Page images
PDF
EPUB

Question 79. Do you admit or deny that you made a false and misleading public statement in response to a question asked on or about January 26, 1998, when you stated “But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?"

Answer. I made this statement on January 26, 1998, although not in response to any question. In referring to "sexual relations, I was referring to sexual intercourse. See also App. at 475. As I stated in Response to Request Nos. 62 to 68, in the days following the January 21, 1998, disclosures, answers like this misled people about this relationship, for which I have apologized.

Reference. On August 17, 1998, after testifying before the grand jury, the President addressed the American people from the White House and stated "Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.” (34 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, p. 1638).

Question 80. Do you admit or deny that you made a false and misleading public statement in response to a question asked on or about January 26, 1998, when you stated" :. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never?”

Answer. This statement was truthful: I did not tell Ms. Lewinsky to lie, and I did not tell anybody to lie about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, I understand that Ms. Lewinsky also has stated that I never asked or encouraged her to lie. See App. at 718 (2/1/98 handwritten proffer of Ms. Lewinsky); see also App. at 1161 (grand jury testimony of Ms. Lewinsky).

Reference. The record indicates that the President made untruthful statements to many of his Cabinet officials, White House aides, and others who would naturally be asked publicly and called as a witness to testify about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. See Requests for Information Nos. 62-68.

The record indicates that the President may have directly instructed Betty Currie to lie about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. See Request for Information No. 52.

After the President knew that Monica Lewinsky was on the witness list in the Jones case, the record indicates he told her to lie about the time they spent together:

"A ... At some point in the conversation, and I don't know if it was before or after the subject of the affidavit came up, he sort of said, “You know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters.' Which I understood was really a reminder of things that we had discussed before.” (Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, p.123, H. Doc. 105–311, p. 843).

Question 81. Do you admit or deny that you directed or instructed Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal, Nancy Hernreich and Lanny Breuer to invoke executive privilege before a grand jury empaneled as part of a judicial proceeding by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1998?

Answer. On the recommendation of Charles Ruff, Counsel to the President, I authorized Mr. Ruff to assert the presidential communications privilege (which is one aspect of executive privilege) with respect to questions that might be asked of witnesses called to testify before the grand jury to the extent that those questions sought disclosure of matters protected by that privilege. Thereafter, I understand that the presidential communications privilege was asserted as to certain questions asked of Sidney Blumenthal and Nancy Hernreich. Further, I understand that, as to Mr. Blumenthal and Ms. Hernreich, all claims of official privilege were subsequently withdrawn and they testified fully on several occasions before the grand jury.

Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Breuer testified at length before the grand jury about a wide range of matters, but declined, on the advice of the White House Counsel, to answer certain questions that sought disclosure of discussions that they had with me and my senior advisors concerning, among other things, their legal advice as to the assertion of executive privilege. White House Counsel advised Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Breuer that these communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege, as well as executive privilege. Mr. Lindsey also asserted my personal attorney-client privilege as to certain questions relating to his role as an intermediary between me and my personal counsel in the Jones v. Clinton case, a privilege that was upheld by the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia.

Reference. The record indicates that Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal, Nancy Hernreich and Lanny Breuer all invoked executive privilege when they appeared before the grand jury. Executive privilege, unlike the 5th Amendment privilege against self incrimination, the attorney-client privilege, or the spousal privilege, is not a personal privilege. Executive privilege is constitutionally based—it is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers. Executive privilege, which adheres to the office of the president and not the occupant of that office, shields communications relating to the exercise of core presidential functions.

Because executive privilege is constitutionally based and because it adheres to the office of the President, only the President can authorize its assertion. Most legal scholars agree it can not be delegated to subordinates.

The President, while in Africa, publicly denied knowing anything about the assertions. If that is true, his staff invoked the privilege without his authorization which would be unconstitutional and could be viewed as an abuse of power intended to obstruct the investigation.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF BILL MCCOLLUM, CHAIRMAN, SUB

COMMITTEE ON CRIME, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY REGARDING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON DECEMBER 15, 1998

INTRODUCTION

I have carefully reviewed the entire record regarding the allegations of criminal wrongdoing by President Clinton. And it is with a heavy heart that I have concluded that the evidence establishes clearly and convincingly that President Clinton is an oath breaker and a law breaker and should be impeached.

On January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton raised his right hand, placed his left hand on the Bible, and solemnly swore an oath before Congress, the American people, a watching world, and Almighty God to "faithfully 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.” That oath obligated the President to faithfully discharge his duties as the chief law enforcement officer of the land and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Again, on January 17, 1998, before a United States District Court judge in a federal civil rights suit, and on August 17, 1998, before a federal grand jury, President Clinton took an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." Far from keeping his solemn oaths, President Clinton actively sought to thwart the due administration of justice by repeatedly committing the felony crimes of perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. He has also repeatedly lied to the American people and to the United States Congress. President William Jefferson Clinton should be impeached.

ANALYSIS

There are three principal considerations in determining whether President Clinton should be impeached: Did he commit any of the crimes for which he stands accused? If so, are such crimes impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution? And if they are impeachable, is there any reason why the U.S. House of Representatives, in its discretion, should not impeach him, and what might be the consequences of such inaction?

