Summary

Footage Information

ABCNEWS VideoSource
UNITED STATES SENATE 13:00 - 14:00
01/14/1999
ABC
OSBB9250A
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON RESUMES IN THE SENATE WITH PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS. FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL REGISTER: TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of Impeachment. The Chaplain will offer a prayer. ______ PRAYER The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: Almighty God, whose providential care has never varied all through our Nation's history, we ask You for a special measure of wisdom for the women and men of this Senate as they act as jurors in this impeachment trial. You have been our Nation's refuge and strength in triumphs and troubles, prosperity and problems. Now, dear Father, help us through this difficult time. As You guided the Senators to unity in matters of procedure, continue to make them one in their search for the truth and in their expression of justice. Keep them focused in a spirit of nonpartisan patriotism today and in the crucial days to come. Bless the distinguished Chief Justice as he presides over this trial. We commit to You all that is said and done and ultimately decided. In Your holy Name. Amen. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation. The Sergeant at Arms, James W. Ziglar, made proclamation as follows: Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Presiding Officer recognizes the majority leader. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Installing Equipment And Furniture in the Senate Chamber Mr. LOTT. I send a resolution to the desk providing for installing equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber and ask that it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report the resolution by title. The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 17), to authorize the installation of appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber for the impeachment trial. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the resolution is considered and agreed to. The resolution (S. Res. 17) was agreed to, as follows: S. Res. 17 Resolved, That in recognition of the unique requirements raised by the impeachment trial of a President of the United States, the Sergeant at Arms shall install appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate chamber for use by the managers from the House of Representatives and counsel to the President in their presentations to the Senate during all times that the Senate is sitting for trial with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding. Sec. 2. The appropriate equipment and furniture referred to in the first section is as follows: (1) A lectern, a witness table and chair if required, and tables and chairs to accommodate an equal number of managers from the House of Representatives and counsel for the President which shall be placed in the well of the Senate. (2) Such equipment as may be required to permit the display of video, or audio evidence, including video monitors and microphones, which may be placed in the chamber for use by the managers from the House of Representatives or the counsel to the President. Sec. 3. All equipment and furniture authorized by this resolution shall be placed in the chamber in a manner that provides the least practicable disruption to Senate proceedings. Privilege of the Floor Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I now ask unanimous consent floor privileges be granted to the individuals listed on the document I send to the desk, during the closed impeachment proceedings of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered. The document follows. Floor Privileges During Closed Session David Hoppe, Administrative Assistant, Majority Leader. Michael Wallace, Counsel, Majority Leader. Robert Wilkie, Counsel, Majority Leader. Bill Corr, Counsel, Democratic Leader. Robert Bauer, Counsel, Democratic Leader. Andrea La Rue, Counsel, Democratic Leader. Peter Arapis, Floor Manager, Democratic Whip. Kirk Matthew, Chief of Staff, Assistant Majority Leader. Stewart Verdery, Counsel, Assistant Majority Leader. Tom Griffith, Senate Legal Counsel. Morgan Frankel, Deputy Senate Legal Counsel. Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms. Bruce Kasold, Chief Counsel, Secretary & Sergeant at Arms. David Schiappa, Assistant Majority Secretary. Lula Davis, Assistant Minority Secretary. Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian. Kevin Kayes, Assistant Parliamentarian. Patrick Keating, Assistant Journal Clerk. Scott Sanborn, Assistant Journal Clerk. David Tinsley, Assistant Legislative Clerk. Ronald Kavulick, Chief Reporter. Jerald Linnell, Official Reporter. Raleigh Milton, Official Reporter. Joel Breitner, Official Reporter. Mary Jane McCarthy, Official Reporter. Paul Nelson, Official Reporter. Katie-Jane Teel, Official Reporter. Patrick Renzi, Official Reporter. Lee Brown, Staff Assistant, Official Reporter. Kathleen Alvarez, Bill Clerk. Simon Sargent, Staff Assistant to Sen. Cleland. Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Authority to Print Senate Documents Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to print as a Senate document all documents filed by the parties together with other materials for the convenience of all Senators. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I am about to submit a series of unanimous-consent agreements and a resolution for the consideration of the Senate. In addition to these matters, I would like to state for the information of all Senators that, pursuant to S. Res. 16, the evidentiary record on which the parties' presentations over the next days will be based was filed by the House managers yesterday and was distributed to all Senators through their offices. These materials are now being printed at the Government Printing Office as Senate documents. The initial documents of the record have been printed and are now at each Senator's desk. As the printing of the rest of the volumes of the record is completed over the next few days, they will also be placed on the Senators desks for their convenience. THE JOURNAL The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the Journal of the proceedings of the trial are approved to date. The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the Senate Journal the following documents: The precept, issued on January 8, 1999; The writ of summons, issued on January 8, 1999; and the receipt of summons, dated January 8, 1999. The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the Senate Journal the following documents, which were received by the Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, 106th Congress, first session: The answer of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against him on January 7, 1999, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999; The trial brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999; The trial brief filed by the President, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 13, 1999; The replication of the House of Representatives, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 13, 1999; and The rebuttal brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by the Secretary of the Senate on January 14, 1999. Without objection, the foregoing documents will be printed in the Congressional Record. The documents follow: The United States of America, ss: The Senate of the United States to James W. Ziglar, Sergeant at Arms, United States Senate, greeting: You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with William Jefferson Clinton, if conveniently to be found, or if not, to leave at his usual place of abode, a true and attested copy of the within writ of summons, together with a like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform the service, let it be done at least 2 days before the answer day mentioned in the said writ of summons. Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before the day for answering mentioned in the said writ of summons. Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999, the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of the United States. Attest: Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate. ____ The United States of America, ss: The Senate of the United States to William Jefferson Clinton, greeting: Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America did, on the 7th day of January, 1999, exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said William Jefferson Clinton, in the words following: ``Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I ``In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that: ``On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. ``In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. ``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article II ``In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding. ``The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts: ``(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. ``(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. ``(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. ``(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. ``(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. ``(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. ``(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. ``In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive to the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. ``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.'' And demand that you, the said William Jefferson Clinton, should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice. You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore hereby summoned to file with the Secretary of the United States Senate, S-220 The Capitol, Washington, D.C., 20510, an answer to the said articles of impeachment no later than noon on the 11th day of January, 1999, and therefore to abide by, obey, and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Hereof you are not to fail. Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999, the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of the United States. Attest: Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate. ____ The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and the foregoing precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the said William Jefferson Clinton, by my delivering true and attested copies of the same to Charles Ruff, at the White House, on the 8th day of January, 1999, at 5:27 p.m. Attest: James W. Ziglar, Sergeant at Arms. Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms. Dated: January 8, 1999. Witnesseth: Gary Sisco, Secretary, United States Senate. ____ [In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment] In re Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States ANSWER OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, in response to the summons of the Senate of the United States, answers the accusations made by the House of Representatives of the United States in the two Articles of Impeachment it has exhibited to the Senate as follows: Preamble The Charges in the Articles Do Not Constitute High Crimes or Misdemeanors The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do not permit the conviction and removal from office of a duly elected President. The President has acknowledged conduct with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. But Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be removed from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The charges in the articles do not rise to the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as contemplated by the Founding Fathers, and they do not satisfy the rigorous constitutional standard applied throughout our Nation's history. Accordingly, the Articles of Impeachment should be dismissed. The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice The President denies each and every material allegation of the two Articles of Impeachment not specifically admitted in this answer. Article I President Clinton denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. Factual Responses to Article I Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton offers the following factual responses to the allegations in Article I: (1) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica Lewinsky There is a myth about President Clinton's testimony before the grand jury. The myth is that the President failed to admit his improper intimate relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated by Article I, which accuses the President of lying about ``the nature and details of his relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky. The fact is that the President specifically acknowledged to the grand jury that he had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He said so, plainly and clearly: ``When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters . . . did involve inappropriate intimate contact.'' The President described to the grand jury how the relationship began and how it ended at his insistence early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny. He also described to the grand jury how he had attempted to testify in the deposition in the Jones case months earlier without having to acknowledge to the Jones lawyers what he ultimately admitted to the grand jury--that he had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The President read a prepared statement to the grand jury acknowledging his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The statement was offered at the beginning of his testimony to focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the Office of Independent Counsel to obtain necessary information without unduly dwelling on the salacious details of the relationship. The President's statement was followed by almost four hours of questioning. If it is charged that his statement was in any respect perjurious, false and misleading, the President denies it. The President also denies that the statement was in any way an attempt to thwart the investigation. The President states, as he did during his grand jury testimony, that he engaged in improper physical contact with Ms. Lewinsky. The President was truthful when he testified before the grand jury that he did not engage in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky as he understood that term to be defined by the Jones lawyers during their questioning of him in that deposition. The President further denies that his other statements to the grand jury about the nature and details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were perjurious, false, and misleading. (2) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury when he testified about statements he had made in the Jones deposition There is a second myth about the President's testimony before the grand jury. The myth is that the President adopted his entire Jones deposition testimony in the grand jury. The President was not asked to and did not broadly restate or reaffirm his Jones deposition testimony. Instead, in the grand jury he discussed the bases for certain answers he gave. The President testified truthfully in the grand jury about statements he made in the Jones deposition. The President stated to the grand jury that he did not attempt to be helpful to or assist the lawyers in the Jones deposition in their quest for information about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He truthfully explained to the grand jury his efforts to answer the questions in the Jones deposition without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Accordingly, the full, underlying Jones deposition is not before the Senate. Indeed, the House specifically considered and rejected an article of impeachment based on the President's deposition in the Jones case. The House managers should not be allowed to prosecute before the Senate an article of impeachment which the full House has rejected. (3) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about ``statements he allowed his attorney to make'' during the Jones deposition The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements his attorney made during the Jones deposition. The President was truthful when he explained to the grand jury his understanding of certain statements made by his lawyer, Robert Bennett, during the Jones deposition. The President also was truthful when he testified that he was not focusing on the prolonged and complicated exchange between the attorneys and Judge Wright. (4) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury concerning alleged efforts ``to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence'' in the Jones case For the reasons discussed more fully in response to Article II, the President denies that he attempted to influence the testimony of any witness or to impede the discovery of evidence in the Jones case. Thus, the President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements before the grand jury when he testified about these matters. First Affirmative Defense: Article I Does Not Meet the Constitutional Standard for Conviction and Removal For the same reasons set forth in the preamble of this answer, Article I does not meet the rigorous constitutional standard for conviction and removal from office of a duly elected President and should be dismissed. Second Affirmative Defense: Article I Is Too Vague To Permit Conviction and Removal Article I is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person could know what specific charges are being leveled against the President. It alleges that the President provided the grand jury with ``perjurious, false, and misleading testimony'' concerning ``one or more'' of four subject areas. But it fails to identify any specific statement by the President that is alleged to be perjurious, false and misleading. The House has left the Senate and the President to guess at what it had in mind. One of the fundamental principles of our law and the Constitution is that a person has a right to know what specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair warning, no one can prepare the defense to which every person is entitled. The law and the Constitution also mandate adequate notice to jurors so they may know the basis for the vote they must make. Without a definite and specific identification of false statements, a trial becomes a moving target for the accused. In addition, the American people deserve to know upon what specific statements the President is being judged, given the gravity and effect of these proceedings, namely nullifying the results of a national election. Article I sweeps broadly and fails to provide the required definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment, it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is constitutionally defective and should fail. Third Affirmative Defense: Article I Charges Multiple Offense in One Article Article I is fatally flawed because it charges multiple instances of alleged perjurious, false and misleading statements in one article. The Constitution provides that ``no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present,'' and Senate Rule XXIII provides that ``an article of impeachment shall not be divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time during the trial.'' By the express terms of Article I, a Senator may vote for impeachment if he or she finds that there was perjurious, false and misleading testimony in ``one or more'' of four topic areas. This creates the very real possibility that conviction could occur even though Senators were in wide disagreement as to the alleged wrong committed. Put simply, the structure of Article I presents the possibility that the President could be convicted even though he would have been acquitted if separate votes were taken on each allegedly perjurious statement. For example, it would be possible for the President to be convicted and removed from office with as few as 17 Senators agreeing that any single statement was perjurious, because 17 votes for each of the four categories in Article I would yield 68 votes, one more than necessary to convict and remove. By charging multiple wrongs in one article, the House of Representatives has made it impossible for the Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandate that any conviction be by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members. Accordingly, Article I should fail. Factual Responses to Article II Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton offers the following factual responses to the allegations in Article II: (1) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading'' The President denies that he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky, the only witness cited in support of this allegation, denies this allegation as well. Her testimony and proffered statements are clear and unmistakable: ``[N]o one even asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.'' ``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .'' ``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.'' The President states that, sometime in December 1997, Ms. Lewinsky asked him whether she might be able to avoid testifying the Jones case because she knew nothing about Ms. Jones or the case. The President further states that he told her he believed other witnesses had executed affidavits, and there was a chance they would not have to testify. The President denies that he ever asked, encouraged or suggested that Ms. Lewinsky file a false affidavit or lie. The President states that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could have filed a limited but truthful affidavit that might have enabled her to avoid having to testify in the Jones case. (2) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony of and when called to testify personally'' in the Jones litigation Again, the President denies that he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie if and when called to testify personally in the Jones case. The testimony and proffered statements of Monica Lewinsky, the only witness cited in support of this allegation, are clear and unmistakable: [N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.'' ``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .'' ``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.'' The President states that, prior to Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case, he and Ms. Lewinsky might have talked about what to do to conceal their relationship from others. Ms. Lewinsky was not a witness in any legal proceeding at that time. Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony and statements support the President's recollection. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she ``pretty much can'' exclude the possibility that she and the President ever had discussions about denying the relationship after she learned she was a witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky also stated that ``they did not discuss the issue [of what to say about their relationship] is specific relation to the Jones matter,'' and that ``she does not believe they discussed the content of any deposition that [she] might be involved in at a later date.'' (3) The President denies that on or about December 28, 1997, he ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence'' in the Jones case The President denies that he engaged in, encouraged, or supported any scheme to conceal evidence from discovery in the Jones case, including any gifts he had given to Ms. Lewinsky. The President states that he gave numerous gifts to Ms. Lewinsky prior to December 28, 1997. The President states that, sometime in December, Ms. Lewinsky inquired as to what to do if she were asked in the Jones case about the gifts he had given her, to which the President responded that she would have to turn over whatever she had. The President states that he was unconcerned about having given her gifts and, in fact, that he gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on December 28, 1997. The President denies that he ever asked his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts he had given Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encouraged, or suggested that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts. Ms. Currie told prosecutors as early as January 1998 and repeatedly thereafter that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had contacted her about retrieving gifts. (4) The President denies that he obstructed justice in connection with Monica Lewinsky's efforts to obtain a job in New York to ``corruptly prevent'' her ``truthful testimony'' in the Jones case The President denies that he obstructed justice in connection with Ms. Lewinsky's job search in New York or sought to prevent her truthful testimony in the Jones case. The President states that he discussed with Ms. Lewinsky her desire to obtain a job in New York months before she was listed as a potential witness in the Jones case. Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky was offered a job in New York at the United Nations more than a month before she was identified as a possible witness. The President also states that he believes that Ms. Lewinsky raised with him, again before she was ever listed as a possible witness in the Jones case, the prospect of having Mr. Vernon Jordan assist in her job search. Ms. Lewinsky corroborates his recollection that it was her idea to ask for Mr. Jordan's help. The President also states that he was aware that Mr. Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky to obtain employment in New York. The President denies that any of these efforts had any connection whatsoever to Ms. Lewinsky's status as a possible or actual witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky forcefully confirmed the President's denial when she testified, ``I was never promised a job for my silence.'' (5) The President denies that he ``corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge'' concerning Monica Lewinsky's affidavit The President denies that he corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements concerning Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit to a Federal judge during the Jones deposition. The President denies that he was focusing his attention on the prolonged and complicated exchange between his attorney and Judge Wright. (6) The President denies that he obstructed justice by relating ``false and misleading statements'' to ``a potential witness,'' Betty Currie, ``in order to corruptly influence [her] testimony'' The President denies that he obstructed justice or endeavored in any way to influence any potential testimony of Ms. Betty Currie. The President states that he spoke with Ms. Currie on January 18, 1998. The President testified that, in that conversation, he was trying to find out what the facts were, what Ms. Currie's perception was, and whether his own recollection was correct about certain aspects of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie testified that she felt no pressure ``whatsoever'' from the President's statements and no pressure ``to agree with [her] boss.'' The President denies knowing or believing that Ms. Currie would be a witness in any proceeding at the time of this conversation. Ms. Currie had not been on any of the witness lists proffered by the Jones lawyers. President Clinton states that, after the Independent Counsel investigation became public, when Ms. Currie was scheduled to testify, he told Ms. Currie to ``tell the truth.'' (7) The President denies that he obstructed justice when he relayed allegedly ``false and misleading statements'' to his aides The President denies that he obstructed justice when he misled his aides about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the days immediately following the public revelation of the Lewinsky investigation. The President acknowledges that, in the days following the January 21, 1998, Washington Post article, he misled his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation to conceal the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He sought to avoid disclosing his personal wrongdoing to protect his family and himself from hurt and public embarrassment. The President profoundly regrets his actions, and he has apologized to his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation. The President denies that he had any corrupt purpose or any intent to influence the ongoing grand jury proceedings. First Affirmative Defense: Article II Does Not Meet the Constitutional Standard for Conviction and Removal For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this answer, Article II does not meet the constitutional standard for convicting and removing a duly elected President from office and should be dismissed. Second Affirmative Defense: Article II Is Too Vague To Permit Conviction and Removal Article II is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person could know what specific charges are being leveled against the President. Article II alleges that the President ``obstructed and impeded the administration of justice'' in both the Jones case and the grand jury investigation. But it provides little or no concrete information about the specific acts in which the President is alleged to have engaged, or with whom, or when, that allegedly obstructed or otherwise impeded the administration of justice. As we set forth in the Second Affirmative Defense to Article I, one of the fundamental principles of our law and the Constitution is that a person has the right to know what specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair warning, no one can mount the defense to which every person is entitled. Fundamental to due process is the right of the President to be adequately informed of the charges so that he is able to confront those charges and defend himself. Article II sweeps too broadly and provides too little definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment, it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is constitutionally defective and should fail. Third Affirmative Defense: Article II Charges Multiple Offenses in One Article For the reasons set forth in the Third Affirmative Defense to Article I, Article II is constitutionally defective because it charges multiple instances of alleged acts of obstruction in one article, which makes it impossible for the Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandates that any conviction be by the concurrence of the two-thirds of the members. Accordingly, Article II should fail. Respectfully submitted, David E. Kendall, Nicole K. Seligman, Emmet T. Flood, Max Stier, Glen Donath, Alicia Marti, Williams & Connolly, 725 12th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Charles F. C. Ruff, Gregory B. Craig, Bruce R. Lindsey, Cheryl D. Mills, Lanny A. Breuer, Office of the White House Counsel, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20502. Submitted: January 11, 1999. ____ [In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment] In re Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully submits to the United States Senate its Brief in connection with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. Summary The President is charged in two Articles with: (1) Perjury and false and misleading testimony and statements under oath before a federal grand jury (Article I), and (2) engaging in a course of conduct or scheme to delay and obstruct justice (Article II). The evidence contained in the record, when viewed as a unified whole, overwhelmingly supports both charges. Perjury and False Statements Under Oath President Clinton deliberately and willfully testified falsely under oath when he appeared before a federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. Although what follows is not exhaustive, some of the more overt examples will serve to illustrate. At the very outset, the President read a prepared statement, which itself contained totally false assertions and other clearly misleading information. The President relied on his statement nineteen times in his testimony when questioned about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. President Clinton falsely testified that he was not paying attention when his lawyer employed Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at the Jones deposition. He falsely claimed that his actions with Ms. Lewinsky did not fall within the definition of ``sexual relations'' that was given at his deposition. He falsely testified that he answered questions truthfully at his deposition concerning, among other subjects, whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. He falsely testified that he instructed Ms. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed. He falsely denied trying to influence Ms. Currie after his deposition. He falsely testified that he was truthful to his aides when he gave accounts of his relationship, which accounts were subsequently disseminated to the media and the grand jury. Obstruction of Justice The President engaged in an ongoing scheme to obstruct both the Jones civil case and the grand jury. Further, he undertook a continuing and concerted plan to tamper with witnesses and prospective witnesses for the purpose of causing those witnesses to provide false and misleading testimony. Examples abound: The President and Ms. Lewinsky concocted a cover story to conceal their relationship, and the President suggested that she employ that story if subpoenaed in the Jones case. The President suggested that Ms. Lewinsky provide an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones case, when he knew that the affidavit would need to be false to accomplish its purpose. The President knowingly and willfully allowed his attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit and to use it for the purpose of obstructing justice in the Jones case. The President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she provide a false account of how she received her job at the Pentagon. The President attempted to influence the expected testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie, by providing her with a false account of his meetings with Ms. Lewinsky. The President provided several of his top aides with elaborate lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, so that those aides would convey the false information to the public and to the grand jury. When he did this, he knew that those aides would likely be called to testify, while he was declining several invitations to testify. By this action, he obstructed and delayed the operation of the grand jury. The President conspired with Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie to conceal evidence that he had been subpoenaed in the Jones case, and thereby delayed and obstructed justice. The President and his representatives orchestrated a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky in order to affect adversely her credibility as a witness, and thereby attempted to obstruct justice both in the Jones case and the grand jury. The President lied repeatedly under oath in his disposition in the Jones case, and thereby obstructed justice in that case. The President's lies and misleading statements under oath at the grand jury were calculated to, and did obstruct, delay and prevent the due administration of justice by that body. The President employed the power of his office to procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after she signed the false affidavit by causing his friend to exert extraordinary efforts for that purpose. The foregoing are merely accusations of an ongoing pattern of obstruction of justice, and witness tampering extending over a period of several months, and having the effect of seriously compromising the integrity of the entire judicial system. The effect of the President's misconduct has been devastating in several respects. (1) He violated repeatedly his oath to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' (2) He ignored his constitutional duty as chief law enforcement officer to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' (3) He deliberately and unlawfully obstructed Paula Jones's rights as a citizen to due process and the equal protection of the laws, though he had sworn to protect those rights. (4) By his pattern of lies under oath, misleading statements and deceit, he has seriously undermined the integrity and credibility of the Office of President and thereby the honor and integrity of the United States. (5) His pattern of perjuries, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering has affected the truth seeking process which is the foundation of our legal system. (6) By mounting an assault in the truth seeking process, he has attacked the entire Judicial Branch of government. The Articles of Impeachment that the House has preferred state offenses that warrant, if proved, the conviction and removal from office of President William Jefferson Clinton. The Articles charge that the President has committed perjury before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed justice in a federal civil rights action. The Senate's own precedents establish beyond doubt that perjury warrants conviction and removal. During the 1980s, the Senate convicted and removed three federal judges for committing perjury. Obstruction of justice under mines the judicial system in the same fashion that perjury does, and it also warrants conviction and removal. Under our Constitution, judges are impeached under the same standard as Presidents--treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, these judicial impeachments for perjury set the standard here. Finally, the Senate's own precedents further establish that the President's crimes need not arise directly out of his official duties. Two of the three judges removed in the 1980s were removed for perjury that had nothing to do with their official duties. Introduction This Brief is intended solely to advise the Senate generally of the evidence that the Managers intend to product, if permitted, and of the applicable legal principles. It is not intended to discuss exhaustively all of the evidence, nor does it necessarily include each and every witness and document that the Managers would produce in the course of the trial. This Brief, then, is merely an outline for the use of the Senate in reviewing and assessing the evidence as it is set forth at trial--it is not, and is not intended to be a substitute for a trial at which all of the relevant facts will be developed. H. Res. 611, 105th Cong. 2nd Sess. (1998) The House Impeachment Resolution charges the President with high crimes and misdemeanors in two Articles. Article One alleges that President Clinton ``willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice'' in that he willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to a federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. Article Two asserts that the President ``has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and engaged in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought against him.'' Both Articles are now before the Senate of the United States for trial as provided by the Constitution of the United States. The Office of President represents to the American people and to the world, the strength, the philosophy and most of all, the honor and integrity that makes us a great nation and an example for the world. Because all eyes are focused upon that high office, the character and credibility of any temporary occupant of the Oval Office is vital to the domestic and foreign welfare of the citizens. Consequently, serious breaches of integrity and duty of necessity adversely influence the reputation of the United States. This case is not about sex or private conduct. It is about multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and misleading statements, and witness tampering--all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States. Before addressing the President's lies and obstruction, it is important to place the events in the proper context. If this were only about private sex we would not now be before the Senate. But the manner in which the Lewinsky relationship arose and continued is important because it is illustrative of the character of the President and the decisions he made. Background Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old intern, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 8; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 728) was working at the White House during the government shutdown in 1995. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 10; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 730) Prior to their first intimate encounter, she had never even spoken with the President. Sometime on November 15, 1995, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton flirted with each other. (Id.) The President of the United States of America then invited this unknown young intern into a private area off the Oval Office where he kissed her. He then invited her back later and when she returned, the two engaged in the first of many acts of inappropriate contact. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 732) Thereafter, the two concocted a cover story. If Ms. Lewinsky were seen, she was bringing papers to the President. That story was totally false. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 774; 8/26/98 Dep., p. 34; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1314) The only papers she brought were personal messages having nothing to do with her duties or those of the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 54-55; H.Doc. 105-311, pp. 774-775) After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White House to the Pentagon, her frequent visits to the President were disguised as visits to Betty Currie. (Id.) Those cover stories are important, because they play a vital role in the later perjuries and obstructions. Encounters Over the term of their relationship the following significant matters occurred: 1. Monica Lewinsky and the President were alone on at least twenty-one occasions; 2. They had at least eleven personal sexual encounters, excluding phone sex: Three in 1995, Five in 1996 and Three in 1997; 3. They had at least 55 telephone conversations, at least seventeen of which involved phone sex; 4. The President gave Ms. Lewinsky twenty presents; and, 5. Ms. Lewinsky gave the President forty presents (O.I.C. Referral, App., Tab E; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 104-111) These are the essential facts which form the backdrop for all of the events that followed. The sexual details of the President's encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, though relevant, need not be detailed either in this document or through witness testimony. It is necessary, though, briefly to outline that evidence, because it will demonstrate that the President repeatedly lied about that sexual relationship in his deposition, before the grand jury, and in his responses to the Judiciary Committee's questions. He has consistently maintained that Ms. Lewinsky merely performed acts on him, while he never touched her in a sexual manner. This characterization not only directly contradicts Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, but it also contradicts the sworn grand jury testimony of three of her friends and the statements by two professional counselors with whom she contemporaneously shared the details of her relationship. (O.I.C. Referral, H. Doc. 105-310, pgs. 138-140) While his treatment of Ms. Lewinsky was offensive, it is much more offensive for the President to expect the Senate to believe that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, his intimate contact with Ms. Lewinsky was so limited that it did not fall within his narrow interpretation of a definition of ``sexual relations''. As later demonstrated, he did not even conceive his interpretation until 1998, while preparing for his grand jury appearance. How To View the Evidence We respectfully submit that the evidence and testimony must be viewed as a whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. It is essential to avoid considering each event in isolation, and then treating it separately. Events and words that may seem innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the context of the whole plot. For example, everyone agrees that Monica Lewinsky testified ``No one ever told me to lie; nobody ever promised me a job.'' (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 105; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1161) When considered alone this would seem exculpatory. However, in the context of the other evidence, another picture emerges. Of course no one said. ``Now, Monica, you go in there and lie.'' They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job, but once she signed the false affidavit, she got one. The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the President's course of conduct is such as to affect adversely the Office of the President and also upon the administration of justice, and whether he has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive to the Rule of Law and Constitutional government. The Beginning The events that form the basis of these charges actually began in late 1995. They reached a critical stage in the winter of 1997 and the first month of 1998. The event culminated when the President of the United States appeared before a federal grand jury, raised his right hand to God and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. december 5-6, 1997 On Friday, December 5, 1997, Monica Lewinsky asked Betty Currie if the President could see her the next day, Saturday, but Ms. Currie said that the President was scheduled to meet with his lawyers all day. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 107-108; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 827-828) Later that Friday, Ms. Lewinsky spoke briefly to the President at a Christmas party. (ML 7/ 31/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1451; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 108; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 828) The Witness List Is Received That evening, Paula Jones's attorneys faxed a list of potential witnesses to the President's attorneys. (849-DC- 00000128; 849-DC-00000121-37; Referral, H. Doc. 105-311, p. 88) The list included Monica Lewinsky. However, Ms. Lewinsky did not find out that her name was on the list until the President told her ten days later, on December 17. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 121-123; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 841-843) That delay is significant. Ms. Lewinsky's First Visit After her conversation with Ms. Currie and seeing the President at the Christmas party, Ms. Lewinsky drafted a letter to the President terminating their relationship. (ML- 55-DC-0177); ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 2; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1452) The next morning, Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to the White House to deliver the letter and some gifts for the President to Ms. Currie. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 108-109; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 828-829) When she arrived at the White House, Ms. Lewinsky spoke to several Secret Service officers, and one of them told her that the President was not with his lawyers, as she thought, but rather, he was meeting with Eleanor Mondale. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 111; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 831; Mondale 7/16/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-316, pgs. 2907- 2908; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2654) Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie from a pay phone, angrily exchanged words with her, and went home. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 112-13; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 832-833; Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 27; H. Doc. 105-316, p. 553) After that phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret Service watch commander that the President was so upset about the disclosure of his meeting with Ms. Mondale that he wanted somebody fired. (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 13, 18-19; H. Doc. 105-316, pgs. 3356-3357). The Telephone Conversations At 12:05 p.m., records demonstrate that Ms. Currie paged Bruce Lindsey with the message: ``Call Betty ASAP.'' (964-DC- 00000862; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2722) Around that same time, according to Ms. Lewinsky, while she was back at her apartment, Ms. Lewinsky and the President spoke by phone. The President was very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky that no one had every treated him as poorly as she had. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-14; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-834) The President acknowledged to the grand jury that he was upset about Ms. Lewinsky's behavior and considered it inappropriate. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 85; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 537). Nevertheless, in a sudden change of mood, he invited her to visit him at the White House that afternoon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 114; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 834) Ms. Lewinsky's Second Visit Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White House for the second time that day and was cleared to enter at 12:52 p.m. (WAVES: 827-DC-00000018) Although, in Ms. Lewinsky's words, the President was ``very angry'' with her during their recent telephone conversation, he was ``sweet'' and ``very affectionate'' during this visit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-15; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-835). He also told her that he would talk to Vernon Jordan about her job situation. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 115-16; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 835-836) The Discussions With the Secret Service The President also suddenly changed his attitude toward the Secret Service. Ms. Currie informed some officers that if they kept quiet about the Lewinsky incident, there would be no disciplinary action. (Williams 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 25, 27-28; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 4539; Chinery 7/23/98 GJ, p. 22-23; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 456). According to the Secret Service watch commander, Captain Jeffrey Purdie, the President personally told him, ``I hope you use your discretion'' or ``I hope I can count on your discretion.'' (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, p. 32; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3360; Purdie 7/17/98 GJ, p. 3; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 3353) Deputy Chief Charles O'Malley, Captain Purdie's supervisor, testified that he knew of no other time in his fourteen years of service at the White House where the President raised a performance issue with a member of the Secret Service uniformed division. (O'Malley 9/8/98 Dep., pgs. 40-41; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 3168-3171) After his conversation with the President, Captain Purdie told a number of officers that they should not discuss the Lewinsky incident. (Porter 8/13/98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3343; Niedzwiecki 7/30/98 GJ, pgs. 30-31, H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3114) When the President was before the grand jury and questioned about his statements to the Secret Service regarding this incident, the President testified, ``I don't remember what I said and I don't remember to whom I said it.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 86; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 534) When confronted with Captain Purdie's testimony, the President testified, ``I don't remember anything I said to him in that regard. I have no recollection of that whatever.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 91; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 543) The President's Knowledge of the Witness List President Clinton testified before the grand jury that he learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the Jones witness list that evening, Saturday, December 6, during a meeting with his lawyers. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 83-84; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 535- 536) He stood by this answer in response to Request Number 16 submitted by the Judiciary Committee. (Exhibit 18). The meeting occurred around 5 p.m., after Ms. Lewinsky had left the White House. (WAVES: 1407-DC-00000005; Lindsey 3/12/98 GJ, pgs. 64-66; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 2418-19) According to Bruce Lindsey, at the meeting, Bob Bennett had a copy of the Jones witness list faxed to Mr. Bennett the previous night. (Lindsey 3/12/98 GJ, pgs. 65-67; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 2419) (Exhibit 15) However, during his deposition, the President testified that he had heard about the witness list before he saw it. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 70) In other words, if the President testified truthfully in his deposition, then he knew about the witness list before the 5 p.m. meeting. It is valid to infer that hearing Ms. Lewinsky's name on a witness list prompted the President's sudden and otherwise unexplained change from ``very angry'' to ``very affectionate'' that Saturday afternoon. It is also reasonable to infer that it prompted him to give the unique instruction to a Secret Service watch commander to use ``discretion'' regarding Ms. Lewinsky's visit to the White House, which the watch commander interpreted as an instruction to refrain from discussing the incident. (Purdie 7/17/98 GJ, pgs. 20-21; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 3351-3352; Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 32- 33; H.Doc. 105-315, pgs. 3360-3361) The Job Search for Ms. Lewinsky Monica Lewinsky had been looking for a good paying and high profile job in New York since the previous July. She was not having much success despite the President's promise to help. In early November, Betty Currie arranged a meeting with Vernon Jordan who was supposed to help. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 176; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 592) On November 5, Ms. Lewinsky met for twenty minutes with Mr. Jordan (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pg. 104; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 824) No action followed; no job interviews were arranged and there were no further contacts with Mr. Jordan. It was obvious that he made no effort to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, it was so unimportant to him that he ``had no recollection of an early November meeting'' (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pg. 50; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 1799) and that finding a job for Ms. Lewinsky was not a priority (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 76; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1804) (Chart R) Nothing happened throughout the month of November, because Mr. Jordan was either gone or would not return Monica's calls. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 105-106; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 825-826) During the December 6 meeting with the President, she mentioned that she had not been able to get in touch with Mr. Jordan and that it did not seem he had done anything to help her. The President responded by stating, ``Oh, I'll talk to him. I'll get on it,'' or something to that effect. (ML 8/6/ 98 GJ, pgs. 115-116; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 836) There was obviously still no urgency to help Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan met the President the next day, December 7, but the meeting was unrelated to Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ. pgs. 83, 116; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1805, 1810) The December 11, 1997 Activity The first activity calculated to help Ms. Lewinsky actually procure employment took place on December 11. Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky and gave her a list of contact names. The two also discussed the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 119, 120; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 839-840) That meeting Mr. Jordan remembered. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1798) Vernon Jordan immediately placed calls to two prospective employers. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 54, 62-63; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1800-1802) Later in the afternoon, he even called the President to give him a report on his job search efforts. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 64-66; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1802) Clearly, Mr. Jordan and the President were now very interested in helping Monica find a good job in New York. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 95; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1807) Significance of December 11, 1997 This sudden interest was inspired by a court order entered on December 11, 1997. On that date, Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered that Paula Jones was entitled to information regarding any state or federal employee with whom the President had sexual relations, proposed sexual relations, or sought to have sexual relations. The President knew that it would be politically and legally expedient to maintain an amicable relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And the President knew that that relationship would be fostered by finding Ms. Lewinsky a job. This was accomplished through enlisting the help of Vernon Jordan. December 17, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky Learns of Witness List On December 17, 1997, between 2:00 and 2:30 in the morning, Monica Lewinsky's phone rang unexpectedly. It was the President of the United States. The President said that he wanted to tell Ms. Lewinsky two things: one was that Betty Currie's brother had been killed in a car accident; secondly, the President said that he ``had some more bad news,'' that he had seen the witness list for the Paula Jones case and her name was on it. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 843) The President told Ms. Lewinsky that seeing her name on the list ``broke his heart.'' He then told her that ``if [she] were to be subpoenaed, [she] should contact Betty and let Betty know that [she] had received the subpoena.'' (Id.) Ms. Lewinsky asked what she should do if subpoenaed. The President responded: ``Well, maybe you can sign an affidavit.'' (Id.) Both parties knew that the Affidavit would need to be false and misleading to accomplish the desired result. The President's ``Suggestion'' Then, the President had a very pointed suggestion for Monica Lewinsky, a suggestion that left little room for compromise. He did not specifically tell her to lie. What he did say is ``you know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 843) In order to understand the significance of this statement, it is necessary to recall the ``cover stories'' that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had previously structured in order to deceive those who protected and worked with the President. Ms. Lewinsky said she would carry papers when she visited the President. When she saw him, she would say: ``Oh, gee, `here are your letters,' wink, wink, wink and he would answer, `Okay that's good.' '' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 774) After Ms. Lewinsky left White House employment, she would return to the Oval Office under the guise of visiting Betty Currie, not the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 55; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 775) Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky promised the President that she would always deny the sexual relationship and always protect him. The President would respond ``that's good'' or similar language of encouragement. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 22; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 1078) So, when the President called Ms. Lewinsky at 2:00 a.m. on December 17 to tell her she was on the witness list, he made sure to remind her of those prior ``cover stories.'' Ms. Lewinsky testified that when the President brought up the misleading stories, she understood that the two would continue their pre-existing pattern of deception. The President's Intention It became clear that the President had no intention of making his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky a public affair. And he would use lies, deceit, and deception to ensure that the truth would not be known. It is interesting to note that when the grand jury asked the President whether he remembered calling Monica Lewinsky at 2:00 a.m., he responded: ``No sir, I don't. But it would . . . it is quite possible that that happened. . . .'' (WJC 8/ 17/98 GJ, p. 115; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 567) And when he was asked whether he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to continue the cover stories of ``coming to see Betty'' or ``bringing the letters,'' he answered: ``I don't remember exactly what I told her that night.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 117; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 565) Six days earlier, he had become aware that Paula Jones' lawyers were now able to inquire about other women. Ms. Lewinsky could file a false affidavit, but it might not work. It was absolutely essential that both parties told the same story. He knew that he would lie if asked about Ms. Lewinsky, and he wanted to make certain that she would lie also. That is why the President of the United States called a twenty- four year old woman at 2:00 in the morning. The Evidence Mounts But the President had an additional problem. It was not enough that he (and Ms. Lewinsky) simply deny the relationship. The evidence was beginning to accumulate. Because of the emerging evidence, the President found it necessary to reevaluate his defense. By this time, the evidence was establishing, through records and eyewitness accounts, that the President and Monica Lewinsky were spending a significant amount of time together in the Oval Office complex. It was no longer expedient simply to refer to Ms. Lewinsky as a ``groupie'', ``stalker'', ``clutch'', or ``home wrecker'' as the White House first attempted to do. The unassailable facts were forcing the President to acknowledge some type of relationship. But at this point, he still had the opportunity to establish a non-sexual explanation for their meetings, since his DNA had not yet been identified on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress. Need for the Cover Story Therefore, the President needed Monica Lewinsky to go along with the cover story in order to provide an innocent, intimate-free explanation for their frequent meetings. And that innocent explanation came in the form of ``document deliveries'' and ``friendly chats with Betty Currie.'' Significantly, when the President was deposed on January 17, 1998, he used the exact same cover stories that had been utilized by Ms. Lewinsky. In doing so, he stayed consistent with any future Lewinsky testimony while still maintaining his defense in the Jones lawsuit. In the President's deposition, he was asked whether he was ever alone with Monica Lewinsky. He responded: ``I don't recall . . . She--it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there.'