact the White House. At 1:45 p.m., the president telephones Betty Currie at home. At 2:29 p.m., Vernon Jordan again telephones the White House from his cellular phone and then enters the White House 15 minutes later.
Once at the White House, Mr. Jordan meets with President Clinton, Erskine Bowles, Bruce Lindsey, Cheryl Mills, White House Counsel Charles Ruff, Rahm Emanuel and others.
At 2:46 p.m., Frank Carter pages Monica Lewinsky and requests her to please call Frank Carter.
Beginning at 4:51 p.m., the next one hour and four minutes show Vernon Jordan placing 14 calls. Six of those calls are to Bruce Lindsey, three are to Frank Carter, two are to Cheryl Mills, one is to Charles Ruff and two are to Betty Currie.
At 5:56 p.m., the president telephones Vernon Jordan at his office. Eight minutes later, Mr. Jordan telephones Betty Currie at her home. Finally, at 6:26 p.m., Vernon Jordan telephones presidential aide Stephen Goodin.
Second, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have aided and abetted, counseled and procured Monica Lewinsky to file and cause to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones versus Clinton.
The record tends to establish the following:
In a telephone conversation with Ms. Lewinsky on Dec. 17, 1997, the president told her that her name was on the witness list in the Jones case. The president then suggested that she might submit an affidavit to avoid testimony.
Both the president and Ms. Lewinsky knew that that affidavit would need to be false in order to accomplish the result that they that they wanted.
In that conversation, the president also suggested, "you know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters." Ms. Lewinsky knew exactly what he meant, because it was the same cover story that they had agreed upon earlier.
Thereafter, Ms. Lewinsky discussed the affidavit with and furnished a copy to a confidant of the president for approval. Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit, and caused her attorney to provide it to the president's lawyer for use in the Jones case.
Third, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have aided, abetted, counseled and procured Monica Lewinsky in obstruction of justice when she executed and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones versus Clinton with knowledge of the pending proceedings and with the intent to influence, obstruct or impede that proceeding in the due administration of justice.
The record tends to establish that the president not only aided and abetted Monica Lewinsky in preparing, signing and causing to be filed a false affidavit, he also aided and abetted her in using that false affidavit to obstruct justice.
Both Ms. Lewinsky and the president knew that her false affidavit would be used to mislead the plaintiff's attorneys and the court. Specifically, they intended that the affidavit would be sufficient to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's being required to give a deposition in the Jones case.
Moreover, it was the natural and probable effect of the false statement that it would interfere with the due administration of justice. If the court and the Jones attorneys were convinced by the affidavit, there would be no deposition, and Ms. Lewinsky and the plaintiff's attorneys I'm sorry there would be no deposition of Ms. Lewinsky, and the plaintiff's attorneys would be denied the ability to learn about material facts and to decide whether to introduce those facts at any subsequent trial.
Mr. Clinton caused his attorney to employ the knowingly false affidavit not only to avoid Ms. Lewinsky's deposition, but to preclude the attorneys from interrogating the president about the same subject.
Four: there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have engaged in misprision of Monica Lewinsky's felonies, of submitting a false affidavit, and of obstructing the due administration of justice both by taking affirmative steps to conceal those felonies and by failing to disclose the felonies, though under a constitutional and statutory duty to do so.
The record tends to establish the following. Monica Lewinsky admitted to the commission of two felonies signing a false affidavit under oath and endeavoring to obstruct justice by using the false affidavit to mislead the court and the lawyers in the Jones case so that she would not be deposed and required to give evidence concerning her activities with the president.
In addition, the president was fully aware that those felonies had been committed when he gave his deposition on Jan. 17, 1998. Nonetheless, Mr. Clinton took affirmative steps to conceal these felonies, including allowing his attorney in his presence to use the affidavit and to suggest that it was true.
More importantly, the president himself, while being questioned by his own counsel late in the deposition referring to one of the clearly false affidavit paragraphs in Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, stated, "That is absolutely true."
More importantly, again, the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. He is under a constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
When confronted with direct knowledge of the commission of a felony, he is required by his office, as is every other law enforcement officer, agent or attorney in the country, to bring to the attention of the appropriate authorities the fact of the felony and the identity of the perpetrator. If he did not do so, the president could be guilty of misprision of felony.
