Page images

C. The President Willfully Provided Perjurious, False and

Misleading Testimony to the Grand Jury Regarding
Prior False And Misleading Statements He Allowed His
Attorney To Make To A Federal Judge In That Civil

Rights Action Brought Against Him Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit stated that she and the President had no sexual relations at any time. The evidence shows that the President was aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. Ms. Lewinsky's attorney, Mr. Frank Carter, worked closely with the President's attorney, Mr. Bennett, to ensure the affidavit was filed with the court prior to the civil deposition.97 The President allowed his attorney to represent to a federal judge that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit was true and accurate. Thus, the President sat back and allowed his attorney to report facts to the court which he knew to be false.

The President argues that he was unaware of what his attorney was doing at the time and therefore did not allow his attorney to represent false information to the court. Yet, Mr. Schippers presentation of the videotape of the deposition shows that the President was closely following the actions and arguments of his attorney. Furthermore it is incredulous to assert that at the time the court was arguing whether to open “Pandora's Box” the President was unaware of his attorney's actions. As stated, truthful information about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was potentially disastrous to the President: it would demonstrate he lied in interrogatories answered in December; it would have made him vulnerable as a defendant in a civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit; it would have greatly embarrassed his family; and, it tarnish his political standing.

During the grand jury testimony the President was asked about the deposition. The President argued that when his attorney, Mr. Bennett, informed the court that there "is no sex of any kind * * *” Mr. Bennett was speaking only in the present tense. The President stated, “It depends upon what the meaning of “is” is, and that “if it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." 98 President Clinton is guilty of what C.S. Lewis called "verbicide,” murder of the plain spoken word. His attempt to invoke the literal truth defense fails under the reasonableness test.

As stated in the OIC Referral regarding sworn testimony in the affidavit and its use:

Monica Lewinsky testified that President Clinton called
her around 2:00 to 2:30 a.m. on December 17, 1997, and
told her that her name was on the Jones case witness list.
As noted in her February 1 handwritten statement: 'When
asked what to do if she was subpoenaed, the Pres. [sic]
suggested she could sign an affidavit * **' Ms. Lewinsky
said she is '100% sure that the President suggested that
she might want to sign an affidavit.
Ms. Lewinsky understood the President's advice to mean
that she might be able to execute an affidavit that would
not disclose the true nature of their relationship. In order
'to prevent me from being deposed,' she said she would

97 OIC Referral at 174. 98 OIC Referral, Part I at 476–77.

need an affidavit that 'could range from anywhere between maybe just somehow mentioning, you know, innocuous things or going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of relationship.' Ms. Lewinsky stated that the President never explicitly told her to lie. Instead, as she explained, they both understood from their conversations that they would continue their pattern of covering up and lying about the relationship. In that regard, the President never said they must now tell the truth under oath; to the contrary, as Ms. Lewinsky stated: “[I]t wasn't as if the President called me and said, You know, Monica, you're on the witness list, this is going to be really hard for us, we're going to have to tell the truth and be humiliated in front of the entire world about what we've done,' which I would have fought him on probably. That was different. And by him not calling me and saying that, you know, I knew what that meant.' Ms. Jones's lawyers served Ms. Lewinsky with a subpoena on December 19, 1997. Ms. Lewinsky contacted Vernon Jordan, who in turn put her in contact with attorney Frank Carter. Based on the information that Ms. Lewinsky provided, Mr. Carter prepared an affidavit which stated: 'I have never had a sexual relationship with the President.' After Mr. Carter drafted the affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky spoke to the President by phone on January 5th. She asked the President if he wanted to see the draft affidavit. According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President replied that he did not need to see it because he had already ‘seen 15 others.' Mr. Jordan confirmed that President Clinton knew that Ms. Lewinsky planned to execute an affidavit denying a sexual relationship. Mr. Jordan further testified that he informed President Clinton when Ms. Lewinsky signed the affidavit. Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit was sent to the federal court in Arkansas on January 16, 1998—the day before the President's deposition-as part of her motion to quash the deposition subpoena. Two days before the President's deposition, his lawyer, Robert Bennett, obtained a copy of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit from Mr. Carter. At the President's deposition, Ms. Jones's counsel asked questions about the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Bennett objected to the ‘innuendo' of the questions, noting that Ms. Lewinsky had signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship, which according to Mr. Bennett, indicated that 'there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.' Mr. Bennett said that the President was 'fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit.' Mr. Bennett affirmatively used the affidavit in an effort to cut off questioning. The President said nothing-even though, as he knew, the affidavit was false. Judge Wright overruled the objection and allowed the questioning to continue.

Later, Mr. Bennett read Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying
a 'sexual relationship to the President and asked him: 'Is
that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?
The President answered, “That is absolutely true. '99
d. The President Willfully Provided Perjurious, False and

Misleading Testimony to the Grand Jury Regarding His
Corrupt Efforts To Influence The Testimony Of Witnesses
And To Impede The Discovery Of Evidence In That Civil

Rights Action
1. The President Gave False and Misleading Testimony Be-

fore the Grand Jury When He Denied Engaging in a Plan to Hide Evidence that had been Subpoenaed in the

Federal Civil Rights Action Against Him Starting in November 1995, the President engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. In order to keep the relationship a secret, they devised "cover stories." As discussed, on December 5, 1997, Ms. Jones' attorneys identified Ms. Lewinsky as a potential witness in the case, and the President learned this fact within a day.100 The President then called Ms. Lewinsky at 2:00 a.m. on the morning of December 17, 1997, and informed her that she was a potential witness.101 According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President suggested that she execute an affidavit to avoid a deposition, and that they continue with the usual “cover stories” to explain why she visited the oval office on so many occasions. 102 The "cover stories” were lies. The President suggested to a potential witness in a federal civil rights case to lie.