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 52-53) Additionally, when questions were posed regarding Ms. Lewinsky's frequent visits to the Oval Office, the President did not hesitate to mention Betty Currie in his answers, for example: And my recollection is that on a couple of occasions after [the pizza party meeting], she was there [in the oval office] but my secretary, Betty Currie, was there with her. (WJC 1/ 17/98 Dep., p. 58) Q. When was the last time you spoke with Monica Lewinsky? A. I'm trying to remember. Probably sometime before Christmas. She came by to see Betty sometime before Christmas. And she was there talking to her, and I stuck my head out, said hello to her. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 68) December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky Is Subpoenaed On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to testify in a deposition scheduled for January 23, 1998 in the Jones case. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 848) (Charts F and G) Extremely distraught, she immediately called the President's closest friend, Vernon Jordan. As noted Ms. Lewinsky testified that the President previously told her to call Betty Currie if she was subpoenaed. She called Mr. Jordan instead because Ms. Currie's brother recently died and she did not want to bother her. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 128-129; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 848, 849) Vernon Jordan's Role Mr. Jordan invited Ms. Lewinsky to his office and she arrived shortly before 5 p.m., still extremely distraught. Around this time, Mr. Jordan called the President and told him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 145; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1815) (Exhibit 1) During the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, which Mr. Jordan characterized as ``disturbing'' (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 100; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1716), she talked about her infatuation with the President. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 150; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1724) Mr. Jordan decided that he would call a lawyer for her. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 161; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1726) Mr. Jordan Informs the President That evening, Mr. Jordan met with the President and relayed his conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. The details are extremely important because the President, in his deposition, did not recall that meeting. Mr. Jordan told the President again that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, that he was concerned about her fascination with the President, and that Ms. Lewinsky had asked Mr. Jordan if he thought the President would leave the First Lady. He also asked the President if he had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 169; H.Doc 105-3316, p. 1727) The President was asked at his deposition: Q. Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in this case? A. I don't think so. Q. Did you ever talk with Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this case? A. Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she was, I think maybe that's the first person told me she was. I want to be as accurate as I can. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 68-69) In the grand jury, the President first repeated his denial that Mr. Jordan told him Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 39; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 491) Then, when given more specific facts, he admitted that he ``knows now'' that he spoke with Mr. Jordan about the subpoena on the night of December 19, but his ``memory is not clear. . . .'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 41-42; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 493-494) In an attempt to explain away his false deposition testimony, the President testified in the grand jury that he was trying to remember who told him first. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 492-493) But that was not the question. So his answer was false and misleading. When one considers the nature of the conversation between the President and Mr. Jordan, the suggestion that it would be forgotten defies common sense. December 28, 1997 December 28, 1997 is a crucial date, because the evidence shows that the President made false and misleading statements to the federal court, the federal grand jury and the Congress of the United States about the events on that date. (Chart J) It is also a date on which he obstructed justice. The President's Account The President testified that it was ``possible'' that he invited Ms. Lewinsky to the White House for this visit. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 33; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 485) He admitted that he ``probably'' gave Ms. Lewinsky the most gifts he had ever given her on that date, (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 35; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 487) and that he had given her gifts on other occasions. (WJC 8/6/98 GJ, p. 35) (Chart D) Among the many gifts the President gave Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 was a bear that he said was a symbol of strength. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 176; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 896) Yet only two-and-a-half weeks later, the President forgot that he had given any gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. As an attorney, the President knew that the law will not tolerate someone who says, ``I don't recall'' when that answer is unreasonable under the circumstances. He also knew that, under those circumstances, his answer in the deposition could not be believed. When asked in the grand jury why he was unable to remember, even though he had given Ms. Lewinsky so many gifts only two-and-a-half weeks before the deposition, the President put forth an obviously contrived explanation. ``I think what I meant there was I don't recall what they were, not that I don't recall whether I had given them.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 51; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 503) Response to Committee Requests The President adopted that same answer in Response No. 42 to the House Judiciary Committee's Requests For Admission. (Exhibit 18) He was not asked in the deposition to identify the gifts. He was simply asked, ``Have you ever'' given gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. The law does not allow a witness to insert unstated premises or mental reservations into the question to make his answer technically true, if factually false. The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. The President's answer was false. The evidence also proves that his explanation to the grand jury and to the Committee is also false. The President would have us believe that he was able to analyze questions as they were being asked, and pick up such things as verb tense in an attempt to make his statements at least literally true. But when he was asked a simple, straightforward question, he did not understand it. Neither his answer in the deposition nor his attempted explanation is reasonable or true. Testimony Concerning Gifts The President was asked in the deposition if Monica Lewinsky ever gave him gifts. He responded, ``once or twice.'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 77) This is also false testimony calculated to obstruct justice. He answered this question in his Response to the House Judiciary Committee by saying that he receives numerous gifts, and he did not focus on the precise number. (Exhibit 18) The law again does not support the President's position. An answer that baldly understates a numerical fact in response to a specific quantitative inquiry can be deemed technically true but actually false. For example, a witness is testifying falsely if he says he went to the store five times when in fact he had gone fifty, even though technically he had also gone five times. So too, when the President answered once or twice in the face of evidence that Ms. Lewinsky was frequently bringing gifts, he was lying. (Chart C) Concealment of Gifts On December 28, one of the most blatant efforts to obstruct justice and conceal evidence occurred. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she discussed with the President the fact that she had been subpoenaed and that the subpoena called for her to produce gifts. She recalled telling the President that the subpoena requested a hat pin, and that caused her concern. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 151-152; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 871-872) The President told her that it ``bothered'' him, too. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 66; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1122) Ms. Lewinsky then suggested that she take the gifts somewhere, or give them to someone, maybe to Betty. The President answered: ``I don't know'' or ``Let me think about that.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 152-153; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 872-873) (Chart L) Later that day, Ms. Lewinsky got a call from Ms. Currie, who said: ``I understand you have something to give me'' or ``the President said you have something to give me.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154-155; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 874-875) Ms. Currie has a fuzzy memory about this incident, but says that ``the best she can remember,'' Ms. Lewinsky called her. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, p. 105; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 581) The Cell Phone Record There is key evidence that Ms. Currie's fuzzy recollection is wrong. Ms. Lewinsky said that she thought Ms. Currie called from her cell phone. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154-155) (Chart K, Exhibit 2) Ms. Currie's cell phone record corroborates Ms. Lewinsky and proves conclusively that Ms. Currie called Monica from her cell phone several hours after she had left the White House. Moreover, Ms. Currie herself later testified that Ms. Lewinsky's memory may be better than hers on this point. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 126; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584) The facts prove that the President directed Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts. Ms. Currie's Later Actions That conclusion is buttressed by Ms. Currie's actions. If Ms. Lewinsky had placed the call requesting a gift exchange, Ms. Currie would logically ask the reason for such a transfer. Ms. Lewinsky was giving her a box of gifts from the President yet she did not tell the President of this strange request. She simply took the gifts and placed them under her bed without asking a single question. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 57-58; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 557; BC 5/6/98 GJ, pgs. 105-108, 114; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 581-582) The President stated in his Response to questions No. 24 and 25 from the House Committee that he was not concerned about the gifts. (Exhibit 18) In fact, he said that he recalled telling Monica that if the Jones lawyers request gifts, she should turn them over. The President testified that he is ``not sure'' if he knew the subpoena asked for gifts. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 42-43; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 494- 495) Would Monica Lewinsky and the President discuss turning over gifts to the Jones lawyers if Ms. Lewinsky had not told him that the subpoena asked for gifts? On the other hand, if he knew the subpoena requested gifts, why would he give Ms. Lewinsky more gifts on December 28? Ms. Lewinsky's testimony reveals the answer. She said that she never questioned ``that we were ever going to do anything but keep this private'' and that meant to take ``whatever appropriate steps needed to be taken'' to keep it quiet. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 166; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 886) The only logical inference is that the gifts--including the bear symbolizing strength--were a tacit reminder to Ms. Lewinsky that they would deny the relationship--even in the face of a federal subpoena. The President's Deposition Testimony Furthermore, the President, at various times in his deposition, seriously misrepresented the nature of his meeting with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 in order to obstruct the administration of justice. First, he was asked: ``Did she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in this case?'' The President answered flatly: ``No. I don't know if she had been.'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 68) He was also asked if he ``ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility of her testifying.'' ``I'm not sure . . .,'' he said. he then added that he may have joked to her that the Jones lawyers might subpoena every woman he has ever spoken to, and that ``I don't think we ever had more of a conversation than that about it. . . .'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 70) Not only does Monica Lewinsky directly contradict this testimony, but the President also directly contradicted himself before the grand jury. Speaking of his December 28, 1997 meeting, he said that he ``knew by then, of course, that she had gotten a subpoena'' and that they had a ``conversation about the possibility of her testifying.'' (WJC 8/17/98 Dep., pgs. 35-36) Remember, he had this conversation about her testimony only two-and-a-half weeks before his deposition. Again, his version is not reasonable. January 5-9, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky Signs the Affidavit and Gets a Job The President knew that Monica Lewinsky was going to execute a false Affidavit. He was so certain of the content that when she asked if he wanted to see it, he told her no, that he had seen fifteen of them. (ML 8/2/98 Int., p. 3; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1489) He got his information from discussions with Ms. Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan generally about the content of the Affidavit. Moreover, the President had suggested the Affidavit himself and he trusted Mr. Jordan to be certain the mission was accomplished. Additional Presidential Advice In the afternoon of January 5, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky met with her lawyer, Mr. Carter, to discuss the Affidavit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 192; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 912) Her lawyer asked her some hard questions about how she got her job. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 195; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 915) After the meeting, she called Betty Currie and said that she wanted to speak to the President before she signed anything. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 195; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 915) Ms. Lewinsky and the President discussed the issue of how she would answer under oath if asked about how she got her job at the Pentagon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 197; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 917) The President told her: ``Well, you could always say that the people in Legislative Affairs got it for you or helped you get it.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 197; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 917) That, too, is false and misleading. Vernon Jordan's New Role The President was also kept advised as to the contents of the Affidavit by Vernon Jordan. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 224; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1828) On January 6, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky picked up a draft of the Affidavit from Mr. Carter's office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 199; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 919) She delivered a copy to Mr. Jordan's office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 200; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 920) because she wanted Mr. Jordan to look at the Affidavit in the belief that if Vernon Jordan gave his imprimatur, the President would also approve. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 194-195; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 914, 915) (Chart M) Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan conferred about the contents and agreed to delete a paragraph inserted by Mr. Carter which might open a line of questions concerning whether she had been alone with the President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 200; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 920) (Exhibit 3) Mr. Jordan maintained that he had nothing to do with the details of the Affidavit. (VJ 3/5/ 98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1735) He admits, though, that he spoke with the President after conferring with Ms. Lewinsky about the changes made to her Affidavit. (VJ 5/5/ 98 GJ, p. 218; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1827) Ms. Lewinsky Signs the False Affidavit The next day, January 7, Monica Lewinsky signed the false Affidavit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 204-205; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 924-925) (Chart N; Exhibit 12) She showed the executed copy to Mr. Jordan that same day. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 222; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1828) (Exhibit 4) Mr. Jordan, in turn, notified the President that she signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 26; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1739) Ms. Lewinsky Gets the Job On January 8, 1998, Mr. Jordan arranged an interview for Ms. Lewinsky with MacAndrews and Forbes in New York. (ML 8/6/ 98 GJ, p. 206; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 926) The interview went poorly, so Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan and informed him. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 206; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 926) Mr. Jordan, who had done nothing to assist Ms. Lewinsky's job search from early November to mid December, then called MacAndrews and Forbes CEO, Ron Perelman, to ``make things happen, if they could happen.'' (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 231; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1829) Mr. Jordan called Ms. Lewinsky back and told her not to worry. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 208-209; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 928- 929) That evening, Ms. Lewinsky was called by MacAndrews and Forbes and told that she would be given more interviews the next morning. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 209; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 929) After a series of interviews with MacAndrews and Forbes personnel, she was informally offered a job. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 210; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 930) When Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan to tell him, he passed the good news on to Betty Currie stating, ``Mission Accomplished.'' (VJ 5/28/98 GJ, p. 39; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1898). Later, Mr. Jordan called the President and told him personally. (VJ 5/28/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1899) (Chart P) The Reason for Mr. Jordan's Unique Behavior After Ms. Lewinsky had spent months looking for a job-- since July according to the President's lawyers--Vernon Jordan made the critical call to a CEO the day after the false Affidavit was signed. Mr. Perelman testified that Mr. Jordan had never called him before about a job recommendation. (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 11; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 3281) Mr. Jordan, on the other hand, said that he called Mr. Perelman to recommend for hiring: (1) former Mayor Dinkins of New York; (2) a very talented attorney from Akin Gump; (3) a Harvard business school graduate; and (4) Monica Lewinsky. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 58-59; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1747) Even if Mr. Perelman's testimony is mistaken, Ms. Lewinsky's qualifications do not compare to those of the individuals previously recommended by Mr. Jordan. Vernon Jordan was well aware that people with whom Ms. Lewinsky worked at the White House did not like her (VJ 3/3/ 98 GJ, pgs. 43, 59) and that she did not like her Pentagon job. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 43-44; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1706, 1707) Mr. Jordan was asked if at ``any point during this process you wondered about her qualifications for employment?'' He answered: ``No, because that was not my judgment to make.'' (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 44; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1707) Yet, when he called Mr. Perelman the day after she signed the Affidavit, he referred to Ms. Lewinsky as a bright young girl who is ``terrific.'' (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 10; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3281) Mr. Jordan testified that she had been pressing him for a job and voicing unrealistic expectations concerning positions and salary. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, pgs. 37-38; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1742) Moreover, she narrated a disturbing story about the President leaving the First Lady, and how the President was not spending enough time with her. Yet, none of that gave Mr. Jordan pause in making the recommendation, especially after Monica was subpoenaed. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 156-157; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1725) The Importance of the False Affidavit Monica Lewinsky's false Affidavit enabled the President, through his attorneys, to assert at his January 17, 1998 deposition ``. . . there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape of form with President Clinton. . . .'' (WJC, 1/17/98 Dep., p. 54) When questioned by his own attorney in the deposition, the President stated specifically that paragraph 8 of Ms. Lewinsky's Affidavit was ``absolutely true.'' (WJC, 1/17/98 Dep., p. 204) The President later affirmed the truth of that statement when testifying before the grand jury. (WJC, 8/17/98 GJ, p. 20-21; H.Doc. 105-311, pg. 473) Paragraph 8 of Ms. Lewinsky's Affidavit states: ``I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.'' Significantly, Ms. Lewinsky reviewed the draft Affidavit on January 6, and signed it on January 7 after deleting a reference to being alone with the President. She showed a copy of the signed Affidavit to Vernon Jordan, who called the President and told him that she had signed it. (VJ, 3/5/98 GJ, pgs. 24-26; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 1728, 1739; VJ, 5/5/98 GJ, p. 222; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1828) The Rush To File the Affidavit For the affidavit to work for the President in precluding questions by the Jones attorneys concerning Ms. Lewinsky, it had to be filed with the Court and provided to the President's attorneys in time for his deposition on January 17. On January 14, the President's lawyers called Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer and left a message, presumably to find out if he had filed the Affidavit with the Court. (Carrier 6/18/ 98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 423) (Chart O) On January 15, the President's attorneys called her attorney twice. When they finally reached him, they requested a copy of the Affidavit and asked him, ``Are we still on time?'' (Carter 6/ 18/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-216, p. 423) Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer faxed a copy on the 15th. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 123, H.Doc. 105-316, p. 423) The President's counsel was aware of its contents and used it powerfully in the deposition. Ms. Lewinsky's lawyer called the court in Arkansas twice on January 15 to ensure that the Affidavit could be filed on Saturday, January 17. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, pgs. 124-125; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 423-424) (Exhibit 5) He finished the Motion to Quash Ms. Lewinsky's deposition in the early morning hours of January 16 and mailed it to the Court with the false Affidavit attached, for Saturday delivery. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 134; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 426) The President's lawyers left him another message on January 16, saying, ``You'll know what it's about.'' (Carter 6/18/ 98 GJ, p. 135; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 426) Obviously, the President needed that Affidavit to be filed with the Court to support his plans to mislead Ms. Jones' attorneys in the deposition, and thereby obstruct justice. The Newsweek Inquiry On January 15, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek called Betty Currie and asked her about Ms. Lewinsky sending gifts to her by courier. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 228; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 948) Ms. Currie than called Ms. Lewinsky and told her about it. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 228-229; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 948-949) The President was out of town, so later, Betty Currie called Ms. Lewinsky back, and asked for a ride to Mr. Jordan's office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 229; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 949; Currie 5/6/98 GJ, p. 130-131; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 585) Mr. Jordan advised her to speak with Bruce Lindsey and Mike McCurry. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 71) Ms. Currie testified that she spoke immediately to Mr. Lindsey about Isikoff's call. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 127; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584) January 17, 1998, Deposition Aftermath By the time the President concluded his deposition on January 17, he knew that someone was talking about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He also knew that the only person who had personal knowledge was Ms. Lewinsky herself. The cover stories that he and Ms. Lewinsky created, and that he used himself during the deposition, were now in jeopardy. It became imperative that he not only contact Ms. Lewinsky, but that he obtain corroboration of his account of the relationship from his trusted secretary, Ms. Currie. At around 7 p.m. on the night of the deposition, the President called Ms. Currie and asked that she come in the following day, Sunday. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 154-155; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 701 (Exhibit 6) Ms. Currie could not recall the President ever before calling her that late at home on a Saturday night. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 69; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559) (Chart S) Sometime in the early morning hours of January 18, 1998, the President learned of a news report concerning Ms. Lewinsky released earlier that day. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 142- 143; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 594-595) (Exhibit 14) The Tampering With the Witness, Betty Currie As the charts indicate, between 11:49 a.m. and 2:55 p.m., there were three phone calls between Mr. Jordan and the President. (Exhibit 7) At about 5 p.m., Ms. Currie met with the President. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 67; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 558) He told her that he had just been deposed and that the attorneys asked several questions about Monica Lewinsky. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 69-70; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559) He then made a series of statements to Ms. Currie: (Chart T) (1) I was never really alone with Monica, right? (2) You were always there when Monica was there, right? (3) Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right? (4) You could see and hear everything, right? (5) She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70-75; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 559-560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6-7; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 664) During Betty Currie's grand jury testimony, she was asked whether she believed that the President wished her to agree with the statements: Q. Would it be fair to say, then--based on the way he stated [these five points] and the demeanor that he was using at the time that he stated it to you--that he wished you to agree with that statement? A. I can't speak for him, but---- Q. How did you take it? Because you told us at these [previous] meetings in the last several days that that is how you took it. A. [Nodding.] Q. And you're nodding you head, ``yes,'' is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay, with regard to the statement that the President made to you, ``You remember I was never really alone with Monica, right?'' Was that also a statement that, as far as you took, that he wished you to agree with that? A. Correct. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 74; H.Doc. 105-316, 559) Though Ms. Currie would later intimate that she did not necessarily feel pressured by the President, she did state that she felt the President was seeking her agreement (or disagreement) with those statements. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 27; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 669) Was This Obstruction of Justice? The President essentially admitted to making these statements when he knew they were not true. Consequently, he had painted himself into a legal corner. Understanding the seriousness of the President ``coaching'' Ms. Currie, the argument has been made that those statements to her could not constitute obstruction because she had not been subpoenaed, and the President did not know that she was a potential witness at the time. This argument is refuted by both the law and the facts. The United States Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and stated, ``[A] person may be convicted of obstructing justice if he urges or persuades a prospective witness to give false testimony. Neither must the target be scheduled to testify at the time of the offense, nor must he or she actually give testimony at a later time.'' United States v. Shannon, 836 F.2d 1125, 1128 (8th Cir. 1988) (citing, e.g., United States v. Friedland, 660 F.2d 919, 931 (3rd Cir. 1981)). Of course Ms. Currie was a prospective witness, and the President clearly wanted her to be deposed to corroborate him, as his testimony demonstrates. The President claims that he called Ms. Currie into work on a Sunday night only to find out what she knew. But the President knew the truth about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and if he had told the truth during his deposition the day before, then he would have no reason to worry about what Ms. Currie knew. More importantly, the President's demeanor, Ms. Currie's reaction to his demeanor, and the blatant lies that he suggested clearly prove that the President was not merely interviewing Ms. Currie. Rather, he was looking for corroboration for his false cover-up, and that is why he coached her. January 18, the Search for Ms. Lewinsky Very soon after his Sunday meeting with Ms. Currie, at 5:12 p.m., the flurry of telephone calls in search of Monica Lewinsky began. (Chart S) between 5:12 p.m. and 8:28 p.m., Ms. Currie paged Ms. Lewinsky four times. ``Kay'' is a reference to a code name Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie agreed to when contacting one another. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 216; H.Doc. 105-311, pg. 936) At 11:02 p.m., the President called Ms. Currie at home to ask if she had reached Lewinsky. (BC 7/22/ 98 GJ, p. 160; H. Doc. 105-316, p. 702) January 19, the Search Continues The following morning, January 19, Ms. Currie continued to work diligently on behalf of the President. Between 7:02 a.m. and 8:41 a.m., she paged Ms. Lewinsky another five times. (Chart S) (Exhibit 8) After the 8:41 page, Ms. Currie called the President at 8:43 a.m. and said that she was unable to reach Ms. Lewinsky. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 161-162; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 703) One minute later, at 8:44 a.m., she again paged Ms. Lewinsky. This time Ms. Currie's page stated ``Family Emergency,'' apparently in an attempt to alarm Ms. Lewinsky into calling back. That may have been the President's idea, since Ms. Currie had just spoken with him. The President was obviously quite concerned because he called Betty Currie only six minutes later, at 8:50 a.m. Immediately thereafter, at 8:51 a.m., Ms. Currie tried a different tact, sending the message: ``Good news.'' Again, perhaps at the President's suggestion. If bad news does not get her to call, try good news. Ms. Currie said that she was trying to encourage Ms. Lewinsky to call, but there was no sense of ``urgency.'' (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 165; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 704) Ms. Currie's recollection of why she was calling was again fuzzy. She said at one point that she believes the President asked her to call Ms. Lewinsky, and she thought she was calling just to tell her that her name came up in the deposition. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 162; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 703) Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed; of course her name came up in the deposition. There was obviously another and more important reason the President needed to get in touch with her. Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky's Lawyers Join the Search At 8:56 a.m., the President telephoned Vernon Jordan, who then joined in the activity. Over a course of twenty-four minutes, from 10:29 to 10:53 a.m., Mr. Jordan called the White House three times, paged Ms. Lewinsky, and called Ms. Lewinsky's attorney, Frank Carter. Between 10:53 a.m. and 4:54 p.m., there are continued calls between Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky's attorney and individuals at the White House. Ms. Lewinsky Replaces Her Lawyer Later that afternoon, at 4:54 p.m., Mr. Jordan called Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter relayed that he had been told he no longer represented Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 141; H.Doc. 105- 316, p. 1771) Mr. Jordan then made feverish attempts to reach the President or someone at the White House to tell them the bad news, as represented by the six calls between 4:58 p.m. and 5:22 p.m. Vernon Jordan said that he tried to relay this information to the White House because ``[t]he President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job,'' and he thought it was ``information that they ought to have.'' (VJ 6/9/98 GJ, pgs. 45-46; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1968) (Chart Q) Mr. Jordan then called Mr. Carter back at 5:14 p.m. to go over what they had already talked about. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 146; H.Doc. 104- 316, p. 1772) Mr. Jordan finally reached the President at 5:56 p.m. and told him that Mr. Carter had been fired. (VJ 6/ 9/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 1970) The Reason for the Urgent Search This activity shows how important it was for the President of the United States to find Monica Lewinsky to learn to whom she was talking. Betty Currie was in charge of contacting Ms. Lewinsky. The President had just completed a deposition in which he provided false and misleading testimony about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. She was a co-conspirator in hiding this relationship from the Jones attorneys, and he was losing control over her. The President never got complete control over her again. Article I.--False and Misleading Statements to the Grand Jury Article I addresses the President's perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury. Four categories of false grand jury testimony are listed in the Article. Some salient examples of false statements are described below. When judging the statements made and the answers given, it is vital to recall that the President spent literally days preparing his testimony with his lawyer. He and his attorney were fully aware that the testimony would center around his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and his deposition testimony in the Jones case. Grand Jury Testimony On August 17, after six invitations, the President of the United States appeared before a grand jury of his fellow citizens and took an oath to tell the complete truth. The President proceeded to equivocate and engage in legalistic fencing; he also lied. The entire testimony was calculated to mislead and deceive the grand jury and to obstruct its process, and eventually to deceive the American people. He set the tone at the very beginning. In the grand jury a witness can tell the truth, lie or assert his privileges against self incrimination. (Chart Y) President Clinton was given a fourth choice. The President was permitted to read a statement. (Chart Z; WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 8-9) The President's Prepared Statement That statement itself is demonstrably false in many particulars. President Clinton claims that he engaged in inappropriate conduct with Ms. Lewinsky ``on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in 1997.'' Notice he did not mention 1995. There was a reason. On three ``occasions'' in 1995, Ms. Lewinsky said she engaged in sexual contact with the President. Ms. Lewinsky was a twenty-one year old intern at the time. The President unlawfully attempted to conceal his three visits alone with Ms. Lewinsky in 1995 during which they engaged in sexual conduct. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 27-28; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 747-748; ML 8/6/98 GJ, Ex. 7; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1251; Chart A) Under Judge Wright's ruling, this evidence was relevant and material to Paula Jones' sexual harassment claims. (Order, Judge Susan Webber Wright, December 11, 1997, p. 3) The President specifically and unequivocally states, ``[The encounters] did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17, 1998 deposition.'' That assertion is patently false. It is directly contradicted by the corroborated testimony of Monica Lewinsky. (See eg: ML 8/20/98 GJ, pgs. 31-32; H.Doc. 311, p. 1174; ML 8/26/98 Dep., p. 25, 30; H.Doc. 311, pgs. 1357, 1358) Evidence indicates that the President and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in ``sexual relations'' as the President understood the term to be defined at his deposition and as any reasonable person would have understood the term to have been defined. Contrary to his statement under oath, the President's conduct during the 1995 visits and numerous additional visits did constitute ``sexual relations'' as he understood the term to be defined at his deposition. Before the grand jury, the President admitted that directly touching or kissing another person's breast, or directly touching another person's genitalia with the intent to arouse, would be ``sexual relations'' as the term was defined. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 94-95; H.Doc 105-311, pgs. 546-547) However, the President maintained that he did not engage in such conduct. (Id.) These statements are contradicted by Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and the testimony of numerous individuals with whom she contemporaneously shared the details of her encounters with the President. Moreover, the theory that Ms. Lewinsky repeated and unilaterally performed acts on the President while he tailored his conduct to fit a contorted definition of ``sexual relations'' which he had not contemplated at the time of the acts, defies common sense. Moreover, the President had not even formed the contorted interpretation of ``sexual relations'' which he asserted in the grand jury until after his deposition had concluded. This is demonstrated by the substantial evidence revealing the President's state of mind during his deposition testimony. First, the President continuously denied at his deposition any fact that would cause the Jones lawyers to believe that he and Ms. Lewinsky had any type of improper relationship, including a denial that they had a sexual affair, (WJC 1/17/ 98 Dep., p. 78) not recalling if they were ever alone, (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53, 59) and not recalling whether Ms. Lewinsky had ever given him gifts. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pg. 75) Second, the President testified that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship was ``absolutely true'' when, even by his current reading of the definition, it is absolutely false. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 204) Third, the White House produced a document entitled ``January 24, 1998 Talking Points,'' stating flatly that the President's definition of ``sexual relations'' included oral sex. (Chart W) Fourth, the President made statements to staff members soon after the deposition, saying that he did not have sexual relations, including oral sex, with Ms. Lewinsky, (Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pg. 92; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3311) and that she threatened to tell people she and the President had an affair when he rebuffed her sexual advances. (Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, p. 59; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 185) Fifth, President Clinton's Answer filed in Federal District Court in response to Paula Jones' First Amended Complaint states unequivocally that ``President Clinton denies that he engaged in any improper conduct with respect to plaintiff or any other woman.'' (Answer of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton, December 17, 1997, p. 8, para. 39) Sixth, in President Clinton's sworn Answers to Interrogatories Numbers 10 and 11, as amended, he flatly denied that he had sexual relations with any federal employee. The President filed this Answer prior to his deposition. Finally, as described below, the President sat silently while his attorney, referring to Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, represented to the court that there was no sex of any kind or in any manner between the President and Ms. Lewinsky. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pg. 54) This circumstantial evidence reveals the President's state of mind at the time of the deposition: his concern was not in technically or legally accurate answers, but in categorically denying anything improper. His grand jury testimony about his state of mind during the deposition is false. Reasons for the False Testimony The President did not lie to the grand jury to protect himself from embarrassment, as he could no longer deny the affair. Before his grand jury testimony, the President's semen had been identified by laboratory tests on Ms. Lewinsky's dress, and during his testimony, he admitted an ``inappropriate intimate relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky, In fact, when he testified before the grand jury, he was only hours away from admitting the affair on national television. Embarrassment was inevitable. But, if he truthfully admitted the details of his encounters with Ms. Lewinsky to the grand jury, he would be acknowledging that he lied under oath during his deposition when he claimed that he did not engage in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 78, 109, 204) Instead, he chose to lie, not to protect his family or the dignity of his office, but to protect himself from criminal liability for his perjury in the Jones case. Additional Falsity in the Prepared Statement The President's statement continued, ``I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct [.]'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 9; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 461) The truth is much more troubling. As Ms. Lewinsky testified, her relationship with the President began with flirting, including Ms. Lewinsky showing the President her underwear. (ML 7/30/98 Int., p. 5; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1431) As Ms. Lewinsky candidly admitted, she was surprised that the President remembered her name after their first two sexual encounters. (ML 8/26/98 Dep., p. 25; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1295) Reason for the Falsity The President's prepared statement, fraught with untruths, was not an answer the President delivered extemporaneously to a particular question. It was carefully drafted testimony which the President read and relied upon throughout his deposition. The President attempted to use the statement to foreclose questioning on an incriminating topic on nineteen separate occasions. Yet, this prepared testimony, which along with other testimony provides the basis for Article I, Item 1, actually contradicts his sworn deposition testimony. Contrary Deposition Testimony In this statement, the President admits that he and Ms. Lewinsky were alone on a number of occasions. He refused to make this admission in his deposition in the Jones case. During the deposition, the following exchange occurred: Q. Mr. President, before the break, we were talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office? A. I don't recall, but as I said, when she worked in the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically work some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She--it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop if off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on One of the days of the weekends in the afternoon. Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening? A. Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53) After telling this verbose lie under oath, the President was given an opportunity to correct himself. This exchange followed: Q. At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House? A. I think I testified to that earlier. I think that there is a, it is--I have no specific recollection, but it seems to me that she was on duty on a couple of occasions working for the legislative affairs office and brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend. That's--I have a general memory of that. Q. Do you remember anything that was said in any of those meetings? A. No. You know, we just had conversation, I don't remember. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52-53) Before the grand jury, the President maintained that he testified truthfully at his deposition, a lie which provides, in part, the basis for Article I, Item 2. He stated, ``My goal in this deposition was to be truthful, but not particularly helpful . . . I was determined to walk through the mind field of this deposition without violating the law, and I believe I did.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 80; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 532) But contrary to his deposition testimony, he certainly was along with Ms. Lewinsky when she was not delivering papers, as the President conceded in his prepared grand jury statement. In other words, the President's assertion before the grand jury that he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky, but that he testified truthfully in his deposition, in inconsistent. Yet, to this day, both the President and his attorneys have insisted that he did not lie at his deposition and that he did not lie when he swore under oath that he did not lie at his deposition. In addition to his lie about not recalling being alone with Ms. Lewinsky, the President told numerous other lies at his deposition. All of those lies are incorporated in Article I, Item 2. Testimony Concerning the False Affidavit Article I, Item 3 charges the President with providing perjurious, false and misleading testimony before a federal grand jury concerning false and misleading statements his attorney Robert Bennett made to Judge Wright at the President's deposition. In one statement, while objecting to questions regarding Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Bennett misled the Court, perhaps knowingly, stating, ``Counsel [for Ms. Jones] is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton[.]'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 53-54) When Judge Wright interrupted Mr. Bennett and expressed her concern that he might be coaching the President, Mr. Bennett responded, ``In preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know[.]'' (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 54) (Emphasis added) When asked before the grand jury about his statement to Judge Wright, the President testified, ``I'm not even sure I paid attention to what he was saying,'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 24; H.Doc. 105-3131, p. 476) He added, ``I didn't pay much attention to this conversation, which is why, when you started asking me about this, I asked to see the deposition.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 24; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 477) Finally, ``I don't believe I ever even focused on what Mr. Bennett said in the exact words he did until I started reading this transcript carefully for this hearing. That moment, the whole argument just passed me by.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 29; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 481) This grand jury testimony defies common sense. During his deposition testimony, the President admittedly misled Ms. Jones' attorneys about his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, which continued while Ms. Jones' lawsuit was pending, because he did not want the truth to be known. Of course, when Ms. Lewinsky's name is mentioned during the deposition, particularly in connection with sex, the President is going to listen. Any doubts as to whether he listened to Mr. Bennett's representations are eliminated by watching the videotape of the President's deposition. The videotape shows the President looking directly at Mr. Bennett, paying close attention to his argument to Judge Wright. False Testimony Concerning Obstruction of Justice Article I, Item 4 concerns the President's grand jury perjury regarding his efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and his efforts to impede discovery in the Jones v. Clinton lawsuit. These lies are perhaps the most troubling, as the President used them in an attempt to conceal his criminal actions and the abuse of his office. For example, the President testified before the grand jury that he recalled telling Ms. Lewinsky that if Ms. Jones' lawyers requested the gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and the President, she should provide them. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 43; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 495) He stated, ``And I told her that if they asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had, that that's what the law was.'' (Id.) This testimony is false, as demonstrated by both Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and common sense. Ms. Lewinsky testified that on December 28, 1997, she discussed with the President the subpoena's request for her to produce gifts, including a hat pin. She told the President that it concerned her, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 151; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 871) and he said that it ``bothered'' him too. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 66; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 1122) Ms. Lewinsky then suggested that she give the gifts to someone, maybe to Betty. But rather than instructing her to turn the gifts over to Ms. Jones' attorneys, the President replied, ``I don't know'' or ``Let me think about that.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 872) Several hours later, Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky on her cellular phone and said, ``I understand you have something to give me'' or ``the President said you have something to give me.'' (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154-155; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 874-875) Although Ms. Currie agrees that she picked up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie testified that ``the best'' she remembers is that Ms. Lewinsky called her. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 105; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 581) She later conceded that Ms. Lewinsky's memory may be better than hers on this point. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 126; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 584) A telephone record corroborates Ms. Lewinsky, revealing that Ms. Currie did call her from her cellular phone several hours after Ms. Lewinsky's meeting with the President. The only logical reason Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky to retrieve gifts from the President is that the President told her to do so. He would not have given this instruction if he wished the gifts to be given to Ms. Jones' attorneys. Testimony Concerning Ms. Currie The President again testified falsely when he told the grand jury that he was simply trying to ``refresh'' his recollection when he made a series of statements to Ms. Currie the day after his deposition. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 131; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 583) Ms. Currie testified that she met with the President at about 5:00 P.M. on January 18, 1998, and he proceeded to make these statements to her: (1) I was never really alone with Monica, right? (2) You were always there when Monica was there, right? (3) Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right? (4) You could see and hear everything, right? (5) She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70-75; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 559-560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6-7; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 664) Ms. Currie testified that these were more like statements than questions, and that, as far as she understood, the President wanted her to agree with the statements. (BC 1/27/ 98 GJ, p. 74; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 559) The President was asked specifically about these statements before the grand jury. He did not deny them, but said that he was ``trying to refresh [his] memory about what the facts were.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 131; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 583) He added that he wanted to ``know what Betty's memory was about what she heard,'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 506) and that he was ``trying to get as much information as quickly as [he] could.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 56; H.Doc. 105- 311, p. 508) Logic demonstrates that the President's explanation is contrived and false. A person does not refresh his recollection by firing declarative sentences dressed up as leading questions to his secretary. If the President was seeking information, he would have asked Ms. Currie what she recalled. Additionally, a person does not refresh his recollection by asking questions concerning factual scenarios of which the listener was unaware, or worse, of which the declarant and the listener knew were false. How would Ms. Currie know if she was always there when Ms. Lewinsky was there? Ms. Currie, in fact, acknowledged during her grand jury testimony that Ms. Lewinsky could have visited the President at the White House when Ms. Currie was not there. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 65-66; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 679) Ms. Currie also testified that there were several occasions when the President and Ms. Lewinsky were in the Oval Office or study area without anyone else present. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 32-33, 36-38; H.Doc. 105- 316, pgs. 552-553) More importantly, the President admitted in his statement to the grand jury that he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on several occasions. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 9-10; H.Doc. 105- 311, pgs. 460-461) Thus, by his own admission, his statement to Ms. Currie about never being alone with Ms. Lewinsky was false. And if they were alone together, Ms. Currie certainly could not say whether the President touched Ms. Lewinsky or not. The statement about whether Ms. Currie could see and hear everything is also refuted by the President's own grand jury testimony. During his ``intimate'' encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, he ensured everyone, including Ms. Currie, was excluded. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 53; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 505) Why would someone refresh his recollection by making a false statement of fact to a subordinate? The answer is obvious--he would not. Lastly, the President stated in the grand jury that he was ``downloading'' information in a ``hurry,'' apparently explaining that he made these statements because he did not have time to listen to answers to open-ended questions. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 56; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 508) But, if he was in such a hurry, why did the President not ask Ms. Currie to refresh his recollection when he spoke with her on the telephone the previous evening? He also has no adequate explanation as to why he could not spend an extra five or 10 minutes with Ms. Currie on January 18 to get her version of the events. In fact, Ms. Currie testified that she first met the President on January 18 while he was on the White House putting green, and he told her to go into the office and he would be in in a few minutes. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 67-70; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 558-559) And if he was in such a hurry, why did he repeat these statements to Ms. Currie a few days later? (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 80-81; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 560- 561) The reason for these statements had nothing to do with time constraints or refreshing recollection; he had just finished lying during the Jones deposition about these issues, and he needed corroboration from his secretary. Testimony About Influencing Aides Not only did the President lie about his attempts to influence Ms. Currie's testimony, but he lied about his attempts to influence the testimony of some of his top aides. Among the President's lies to his aides, described in detail later in this brief, were that Ms. Lewinsky did not perform oral sex on him, and that Ms. Lewinsky stalked him while he rejected her sexual demands. These lies were then disseminated to the media and attributed to White House sources. They were also disseminated to the grand jury. When the president was asked about these lies before the grand jury, he testified: ``And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship. That I used--in the language I used, I said, there's nothing going on between us. That was true. I said, I have not had sex with her as I defined it. That was true. And did I hope that I never would have to be here on this day giving this testimony? Of course. ``But I also didn't want to do anything to complicate this matter further. So I said things that were true. They may have been misleading, and if they were I have to take responsibility for it, and I'm sorry.'' (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 106; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 558) To accept this grand jury testimony as truth, one must believe that many of the President's top aides engaged in a concerted effort to lie to the grand jury in order to incriminate him at the risk of subjecting themselves to a perjury indictment. We suggest that it is illustrative of the President's character that he never felt any compunction in exposing others to false testimony charges, so long as he could conceal his own perjuries. Simply put, such a conspiracy did not exist. The above are merely highlights of the President's grand jury perjury, and there are numerous additional examples. In order to keep these lies in perspective, three facts must be remembered. First, before the grand jury, the President was not lying to cover up an affair and protect himself from embarrassment, as concealing the affair was now impossible. Second, the President could no longer argue that the facts surrounding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were somehow irrelevant or immaterial, as the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury had mandates to explore them. Third, he cannot claim to have been surprised or unprepared for questions about Ms. Lewinsky before the grand jury, as he spent days with his lawyer, preparing responses to such questions. The President's Method Again, the President carefully crafted his statements to give the appearance of being candid, when actually his intent was the opposite. In addition, throughout the testimony, whenever the President was asked a specific question that could not be answered directly without either admitting the truth or giving an easily provable false answer, he said, ``I rely on my statement.'' 