Five, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition in Jones versus Clinton regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The record tends to establish the following. There are three instance where credible evidence exists that the president may have testified falsely about this relationship. When he denied a "sexual relationship" in sworn answers to interrogatories; two, when he denied having "an extramarital sexual affair" in his deposition; and three, when he denied having "sexual relations," or "an affair" with Monica Lewinsky in his deposition.
When the president denied a sexual relationship, he was not bound by the definition that the court later provided. There is substantial evidence obtained from Ms. Lewinsky, the president's grand jury testimony, and DNA test results that Ms. Lewinsky performed sexual acts with the president on numerous occasions. Those terms, given their common meaning, could reasonably be construed to include oral sex.
The president also denied having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky as the court had defined that term. In the context of the lawsuit and the wording of that definition, there is substantial evidence that the president's later explanation given to the grand jury is an afterthought and is unreasonably narrow under the circumstances.
Consequently, there is substantial evidence that the president's denial under oath in his deposition of a sexual relationship, a sexual affair or sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky was not true.
Six, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have given false testimony under oath before the federal grand jury on Aug. 17, 1998, concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The record tends to establish the following. During his grand jury testimony, the president admitted only to inappropriate, intimate contact with Monica Lewinsky. He did not admit to any specific acts. He categorically denied ever touching Ms. Lewinsky on the breasts or genitalia for the purpose of giving her sexual gratification.
There is, however, substantial contradictory evidence from Ms. Lewinsky. She testified at length and with specificity that the president kissed and fondled her breasts on numerous occasions during their encounters, and at times, there was also direct genital contact. Moreover, her testimony is corroborated by several of her friends.
The president described himself as a nonreciprocating recipient of Ms. Lewinsky's services. Therefore, he suggested that he did not engage in sexual relations within the definition given him at the Jones case deposition.
He also testified that his interpretation of the word "cause" in the definition meant either the use of force or contact with the intent to arouse or gratify. The inference drawn by the independent counsel that the president's explanation was merely an afterthought, calculated to explain away testimony that had been proven false by Ms. Lewinsky's evidence, appears credible under the circumstances.
Seven, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have given false testimony under oath in his deposition given in Jones versus Clinton regarding a statement that he could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky and regarding his minimizing the number of gifts that they had exchanged.
The record tends to establish the following. President Clinton testified at his deposition that he had no specific recollection of being alone with Miss Lewinsky in any room at the White House. There is ample evidence from other sources to the contrary. They include Betty Currie, Monica Lewinsky, several Secret Service agents and White House logs.
Moreover, the president testified in the grand jury that he was alone with Miss Lewinsky in 1996 and 1997, and that he had a specific recollection of certain instance when he was alone with her. He admitted to the grand jury that he was alone with her on Dec. 28, 1997, three weeks prior to the date of his deposition.
The president was also asked at this deposition whether he had ever given any gifts to Miss Lewinsky. He responded, "I don't recall."
He then asked the Jones attorneys if he they knew what they were. After the attorneys named specific gifts, the president remembered giving Ms. Lewinsky something from The Black Dog.
That testimony, again, was given less than three weeks after Ms. Currie had picked up a box of the gifts that the president had given and hidden them under her bed.
In his grand jury testimony nearly seven months later, he admitted giving Ms. Lewinsky Christmas gifts on Dec. 28, 1997, and on other occasions. When confronted with his lack of memory at the deposition, the president responded that his statement, "I don't recall," referred to the identity of specific gifts and not whether or not he actually recalled giving gifts.
The president also testified at his deposition that Ms. Lewinsky gave him gifts once or twice. Ms. Lewinsky says she gave a substantial number of gifts to the president.
This is corroborated by gifts turned over by Miss Lewinsky to the independent counsel, and by a letter to the independent counsel from the president's attorney acknowledging that certain gifts giving by Monica Lewinsky to the president could not be located.
Thus, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have testified falsely about being alone with Monica Lewinsky and the gifts he gave to her.
Eight, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition concerning conversations with Monica Lewinsky about her involvement in the Jones case.
The record tends to reflect the following. The president was asked at his deposition if he ever talked to Ms. Lewinsky about the possibility that she would testify in the Jones case. He answered, "I'm not sure."