As to the discovery of evidence in the Jones v. Clinton case, according to the evidence presented by the OIC, Ms. Lewinsky gave the President approximately 38 gifts. On December 28, 1997, the President and Ms. Lewinsky had a conversation about the gifts they exchanged, Ms. Lewinsky said: “I mentioned that I had been concerned about the hat pin being on the subpoena and the President] said that that had sort of concerned him also and asked me if I had told anyone that he had given me this hat pin and I said no.” 103 Ms. Currie also testified to having had conversations with the President about certain gifts. 104

That day, the Sunday after Christmas, Ms. Currie went over to Ms. Lewinsky's home and retrieved a box of gifts from her. She took the gifts home and hid them under her bed.

It is unreasonable to believe that a young former White House intern would have the clout to summon the secretary to the President of the United States to her house on the Sunday after Christmas in order to pick up personal gifts so that she could hide them under her bed. Reasonable people do not subscribe to the absurd. These gifts were all under subpoena in the Jones v. Clinton case. The facts surrounding the retrieval of the gifts lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that Ms. Currie was instructed to do so by the President.

99 OIC Referral at 173–75. 1001d. 101 Id. at 12. 102 Id. 103 Id. at 156. 104 Id.

President Clinton testified before the grand jury, and reiterated to the Judiciary Committee in Request for Admission No. 26, that he did not recall any conversation with Ms. Currie on or about December 28 1997, about gifts previously given to Ms. Lewinsky and that he never told Ms. Currie to take possession of the gifts he had given to Ms. Lewinsky.105 This answer is false and misleading because the evidence reveals that Betty Currie did place a call to Monica Lewinsky about the gifts and there is no reason for her to do so unless instructed by the President. Because she did not personally know of the gift issue, there is no other way Ms. Currie could have known to call Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts unless the President told her to do so. The President had a motive to conceal the gifts because both he and Ms. Lewinsky were concerned that the gifts might raise questions about their relationship. By confirming that the gifts would not be produced, the President ensured that these questions would not arise. The concealment and non-production of the gifts to the attorneys' for Paula Jones allowed the President to provide false and misleading statements about the gifts at his deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton. Additionally, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony on this subject has been consistent and unequivocal; she provided the same facts in February, July and August. Betty Currie's cell phone records show that she placed a one minute call to Monica Lewinsky on the afternoon of December 28th.

2. The President Made False and Misleading Statements Be

fore The Grand Jury Regarding His Knowledge That The Contents of an Affidavit Executed by a Subordinate Federal Employee Who was a Witness in The Federal

Civil Rights Action Brought Against Him Were Untrue Ms. Lewinsky filed an affidavit in the Jones v. Clinton case, in which she denied ever having a sexual relationship with the President. During his deposition in the case, the President affirmed that the statement of Ms. Lewinsky in her affidavit was “absolutely true.” Ms. Lewinsky testified that she is “100 percent sure” that the President suggested that she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones v. Clinton case.

The President told the Judiciary Committee that he believed he told Ms. Lewinsky "other witnesses had executed affidavits, and there was a chance they would not have to testify.” 106 Before the criminal grand jury in August, the President testified that he hoped that Ms. Lewinsky could avoid being deposed by filing an affidavit, but that he did not want her to submit a false affidavit. 107

Such testimony is false and misleading because it would have been impossible for Ms. Lewinsky to file a truthful affidavit without jeopardizing the President by being deposed. Ms. Jones' attorneys were seeking information about other state or federal employees with whom the President had sexual relationships. Judge Susan Weber Wright ruled that Ms. Jones was entitled to such discovery information. The President must have been cognizant of such facts which renders his grand jury testimony on these facts false and misleading. In his efforts to be evasive, the President favored a feigned memory after citing Betty Currie as a source for the answer, thus setting up Ms. Currie as a potential witness.

105 H. Doc. 105–311, at 502. 106 Request for Admission No. 18. 107 H. Doc. 105–311, at 571.

While testifying before the grand jury, Ms. Currie was more precise in her recollection of the two meetings. An OIC attorney asked her if the President had made a series of leading statements or questions that were similar to the following:

1. “You were always there when she (Monica Lewinsky] was there, right? We were never really alone.”

2. "You could see and hear everything." 3. “Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right? 4. “She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that.” 108

Based on his demeanor and the manner in which he asked the questions, she concluded that the President wanted her to agree with him. Ms. Currie thought that the President was attempting to gauge her reaction, and appeared concerned. 109 Ms. Currie also acknowledged that while she indicated to the President that she agreed with him, in fact she knew that, at times, he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky and that she could not or did not hear or see the two of them while they were alone.

3. The President Made False and Misleading Statements Be

fore the Grand Jury When He Recited a False Account of the Facts Regarding His Interactions with Monica Lewinsky to Betty Currie, a Potential Witness in the

Federal Civil Rights Action Brought Against Him The evidence shows that immediately after the President was de posed in the Jones v. Clinton case he attempted to influence the testimony of Ms. Betty Currie. Ms. Currie testified that the President discussed Ms. Lewinsky with her, and that his questions were actually statements with which he wanted her to agree.

Before the grand jury the President was vague and evasive on these points. He stated that he talked to Ms. Currie right after his deposition, but that he talked to her in an effort to learn as much about the matter as he could.111 He further stated that he instructed Ms. Currie to "tell the truth" after learning she could have been called to testify.112 The President also testified that he could not remember how many times he talked to Ms. Currie, however Ms. Currie testified to two such discussions. (2) Article 11-Other Perjurious Testimony

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


108 OIC Referral at 191-192.

109 Id.

110 H. Doc. 105–310, at 191-92. 111 See Request for Admission No. 52. 112 H. Doc. 105–311, at 591.

« PreviousContinue »