![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]()
|
![]() Introduction From independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report to the House on President Clinton. Some of the language in these documents is sexually explicit.
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel ("OIC" or "Office") hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.(1)
The information reveals that President Clinton: The evidence shows that these acts, and others, were part of a
pattern that began as an effort to prevent the disclosure of
information about the President's relationship with a former
White House intern and employee, Monica S. Lewinsky, and
continued as an effort to prevent the information from being
disclosed in an ongoing criminal investigation.
| |||||||||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() |
In May 1994, Paula Corbin Jones filed a lawsuit against William Jefferson Clinton in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.(2) Ms. Jones alleged that while he was the Governor of Arkansas, President Clinton sexually harassed her during an incident in a Little Rock hotel room.(3) President Clinton denied the allegations. He also challenged the ability of a private litigant to pursue a lawsuit against a sitting President. In May 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the President's legal argument. The Court concluded that Ms. Jones, "[l]ike every other citizen who properly invokes [the District Court's] jurisdiction . . . has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims," and that therefore Ms. Jones was entitled to pursue her claims while the President was in office.(4) A few months later, the pretrial discovery process began.(5) One sharply disputed issue in the Jones litigation was the extent to which the President would be required to disclose information about sexual relationships he may have had with "other women." Ms. Jones's attorneys sought disclosure of this information, arguing that it was relevant to proving that the President had propositioned Ms. Jones. The President resisted the discovery requests, arguing that evidence of relationships with other women (if any) was irrelevant. In late 1997, the issue was presented to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright for resolution. Judge Wright's decision was unambiguous. For purposes of pretrial discovery, President Clinton was required to provide certain information about his alleged relationships with other women. In an order dated December 11, 1997, for example, Judge Wright said: "The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees."(6) Judge Wright left for another day the issue whether any information of this type would be admissible were the case to go to trial. But for purposes of answering the written questions served on the President, and for purposes of answering questions at a deposition, the District Court ruled that the President must respond. In mid-December 1997, the President answered one of the written discovery questions posed by Ms. Jones on this issue. When asked to identify all women who were state or federal employees and with whom he had had "sexual relations" since 1986,(7) the President answered under oath: "None."(8) For purposes of this interrogatory, the term "sexual relations" was not defined. On January 17, 1998, President Clinton was questioned under
oath about his relationships with other women in the workplace,
this time at a deposition. Judge Wright presided over the
deposition. The President was asked numerous questions about his
relationship with Monica Lewinsky, by then a 24-year-old former
White House intern, White House employee, and Pentagon employee.
Under oath and in the presence of Judge Wright, the President
denied that he had engaged in a "sexual affair," a "sexual
relationship," or "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. The
President also stated that he had no specific memory of having
been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, that he remembered few details of
any gifts they might have exchanged, and indicated that no one
except his attorneys had kept him informed of Ms. Lewinsky's
status as a potential witness in the Jones case.
On January 12, 1998, this Office received information that Monica Lewinsky was attempting to influence the testimony of one of the witnesses in the Jones litigation, and that Ms. Lewinsky herself was prepared to provide false information under oath in that lawsuit. The OIC was also informed that Ms. Lewinsky had spoken to the President and the President's close friend Vernon Jordan about being subpoenaed to testify in the Jones suit, and that Vernon Jordan and others were helping her find a job. The allegations with respect to Mr. Jordan and the job search were similar to ones already under review in the ongoing Whitewater investigation.(9) After gathering preliminary evidence to test the information's reliability, the OIC presented the evidence to Attorney General Janet Reno. Based on her review of the information, the Attorney General determined that a further investigation by the Independent Counsel was required. On the following day, Attorney General Reno petitioned the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on an expedited basis, to expand the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. On January 16, 1998, in response to the Attorney General's request, the Special Division issued an order that provides in pertinent part: The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and
authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by
the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 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.(10)
On January 28, 1998, after the allegations about the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky became public, the OIC filed a Motion for Limited Intervention and a Stay of Discovery in Jones v. Clinton. The OIC argued that the civil discovery process should be halted because it was having a negative effect on the criminal investigation. The OIC represented to the Court that numerous individuals then under subpoena in Jones, including Monica Lewinsky, were integral to the OIC's investigation, and that courts routinely stayed discovery in such circumstances.(11) The next day Judge Wright responded to the OIC's motion. The Court ruled that discovery would be permitted to continue, except to the extent that it sought information about Monica Lewinsky. The Court acknowledged that "evidence concerning Monica Lewinsky might be relevant to the issues in [the Jones] case."(12) It concluded, however, that this evidence was not "essential to the core issues in this case," and that some of that evidence "might even be inadmissible."(13) The Court found that the potential value of this evidence was outweighed by the potential delay to the Jones case in continuing to seek discovery about Ms. Lewinsky.(14) The Court also was concerned that the OIC's investigation "could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinsky matter by the parties in this civil case."(15) On March 9, 1998, Judge Wright denied Ms. Jones's motion for reconsideration of the decision regarding Monica Lewinsky. The order states: The Court readily acknowledges that evidence of the Lewinsky
matter might have been relevant to plaintiff's case and, as
she argues, that such evidence might possibly have helped
her establish, among other things, intent, absence of
mistake, motive, and habit on the part of the President. .
. . Nevertheless, whatever relevance such evidence may
otherwise have . . . it simply is not essential to the core
issues in this case . . . .(16)
On April 1, 1998, Judge Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, concluding that even if the facts alleged by Paula Jones were true, her claims failed as a matter of law.(17) Ms. Jones has filed an appeal, and as of the date of this Referral, the matter remains under consideration by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. After the dismissal of Ms. Jones's lawsuit, the criminal
investigation continued. It was (and is) the view of this Office
that any attempt to obstruct the proper functioning of the
judicial system, regardless of the perceived merits of the
underlying case, is a serious matter that warrants further
inquiry. After careful consideration of all the evidence, the
OIC has concluded that the evidence of wrongdoing is substantial
and credible, and that the wrongdoing is of sufficient gravity
that it warrants referral to Congress.(18)
| ||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() ![]() |
|