19 times he relied on this false and misleading statement; nineteen times, then, he repeated those lies in ``answering'' questions propounded to him. (See eg. WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pg. 139; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 591) The House Committee's Request In an effort to avoid unnecessary work and to bring its inquiry to an expeditious end, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives submitted to the President 81 requests to admit or deny specific facts relevant to this investigation. (Exhibit 18) Although, for the most part, the questions could have been answered with a simple ``admit'' or ``deny,'' the President elected to follow the pattern of selective memory, reference to other testimony, blatant untruths, artful distortions, outright lies, and half truths. When he did answer, he engaged in legalistic hair-splitting in an obvious attempt to skirt the whole truth and to deceive and obstruct the due proceedings of the Committee. The President Repeats His Falsities Thus, on at least 23 questions, the President professed a lack of memory. This from a man who is renowned for his remarkable memory, for his amazing ability to recall details. In at least 15 answers, the President merely referred to ``White House Records.'' He also referred to his own prior testimony and that of others. He answered several of the requests by merely restating the same deceptive answers that he gave to the grand jury. We will point out several false statements in this Brief. In addition, the half-truths, legalistic parsings, evasive and misleading answers were obviously calculated to obstruct the efforts of the House Committee. They had the effect of seriously hampering its ability to inquire and to ascertain the truth. The President has, therefore, added obstruction of an inquiry and an investigation before the Legislative Branch to his obstructions of justice before the Judicial Branch of our constitutional system of government. The Early Attack on Ms. Lewinsky After his deposition, the power and prestige of the Office of President was marshaled to destroy the character and reputation of Monica Lewinsky, a young woman that had been ill-used by the President. As soon as her name surfaced, the campaign began to muzzle any possible testimony, and to attack the credibility of witnesses, in a concerted effort to obstruct the due administration of justice in a lawsuit filed by one female citizen of Arkansas. It almost worked. When the President testified at his deposition that he had no sexual relations, sexual affair or the like with Monica Lewinsky, he felt secure. Monica Lewinksy, the only other witness was on board. She had furnished a false affidavit also denying everything. Later, when he realized from the January 18, 1998, Drudge Report that there were taped conversations between Ms. Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, he had to develop a new story, and he did. In addition, he recounted that story to White House aides who passed it on to the grand jury in an effort to obstruct that tribunal too. On Wednesday, January 21, 1998, The Washington Post published a story entitled ``Clinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones' Lawyers.'' The White House learned the substance of the Post story on the evening of January 20, 1998. Mr. Bennett's Remark After the President learned of the existence of the story, he made a series of telephone calls. At 12:08 a.m. he called his attorney, Mr. Bennett, and they had a conversation. The next morning, Mr. Bennett was quoted in the Washington Post stating: ``The President adamantly denies he ever had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and she has confirmed the truth of that.'' He added, ``This story seems ridiculous and I frankly smell a rat.'' Additional Calls After that conversation, the President had a half hour conversation with White House counsel, Bruce Lindsey. At 1:16 a.m., the President called Betty Currie and spoke to her for 20 minutes. He then called Bruce Lindsey again. At 6:30 a.m. the President called Vernon Jordan. After that, the President again conversed with Bruce Lindsey. This flurry of activity was a prelude to the stories which the President would soon inflict upon top White House aides and advisors. The President's Statements to Staff ERSKINE BOWLES On the morning of January 21, 1998, the President met with Whie House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, and his two deputies, John Podesta and Sylvia Matthews. Erskine Bowles recalled entering the President's office at 9:00 a.m. that morning. He then recounts the President's immediate words as he and two others entered the Oval Office: And he looked up at us and he said the same thing he said to the American people. He said, ``I want you to know I did not have sexual relationships with this woman, Monica Lewinsky. I did not ask anybody to lie. And when the facts come out, you'll understand.'' (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 239) After the President made that blanket denial, Mr. Bowles responded: I said, ``Mr. President, I don't know what the facts are. I don't know if they're good, bad, or indifferent. But whatever they are, you ought to get them out. And you ought to get them out rignt now.'' (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 239) When counsel asked whether the President responded to Bowles' suggestion that he tell the truth, Bowles responded: I don't think he made any response, but he didn't disagree with me. (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 239) John Podesta January 21, 1998 Deputy Chief John Podesta also recalled a meeting with the President on the morning of January 21, 1998. He testified before the grand jury as to what occurred in the Oval Office that morning: A. And we started off meeting--we didn't-- I don't think we said anything. And I think the President directed this specifically to Mr. Bowles. He said, ``Erskine, I want you to know that this story is not true.'' Q. What else did he say? A. He said that--that he had not had a sexual relationship with her, and that he never asked anybody to lie. (Podesta, 6/16/98 GJ, p. 85; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3310) January 23, 1998 Two days later, on January 23, 1998, Mr. Podesta had another discussion with the President: ``I asked him how he was doing, and he said he was working on this draft and he said to me that he never had sex with her, and that--and that he never asked--you know, he repeated the denial, but he was extremely explicit in saying he never had sex with her.'' Then Podesta testified as follows: Q. Okay. Not explicit, in the sense that he got more specific than sex, than the word ``sex.'' A. Yes, he was more specific than that. Q. Okay, share that with us. A. Well, I think he said--he said that--there was some spate. Of, you know, what sex acts were counted, and he said that he had never had sex with her in any way whatsoever---- Q. Okay. A. That they had not had oral sex. (Podesta, 6/16/98 GJ, p. 92; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3311) (Exhibit V) sidney blumenthal Later in the day on January 21, 1998, the President called Sidney Blumenthal to his office. It is interesting to note how the President's lies become more elaborate and pronounced when he has time to concoct this newest line of defense. When the President spoke to Mr. Bowles and Mr. Podesta, he simply denied the story. But, by the time he spoke to Mr. Blumenthal, the President has added three new angles to his defense strategy: (1) he now portrays Monica Lewinsky as the aggressor; (2) he launches an attack on her reputation by portraying her as a ``stalker''; and (3) he presents himself as the innocent victim being attacked by the forces of evil. Note well this recollection by Mr. Blumenthal in his June 4, 1998 testimony: (Chart U) And it was at this point that he gave his account of what had happened to me and he said that Monica--and it came very fast. He said, ``Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me.'' He rebuffed her. He said, ``I've gone down that road before, I've caused pain for a lot of people and I'm not going to do that again.'' She threatened him. She said that she would tell people they'd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the stalker anymore. (Blumenthal, 6/4/98 GJ, p. 49; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 185) And then consider what the President told Mr. Blumenthal moments later: And he said, ``I feel like a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out. I feel like the character in the novel Darkness at Noon. And I said to him, ``When this happened with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone?'' He said, ``Well, I was within eyesight or earshot of someone.'' (Blumenthal, 6/4/98 GJ, p. 50; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 185) At one point, Mr. Blumenthal was asked by the grand jury to describe the President's manner and demeanor during the exchange. Q. In response to my question how you responded to the President's story about a threat or discussion about a threat from Ms. Lewinsky, you mentioned you didn't recall specifically. Do you recall generally the nature of your response to the President? A. It was generally sympathetic to the President. And I certainly believed his story. It was a very heartfelt story, he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him. (Blumenthal, 6/25/98 GJ, pgs. 16-17; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 192-193) BETTY CURRIE When Betty Currie testified before the grand jury, she could not recall whether she had another one-on-one discussion with the President on Tuesday, January 20, or Wednesday, January 21. But she did state that on one of those days, the President summoned her back to his office. At that time, the President recapped their now-infamous Sunday afternoon post-deposition discussion in the Oval Office. It was at that meeting that the President made a series of statements to Ms. Currie, to some of which she could not possibly have known the answers. (e.g. ``Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?'') (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70- 75; H.Doc. 105-316, pgs. 559-560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6-7; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 664) When he spoke to her on January 20 or 21, he spoke in the same tone and demeanor that he used in his January 18 Sunday session. Ms. Currie stated that the President may have mentioned that she might be asked about Monica Lewinsky. (BC, 1/24/98 Int., p. 8; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 536) Motive for Lies to Staff It is abundantly clear that the President's assertions to staff were designed for dissemination to the American people. But it is more important to understand that the President intended his aides to relate that false story to investigators and grand jurors alike. We know that this is true for the following reasons: the Special Division had recently appointed the Office of Independent Counsel to investigate the Monica Lewinsky matter; the President realized that Jones' attorneys and investigators were investigating this matter; the Washington Post journalists and investigators were exposing the details of the Lewinsky affair; and, an investigation relating to perjury charges based on Presidential activities in the Oval Office would certainly lead to interviews with West Wing employees and high level staffers. Because the President would not appear before the grand jury, his version of events would be supplied by those staffers to whom he had lied. The President actually acknowledged that he knew his aides might be called before the grand jury. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 105-109; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 557-557) In addition, Mr. Podesta testified that he knew that he was likely to be a witness in the ongoing grand jury criminal investigation. He said that he was ``sensitive about not exchanging information because I knew I was a potential witness.'' (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 79; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3332) He also recalled that the President volunteered to provide information about Ms. Lewinsky to him even though Mr. Podesta had not asked for these details. (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 79; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 3332) In other words, the President's lies and deceptions to his White House aides, coupled with his steadfast refusal to testify had the effect of presenting a false account of events to investigators and grand jurors. The President's aides believed the President when he told them his contrived account. The aides' eventual testimony provided the President's calculated falsehoods to the grand jury which, in turn, gave the jurors an inaccurate and misleading set of facts upon which to base any decisions. Win, Win, Win President Clinton also implemented a win-at-all- costs strategy calculated to obstruct the administration of justice in the Jones case and in the grand jury. This is demonstrated in testimony presented by Richard ``Dick'' Morris to the federal grand jury. Mr. Morris, a former presidential advisor, testified that on January 21, 1998, he met President Clinton and they discussed the turbulent events of the day. The President again denied the accusations against him. After further discussions, they decided to have an overnight poll taken to determine if the American people would forgive the President for adultery, perjury, and obstruction of justice. When Mr. Morris received the results, he called the President: ``And I said, `They're just too shocked by this. It's just too new, it's too raw.' And I said, `And the problem is they're willing to forgive you for adultery, but not for perjury or obstruction of justice or the various other things.' '' (Morris 8/18/98 GJ. p. 28; H.Doc. 105-316, p. 2929) Morris recalls the following exchange: Morris: And I said, ``They're just not ready for it.'' meaning the voters. WJC: Well, we just have to win, then. (Morris 8/18/98 GJ, p. 30; H.Doc. 105-216, p. 2930) The President, of course, cannot recall this statement, (Presidential Responses to Questions, Numbers 69, 70, and 71) The Plot to Discredit Monica Lewinsky In order to ``win,'' it was necessary to convince the public, and hopefully the grand jurors who read the newspapers, that Monica Lewinsky was unworthy of belief. If the account given by Ms. Lewinsky to Linda Tripp was believed, then there would emerge a tawdry affair in and near the Oval Office. Moreover, the President's own perjury and that of Monica Lewinsky would surface. To do this, the President employed the full power and credibility of the White House and its press corps to destroy the witness. Thus on January 29, 1998: Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as President Bill Clinton called Monica Lewinsky. Should they paint her as a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker? (The Plain Dealer) Again: ``That poor child has serious emotional problems,'' Rep. Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, said Tuesday night before the State of the Union. ``She's fantasizing. And I haven't heard that she played with a full deck in her other experiences.'' (The Plain Dealer) From Gene Lyons, an Arkansas columnist on January 30: ``But it's also very easy to take a mirror's eye view of this thing, look at this thing from a completely different direction and take the same evidence and posit a totally innocent relationship in which the president was, in a sense, the victim of someone rather like the woman who followed David Letterman around.'' (NBC News) From another ``source'' on February 1: ``Monica had become known at the White House, says one source, as `the stalker.' '' And on February 4: ``The media have reported that sources describe Lewinsky as `infatuated' with the president, `star struck' and even `a stalker'.'' (Buffalo News) Finally, on January 31: ``One White House aide called reporters to offer information about Monica Lewinsky's past, her weight problems and what the aide said was her nickname--`The Stalker.' '' ``Junior staff members, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, said she was known as a flirt, wore her skirts too short, and was `A little bit weird.' '' ``Little by little, ever since allegations of an affair between U.S. President Bill Clinton and Lewinsky surfaced 10 days ago, White House sources have waged a behind-the-scenes campaign to portray her as an untrustworthy climber obsessed with the President.'' ``Just hours after the story broke, one White House source made unsolicited calls offering that Lewinsky was the `troubled' product of divorced parents and may have been following the footsteps of her mother, who wrote a tell-all book about the private lives of three famous opera singers.'' ``One story had Lewinsky following former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos to Starbucks. After observing what kind of coffee he ordered, she showed up the next day at his secretary's desk with a cup of the same coffee to `surprise him.' '' (Toronto Sun) This sounds familiar because it is the exact tactic used to destroy the reputation and credibility of Paula Jones. The difference is that these false rumors were emanating from the White House, the bastion of the free world, to protect one man from being forced to answer for his deportment in the highest office in the land. On August 17, 1998, the President testified before the grand jury. He then was specifically asked whether he knew that his aides (Blumenthal, Bowles, Podesta and Currie) were likely to be called before the grand jury. Q. It may have been misleading, sir, and you knew though, after January 21st when the Post article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking into this, you knew that they might be witnesses. You knew that they might be called into a grand jury, didn't you? WJC. That's right. I think I was quite careful what I said after that. I may have said something to all these people to that effect, but I'll also--whenever anybody asked me any details, I said, look, I don't want you to be a witness or I turn you into a witness or give you information that would get you in trouble. I just wouldn't talk. I, by and large, didn't talk to people about it. Q. If all of these people--let's leave Mrs. Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erskine Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the story broke, after Judge Starr's involvement was known on January 21st, have said that you denied a sexual relationship with them. Are you denying that? WJC. No. Q. And you've told us that you---- WJC. I'm just telling you what I meant by it. I told you what I meant by it when they started this deposition. Q. You've told us now that you were being careful, but that it might have been misleading. Is that correct? WJC. It must have been * * * So, what I was trying to do was to give them something they could--that would be true, even if misleading in the context of this deposition, and keep them out of trouble, and let's deal--and deal with what I thought was the almost ludicrous suggestion that I had urged someone to lie or tried to suborn perjury, in other words. (WJC 8/17/97 GJ, pgs. 106-108; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 558-560) As the President testified before the grand jury, he maintained that he was being truthful with his aides. (Exhibit 20) He stated that when he spoke to them, he was very careful with his wording. The President stated that he wanted his statement regarding ``sexual relations'' to be literally true because he was only referring to intercourse. However, recall that John Podesta said that the President denied sex ``in any way whatsoever'' ``including oral sex.'' The President told Mr. Podesta, Mr. Bowles, Ms. Williams, and Harold Ickes that he did not have a ``sexual relationship'' with that woman. Importantly, seven days after the President's grand jury appearance, the White House issued a document entitled, ``Talking Points January 24, 1998.'' (Chart W; Exhibit 16) This ``Talking Points'' document outlines proposed questions that the President may be asked. It also outlines suggested answers to those questions. The ``Talking Points'' purport to state the President's view of sexual relations and his view of the relationship with Monica Lewinsky. (Exhibit 17) The ``Talking Points'' state as follows: Q. What acts does the President believe constitute a sexual relationship? A. I can't believe we're on national television discussing this. I am not about to engage in an ``act-by-act'' discussion of what constitutes a sexual relationship. Q. Well, for example, Ms. Lewinsky is on tape indicating that the President does not believe oral sex is adultery. Would oral sex, to the President, constitute a sexual relationship? A. Of course it would. The President's own talking points refute the President's ``literal truth'' argument. Effect of the President's Conduct Some ``experts'' have questioned whether the President's deportment affects his office, the government of the United States or the dignity and honor of the country. Our founders decided in the Constitutional Convention that one of the duties imposed upon the President is to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Furthermore, he is required to take an oath to ``Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Twice this President stood on the steps of the Capitol, raised his right hand to God and repeated that oath. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that no person shall ``be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.`` The Seventh Amendment insures that in civil suits ``the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.'' Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. The Effect on Ms. Jones' Rights Paula Jones is an American citizen, just a single citizen who felt that she had suffered a legal wrong. More important, that legal wrong was based upon the Constitution of the United States. She claimed essentially that she was subjected to sexual harassment, which, in turn, constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender. The case was not brought against just any citizen, but against the President of the United States, who was under a legal and moral obligation to preserve and protect Ms. Jones' rights. It is relatively simple to mouth high-minded platitudes and to prosecute vigorously right violations by someone else. It is, however, a test of courage, honor and integrity to enforce those rights against yourself. The President failed that test. As a citizen, Ms. Jones enjoyed an absolute constitutional right to petition the Judicial Branch of government to redress that wrong by filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court, which she did. At this point she became entitled to a trial by jury if she chose, due process of law and the equal protection of the laws no matter who the defendant was in her suit. Due process contemplates that right to a full and fair trial, which, in turn, means the right to call and question witnesses, to cross-examine adverse witnesses and to have her case decided by an unbiased and fully informed jury. What did she actually get? None of the above. On May 27, 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a nine to zero decision that, ``like every other citizen,'' Paula Jones ``has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims.`` In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled on December 11, 1997, that Ms. Jones was entitled to information regarding state or federal employees with whom the President had sexual relations from May, 1986 to the present. Judge Wright had determined that the information was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Six days after this ruling, the President filed an answer to Ms. Jones' Amended Complaint. The President's Answer stated: ``President Clinton denies that he engaged in any improper conduct with respect to plaintiff or any other woman.'' Ms. Jones' right to call and depose witnesses was thwarted by perjurious and misleading affidavits and motions; her right to elicit testimony from adverse witnesses was compromised by perjury and false and misleading statements under oath. As a result, had a jury tried the case, it would have been deprived of critical information. That result is bad enough, but it reaches constitutional proportions when denial of the civil rights is directed by the President of the United States who twice took an oath to preserve, protect and defend those rights. But we now know what the ``sanctity of an oath'' means to the President. The Effect on the Office of President Moreover, the President is the spokesman for the government and the people of the United States concerning both domestic and foreign matters. His honesty and integrity, therefore, directly influence the credibility of this country. When, as here, that spokesman is guilty of a continuing pattern of lies, misleading statements, and deceits over a long period of time, the believability of any of his pronouncements is seriously called into question. Indeed, how can anyone in or out of our country any longer believe anything he says? And what does that do to confidence in the honor and integrity of the United States? Make no mistake, the conduct of the President is inextricably bound to the welfare of the people of the United States. Not only does it affect economic and national defense, but even more directly, it affects the moral and law-abiding fibre of the commonwealth, without which no nation can survive. When, as here, that conduct involves a pattern of abuses of power, of perjury, of deceit, of obstruction of justice and of the Congress, and of other illegal activities, the resulting damage to the honor and respect due to the United States is, of necessity, devastating. The Effect on the System Again: there is no such thing as non-serious lying under oath. Every time a witness lies, that witness chips a stone from the foundation of our entire legal system. Likewise, every act of obstruction of justice, of witness tampering or of perjury adversely affects the judicial branch of government like a pebble tossed into a lake. You may not notice the effect at once, but you can be certain that the tranquility of that lake has been disturbed. And if enough pebbles are thrown into the water, the lake itself may disappear. So too with the truth-seeking process of the courts. Every unanswered and unpunished assault upon it has its lasting effect and given enough of them, the system itself will implode. That is why two women who testified before the Committee had been indicted, convicted and punished severely for false statements under oath in civil cases. And that is why only recently a federal grand jury in Chicago indicted four former college football players because they gave false testimony under oath to a grand jury. Nobody suggested that they should not be charged because their motives may have been to protect their careers and family. And nobody has suggested that the perjury was non-serious because it involved only lies about sports; i.e., betting on college football games. Disregard of the Rule of Law Apart from all else, the President's illegal actions constitute an attack upon and utter disregard for the truth, and for the rule of law. Much worse, they manifest an arrogant disdain not only for the rights of his fellow citizens, but also for the functions and the integrity of the other two co-equal branches of our constitutional system. One of the witnesses that appeared earlier likened the government of the United States to a three-legged stool. The analysis is apt, because the entire structure of our country rests upon three equal supports: the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. Remove one of those supports, and the State will totter. Remove two and the structure will collapse altogether. Effect on the Judicial Branch The President mounted a direct assault upon the truth- seeking process which is the very essence and foundation of the Judicial Branch. Not content with that, though, Mr. Clinton renewed his lies, half-truths and obstruction to this Congress when he filed his answers to simple requests to admit or deny. In so doing, he also demonstrated his lack of respect for the constitutional functions of the Legislative Branch. Actions do not lose their public character merely because they may not directly affect the domestic and foreign functioning of the Executive Branch. Their significance must be examined for their effect on the functioning of the entire system of government. Viewed in that manner, the President's actions were both public and extremely destructive. The Conduct Charged Warrants Conviction and Removal The Articles state offenses that warrant the President's conviction and removal from office. The Senate's own precedents establish that perjury and obstruction warrant conviction and removal from office. Those same precedents establish that the perjury and obstruction need not have any direct connection to the officer's official duties. Precedents In the 1980s, the Senate convicted and removed from office three federal judges for making perjurious statements. Background and History of Impeachment Hearings before the Subcomm. On the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 190-193 (Comm. Print 1998), (Testimony of Charles Cooper) (``Cooper Testimony'') Although able counsel represented each judge, none of them argued that perjury or making false statements are not impeachable offenses. Nor did a single Congressman or Senator, in any of the three impeachment proceedings, suggest that perjury does not constitute a high crime and misdemeanor. Finally, in the cases of Judge Claiborne and Judge Nixon, it was undisputed that the perjury was not committed in connection with the exercise of the judges' judicial powers. Judge Nixon In 1989, Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for committing perjury. Judge Nixon's offense stemmed from his grand jury testimony and statements to federal officers concerning his intervention in the state drug prosecution of Drew Fairchild, the son of Wiley Fairchild, a business partner of Judge Nixon's. Although Judge Nixon had no official role or function in Drew Fairchild's case (which was assigned to a state court judge), Wiley Fairchild had asked Judge Nixon to help out by speaking to the prosecutor. Judge Nixon did so, and the prosecutor, a long-time friend of Judge Nixon's, dropped the case. When the FBI and the Department of Justice interviewed Judge Nixon, he denied any involvement whatsoever. Subsequently, a federal grand jury was empaneled and Judge Nixon again denied his involvement before that grand jury. After a lengthy criminal prosecution, Judge Nixon was convicted on two counts of perjury before the grand jury and sentenced to five years in prison on each count. Not long thereafter, the House impeached Judge Nixon by a vote of 417 to 0. The first article of impeachment charged him with making the false or misleading statement to the grand jury that he could not ``recall'' discussing the Fairchild case with the prosecutor. The second article charged Nixon with making affirmative false or misleading statements to the grand jury that he had ``nothing whatsoever officially or unofficially to do with the Drew Fairchild case.'' The third article alleged that Judge Nixon made numerous false statements (not under oath) to federal investigators prior to his grand jury testimony. See 135 Cong. Rec. H1802-03. The House unanimously impeached Judge Nixon, and the House Managers' Report expressed no doubt that perjury is an impeachable offense: ``It is difficult to imagine an act more subversive to the legal process than lying from the witness stand. A judge who violates his testimonial oath and misleads a grand jury is clearly unfit to remain on the bench. If a judge's truthfulness cannot be guaranteed, if he sets less than the highest standard for candor, how can ordinary citizens who appear in court be expected to abide by their testimonial oath?'' House of Representatives' Brief in Support of the Articles of Impeachment at 59 (1989). House Manager Sensenbrenner addressed the question even more directly: ``There are basically two questions before you in connection with this impeachment. First, does the conduct alleged in the three articles of impeachment state an impeachable offense? There is really no debate on this point. The articles allege misconduct that is criminal and wholly inconsistent with judicial integrity and the judicial oath. Everyone agrees that a judge who lies under oath, or who deceives Federal investigators by lying in an interview, is not fit to remain on the bench.'' 135 Cong. Rec. S14,497 (Statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner) The Senate agreed, overwhelmingly voting to convict Judge Nixon of perjury on the first two articles (89-8 and 78-19, respectively). As Senator Carl Levin explained: ``The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office.'' 