When considered objectively apart from the hype, the evidence examined by the House Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly establishes that President Clinton committed not one, but numerous serious felony crimes. There is little doubt that a prosecutor could bring the case to trial, and a strong likelihood that the jury would convict President Clinton for several, if not all, the charged crimes. Encouraging Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit and relying on it

Long before Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed in the Jones v. Clin. ton case, President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky reached an understanding that they would deny any relationship between them. Ms. Lewinsky learned from the President that her name was on the Jones v. Clinton witness list. She asked him what to do if she was subpoenaed, and the President suggested she could submit an affidavit that might keep her from having to testify. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she understood President Clinton's suggestion to mean she might be able to execute an affidavit that would avoid her having to disclose the true nature of their relationship. While saying the President never told her to lie in the affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky took his suggestion to file an affidavit, in conjunction with their previous agreement to deny the relationship, and the absence of any suggestion from him that she tell the truth in the affidavit, to mean that he expected her to deny the relationship in the affidavit. Indeed, in the very same conversation in which President Clinton suggested she file an affidavit if subpoenaed, he reminded her of the cover stories they had previously fabricated and encouraged her to continue using them.

Ms. Lewinsky carried out the plan and filed a false affidavit, in which she denied the relationship with President Clinton, in the Jones v. Clinton case. During the President's civil deposition President Clinton's attorney, Robert Bennett, stated that the President was fully aware of the contents of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. Whether or not the President explicitly asked her to file the false affidavit, he clearly encouraged her to, planning to rely on it in his civil deposition, and then doing so. As such, President Clinton committed the crime of obstructing justice. Concealing evidence

When Ms. Lewinsky was served with a subpoena to testify in the Jones v. Clinton case, she was also served with a subpoena to produce every gift given to her by President Clinton. Nine days later (on December 28, 1997) she met with the President and expressed concern about the gifts being subpoenaed and particularly about the hat pin named in the subpoena—the first gift he had ever given her. The President asked her if she had told anyone about the hat pin and she said no. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she asked President Clinton if she should put the gifts away outside her house or possibly give them to somebody like Betty Currie. She testified that his response was noncommittal.

In his testimony before the federal grand jury the President said that he told Ms. Lewinsky that if the lawyers for Ms. Jones asked for gifts she would have to give them what she had. She testified that President Clinton never said anything to give her that impression. On the contrary, she was left with the opposite impression: that she was supposed to deny their existence and do whatever was necessary to conceal them. Ms. Lewinsky testified that later that same day Mrs. Currie called her on a cell phone about picking up “something” from her and then came by Ms. Lewinsky's place, saying that the President told her (Mrs. Currie) that Ms. Lewinsky wanted her (Mrs. Currie) to keep to some things for her (Ms. Lewinsky). Ms. Lewinsky boxed up most of the gifts and gave them to Mrs. Currie, who took them home and stored them beneath her bed.

Mrs. Currie testified that Ms. Lewinsky, not Mrs. Currie, placed the call and raised the subject of the gifts, but when confronted with the contrary statement of Ms. Lewinsky, Mrs. Currie changed her testimony and said she didn't remember who made the call but that Ms. Lewinsky's memory may be better than her own. Telephone records show Mrs. Currie made a cell phone call to Ms. Lewinsky on the afternoon in question. Furthermore, it would have been completely out of character for Mrs. Currie to have taken the action without the President's direction or approval inasmuch as she always checked with him before she did anything involving Ms. Lewinsky. And finally, if the President had truly suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she produce the gifts to Ms. Jones' attorneys she would not have turned right around and called Mrs. Currie to give the gifts to her. The evidence clearly and convincingly leads to the conclusion that Ms. Lewinsky told the truth about the gifts and that the President orchestrated their concealment, or, at a minimum, participated in a scheme to conceal them. As such, President Clinton committed the crime of obstruction of justice. Perjury in a civil case before the federal judge

On January 17, 1998, President Clinton gave sworn testimony by deposition before Judge Wright in the Jones v. Clinton case. When he did so he committed perjury repeatedly by testifying that: he had not had sexual relations, a sexual affair, or a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; he could not recall being alone with her, when he had been alone with her on numerous occasions when they had engaged in sexual activities; and he could not recall giving her any gifts, when he had given her numerous gifts and they were the subject of great concern during several conversations with her in the month preceding his deposition. A fair and objective review of the evidence necessarily leads to the conclusion that the President knowingly and willfully lied about material matters numerous times under oath in the deposition. It requires creative and tortured technical arguments about the definition of perjury-arguments without legal merit—to come to any conclusion other than that President Clinton repeatedly committed the crime of perjury in his deposition in the Jones v. Clinton case. Witness tampering

During President Clinton's deposition in the Jones v. Clinton case, the President used the cover stories involving Betty Currie that he and Ms. Lewinsky had fabricated. Within hours of the deposition, he called Mrs. Currie and asked her to come to the White House on the following day, a Sunday (January 18, 1998). He told her of the deposition and then made a series of statements regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He stated, in succession: "You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone'; “you could see and hear everything'; “Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?" and "she wanted to have sex with me, and I can't do that.” Mrs. Currie said she felt that President Clinton wanted her to agree with his statements and made these remarks to see her reaction. She testified that she indi

« PreviousContinue »