Managers' Memo on Witnesseses
Tuesday, January 26, 1999
Following is the full text of a memorandum submitted Tuesday by the House prosecutors in President Clinton's impeachment trial, requesting the appearance of three witnesses Monica Lewinky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal and asking to admit certain new documents into the record.
FOR THE APPEARANCE OF WITNESSES AT A DEPOSITION
AND TO ADMIT EVIDENCE NOT IN THE RECORD
Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully submits to the United States Senate its Memorandum in support of its motion for the appearance of witnesses at a deposition and to admit evidence not in the record in connection with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The House requests that subpoenas be authorized and issued by the Senate to the witnesses enumerated in the House's Motion because those witnesses possess information which contradicts the inferences argued by the President from the record during this Impeachment Trial. Individually and collectively, the witnesses will provide information concerning the specific instances in which the President lied under oath, encouraged others to lie under oath, or otherwise obstructed justice as part of a premeditated and calculated scheme to prevent a fellow American citizen from vindicating her rights in a court of law.
Some of the witnesses that the House seeks to depose are witnesses who are identified with the President. The House believes that even though these witnesses are identified with the President and therefore are subject to the principle set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 611 governing witnesses identified with an adverse party and Rule 607 permitting any party to attack the credibility of a witness regardless of who calls the witness, these witnesses will, nevertheless, provide evidence and testimony favorable to the case-in-chief and the inferences urged by the House.
Because President Clinton continues to deny that he perjured himself or obstructed justice through his testimony or other actions, and because the President has proposed that the Senate draw inferences from the factual record which support his denials of the charges brought in the Articles of Impeachment being exhibited by the House, obtaining testimony from the witnesses named in the motion, and additionally from the President himself, will greatly assist the Senate in resolving credibility issues, and in its obligation to determine the proper inferences to be drawn from the facts. In turn, these witnesses will enable the Senate to decide whether the President has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to honor his oath before the grand jury and, consequently, whether he should be removed from office.
In sum, the testimony of the witnesses will lend greater coherence and understanding to the narrative of events leading to Impeachment, allowing this body to determine the truth. The testimony will demonstrate the gravamen of the House position: namely, that the chief law enforcement officer of the country committed perjury and obstructed justice in a calculated and premeditated manner warranting removal.
The House respectfully moves that the United States Senate authorize and issue a subpoena for the appearance at a deposition of Monica S. Lewinsky, to give testimony under oath.
Through the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, the House expects to prove, among other things, that:
Ms. Lewinsky's contact with President Clinton is highly relevant within the context of the President's obstruction of the Jones lawsuit. Once she appeared on the witness list in that case, President Clinton, directly and through his subordinates and agents, sought her help to conceal the nature of their relationship by illegal means. The President meant to garner her cooperation by acting quickly on her request for help in obtaining a job in New York. When the false affidavit he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to file did not succeed in precluding questions related to Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones case, the President obstructed the proceedings by lying in his civil deposition in using the cover story he had urged Ms. Lewinsky to use if she were called to testify personally. Additionally, he injected Ms. Currie into the proceeding by identifying her as the person with knowledge, even for matters about which he, not she, had personal knowledge. He then proceeded to obstruct justice by coaching others, including Ms. Currie, to corroborate his perjured testimony. He then perjured himself before the grand jury.
Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is relevant to resolve the discrepancies in the record and the different inferences drawn by the House and the President. Her live testimony will rebut the following inferences drawn by White House counsel on key issues, among others:
C. That President Clinton did not encourage Ms. Lewinsky to conceal any gifts he had given her.
In sum, given the almost complete disconnect between Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, offered under grant of immunity that would be lost if she committed perjury, and President Clinton's, and the inferences drawn by the parties from the factual record, Ms. Lewinsky's appearance would resolve the proper inferences surrounding the facts, assisting the Senators in fulfilling their constitutional duty to find the truth.
WHEREFORE, the United States House of Representatives respectfully requests that this Honorable Body issue a Subpoena for the appearance of Monica Lewinsky at a deposition and provide for the testimony of the witness as requested.
The House respectfully moves that the United States Senate authorize and issue a subpoena for the appearance at a deposition of Vernon Jordan, to give testimony under oath.
Through the testimony of Vernon Jordan, the House expects to prove, among other things, that:
Mr. Jordan's live testimony will help to prove that President Clinton obstructed justice by encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affidavit and by helping her to obtain employment in the private sector at a time when she was a witness in the Jones case.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President informed her on December 17, 1997, that her name had been placed on a witness list for the Jones case (he had been notified through his attorney). (Lewinsky GJT 8/6/98, pp. 121-23, H. Doc. 105-311, pp. 841-43)To avoid having to testify, Ms. Lewinsky claimed the President suggested she execute an affidavit (Id, p. 123, H. Doc. 105-311, p. 843)
In other words, Mr. Jordan's live testimony can effectively demonstrate that President Clinton knew the contents of her affidavit at least 10 days prior to his own deposition. This action was consistent with President Clinton's initial desire that Ms. Lewinsky file an affidavit in lieu of testifying, and, as Ms. Lewinsky's grand jury testimony reveals, that she coordinate her story with the President's by denying the existence of a sexual relationship. (See Lewinsky GJT 8/6/98, p.234, H. Doc. 105-311, p. 954). Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit, in turn, permitted the President to lie in response to document requests answered two days before he testified and permitted the President to lie in his deposition without contradiction. President Clinton's manipulation of these events constitutes evidence to support both the perjury and obstruction Articles.