135 Cong. Rec. S14,637 (Statement of Sen. Levin). Judge Hastings Also in 1989, the House impeached Judge Alcee L. Hastings for, among other things, committing numerous acts of perjury. The Senate convicted him, and he was removed from office. Initially, Judge Hastings had been indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy stemming from his alleged bribery conspiracy with his friend Mr. William Borders to ``fix'' cases before Judge Hastings in exchange for cash payments from defendants. Mr. Borders was convicted, but, at his own trial, Judge Hastings took the stand and unequivocally denied any participation in a conspiracy with Mr. Borders. The jury acquitted Judge Hastings on all counts. Nevertheless, the House impeached Judge Hastings, approving seventeen articles of impeachment, fourteen of which were for lying under oath at his trial. The House voted 413 to 3 to impeach. The House Managers' Report left no doubt that perjury alone is impeachable: ``It is important to realize that each instance of false testimony charged in the false statement articles is more than enough reason to convict Judge Hastings and remove him from office. Even if the evidence were insufficient to prove that Judge Hastings was part of the conspiracy with William Borders, which the House in no way concedes, the fact that he lied under oath to assure his acquittal is conduct that cannot be tolerated of a United States District Judge. To bolster one's defense by lying to a jury is separate, independent corrupt conduct. For this reason alone, Judge Hastings should be removed from public office.'' The House of Representatives' Brief in Support of the Articles of Impeachment at 127-28 (1989). Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) also argued for the impeachment of Judge Hastings: ``[W]e can no more close our eyes to acts that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors when practiced by judges whose views we approve than we could against judges whose views we detested. It would be disloyal . . . to my oath of office at this late state of my career to attempt to set up a double standard for those who share my philosophy and for those who may oppose it. In order to be true to our principles, we must demand that all persons live up to the same high standards that we demand of everyone else.'' 134 Cong. Rec. H6184 (1988) (Statement of Rep. Conyers). Judge Claiborne In 1986, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for making false statements under penalties of perjury. In particular, Judge Claiborne had filed false income tax returns in 1979 and 1980, grossly understating his income. As a result, he was convicted by a jury of two counts of willfully making a false statement on a federal tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206 (a). Subsequently, the House unanimously (406-0) approved four articles of impeachment. The proposition that Claiborne's perjurious personal income tax filings were not impeachable was never even seriously considered. As the House Managers explained: ``[T]he constitutional issues raised by the first two Articles of Impeachment [concerning the filing of false tax returns] are readily resolved. The Constitution provides that Judge Claiborne may be impeached and convicted for ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Article II, Section 4. The willful making or subscribing of a false statement on a tax return is a felony offense under the laws of the United States. The commission of such a felony is a proper basis for Judge Clairborne's impeachment and conviction in the Senate.'' Proceedngs of the United States Senate Impeachment Trial of Judge Harry E. Clairborne, S. Doc. No. 99-48, at 40 (1986) (Claiborne Proceedings'') (emphases added). House Manager Rodino, in his oral argument to the Senate, emphatically made the same point: ``Honor in the eyes of the American people lies in public officials who respect the law, not in those who violate the trust that has been given to them when they are trusted with public office. Judge Harry E. Claiborne has, sad to say, undermined the integrity of the judicial branch of Government. To restore that integrity and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, Judge Claiborne must be convicted on the fourth Article of Impeachment [that of reducing confidence in the integrity of the judiciary].'' 132 Cong. Rec. S15,481 (1986) (Statement of Rep. Rodino). The Senate agreed. Telling are the words of then-Senator Albert Gore, Jr. In voting to convict Judge Claiborne and remove him from office: ``The conclusion is inescapable that Clairborne filed false income tax returns and that he did so willfully rather than negligently. . . . Given the circumstances, it is incumbent upon the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and strip this man of his title. An individual who has knowingly falsified tax returns has no business receiving a salary derived from the tax dollars of honest citizens. More importantly, an individual quality of such reprehensible conduct ought not be permitted to exercise the awesome powers which the Constitution entrusts to the Federal Judiciary.'' Claiborne Proceedings, S. Doc. No. 99-48, at 372 (1986). Application to the President To avoid the conclusive force of these recent precedents-- and in particular the exact precedent supporting impeachment for, conviction, and removal for perjury--the only recourse for the President's defenders is to argue that a high crime or misdemeanor for a judge is not necessarily a high crime or misdemeanor for the President. The arguments advanced in support of this dubious proposition do not withstand serious scrutiny. See generally Cooper Testimony, at 193. The Constitution provides that Article III judges ``shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, U.S. Const. Art. III, 1. Thus, these arguments suggest that judges are impeachable for ``misbehavior'' while other federal officials are only impeachable for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The staff of the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s and the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal in the 1990s both issued reports rejecting these arguments. In 1974, the staff of the Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry issued a report which included the following conclusion: ``Does Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states that judges `shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,' limit the relevance of the ten impeachments of judges with respect to presidential impeachment standards as has been argued by some? It does not. The argument is that `good behavior' implies an additional ground for impeachment of judges not applicable to other civil officers. However, the only impeachment provision discussed in the Convention and included in the Constitution is Article II, Section 4, which by its expressed terms, applies to all civil officers, including judges, and defines impeachment offenses as `Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' '' Staff of House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment (Comm. Print 1974) (``1974 Staff Report'') at 17. The National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal came to the same conclusion. The Commission concluded that ``the most plausible reading of the phrase `during good Behavior' is that it means tenure for life, subject to the impeachment power. . . . The ratification debates about the federal judiciary seem to have proceeded on the assumption that good-behavior tenure meant removal only through impeachment and conviction.'' National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal 17-18 (1993) (footnote omitted). The record of the 1986 impeachment of Judge Claiborne also argues against different impeachment standards for federal judges and presidents. Judge Claiborne filed a motion asking the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him for failure to state impeachable offenses. One of the motion's arguments was that ``[t]he standard for impeachment of a judge is different than that for other officers'' and that the Constitution limited ``removal of the judiciary to acts involving misconduct related to discharge of office.'' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Articles of Impeachment on the Grounds They Do Not State Impeachable Offenses 4 (hereinafter cited as ``Claiborne Motion''), reprinted in Hearings Before the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 245 (1986) (hereinafter cited as ``Senate Claiborne Hearings''). Representative Kastenmeier responded that ``reliance on the term `good behavior' as stating a sanction for judges is totally misplaced and virtually all commentators agree that that is directed to affirming the life tenure of judges during good behavior. It is not to set them down, differently, as judicial officers from civil officers.'' Id. at 81-82. He further stated that ``[n]or . . . is there any support for the notion that . . . Federal judges are not civil officers of the United States, subject to the impeachment clause of article II of the Constitution.'' Id. at 81. The Senate never voted on Claiborne's motion. However, the Senate was clearly not swayed by the arguments contained therein because it later voted to convict Judge Claiborne. 132 Cong. Rec. S15,760-62 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 1986). The Senate thus rejected the claim that the standard of impeachable offenses was different for judges than for presidents. Moreover, even assuming that presidential high crimes and misdemeanors could be different from judicial ones, surely the President ought not be held to a lower standard of impeachability than judges. In the course of the 1980s judicial impeachments, Congress emphasized unequivocally that the removal from office of federal judges guilty of crimes indistinguishable from those currently charged against the President was essential to the preservation of the rule of law. If the perjury of just one judge so undermines the rule of law as to make it intolerable that he remain in office, then how much more so does perjury committed by the President of the United States, who alone is charged with the duty ``to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' See generally, Cooper Testimony at 194) It is just as devastating to our system of government when a President commits perjury. As the House Judiciary Committee stated in justifying an article of impeachment against President Nixon, the President not only has ``the obligation that every citizen has to live under the law,'' but in addition has the duty ``not merely to live by the law but to see that law faithfully applied.'' Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, H. Rept. No. 93-1305, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. at 180 (1974). The Constitution provides that he ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3. When a President, as chief law enforcement officer of the United States, commits perjury, he violates this constitutional oath unique to his office and casts doubt on the notion that we are a nation ruled by laws and not men. Perjury and Obstruction Are as Serious as Bribery Further evidence that perjury and obstruction warrant conviction and removal comes directly from the text of the Constitution. Because the Constitution specifically mentions bribery, no one can dispute that it is an impeachable offense. U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 4. Because the constitutional language does not limit the term, we must take it to mean all forms of bribery. Our statutes specifically criminalize bribery of witnesses with the intent to influence their testimony in judicial proceedings. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b)(3) & (4), (c)(2) & (3). See also 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1503 (general obstruction of justice statute), 1512 (witness tampering statute). Indeed, in a criminal case, the efforts to provide Ms. Lewinsky with job assistance in return for submitting a false affidavit charged in the Articles might easily have been charged under these statutes. No one could reasonably argue that the President's bribing a witness to provide false testimony--even in a private lawsuit--does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The plain language of the Constitution indicates that it is. Having established that point, the rest is easy. Bribing a witness is illegal because it leads to false testimony that in turn undermines the ability of the judicial system to reach just results. Thus, among other things, the Framers clearly intended impeachment to protect the judicial system from these kinds of attacks. Perjury and obstruction of justice are illegal for exactly the same reason, and they accomplish exactly the same ends through slightly different means. Simple logic establishes that perjury and obstruction of justice--even in a private lawsuit--are exactly the types of other high crimes and misdemeanors that are of the same magnitude as bribery. High Crimes and Misdemeanors Although Congress has never adopted a fixed definition of ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' much of the background and history of the impeachment process contradicts the President's claim that these offenses are private and therefore do not warrant conviction and removal. Two reports prepared in 1974 on the background and history of impeachment are particularly helpful in evaluating the President's defense. Both reports support the conclusion that the facts in this case compel the conviction and removal of President Clinton. Many have commented on the report on ``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment'' prepared in February 1974 by the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. The general principles concerning grounds for impeachment set forth in that report indicate that perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable offenses. Consider this key language from the staff report describing the type of conduct which gives rise to impeachment: ``The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the conduct--undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on the system of government.'' 1974 Staff Report at 26 (emphasis added). Perjury and obstruction of justice clearly ``undermine the integrity of office.'' They unavoidably erode respect for the office of the President. Such offenses obviously involve ``disregard of [the President's] constitutional duties and oath of office.'' Moreover, these offenses have a direct and serious ``adverse impact on the system of government.'' Obstruction of justice is by definition an assault on the due administration of justice--a core function of our system of government. The thoughtful report on ``The Law of Presidential Impeachment'' prepared by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in January of 1974 also places a great deal of emphasis on the corrosive impact of presidential misconduct on the integrity of office: It is our conclusion, in summary, that the grounds for ``impeachment are not limited to or synonymous with crimes . . . Rather, we believe that acts which undermine the integrity of government are appropriate grounds whether or not they happen to constitute offenses under the general criminal law. In our view, the essential nexus to damaging the integrity of government may be found in acts which constitute corruption in, or flagrant abuse of the powers of, official position. It may also be found in acts which, without directly affecting governmental processes, undermine that degree of public confidence in the probity of executive and judicial officers that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a free society.'' Association of the Bar of the City of New York, The Law of Presidential Impeachment, (1974) at 161 (emphasis added). The commission of perjury and obstruction of justice by a President are acts that without doubt ``undermine that degree of public confidence in the probity of the [the President] that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a free society.'' Such acts inevitably subvert the respect for law which is essential to the well-being of our constitutional system. That the President's perjury and obstruction do not directly involve his official conduct does not diminish their significance. The record is clear that federal officials have been impeached for reasons other than official misconduct. As set forth above, two recent impeachments of federal judges are compelling examples. In 1989, Judge Walter Nixon was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for committing perjury before a federal grand jury. Judge Nixon's perjury involved his efforts to fix a state case for the son of a business partner--a matter in which he had no official role. In 1986, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was impeached, convicted, and removed from office for making false statements under penalty of perjury on his income tax returns. That misconduct had nothing to do with his official responsibilities. Nothing in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution suggests that officials are subject to impeachment only for official misconduct. Perjury and obstruction of justice--even regarding a private matter--are offenses that substantially affect the President's official duties because they are grossly incompatible with his preeminent duty to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Regardless of their genesis, perjury and obstruction of justice are acts of public misconduct--they cannot be dismissed as understandable or trivial. Perjury and obstruction of justice are not private matters; they are crimes against the system of justice, for which impeachment, conviction, and removal are appropriate. The record of Judge Claiborne's impeachment proceedings affirms that conclusion. Representative Hamilton Fish, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and one of the House managers in the Senate trial, stated that ``[i]mpeachable conduct does not have to occur in the course of the performance of an officer's official duties. Evidence of misconduct, misbehavior, high crimes, and misdemeanors can be justified upon one's private dealings as well as one's exercise of public office. That, of course, is the situation in this case.'' 132 Cong. Rec. H4713 (daily ed. July 22, 1986). Judge Claiborne's unsuccessful motion that the Senate dismiss the articles of impeachment for failure to state impeachable offenses provides additional evidence that personal misconduct can justify impeachment. One of the arguments his attorney made for the motion was that ``there is no allegation . . . that the behavior of Judge Claiborne in any way was related to misbehavior in his official function as a judge; it was private misbehavior.'' (Senate Claiborne Hearings, at 77, Statement of Judge Claiborne's counsel, Oscar Goodman). (See also Claiborne Motion, at 3) Representative Kastenmeier responded by stating that ``it would be absurd to conclude that a judge who had committed murder, mayhem, rape, or perhaps espionage in his private life, could not be removed from office by the U.S. Senate.'' (Senate Claiborne Hearings, at 81) Kastenmeier's response was repeated by the House of Representatives in its pleading opposing Claiborne's motion to dismiss. (Opposition to Claiborne Motion at 2) The Senate did not vote on Judge Claiborne's motion, but it later voted to convict him. 132 Cong. Rec. S15,760-62 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 1986). The Senate thus agreed with the House that private improprieties could be, and were in this instance, impeachable offenses. The Claiborne case makes clear that perjury, even if it relates to a matter wholly separated from a federal officer's official duties--a judge's personal tax returns--is an impeachable offense. Judge Nixon's false statements were also in regard to a matter distinct from his official duties. In short, the Senate's own precedents establish that misconduct need not be in one's official capacity to warrant removal. Conclusion This is a defining moment for the Presidency as an institution, because if the President is not convicted as a consequence of the conduct that has been portrayed, then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again and no Senate will ever convict. The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned. Experts pointed to the fact that the House refused to impeach President Nixon for lying on an income tax return. Can you imagine a future President, faced with possible impeachment, pointing to the perjuries, lies, obstructions, and tampering with witnesses by the current occupant of the office as not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? If this is not enough, what is? How far can the standard be lowered without completely compromising the credibility of the office for all time? Dated: January 11, 1999. ____ APPENDIX [In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment] In re Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton Appendix to Trial Memorandum of the Managers Appointed by the U.S. House of Representatives The United States House of Representatives Henry J. Hyde, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Bill McCollum, George W. Gekas, Charles T. Canady, Stephen E. Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Cannon, James E. Rogan, Lindsey O. Graham. Managers on the Part of the House ____ Table of Contents charts A. The President's Contacts Alone With Lewinsky B. The President's Telephone Contacts With Lewinsky C. Lewinsky's Gifts to The President D. The President's Gifts to Lewinsky E. 12/5/97 Facsimile Transmission of Witness List in Jones v. Clinton F. The December 19, 1997 Subpoena to Lewinsky in Jones v. Clinton G. December 19, 1997 Activities Following Lewinsky's Receipt of Subpoena H. The President's December 23, 1997 Response to Interrogatory No. 10 in Jones v. Clinton I. The President's December 23, 1997 Response to Interrogatory No. 11 in Jones v. Clinton J. December 28, 1997, The President's Final Meeting With Lewinsky and Concealment of Gifts K. Currie's Cell Phone Records for 12/28/97 L. The President's Statements About Concealing Gifts M. Lewinsky's Draft Affidavit N. Lewinsky Final Affidavit dated January 7, 1998 Paragraph 8, Jones v. Clinton O. Filing Lewinsky's Affidavit and Motion to Quash (1/14/ 98-1/17/98) P. Mission Accomplished: Lewinsky Signs Her Affidavit and Is Hired By Revlon in New York (1/5/98-1/9/98) Q. The President's Involvement With Lewinsky's Job Search R. Jordan's Testimony About His Pre-Witness List Job Search Efforts S. Activity Following The President's Deposition (1/17/98- 1/1998) T. The President's Statements to Currie 1/18/98 U. The President's Denial of Sexual Relations V. The President's 1/21/98 Denial of Sexual Relations to Blumenthal, Podesta and Morris W. The White House 1/24/98 ``Talking Points'' X. The President's Claims That He Was Truthful With Aides Y. The Three Options of a Grand Jury Witness Z. The President's Grand Jury ``Statement'' ____ [Chart A] THE PRESIDENT'S CONTACTS ALONE WITH LEWINSKY Lewinsky White House Employee (7/95-4/96) 1995 11/15/95 (Wed): The President meets alone twice with Lewinsky in Oval Office study and hallway outside the Oval Office. (Sexual Encounter) 11/17/95 (Fri): The President meets alone twice with Lewinsky in The President's private bathroom outside the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 12/5/95 (Tues): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office and study. (No Sexual Encounter) 12/31/95 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office and Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 1996 1/7/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the bathroom outside the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 1/21/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the hallway outside the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 2/4/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study and in the adjacent hallway. (Sexual Encounter) 2/19/96 (Mon): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office. (No Sexual Encounter) 3/31/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in hallway outside the Oval Office. (Sexual Encounter) 4/7/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the hallway outside the Oval Office study and in the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 1997 2/28/97 (Fri): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office private bathroom. (Sexual Encounter) 3/29/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 5/24/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office dining room, study and hallway. (No Sexual Encounter) 7/4/97 (Fri): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study and hallway. (No Sexual Encounter) 7/14/97 (Mon): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in Heinreich's office. (No Sexual Encounter) 7/24/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) 8/16/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 10/11/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) 11/13/97 (Thurs): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) 12/6/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) 12/28/97 (Sun): The President meets alone with Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No Sexual Encounter) ____ [Chart B] THE PRESIDENT'S TELEPHONE CONTACTS WITH LEWINSKY 1/7/96 (Sun): Conversation--first call to ML's home. 1/7/96 (Sun): Conversation--ML at office. 1/15 or 1/16/96 (Mon or Tue): Conversation, approx. 12:30 a.m.--ML at home.* Approx. 1/28/96 (Sun): Caller ID on ML's office phone indicated POTUS call. 1/30/96 (Tues): Conversation--during middle of workday at ML's office. 2/4/96 (Sun): Conversations--ML at office--multiple calls. 2/7 or 2/8/96 (Wed or Thur): Conversation--ML at home. 2/8 or 2/9/96 (Thur or Fri): Conversation--ML at home.* 2/19/96 (Mon): Conversation--ML at home. Approx. 2/28 2/28 or 3/5/96: Conversation--approx. 20 min.-- after chance meeting in hallway--ML at home. 3/26/96 (Tues): Conversation--approx. 11 a.m.--ML at office. 3/29/96: Conversation--ML at office--approx. 8 p.m.-- invitation to movie. 3/31/96: Conversation--ML at office--approx. 1 p.m.--Pres. ill. 4/7/96 (Easter Sunday): Conversation----ML at home. 4/7/96 (Easter Sunday): Conversation--ML at home--why ML left. 4/12/96 (Fri): Conversation--ML at home--daytime. 4/12 or 4/13/96 (Fri or Sat): Conversation--ML at home--after midnight. 4/22/96 (Mon): Conversations--job talk--ML at home. 4/29 or 4/30/96 (Mon or Tues): Message--after 6:30 a.m. 5/2/96 (Thur): Conversation--ML at home.* 5/6/96 (Mon): Possible phone call. 5/16/96 (Thur): Conversation--ML at home. 5/21/96 (Tues): Conversation--ML at home.* 5/31/96 (Fri): Message. 6/5/96 (Wed): Conversation--ML at home--early evening. 6/23/96 (Sun): Conversation--ML at home.* 7/5 or 7/6/96 (Fri or Sat): Conversation--ML at home.* 7/19/96 (Fri): Conversation--6:30 a.m.--ML at home.* 7/28/96 (Sun): Conversation--ML at home. 8/4/96 (Sun): Conversation--ML at home.* 8/24/96 (Sat): Conversation--ML at home.* 9/5/96 (Thur): Conversation--Pres. In Fla--ML at home.* 9/10/96 (Tues): Message. 9/30/96 (Mon): Conversation.* 10/22/96 (Tues): Conversation--ML at home.* 10/23 or 10/24/96 (early am): Conversation--ML at home. 12/2/96 (Mon): Conversation--approx. 10-15 min.--ML at home. 12/2/96 (Mon): Conversation--later that evening--ML at home-- approx. 10:30 p.m.--Pres fell asleep.* 12/18/96 (Wed): Conversation--approx. 5 min.--10:30 p.m.--ML at home. 12/30/96 (Mon): Message. 1/12/97 (Sun): Conversation--job talk--ML at home.* 2/8/97 (Sat): Conversation--ML at home--mid-day--11:30-12:00. 2/8/97 (Sat): Conversation--job talk--1:30 or 2:00 p.m.--ML at home.* 3/12/97 (Wed): Conversation--three minutes--ML at work. 4/26/97 (Sat): Conversation--late afternoon--20 min.--ML at home. 5/17/97 (Sat): Conversations--multiple calls. 5/18/97 (Sun): Conversations--multiple calls. 7/15/97 (Tues): Conversation--ML at home. 8/1/97 (Fri): Conversation. 9/30/97 (Tues): Conversation.* 10/9 or 10/10/97 (Thur or Fri): Conversation--long, from 2 or 2:30 a.m. until 3:30 or 4:00 a.m.--job talk--argument-- ML at home. 10/23/97 (Thur): Conversation--ML at home--end b/c HRC. 10/30/97 (Thur): Conversation--ML at home--interview prep. 11/12/97 (Wed): Conversation--discuss re: ML visit.* 12/6/97 (Sat): Conversation--approx. 30 min--ML at home. 12/17/ or 12/18/97 (Wed or Thur): Conversation--b/t 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.--ML at home--witness list. 1/5/98 (Mon): Conversation. *Conversation that involved and may have involved phone sex. [Chart C] LEWINSKY GIFTS TO THE PRESIDENT 10/24/95: Lewinsky (before the sexual relationship began) gives her first gift to The President of a matted poem given by her and other White House interns to commemorate ``National Boss' Day''. It is the only gift the President sent to the archives instead of keeping. 11/20/95: Lewinsky gives The President a Zegna necktie. 3/31/96: Lewinsky gives The President a Hugo Boss Tie. Christmas 1996: Lewinsky gives The President a Sherlock Homes game and a glow in the dark frog. Before 8/16/96: Lewinsky gives The President a Zegna necktie and a t-shirt from Bosnia. Early 1997: Lewinsky gives The President Oy Ve, a small golf book, golf balls, golf tees, and a plastic pocket frog. 3/97: Lewinsky gives The President a care package after he injured his leg including a metal magnet with The Presidential seal for his crutches, a license plate with ``Bill'' for his wheelchair, and knee pads with The Presidential seal. 3/29/97: Lewinsky gives The President her personal copy of Vox, a book about phone sex, a penny medallion with the heart cut out, a framed Valentine's Day ad, and a replacement for the Hugo Boss tie that had the bottom cut off. 5/24/97: Lewinsky gives The President a Banana Republic casual shirt and a puzzle on gold mysteries. 7/14/97: Lewinsky gives The President a wooden B, with a frog in it from Budapest. Before 8/16/97: Lewinsky gives The President The Notebook. 8/16/97: Lewinsky gives The President an antique book on Peter the Great, the card game ``Royalty'', and a book, Disease and Misrepresentation. 10/21/97 or 10/22/97: Lewinsky gives The President a Calvin Klein tie, and pair of sunglasses. 10/97: Lewinsky gives The President a package Before filled with Halloween-related items, such as a Halloween pumpkin lapel pin, a wooden letter opener with a frog on the handle, and a plastic pumpkin filled with candy. 11/13/97: Lewinsky gives The President an antique paperweight that depicted the White House. 12/6/97: Lewinsky gives The President Our Patriotic President: His Life in Pictures, Anecdotes, Sayings, Principles and Biography; an antique standing cigar holder; a Starbucks Santa Monica mug; a Hugs and Kisses box; and a tie from London. 12/28/97: Lewinsky gives The President a hand-painted Easter Egg and ``gummy boobs'' from Urban Outfitters. 1/4/98: Lewinsky gives Currie a package with her final gift to The President containing a book entitled The Presidents of the United States and a love note inspired by the movie Titanic. ____ [Chart D] THE PRESIDENT'S GIFTS TO LEWINSKY 12/5/95: The President gives Lewinsky an autographed photo of himself wearing the Zenga necktie she gave him.* 2/4/96: The President gives Lewinsky a signed ``State of the Union'' Address.* 3/31/96: The President gives Lewinsky cigars. 2/28/97: The President gives Lewinsky a hat pin*, ``Davidoff'' cigars, and the book the Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman as belated Christmas gifts. The President gives Lewinsky a gold brooch.