![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]()
|
![]() Grounds for Impeachment, No. VIII From independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report to the House on President Clinton. Some of the language in these documents is sexually explicit.
| |||||||||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() |
According to Mr. Jordan, on January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky showed him a copy of her signed affidavit denying any sexual relationship with the President.(375) He testified that he told the President about the affidavit, probably in one of his two logged calls to the White House that day:(376) Q: [W]alk us through what exactly you would have said
on the portion of the conversation that related to
Ms. Lewinsky and the affidavit.
VJ: Monica Lewinsky signed the affidavit.
* * * *
Q: [L]et's say if it was January 7th, or whenever it
was that you informed him that she signed the
affidavit,(377) is it accurate that based on the
conversations you had with him already, you didn't
have to explain to him what the affidavit was?
VJ: I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Q: So that it would have made sense that you would
have just said, "She signed the affidavit,"
because both you and he knew what the affidavit
was?
VJ: I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Q: All right. When you indicated to the President
that she had signed the affidavit, what, if
anything, did he tell you?
VJ: I think he -- his judgment was consistent with mine that that was -- the signing of the affidavit was consistent with the truth.(378)
Mr. Jordan testified that "I knew that the President was concerned about the affidavit and whether or not it was signed. He was, obviously."(379) When asked why he believed the President was concerned, Mr. Jordan testified: Here is a friend of his who is being called as a
witness in another case and with whom I had gotten a
lawyer, I told him about that, and told him I was
looking for a job for her. He knew about all of that.
And it was just a matter of course that he would be
concerned as to whether or not she had signed an
affidavit foreswearing what I told you the other day,
that there was no sexual relationship.(380)
Mr. Jordan summarized his contacts with the President about Monica Lewinsky and her involvement in the Jones litigation as follows: I made arrangements for a lawyer and I told the President that. When she signed the affidavit, I told the President that the affidavit had been signed and when Frank Carter told me that he had filed a motion to quash, as I did in the course of everything else, I said to the President that I saw Frank Carter and he had informed me that he was filing a motion to quash. It was as a simple information flow, absent a substantive discussion about her defense, about which I was not involved.(381) The President himself testified in the grand jury that he talked to Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the case. Despite his earlier statements at the deposition, the President testified to the grand jury that he had no reason to doubt that he had talked to Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's subpoena, her lawyer, and her affidavit.(382) C. Summary
In his civil deposition, the President stated that he had
talked to Vernon Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's job. But as the
testimony of Mr. Jordan reveals, and as the President as much as
conceded in his subsequent grand jury appearance,(383) the President
did talk to Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the
Jones case -- including that she had been subpoenaed, that
Mr. Jordan had helped her obtain a lawyer, and that she had
signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the
President. Given their several communications in the weeks
before the deposition, it is not credible that the President
forgot the subject of their conversations during his civil
deposition. His statements "seems like that's what Betty said"
and "I didn't know that" were more than mere omissions; they were
affirmative misstatements.
The President's motive for making false and misleading
statements about this subject in his civil deposition was
straightforward. If the President admitted that he had talked
with Vernon Jordan both about Monica Lewinsky's involvement in
the Jones case and about her job, questions would inevitably
arise about whether Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and her future job
were connected. Such an admission by the President in his civil
deposition likely would have prompted Ms. Jones's attorneys to
inquire further into the subject. And such an admission in his
deposition would have triggered public scrutiny when the
deposition became public.
At the time of his deposition, moreover, the President was
aware of the potential problems in admitting any possible link
between those two subjects. A criminal investigation and
substantial public attention had focused in 1997 on job
assistance and payments made to Webster Hubbell in 1994. The
jobs and money paid to Mr. Hubbell by friends and contributors to
the President had raised serious questions about whether such
assistance was designed to influence Mr. Hubbell's testimony
about Madison-related matters.(384) Some of Mr. Hubbell's jobs,
moreover, had been arranged by Vernon Jordan, which was likely a
further deterrent to the President raising both Ms. Lewinsky's
job and her affidavit in connection with Vernon Jordan.
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() ![]() |
|