Mr. Jordan can also speak to another charge which helps to sustain the obstruction Article and which President Clinton's counsel disputes vigorously: the effort by the President to secure employment for Ms. Lewinsky in order to garner her cooperation in his efforts to suborn perjury and obstruct justice.
Although Ms. Lewinsky began her job search before December 7, 1997 - the day after President Clinton discovered her name had been placed on the Jones witness list - no effort to obtain private employment in New York had been made in earnest prior to the appearance of her name. His efforts to assist her intensified, however, after the appearance of her name on the Jones witness list.
The following time line is illustrative of how Ms. Lewinsky's appearance on a witness list in the Jones case drove White House efforts to obtain a job for Ms. Lewinsky. On December 11, 1997, the presiding Judge in the Jones case ordered President Clinton to answer certain interrogatories, including whether he had engaged in sexual relations with government employees. Five days later (December 16), his attorneys received a request for production of documents that mentioned Ms. Lewinsky by name. These events triggered the intensified efforts to accommodate Ms. Lewinsky in her job search, consistent with Mr. Jordan's anticipated testimony as set forth in points seven through 12, supra.
Mr. Jordan was the primary catalyst in obtaining Ms. Lewinsky's job in New York. It is expected that Mr. Jordan's testimony will lead to the reasonable and logical inference from the evidence that the timing and level of effort devoted to obtaining a desired job for Ms. Lewinsky - especially by powerful men such as Mr. Jordan - was intended to ensure Ms. Lewinsky's gratitude and thereby discourage her from providing any damaging information about her relationship with the President to the Jones attorneys. The live testimony of Mr. Jordan on this issue will therefore help the Senate as it considers the allegations against the President.
WHEREFORE, the United States House of Representatives respectfully requests that this Honorable Body issue a Subpoena for the appearance of Vernon Jordan at a deposition and provide for the testimony of the witness as requested.
The House respectfully moves that the United States Senate authorize and issue a subpoena for the appearance at a deposition of Sidney Blumenthal, to give testimony under oath.
Through the testimony of Sidney Blumenthal, the House expects to prove, among other things, that:
Mr. Blumenthal's live testimony on these points would provide evidence that the President lied to his aides knowing that they may be called to testify before the grand jury. In addition, his testimony proves that President Clinton embellished his previous explanations to the public, his aides, and authorities, by depicting Ms. Lewinsky as a "stalker," thereby attacking her character in an effort to exculpate himself. This evidence is an important component of the obstruction charges set forth in Article II.
WHEREFORE, the United States House of Representatives respectfully requests that this Honorable Body issue a Subpoena for the appearance of Sidney Blumenthal at a deposition and provide for the testimony of the witness as requested.
The House respectfully moves that the United States Senate admit into evidence the sworn declaration of Barry Ward, Law Clerk to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
The sworn declaration of Mr. Ward will prove that:
Mr. Ward's declaration would lend even greater credence to the argument that President Clinton lied on this point during his grand jury testimony and obstructed justice by allowing his attorney to utilize a false affidavit in order to cut off a legitimate line of questioning. Mr. Ward's declaration proves that Mr. Ward saw President Clinton listening attentively while the exchange between Mr. Bennett and the presiding Judge occurred. Such testimony would offer greater support for the obstruction charge in Article II.
The House respectfully moves that the United States Senate admit into evidence the sworn declaration of T. Wesley Holmes, one of the counsels for Paula C. Jones in the case of Jones v. Clinton.
Attached to the sworn declaration of T. Wesley Holmes is a photocopy of a subpoena issued to Betty Currie on January 22, 1998, and served on her on January 27, 1998. Also attached is a supplemental witness list filed in the case of Jones v. Clinton, containing the name of Betty Currie. His declaration and the photocopy of the subpoena and supplemental witness list will prove that:
The resulting subpoena for Ms. Currie, issued on January 22, and the supplemental witness list, become highly relevant in light of this factual background. Counsel for the President has repeatedly argued that Ms. Currie was not a potential witness in the Jones case and therefore that the President's January 18, 1998 statements to her were not intended to influence her anticipated testimony.
The subpoena and supplemental witness list undermine the President's claim and establish the House's position. That is, given the President's numerous references to Ms. Currie in his testimony, he knew that the Jones attorneys would want to depose her. She was, in fat, subpoenaed, thereby demonstrating that President Clinton's attempts to coach her to be a witness who would corroborate the President's lies
WHEREFORE, the United States House of Representatives respectfully requests that this Honorable Body admit into evidence the sworn declaration of T. Wesley Holmes, and the attachments thereto.
The House respectfully moves that the United States Senate admit into evidence telephone records which document certain conversations between Monica S. Lewinsky and William Jefferson Clinton.
The telephone records will prove that:
Taken as a whole, these events establish that once President Clinton knew that Ms. Lewinsky was a named witness in the Jones litigation, he and his subordinates and agents made a concerted effort to obtain a job for her in New York.
In this context the House believes the 56-minute telephone conversation on December 6 is relevant evidence.
WHEREFORE, the United States House of Representatives respectfully requests that this Honorable Body admit into evidence the telephone records which document certain conversations between
Monica S. Lewinsky and William Jefferson Clinton.
Petition for the Request of the Appearance of President Clinton
Additionally, the House petitions the Senate to request the appearance of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, at a deposition, for the purpose of providing testimony related to the Impeachment Trial.
The President is the one person who possesses direct and personal knowledge of the course of all of the events which together constitute the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice being exhibited by the House. His credibility is critical in order for the Senate to resolve different inferences from the factual record in his favor. It is only appropriate that the President appear so that the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, may compare his responses and credibility against that of the other witnesses who have given testimony and who the House now seeks to depose.
Copyright © 1999 The Washington Post Company