* The President gives Lewinsky an Annie Lennox compact disk. The President gives Lewinsky a cigar. 7/24/97: The President gives Lewinsky an antique flower pin in a wooden box, a porcelain object d'art, and a signed photograph of the President and Lewinsky.* Early 9/97: The President brings Lewinsky several Black Dog items, including a baseball cap*, 2 T-shirts*, a hat and a dress.* 12/28/97: The President gives Lewinsky the largest number of gifts including: 1. a large Rockettes blanket,* 2. a pin of the New York skyline,* 3. a marblelike bear's head from Vancouver,* 4. a pair of sunglasses,* 5. a small box of cherry chocolates, 6. a canvas bag from the Black Dog,* 7. a stuffed animal wearing a T-shirt from the Black Dog.* (*Denotes those items Lewinsky produced to the OIC on 7/29/ 98). ____ [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.000 [Chart F] LEWINSKY SUBPOENA Jones v. Clinton December 19, 1997 The Jones v. Clinton subpoena to Lewinsky called for: (1) Her testimony on January 23, 1998 at 9:30 a.m.; (2) Production of ``each and every gift including but not limited to, any and all dresses, accessories, and jewelry, and/or hat pins given to you by, or on behalf of, Defendant Clinton;'' and (3) ``Every document constituting or containing communications between you and Defendant Clinton, including letters, cards, notes, memoranda and all telephone records.'' ____ [Chart G] DECEMBER 19, 1997 (Friday) Lewinsky is Served with a Subpoena in Jones v. Clinton 1:47-1:48 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan's office. 3:00-4:00 p.m.: Lewinsky is served with a subpoena in Jones v. Clinton. --: Lewinsky telephones Jordan immediately about subpoena. 3:51-3:52 p.m.: Jordan telephones The President and talks to Debra Schiff. 4:17-4:20 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House Social Office. 4:47 p.m.: Lewinsky meets Jordan and requests that Jordan notify The President about her subpoena. 5:01-5:05 p.m.: The President telephones Jordan; Jordan notifies The President about Lewinsky's subpoena. 5:06 p.m.: Jordan telephones attorney Carter to represent Lewinsky. Later that Evening: The President meets alone with Jordan at the White House. ____ [Chart H] DECEMBER 23, 1997 Jones v. Clinton Interrogatory No. 10 Interrogatory No. 10: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every individual (other than Hillary Rodham Clinton) whom you had sexual relations when you held any of the following positions: a. Attorney General of the State of Arkansas; b. Governor of the State of Arkansas; c. President of the United States. (Court modifies scope to incidents from May 8, 1986 to the present involving state or federal employees.) Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 10 (as modified by direction of the Court): None. ____ [Chart I] DECEMBER 23, 1997 Jones v. Clinton Interrogatory No. 11 Interrogratory No. 11: Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every individual (other than Hillary Rodham Clinton) with whom you sought to have sexual relations, when you held any of the following positions: a. Attorney General of the State of Arkansas; b. Governor of the State of Arkansas; c. President of the United States. (Court modifies scope to incidents from May 8, 1986 to the present involving state or federal employees.) Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 11 (as modified by direction of the Court): None. ____ [Chart J] DECEMBER 28, 1997 (Sunday) The President's Final Meeting with Lewinsky and The Concealment of the Gifts to Lewinsky 8:16 a.m.: Lewinsky meets The President at the White House at Currie's direction. The President gives Lewinsky numerous gifts. The President and Lewinsky discuss the subpoena, calling for, among other things, the hat pin. The President acknowledges ``that sort of bothered [him] too.'' Lewinsky states to The President: ``Maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe Betty [Currie].'' 3:32 p.m.: Currie telephones Lewinsky at home from Currie's cell phone. ``I understand you have something to give me.'' or ``The President said you have something to give me.'' Later that Day: Currie picks up gifts from Lewinsky. ____ [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.001 [Chart L] THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS ABOUT CONCEALING GIFTS 12/28/97 ``[Lewinsky]: And then at some point I said to him [The President], `Well, you know, should I--maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe Betty.' And he sort of said--I think he responded, `I don't know' or `Let me think about that.' And left that topic.''--(Lewinsky Grand Jury 8/6/98 Tr. 152) ____ [Chart M] AFFIDAVIT OF JANE DOE # 1. My name is Jane Doe # . I am 24 years old and I currently reside at 700 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. 2. On December 19, 1997, I was served with a subpoena from the plaintiff to give a deposition and to produce documents in the lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones against President William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson. 3. I can not fathom any reason that the plaintiff would seek information from me for her case. 4. I have never met Ms. Jones, nor do I have any information regarding the events she alleges occurred at the Excelsior Hotel on May 8, 1991 or any other information concerning any of the allegations in her case. 5. I worked at the White House in the summer of 1995 as a White House intern. Beginning in December, 1995, I worked in the Office of Legislative Affairs as a staff assistant for correspondence. In April, 1996, I accepted a job as assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Defense. I maintained that job until December 26, 1997. I am currently unemployed but seeking a new job. 6. In the course of my employment at the White House, I met President Clinton on several occasions. I do not recall ever being alone with the President, although it is possible that while working in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs I may have presented him with a letter for his signature while no one else was present. This would have lasted only a matter of minutes. 7. I have the utmost respect for the President who has always behaved appropriately in my presence. 8. I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. I do not know of any other person who had a sexual relationship with the President, was offered employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, or was denied employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. The occasions that I saw the President, with crowds of other people, after I left my employment at the White House in April, 1996 related to official receptions, formal functions or events related to the U.S. Department of Defense, where I was working at the time. There were other people present on all of these occasions. 9. Since I do not possess any information that could possibly be relevant to the allegations made by Paula Jones or lead to admissible evidence in this case, I asked my attorney to provide this affidavit to plaintiff's counsel. Requiring my deposition in this matter would cause unwarranted attorney's fees and costs, disruption of my life, especially since I am looking for employment, and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Monica S. Lewinsky. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss: Monica S. Lewinsky, being first duly sworn on oath according to law, deposes and says that she has read the foregoing Affidavit of Jane Doe # by her subscribed, that the matters stated herein are true to the best of her information, knowledge and belief. Monica S. Lewinsky. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of __________, 1998. __________________________ Notary Public, D.C. My Commission expires: ________ ____ [Chart N] FINAL AFFIDAVIT OF JANE DOE #6 [LEWINSKY] 1/7/98 8. I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. I do not know of any other person who had a sexual relationship with the President, was offered employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, or was denied employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship. The occasions that I saw the President after I left my employment at the White House in April, 1996, were official receptions, formal functions or events related to the U.S. Department of Defense, where I was working at the time. There were other people present on those occasions. ____ [Chart O] LEWINSKY'S AFFIDAVIT GETS FILED (1/14/98-1/17/98) January 14, 1998 (Wednesday) 7:45 p.m.: Bennett's firm (Sexton) leaves Carter telephone message. --: Carter faxes signed affidavit to Bennett's firm. January 15, 1998 (Thursday) 9:17 a.m.: Sexton leaves Carter telephone message. 12:59 p.m.: Sexton leaves Carter telephone message. --: Currie called by Newsweek. --: Lewinsky drives Currie to meet Jordan. --: Sexton telephones Carter: ``STILL ON TIME?'' --: Carter telephones Court Clerk for Saturday (1/17/98) Filing of Affidavit and motion to quash. January 16, 1998 (Friday) 2 a.m. (Approx.): Carter completes motion to quash Lewinsky's deposition. Carter sends by overnight mail motion to quash and affidavit to Bennett's firm and to the Court. 11:30 a.m.: Sexton message to Carter: ``Please call.'' January 17, 1998 (Saturday) --: Lewinsky Affidavit is submitted to the Court. --: The President is deposed. ____ [Chart P] MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: LEWINSKY SIGNS AFFIDAVIT AND GETS A NEW YORK JOB (1/5/98-1/9/98) January 5, 1998 Lewinsky meets with attorney Carter for an hour; Carter drafts an Affidavit for Lewinsky in an attempt to avert her deposition testimony in Jones v. Clinton scheduled for January 23, 1998. Lewinsky telephones Currie stating that she needs to speak to the President about an important matter; specifically that she was anxious about something she needed to sign--an Affidavit. The President returns Lewinsky's call; Lewinsky mentions the Affidavit she'd be signing; Lewinsky offers to show the Affidavit to The President who states that he doesn't need to see it because he has already seen about fifteen others. january 6, 1998 11:32 a.m.: Carter pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Frank Carter.'' Lewinsky meets Carter and receives draft Affidavit. 2:08-2:10 p.m.: Jordan calls Lewinsky. Lewinsky delivers draft Affidavit to Jordan. 3:14 p.m.: Carter again pages Lewinsky: ``Frank Carter at [telephone number] will see you tomorrow morning at 10:00 in my office.'' 3:26-3:32 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. 3:38 p.m.: Jordan telephones Nancy Hernreich, Deputy Assistant to The President. 3:48 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky. 3:49 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky to discuss draft Affidavit. Both agree to delete implication that she had been alone with The President. 4:19-4:32 p.m.: The President telephones Jordan. 4:32 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. 4:34-4:37 p.m.: Jordan again telephones Carter. 5:15-5:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House. 9:26-9:29 a.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. 10:00 a.m.: Lewinsky signs false Affidavit at Carter's Office. --: Lewinsky delivers signed Affidavit to Jordan. 11:58 a.m.-12:09 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. 5:46-5:56 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House (Hernreich's Office). 6:50-6:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House and tells The President that Lewinsky signed an Affidavit. january 8, 1998 9:21 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House Counsel's Office. 9:21 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. --: Lewinsky interviews in New York at MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. (MFH) 11:50-11:51 a.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 3:09-3:10 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 4:48-4:53 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan and advises that the New York MFH Interview went ``Very Poorly.'' 4:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones Ronald Perelman in New York, CEO of Revlon (subsidiary of MFH) ``to make things happen . . . if they could happen.'' 4:56 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky stating, ``I'm doing the best I can to help you out.'' 6:39 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House Counsel's Office (Cheryl Mills), possibly about Lewinsky. Evening: Revlon in New York telephones Lewinsky to set up a follow-up interview. 9:02-9:03 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan about Revlon interview in New York. january 9, 1998 --: Lewinsky interviews in New York with Senior V.P. Seidman of MacAndrews & Forbes and two Revlon individuals. Lewinsky offered Revlon job in New York and accepts. 1:29 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 4:14 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan to say that Revlon offered her a job in New York. Jordan notifies Currie: ``Mission Accomplished'' and requests she tell The President. Jordan notifies The President of Lewinsky's New York job offer. The President replies ``Thank you very much.'' 4:37 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Carter. 5:04 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 5:05 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie. 5:08 p.m.: The President telephones Currie. 5:09-5:11 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 5:12 p.m.: Currie telephones The President. 5:18-5:20 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky. 5:21-5:26 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie. ____ [Chart Q] THE PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT WITH LEWINSKY JOB SEARCH ``Q Why are you trying to tell someone at the White House that this has happened [Carter had been fired]? [Jordan]: Thought they had a right to know. Q Why? [Jordan]: The President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job. I got her a lawyer. The Drudge Report is out and she has new counsel. I thought that was information that they ought to have . . . .'' (Jordan Grand Jury 6/ 9/98 Tr. 45-46) ``Q Why did you think the President needed to know that Frank Carter had been replaced? [Jordan]: Information. He knew that I had gotten her a job, he knew that I had gotten her a lawyer. Information. He was interested in this matter. He is the source of it coming to my attention in the first place . . . .'' (Jordan Grand Jury 6/9/98 Tr. 58-59) ____ [Chart R] JORDAN'S PRE-WITNESS LIST JOB SEARCH EFFORTS ``[Jordan]: I have no recollection of an early November meeting with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. I have absolutely no recollection of it and I have no record of it.'' (Jordan Grand Jury 3/3/98 Tr. 50) * * * * * ``Q Is it fair to say that back in November getting Monica Lewinsky a job on any fast pace was not any priority of yours? [Jordan]: I think that's fair to say.'' (Jordan Grand Jury 5/ 5/98 Tr. 76) * * * * * ``[Lewinsky]: [Referring to 12/6/97 meeting with the President]. I think I said that . . . I was supposed to get in touch with Mr. Jordan the previous week and that things did not work out and that nothing had really happened yet [on the job front]. Q Did the President say what he was going to do? [Lewinsky]: I think he said he would--you know, this was not sort of typical of him, to sort of say, `Oh, I'll talk to him. I'll get on it.' '' (Lewinsky Grand Jury 8/6/98 Tr. 115-116) * * * * * ``Q But what is also clear is that as of this date, December 11th, you are clear that at that point you had made a decision that you would try to make some calls to help get her a job. [Jordan]: There is no question about that.'' (Jordan Grand Jury 5/5/98 Tr. 95) [Chart S] January 17, 1998 Saturday 4:00 p.m. (approx): THE PRESIDENT finishes testifying under oath in Jones v. Clinton, et al. 5:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House. 5:38 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at home. 7:02 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home but does not speak with her. 702: p.m.: THE PRESIDENT places a call to Jordan's office. 7:13 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home and asks her to meet with him on Sunday. January 18, 1998 Sunday 6:11 a.m.: Drudge Report Released. --: The President learns of the Drudge Report and [Tripp] tapes. 11:49 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. 12:30 p.m.: Jordan has lunch with Bruce Lindsey. Lindsey informs Jordan about the Drudge Report and [Tripp] tapes. 12:50 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at home. 1:11 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home. 2:15 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. 2:55 p.m.: Jordan telephones THE PRESIDENT. 5:00 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT meets with Currie, concerning his contacts with Lewinsky. 5:12 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home.'' 6:22 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home.'' 7:06 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home.'' 7:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones Cheryl Mills, White House Counsel's Office. 8:28 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Call Kay.'' 10:09 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie at home. 11:02 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home and asks if she reached Lewinsky. January 19, 1998 Monday--Martin Luther King Day 7:02 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home at 8:00 this morning.'' 8:08 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay .'' 8:33 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home.'' 8:37 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kay at home. It's a social call. Thank you.'' 8:41 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Kay is at home. Please call.'' 8:43 a.m.: Currie telephones The President from home to say she has been unable to reach Lewinsky. 8:44 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Kate re: family emergency.'' 8:50 a.m. THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home. 8:51 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ``Msg. From Kay. Please call, have good news.'' 8:56 a.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at home. 10:29 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House from his office. 10:35 a.m.: Jordan telephones Nancy Hernreich at the White House. 10:36 a.m.: Jordan pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Mr. Jordan at [number redacted].'' 10:44 a.m.: Jordan telephones Erskine Bowles at the White House. 10:53 a.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. 10:58 a.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at his office. 11:04 a.m.: Jordan telephones Bruce Lindsey at the White House. 11:16 a.m.: Jordan pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Mr. Jordan at [number redacted].'' 11:17 a.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey at the White House. 12:31 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House from a cellular phone. --:Jordan lunches with Carter. 1:45 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Currie at home. 2:29 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House from a celluar phone. 2:44 p.m.: Jordan enters the White House and over the course of an hour meets with THE PRESIDENT, Erskine Bowles, Bruce Lindsay, Cheryl Mills, Charles Ruff, Rahm Emanuel and others. 2:46 p.m.: Carter pages Lewinsky: ``Please call Frank Carter at [number redacted].'' 4:51 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at home. 4:53 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter at home. 4:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter at his office. Carter informs Jordan that Lewinsky has replaced Carter with a new attorney. 4:58 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 4:59 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White House Counsel's Office. 5:00 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 5:00 p.m.: Jordan telephones Ruff, White House Counsel's Office. 5:05 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 5:05 p.m.: Jordan again telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 5:05 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White House. 5:09 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White House Counsel's Office. 5:14 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter concerning his termination as Lewinsky's attorney. 5:22 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, White House Counsel's Office. 5:22 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White House Counsel's Office. 5:55 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at home. 5:56 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Jordan at his office; Jordan informs The President that Carter was fired. 6:04 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at home. 6:26 p.m.: Jordan telephones Stephen Goodin, an aide to THE PRESIDENT. ____ [Chart T] THE PRESIDENT'S POST-DEPOSITION STATEMENTS TO CURRIE 1/18/98 ``I was never really alone with Monica, right?'' ``You were always there when Monica was there, right?'' ``Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?'' ``You could see and hear everything, right?'' ``She wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that.''--(Currie Grand Jury 7/22/98 Tr. 6-7; Currie Grand Jury 1/27/98 Tr. 70-75) ____ [Chart U] THE PRESIDENT'S DENIALS 1/21/98 ``And it was at that point that he gave his account of what had happened to me [sic] and he said that Monica--and it came very fast. He said, `Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me.' He rebuffed her. He said, `I've gone down that road before, I've caused pain for a lot of people and I'm not going to do that again.' She threatened him. She said that she would tell people they'd had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn't be the stalker any more.''--(Blumenthal Grand Jury 6/4/98 Tr. 49) ``And he said, `I feel like a character in a novel. I feel like somebody who is surrounded by an oppressive force that is creating a lie about me and I can't get the truth out. I feel like the character in the novel Darkness at Noon.' And I said to him, I said, `When this happened with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone? He said, `Well, I was within eyesight or earshot of someone.'''--(Blumenthal Grand Jury 6/ 4/98 Tr. 50) ____ [Chart V] ``Q. Okay. Share that with us. A. Well, I think he said--he said that--there was some spate of, you know, what sex acts were counted, and he said that he had never had sex with her in any way whatsoever-- Q. Okay. A--that they had not had oral sex''--(John Podesta Grand Jury 6/16/98 Tr. 92) * * * * * ``And I said, `They're just too shocked by this. It's just too new, it's too raw.' And I said, `And the problem is they're willing to forgive you [The President] for adultery, but not for perjury or obstruction of justice or the various other things.'''--(Dick Morris Grand Jury 8/18/98 Tr. 10, 12, 20) * * * * * ``And I said, `They're just not ready for it,' meaning the voters.' And he [The President] said, `Well, we just have to win, then.'''--(Dick Morris Grand Jury 8/18/98 Tr. 30) ____ [Chart W] ``TALKING POINTS'' * January 24, 1998 * * * * * ``Q. Well, for example, Ms. Lewinsky is on tape indicating that the President does not believe oral sex is adultery. Would oral sex, to the President, constitute a sexual relationship?'' ``A: Of course it would.'' * * * * * * Produced by the White House pursuant to OIC Subpoena. ____ [Chart X] THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE WAS TRUTHFUL WITH AIDES [President]: And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship. That I used--in the language I used, I said, there's nothing going on between us. That was true. I said, I have not had sex with her as I defined it. That was true. And did I hope that I would never have to be here on this day giving this testimony? Of course. But I also didn't want to do anything to complicate this matter further. So I said things that were true. They may have been misleading, and if they were I have to take responsibility for it, and I'm sorry.--(The President Grand Jury 8/17/98 Tr. 106) ____ [Chart Y] GRAND JURY WITNESSES A person testifying before a federal grand jury has three options under the law: (1) To obey the oath and testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; (2) To lie; (3) To assert the Fifth Amendment or another legally recognized privilege. ____ [Chart Z] PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT GRAND JURY TESTIMONY ``When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These encounters did not consist of sexual intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact. These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter. I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct, and I take full responsibility for my actions. While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters. I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; questions about my understanding of the term `sexual relations', as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition; and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses. That, Mr. Bittman, is my statement.'' ____ Table of Contents Exhibits Telephone records (1) Summary chart, 12/19/97 (2) Currie Cell phone records, 12/28/97 (3) Summary chart, 1/6/98 (4) Summary chart, 1/7/98 (5) Summary chart, 1/15/98-1/16/98 (6) Summary chart, 1/17/98 (7) Summary chart, 1/18/98 (8) Summary chart, 1/19/98 Court Documents (9) Jones v. Clinton. Jan. 29, 1998 District Court Order regarding discovery (10) President Clinton's Answer to First Amended Complaint. Jones v. Clinton (11) In re: Sealed Case, Nos. 98-3053 & 3059, U.S. court of Appels, District of Columbia (12) Jane Doe #6 (Lewinsky) Affidavit filed in Jones v. Clinton (13) ``Sexual Relations'' definition Miscellaneous (14) 1/18/98 Drudge Report (15) Jones' attorneys fax cover sheet of witness list to Bennett (16) White House ``Talking Points,'' January 24, 1998 (17) LA Times 1/25/98 Article regarding White House ``Talking Points'' (18) Response of William J. Clinton to Judiciary Committee Questions (19) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 138 L. 16-23 (From GJ Tape 2) (20) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 100 L. 20-25, Tr. 105 L. 19-25, Tr. 106 L. 1-12 (From GJ Tape 3) (21) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 75 L. 2-8, Tr. 76 L. 24-25, Tr. 77 L. 1-2, (From Dep. Tape 1) (22) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 52 L. 18-25, Tr. 53 L. 1-9, 10-18, Tr. 58 L. 22-25, Tr. 59 L. 1-3, 7-16, 17-20 (From Dep. Tape 3) (23) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 78 L. 4-23, (From Dep. Tape 4) (24) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 53 L. 22-25, Tr. 54 L. 1-7, 20-25, Tr. 55 L. 1-3 (From Dep. Tape 5) (25) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 204 L. 5-14, (From Dep. Tape 8) (26) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 9-11 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.048 [[Page S132]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.049 [[Page S133]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.050 [[Page S134]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.051 [[Page S135]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.052 [[Page S136]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.053 [[Page S137]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.054 [[Page S138]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.055 [[Page S139]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.056 [[Page S140]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.057 [[Page S141]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.058 [[Page S142]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.059 [[Page S143]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.060 [[Page S144]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.061 [[Page S145]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.062 [[Page S146]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.063 [[Page S147]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.064 [[Page S148]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.065 [[Page S149]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.066 [[Page S150]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.067 [[Page S151]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.068 [[Page S152]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.069 [[Page S153]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.070 [[Page S154]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.071 [[Page S155]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.072 [[Page S156]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.073 [[Page S157]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.074 [[Page S158]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.075 [[Page S159]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.076 [[Page S160]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.077 [[Page S161]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.078 [[Page S162]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.079 [[Page S163]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.080 [[Page S164]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.081 [[Page S165]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.082 [[Page S166]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.083 [[Page S167]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.084 [[Page S168]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.085 [[Page S169]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.086 [[Page S170]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.087 [[Page S171]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.088 [[Page S172]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.089 [[Page S173]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.090 [[Page S174]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.091 [[Page S175]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.092 [[Page S176]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.093 [[Page S177]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.094 [[Page S178]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.095 [[Page S179]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.096 [[Page S180]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.097 [[Page S181]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.098 [[Page S182]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.099 [[Page S183]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.100 [[Page S184]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.101 [[Page S185]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.102 [[Page S186]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.103 [[Page S187]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.104 [[Page S188]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.105 [[Page S189]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.106 [[Page S190]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS14JA99.107 [[Page S191]] ____ [In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment] In re Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON David E. Kendall Charles F.C. Ruff Nicole K. Seligman Gregory B. Craig Emmet T. Flood Bruce R. Lindsey Max Stier Cheryl D. Mills Glen Donath Lanny A. Breuer Alicia L. Marti Office of the White House Counsel Williams & Connolly The White House 725 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20502 Washington, D.C. 20005 January 13, 1999. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. The Constitutional Standard for Impeachment Has Not Been Satisfied B. The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice C. Compound Charges and Vagueness II. BACKGROUND A. The Whitewater Investigative Dead-End B. The Paula Jones Litigation C. The President's Grand Jury Testimony About Ms. Lewinsky D. Proceedings in the House of Representatives III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR DECISION A. The Offenses Alleged Do Not Meet the Constitutional Standard of High Crimes and Misdemeanors 1. The Senate Has a Constitutional Duty to Confront the Question Whether Impeachable Offenses Have Been Alleged 2. The Constitution Requires a High Standard of Proof of ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for Removal a. The Constitutional Text and Structure Set an Intentionally High Standard for Removal b. The Framers Believed that Impeachment and Removal Were Appropriate Only for Offenses Against the System of Government 3. Past Precedents Confirm that Allegations of Dishonesty Do Not Alone State Impeachable Offenses a. The Fraudulent Tax Return Allegation Against President Nixon b. The Financial Misdealing Allegation Against Alexander Hamilton 4. The Views of Prominent Historians and Legal Scholars Confirm that Impeachable Offenses Are Not Present a. No Impeachable Offense Has Been Stated Here b. To Make Impeachable Offenses of These Allegations Would Forever Lower the Bar in a Way Inimical to the Presidency and to Our Government of Separated Powers 5. Comparisons to Impeachment of Judges Are Wrong B. The Standard of Proof IV. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ACQUITTED ON ARTICLE I A. Applicable Law B. Structure of the Allegations C. Response to the Particular Allegations in Article I 1. The President denies that he made materially false or misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica Lewinsky 2. The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about testimony he gave in the Jones case 3. The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements of his attorney to Judge Wright during the Jones deposition 4. The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements to the grand jury when he denied attempting ``to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence'' in the Jones case V. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ACQUITTED ON ARTICLE II A. Applicable Law B. Structure of the Allegations C. Response to the Particular Allegations in Article II 1. The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading'' 2. The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally'' in the Jones litigation 3. The President denies that he ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence''-- gifts he had given to Monica Lewinsky--in the Jones case a. Ms. Lewinsky's December 28 Meeting with the President b. Ms. Currie's Supposed Involvement in Concealing Gifts c. The Obstruction-by-Gift-Concealment Charge Is at Odds With the President's Actions 4. The President denies that he obstructed justice in connection with Monica Lewinsky's efforts to obtain a job in New York in an effort to ``corruptly prevent'' her ``truthful testimony'' in the Jones case a. The Complete Absence of Direct Evidence Supporting This Charge b. Background of Ms. Lewinsky's New York Job Search c. The Committee Report's Circumstantial Case (1) Monica Lewinsky's December 11 meeting with Vernon Jordan (2) The January job interviews and the Revlon employment offer d. Conclusion 5. The President denies that he ``corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge'' concerning Monica Lewinsky's affidavit 6. The President denies that he obstructed justice by relating ``false and misleading statements'' to ``a potential witness,'' Betty Currie, ``in order to corruptly influence [her] testimony'' 7. The President denies that he obstructed justice when he relayed allegedly ``false and misleading statements'' to his aides VI. THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES OF THE ARTICLES PRECLUDE A CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND VOTE A. The Articles Are Both Unfairly Complex and Lacking in Specificity 1. The Structure of Article I 2. The Structure of Article II B. Conviction on These Articles Would Violate the Constitutional Requirement That Two-Thirds of the Senate Reach Agreement that Specific Wrongdoing Has Been Proven 1. The Articles Bundle Together Disparate Allegations in Violation of the Constitution's Requirements of Concurrence and Due Process a. The Articles Violate the Constitution's Two-Thirds Concurrence Requirement b. Conviction on the Articles Would Violate Due Process Protections that Forbid Compound Charges in a Single Accusation C. Conviction on These Articles Would Violate Due Process Protections Prohibiting Vague and Nonspecific Accusations 1. The Law of Due Process Forbids Vague and Nonspecific Charges 2. The Allegations of Both Articles Are Unconstitutionally Vague D. The Senate's Judgment Will Be Final and That Judgment Must Speak Clearly and Intelligibly VII. THE NEED FOR DISCOVERY VIII. CONCLUSION TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON I. Introduction Twenty-six months ago, more than 90 million Americans left their homes and work places to travel to schools, church halls and other civic centers to elect a President of the United States. And on January 20, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton was sworn in to serve a second term of office for four years. The Senate, in receipt of Articles of Impeachment from the House of Representatives, is now gathered in trial to consider whether that decision should be set aside for the remaining two years of the President's term. It is a power contemplated and authorized by the Framers of the Constitution, but never before employed in our nation's history. The gravity of what is at stake--the democratic choice of the American people--and the solemnity of the proceedings dictate that a decision to remove the President from office should follow only from the most serious of circumstances and should be done in conformity with Constitutional standards and in the interest of the Nation and its people. The Articles of Impeachment that have been exhibited to the Senate fall far short of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they placed in the hands of the Congress the power to impeach and remove a President from office. They fall far short of what the American people demand be shown and proven before their democratic choice is reversed. And they even fall far short of what a prudent prosecutor would require before presenting a case to a judge or jury. Take away the elaborate trappings of the Articles and the high-flying rhetoric that has accompanied them, and we see clearly that the House of Representatives asks the Senate to remove the President from office because he: used the phrase ``certain occasions'' to describe the frequency of his improper intimate contacts with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. There were, according to the House Managers, eleven such contacts over the course of approximately 500 days. Should the will of the people be overruled and the President of the United States be removed from office because he used the phrase ``certain occasions'' to describe eleven events over some 500 days? That is what the House of Representatives asks the Senate to do. used the word ``occasional'' to describe the frequency of inappropriate telephone conversations between he and Monica Lewinsky. According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in between ten and fifteen such conversations spanning a 23-month period. Should the will of the people be overruled and the President of the United States be removed from office because he used the word ``occasional'' to describe up to 15 telephone calls over a 23-month period? That is what the House of Representatives asks the Senate to do. said the improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky began in early 1996, while she recalls that it began in November 1995. And he said the contact did not include touching certain parts of her body, while she said it did. Should the will of the people be overruled and the President of the United States be removed from office because two people have a [[Page S192]] different recollection of the details of a wrongful relationship--which the President has admitted? That is what the House of Representatives asks the Senate to do. The Articles of Impeachment are not limited to the examples cited above, but the other allegations of wrongdoing are similarly unconvincing. There is the charge that the President unlawfully obstructed justice by allegedly trying to find a job for Monica Lewinsky in exchange for her silence about their relationship. This charge is made despite the fact that no one involved in the effort to find work for Ms. Lewinsky--including Ms. Lewinsky herself--testifies that there was any connection between the job search and the affidavit. Indeed, the basis for that allegation, Ms. Lewinsky's statements to Ms. Tripp, was expressly repudiated by Ms. Lewinsky under oath. There is also the charge that the President conspired to obstruct justice by arranging for Ms. Lewinsky to hide gifts that he had given her, even though the facts and the testimony contain no evidence that he did so. In fact, the evidence shows that the President gave her new gifts on the very day that the articles allege he conspired to conceal his gifts to her. In the final analysis, the House is asking the Senate to remove the President because he had a wrongful relationship and sought to keep the existence of that relationship private. Nothing said in this Trial Memorandum is intended to excuse the President's actions. By his own admission, he is guilty of personal failings. As he has publicly stated, ``I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned.'' He has misled his family, his friends, his staff, and the Nation about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He hoped to avoid exposure of personal wrongdoing so as to protect his family and himself and to avoid public embarrassment. He has acknowledged that his actions were wrong. By the same token, these actions must not be mischaracterized into a wholly groundless excuse for removing the President from the office to which he was twice elected by the American people. The allegations in the articles and the argument in the House Managers' Trial Memorandum do not begin to satisfy the stringent showing required by our Founding Fathers to remove a duly elected President from office, either as a matter of fact or law. a. the constitutional standard for impeachment has not been satisfied There is strong agreement among constitutional and legal scholars and historians that the substance of the articles does not amount to impeachable offenses. On November 6, 1998, 430 Constitutional law professors wrote: ``Did President Clinton commit `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' warranting impeachment under the Constitution? We . . . believe that the misconduct alleged in the report of the Independent Counsel . . . does not cross the threshold. . . . [I]t is clear that Members of Congress could violate their constitutional responsibilities if they sought to impeach and remove the President for misconduct, even criminal misconduct, that fell short of the high constitutional standard required for impeachment.'' On October 28, 1998, more than 400 historians issued a joint statement warning that because impeachment had traditionally been reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors in the exercise of executive power, impeachment of the President based on the facts alleged in the OIC Referral would set a dangerous precedent. ``If carried forward, they will leave the Presidency permanently disfigured and diminished, at the mercy as never before of caprices of any Congress. The Presidency, historically the center of leadership during our great national ordeals, will be crippled in meeting the inevitable challenges of the future.'' We address why the charges in the two articles do not rise to the level of `high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' in Section III, Constitutional Standard and Burden of Proof. B. The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice Article I alleges perjury before a federal grand jury. Article II alleges obstruction of justice. Both perjury and obstruction of justice are statutory crimes. In rebutting the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment, this brief refers to the facts as well as to laws, legal principles, court decisions, procedural safeguards, and the Constitution itself. Those who seek to remove the President speak of the ``rule of law.'' Among the most fundamental rules of law are the principles that those who accuse have the burden of proof, and those who are accused have the right to defend themselves by relying on the law, established procedures, and the Constitution. These principles are not ``legalisms'' but rather the very essence of the ``rule of law'' that distinguishes our Nation from others. We respond, in detail, to those allegations whose substance we can decipher in Section IV, The President Should Be Acquitted on Article I, and in Section V, The President Should Be Acquitted on Article II. C. Compound Charges and Vagueness If there were any doubt that the House of Representatives has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibility to the Senate and to the President, that doubt vanishes upon reading the Trial Memorandum submitted by the House Managers. Having proferred two articles of impeachment, each of which unconstitutionally combines multiple offenses and fails to give even minimally adequate notice of the charges it encompasses, the House--three days before the Managers are to open their case--is still expanding, not refining, the scope of those articles. In further violation of the most basic constitutional principles, their brief advances, merely as ``examples,'' nineteen conclusory allegations--eight of perjury under Article I and eleven of obstruction of justice under Article II, some of which have never appeared before, even in the Report submitted by the Judiciary Committee (``Committee Report''), much less in the Office of Independent Counsel (``OIC'') Referral or in the articles themselves.\1\ If the target the Managers present to the Senate and to the President is still moving now, what can the President expect in the coming days? Is there any point at which the President will be given the right accorded a defendant in the most minor criminal case--to know with certainty the charges against which he must defend? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ For example, the House managers add a charge that the President engaged in ``legalistic hair splitting [in his response to the 81 questions] in an obvious attempt to skirt the whole truth and to deceive and obstruct'' the Committee. This charge was specifically rejected by the full House of Representatives when it rejected Article IV. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Senate, we know, fully appreciates these concerns and has, in past proceedings, dealt appropriately with articles far less flawed than these. The constitutional concerns raised by the House's action are addressed in Section VI, The Structural Deficiencies of the Articles Preclude a Constitutionally Sound Vote. II. Background A. The Whitewater Investigative Dead-End The Lewinsky investigation emerged in January 1998 from the long-running Whitewater investigation. On August 5, 1994, the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court Circuit appointed Kenneth W. Starr as Independent Counsel to conduct an investigation centering on two Arkansas entities, Whitewater Development Company, Inc., and Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association. In the spring of 1997, OIC investigators, without any expansion of jurisdiction, interviewed Arkansas state troopers who had once been assigned to the Governor's security detail, and ``[t]he troopers said Starr's investigators asked about 12 to 15 women by name, including Paula Corbin Jones. . . .'' Woodward & Schmidt, ``Starr Probes Clinton Personal Life,'' The Washington Post (June 25, 1997) at A1 (emphasis added). ``The nature of the questioning marks a sharp departure from previous avenues of inquiry in the three-year old investigation. . . . Until now, . . . what has become a wide-ranging investigation of many aspects of Clinton's governorship has largely steered clear of questions about Clinton's relationships with women. . . .'' \2\ One of the most striking aspects of this new phase of the Whitewater investigation was the extent to which it focused on the Jones case. One of the troopers interviewed declared, ``[t]hey asked me about Paula Jones, all kinds of questions about Paula Jones, whether I saw Clinton and Paula together and how many times.'' \3--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Ibid. Trooper Roger Perry, a 21-year veteran of the Arkansas state police, stated that he ``was asked about the most intimate details of Clinton's life: `I was left with the impression that they wanted me to show he was a womanizer. . . . All they wanted to talk about was women.' '' Ibid. (Ellipsis in original). \3\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In his November 19, 1998, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Starr conceded that his agents had conducted these interrogations and acknowledged that at that time, he had not sought expansion of his jurisdiction from either the Special Division or the Attorney General.\4\ Mr. Starr contended that these inquiries were somehow relevant to his Whitewater investigation: ``we were, in fact interviewing, as good prosecutors, good investigators do, individuals who would have information that may be relevant to our inquiry about the President's involvement in Whitewater, in Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and the like.''\5\ It seems irrefutable, however, that the OIC was in fact engaged in an unauthorized attempt to gather embarrassing information about the President--information wholly unrelated to Whitewater or Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, but potentially relevant to the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Transcript of November 19, 1998 House Judiciary Committee Hearing at 377-378. \5\ Ibid. at 378. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. The Paula Jones Litigation The Paula Jones lawsuit made certain allegations about events she said had occurred three years earlier, in 1991, when the President was Governor of Arkansas. Discovery in the case had been stayed until the Supreme Court's decision on May 27, 1997, denying the President temporary immunity from suit.\6\ Shortly thereafter, Ms. Jones' legal team began a public relations offensive against the President, headed by Ms. Jones' new spokesperson, Mr. Susan Carpenter-McMillan, and her new counsel affiliated with the conservation Rutherford Institute.\7\ ``I will [[Page S193]] never deny that when I first heard about this case I said, ``Okay, good. We're gonna get that little slimeball,' said Ms. Carpenter-McMillan.''\8\ While Ms. Jones' previous attorneys, Messrs. Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata, had largely avoided the media, as the Jones civil suit increasingly became a partisan vehicle to try to damage the President, public personal attacks became the order of the day.\9\ As is now well known, this effort led ultimately to the Jones lawyers being permitted to subpoena various women, to discover the nature of their relationship, if any, with the President, allegedly for the purpose of determining whether they had information relevant to the sexual harassment charge. Among these women was Ms. Lewinsky. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). \7\ Ms. Jones was described as having ``accepted financial support of a Virginia conservative group,'' which intended to ``raise $100,000 or more on Jones's behalf, although the money will go for expenses and not legal fees.'' ``Jones Acquires New Lawyers and Backing,'' The Washington Post (October 2, 1998) at A1. Jones' new law firm, the Dallas- based Radar, Campbell, Fisher and Pyke, had ``represented conservatives in antiabortion cases and other causes.'' Ibid. See also Dallas Lawyers Agree to Take on Paula Jones' Case-- Their Small Firm Has Ties to Conservative Advocacy Group,'' The Los Angeles Times (Oct. 2, 1997) (Rutherford Institute a ``conservative advocacy group.''). \8\ ``Cause Celebre: An Antiabortion Activist Makes Herself the Unofficial Mouthpiece for Paula Jones.'' The Washington Post (July 23, 1998) at C1. Ms. Carpenter-McMillan, ``a cause-oriented, self-defined conservative feminist''', described her role as `flaming the White House'' and declared ```Unless Clinton wants to be terribly embarrassed, he'd better cough up what Paula needs. Anybody that comes out and testifies against Paula better have the past of a Mother Teresa, because our investigators will investigate their morality.''' ``Paula Jones' Team Not All About Teamwork,'' USA Today (Sept. 29, 1997) at 4A. \9\ After Ms. Jones' new team had been in action for three months, one journalist commented: ``In six years of public controversy over Clinton's personal life, what is striking in some ways is how little the debate changes. As in the beginning, many conservatives nurture the hope that the past will be Clinton's undoing. Jone's adviser, Susan Carpenter- McMillan, acknowledged on NBC's `Meet the Press' yesterday that her first reaction when she first heard Jone's claims about Clinton was, ``Good, we're going to get that little slime ball.'' (Harris, ``Jones Case Tests Political Paradox,'' The Washington Post (Jan. 19, 1998) at A1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In January 1998, Mr. Linda Tripp notified the OIC of certain information she believed she had about Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case. At that time, the OIC investigation began to intrude formally into the Jones case: the OIC met with Ms. Tripp through the week of January 12, and with her cooperation taped Ms. Lewinsky discussing the Jones case and the President. Ms. Tripp also informed the OIC that she had been surreptitiously taping conversations with Ms. Lewinsky in violation of Maryland law, and in exchange for her cooperation, the OIC promised Ms. Tripp immunity from federal prosecution, and assistance in protecting her from state prosecution.\10\ On Friday, January 16, after Ms. Tripp wore a body wire and had taped conversations with Ms. Lewinsky for the OIC, the OIC received jurisdiction from the Attorney General and formalized an immunity agreement with Ms. Tripp in writing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Supplemental Materials to the Referral to the United States House of Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code Section 595(C), H. Doc. 105-316 (hereinafter ``Supp.'') at 3758-3759, 4371-4373 (House Judiciary Committee) (Sept. 28, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The President's deposition in the Jones case was scheduled to take place the next day, on Saturday, January 17. As we now know, Ms. Tripp met with and briefed the lawyers for Ms. Jones the night before the deposition on her perception of the relationship between Ms. Lewinsky and the President-- doing so based on confidences Ms. Lewinsky had entrusted to her.\11\ She was permitted to do so even though she has been acting all week at the behest of the OIC and was dependent on the OIC to use its best efforts to protect her from state prosecution. At the deposition the next day, the President was asked numerous questions about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by lawyers who already knew the answers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Baker, ``Linda Tripp Briefed Jones Team on Tapes: Meeting Occurred Before Clinton Deposition,'' The Washington Post (Feb. 14, 1998) at A1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Jones case, of course, was not about Ms. Lewinsky. She was a peripheral player and, since her relationship with the President was concededly consensual, irrelevant to Ms. Jones' case. Shortly after the President's deposition, Chief Judge Wright ruled that evidence pertaining to Ms. Lewinsky would not be admissible at the Jones trial because ``it is not essential to the core issues in this case.'' \12\ The Court also ruled that, given the allegations at issue in the Jones case, the Lewinsky evidence ``might be inadmissible as extrinsic evidence'' under the Federal Rules of Evidence because it involved merely the ``specific instances of conduct'' of a witness.\13--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Order, at 2, Jones v. Clinton, No. LR-C-94-290 (E.D. Ark.) (Jan. 29, 1998). \13\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 1, 1998, the Court ruled that Ms. Jones had no case and granted summary judgment for the President. Although Judge Wright ``viewed the record in the light most favorable to [Ms. Jones] and [gave] her the benefit of all reasonable factual inferences,'' \14\ the Court ruled that, as a matter of law, she simply had no case against President Clinton, both because ``there is no genuine issue as to any material fact'' and because President Clinton was ``entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'' Id. at 11-12. After reviewing all the proffered evidence, the Court ruled that ``the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for'' Ms. Jones. Id. at 39. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ Jones v. Clinton, No. LR-C-94-290 (E.D. Ark.), Memorandum Opinion and Order (April 1, 1998), at 3 n.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. the president's grand jury testimony about ms. lewinsky On August 17, 1998, the President voluntarily testified to the grand jury and specifically acknowledged that he had had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky involving ``improper intimate contact,'' and that he `'engaged in conduct that was wrong.'' App. at 461.\15\ He described how the relationship began and how he had ended it early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny. He stated to the grand jury ``it's an embarrassing and personally painful thing, the truth about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,'' App. at 533, and told the grand jurors, ``I take full responsibility for it. It wasn't her fault, it was mine.'' App. at 589-90. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Appendices to the Referral to the United States House of Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code Section 595(c), H. Doc. 105-311 (hereinafter ``App.'') at 461 (House Judiciary Committee) (Sept. 18, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The President also explained how he had tried to navigate the deposition in the Jones case months earlier without admitting what he admitted to the grand jury--that he had been engaged in an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Id. a 530-531. He further testified that the ``inappropriate encounters'' with Ms. Lewinsky had ended, at his insistence, in early 1997. He declined to describe, because of considerations of personal privacy and institutional dignity, certain specifics about his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky,\16\ but he indicated his willingness to answer,\17\ and he did answer, the other questions put to him about his relationship with her. No one who watched the videotape of this grand jury testimony had any doubt that the President admitted to having had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ ``While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself, and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters.'' App. at 461. \17\ ``I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the term `sexual relations,' as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition; and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and intimidation of witnesses.'' App. at 461. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d. proceedings in the house of representatives On September 9, 1998, Mr. Starr transmitted a Referral to the House of Representatives that alleged eleven acts by the President related to the Lewinsky matter that, in the opinion of the OIC, ``may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'' \18\ The allegations fell into three broad categories: lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in Conformity with the Requirements of Title 28, United States Code, Section 595(c), at 1 (House Judiciary Committee) (printed September 11, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The House Judiciary held a total of four hearings and called but one witness: Kenneth W. Starr. The Committee allowed the President's lawyers two days in which to present a defense. The White House presented four panels of distinguished expert witnesses who testified that the facts, as alleged, did not constitute an impeachable offense, did not reveal an abuse of power, and would not support a case for perjury or obstruction of justice that any reasonable prosecutor would bring. White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff presented argument to the Committee on behalf of the President, which is incorporated into this Trial Memorandum by reference.\19--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Also incorporated by reference into this Trial Memorandum are the four prior submissions of the President to the House of Representatives: Preliminary Memorandum Concerning Referral of Office of Independent Counsel (September 11, 1998) (73 pages); Initial Response to Referral of Office of Independent Counsel (September 12, 1998) (42 pages); Memorandum Regarding Standards of Impeachment (October 2, 1998) (30 pages); Submission by Counsel for President Clinton to the Committee on the House Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (December 8, 1998) (184 pages). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 11 and 12, the Judiciary Committee voted essentially along party lines to approve four articles of impeachment. Republicans defeated the alternative resolution of censure offered by certain Committee Democrats. Almost immediately after censure failed in the Committee, the House Republican leadership declared publicly that no censure proposal would be considered by the full House when it considered the articles of impeachment.\20--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See Baker & Eilperin, ``GOP Blocks Democrats' Bid to Debate Censure in House: Panel Votes Final, Trimmed Article of Impeachment,'' The Washington Post (Dec. 13, 1998) at A1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 19, 1998, voting essentially on party lines, the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment: Article I, which alleged perjury before the grand jury, passed by a vote of 228 to 206 and Article III, which alleged obstruction of justice, passed by a vote of 221 to 212. The full House defeated two other Articles: Article II, which alleged that the President committed perjury in his civil deposition, and Article IV, which alleged abuse of power. Consideration of a censure resolution was blocked, even though members of both parties had expressed a desire to vote on such an option. From beginning to end the House process was both partisan and unfair. Consider: The House released the entire OIC Referral to the public without ever reading it, reviewing it, editing it, or allowing the President's counsel to review it; [[Page S194]] The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said he had ``no interest in not working in a bipartisan way''; \21--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ Associated Press (March 25, 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Chairman