He then related a conversation with Ms. Lewinsky where he joked about how the Jones attorneys would probably subpoena every female witness with whom he had ever spoken. He was also asked whether Ms. Lewinsky told him she had been subpoenaed. The answer was, "No, I don't know if she had been."
There is substantial evidence, much from the president's own grand jury testimony, that those statements were false. The president testified before the grand jury that he spoke with Ms. Lewinsky at the White House on Dec. 28, 1997, and that they spoke about the prospect she might have to give testimony.
He also later testified that Vernon Jordan told him on Dec. 19, 1997, that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. That is the date on which she received the subpoena.
Nine, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have endeavored to obstruct justice by engaging in pattern of activity calculated to conceal evidence from the judicial proceedings regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The record tends to establish that on Sunday, Dec. 28, 1997, the president gave Ms. Lewinsky Christmas gifts in the Oval Office during a visit arranged by Ms. Currie.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, when she suggested that the gifts he had given her be concealed because they were the subject of a subpoena, the president stated I don't know or let me think about that.
Ms. Lewinsky testified that Ms. Currie contacted her at home several hours later and stated either I understand you have something to give me or the president says you have something to give me.
Later that same day, Ms. Currie picked up a box of gifts from Lewinsky's home. The evidence indicates that the president may have instructed Ms. Currie to conceal evidence. The president has denied giving that instruction and he contended under oath that he advised Ms. Lewinsky to provide all of the gifts to the Jones attorneys pursuant to the subpoena. In contrast, Ms. Lewinsky testified that the president never challenged her suggestion that the gifts should be concealed.
Ten, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president himself may have endeavored to obstruct justice in the case of Jones v. Clinton by agreeing with Monica Lewinsky on a cover story about their relationship by causing a false affidavit to be filed and by getting false and misleading testimony in his deposition.
The record tends to establish that the president and Ms. Lewinsky agreed on false explanations for her private visit to the Oval Office. Ms. Lewinsky testified that when the president contacted her and told her she was on the witness list, he advised her that she could always repeat those cover stories and that she could file an affidavit.
Subsequently, during his deposition, the president stated that he never had a sexual relationship or affair with Ms. Lewinsky. He further stated that the paragraph of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the president was absolutely true even though his attorney had argued that the affidavit covered, and I quote, "Sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form."
Eleven, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Monica Lewinsky to obtain a job in New York City at a time when she would have given evidence adverse to Mr. Clinton, if she told the truth.
The record tends to establish the following. In October 1997, the president and Ms. Lewinsky discussed the possibility of Vernon Jordan assisting her in finding a job in New York.
On Nov. 5, 1997, Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky discussed employment possibilities and Mr. Jordan told her that she came highly recommended. However, no significant action was taken on Ms. Lewinsky's behalf until December when the Jones attorneys identified Ms. Lewinsky as a witness. Within days after Mr. Jordan again met with Ms. Lewinsky, he contacted a number of people in the private sector who could help her find work in New York.
Additional evidence indicates that on the day Ms. Lewinsky signed a false affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the president, Mr. Jordan contacted the president and discussed the affidavit. The next day, Ms. Lewinsky interviewed with McAndrews & Forbes, an interview arranged by Mr. Jordan's assistance. And when Ms. Lewinsky told Mr. Jordan that the interview went poorly, Mr. Jordan contacted the chief executive officer in McAndrews & Forbes.
The following day, Ms. Lewinsky was offered the job and Mr. Jordan contacted the White House with a message: Mission accomplished. In sum, Mr. Jordan secured a job for Ms. Lewinsky with a phone call placed on the day after Ms. Lewinsky signed a false affidavit protecting the president.
Twelve, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition concerning his conversations with Vernon Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky. The record tends to establish that Mr. Jordan and the president discussed Ms. Lewinsky on various occasions from the time she was served until she fired Mr. Carter and hired Mr. Ginsburg.
This is contrary to the president's deposition testimony. The president was asked in his deposition whether anyone besides his attorney told him that Ms. Lewinsky had been served. "I don't think so," he responded.
He then said that Bruce Lindsey was the first person who told him. In the grand jury, the president was specifically asked if Mr. Jordan informed him that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena. "No sir," he answered.
Later in that testimony when confronted with a specific date, the president admitted that he spoke with Mr. Jordan about the subpoena. Both the president and Mr. Jordan testified in the grand jury that Mr. Jordan informed the president on Jan. 7 that Ms. Lewinsky had signed the affidavit.
Ms. Lewinsky said she, too, informed the president of the subpoena.
The president was also asked during his deposition if anyone reported to him within the past two weeks that would have been two weeks prior to Jan. 17 that they had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky concerning the lawsuit. The president said, "I don't think so." As noted, Mr. Jordan told the president on Jan. 7, that Ms. Lewinsky signed the affidavit.
In addition, the president was asked if he had a conversation with Mr. Jordan where Ms. Lewinsky's name was mentioned. He said, "Yes, Mr. Jordan mentioned she'd asked for advice about moving to New York."
Actually, the president had conversations with Mr. Jordan concerning three general subjects choosing an attorney to represent Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Lewinsky's subpoena and the contents of her executed affidavit, and Vernon Jordan's success in procuring a New York job for Ms. Lewinsky.
Thirteen, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have endeavored to obstruct justice and engage in witness tampering in attempting to coach and influence the testimony of Betty Currie before the grand jury.
The record tends to establish the following. According to Ms. Currie the president contacted her on the day he was deposed in the Jones case, and asked her to meet him the following day. The next day, Ms. Currie met with the president, and he asked her whether she agreed with a series of possibly false statements, including, "We were never really alone," "You could always see and hear everything" and "Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?"
Ms. Currie stated that the president's tone and demeanor indicated he wanted her to agree with those statements. According to Ms. Currie, the president called her into the Oval Office several days later and reiterated his previous statement, using the same tone and demeanor. Ms. Currie later stated that she felt she was free to disagree with the president.
The president testified concerning those statements before the grand jury, and he did not deny that he made them. Rather, the president testified that, in some of the statements he was referring only to meetings with Ms. Lewinsky in 1997, and that he intended the word "alone" to mean the entire Oval Office.
Fourteen, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have engaged in witness tampering by coaching prospective witnesses and by narrating elaborate detailed false accounts of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as if those stories were true, intending that those witnesses believe the story and testify to it before a grand jury.
John Podesta, the president's deputy chief of staff, testified that the president told him that he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky in any way whatsoever, and that they had not had oral sex. Mr. Podesta repeated those statements to the grand jury.
Sidney Blumenthal, an assistant to the president, said that the president told him more detailed stories. He testified that the president told him that Ms. Lewinsky, who the president claimed had a reputation as a stalker, came at him, made sexual demands at him and threatened him, but he rebuffed her. Mr. Blumenthal further testified that the president told him that he could recall placing only one call to Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Blumenthal mentioned to the president that there were press reports that he, the president, had made telephone calls to Ms. Lewinsky, and had left voice mail messages. The president then told Mr. Blumenthal that he remembered calling Ms. Lewinsky after Betty Currie's brother died.
Fifteen, there is substantial and credible evidence that the president may have given false testimony under oath before the federal grand jury concerning his knowledge of the contents of Monica Lewinsky's affidavit and his knowledge of remarks made in his presence by his counsel.
The record tends to establish the following. During the deposition, the president attorney attempted to thwart questions pertaining to Ms. Lewinsky by citing her affidavit and asserting to the court that the affidavit represented that there "is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton."
At several points in his grand jury testimony, the president maintained that he could not be held responsible for this representation made by his lawyer because he was not paying attention to the interchange between his lawyer and the court. The videotape of the deposition shows the president apparently listening intently to the interchange. And in addition, Mr. Clinton's counsel represented to the court that the president was fully aware of the affidavit and its contents.
The president's own attorney asked him during the deposition whether Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship was "true and accurate."
The president was unequivocal. He said, "This is absolutely true."
Ms. Lewinsky later said the affidavit contained false and misleading statements. The president explained to the grand jury that Miss Lewinsky may have believed that her affidavit was true if she believed that sexual relationship meant intercourse.
However, counsel did not ask the president if Ms. Lewinsky thought it was true. He asked the president if it was, in fact, a true statement. The president at that point was bound by the court's definition. Under his own interpretation of that definition, Ms. Lewinsky engaged in sexual relations. An affidavit denying this, under the president's own interpretation of the definition, is false.
That, Mr. Chairman, is my report to this committee. . . .
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company