« PreviousContinue »
(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 action 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 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 III passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 21 to 16 on December 11, 1998. I voted in support of its passage.
Article II, Section 1, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that before a President begins his term, he shall take an oath. William Jefferson Clinton took the following oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Furthermore, Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states in part that the President shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” President Clinton abrogated these duties by engaging in a course of conduct that obstructed and impeded the administration of justice. In so doing, he exhibited a complete disregard and lack of respect for the solemnity of the judicial process and the rule of law.
The following explanations for the individual paragraphs of Article III clearly justify the conclusion that President Clinton, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to the duly instituted federal civil rights lawsuit of Jones v. Clinton and the duly instituted investigation of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
Although the actions of the President do not have to rise to the level of violating the federal statute regarding obstruction of justice in order to justify impeachment, some if not all of his actions clearly do. The general obstruction of justice statute is 18 U.S.C. $1503. It provides in pertinent part: "whoever ... corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished. . . ” 131 In short, $1503 applies to activities which obstruct, or are intended to obstruct, the due administration of justice in both civil and
131 18 U.S.C. $ 1503.
criminal proceedings. This section has been interpreted to apply only to pending judicial proceedings. 132 The Jones v. Clinton civil rights lawsuit was pending at the time of all alleged wrongdoing under this Article.
a. On Or About December 17, 1997, The President Encour
aged 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 Mis
leading While the President has denied asking or encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie by filing a false affidavit denying their relationship, he concedes in his response to Question 18 of the Committee's Requests for Admission that he told her that “* * * other witnesses had executed affidavits, and there was a chance they would not have to testify."
Ms. Lewinsky was more emphatic on the subject in her grand jury testimony. When she asked the President what she should do if called to testify, he said, “Well, maybe you can sign an affidavit.
*** The point of it would be to deter or to prevent me from being deposed and so that could range anywhere between * * * just somehow mentioning * * * innocuous things or going as far as maybe having to deny any kind of relationship.”133 She further stated that she was “100% sure that the President suggested that she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying.”134
Ms. Lewinsky claims that the President never explicitly told her to lie. The President and Ms. Lewinsky did have a scheme to mislead and deceive court through the use of cover stories and the proffer of a false affidavit. 135
Moreover, the attorneys for Paula Jones were seeking evidence of sexual relationships the President may have had with other state or federal employees. Such information is often deemed relevant in sexual harassment lawsuits to help prove the underlying claim of the plaintiff, and Judge Susan Weber Wright ruled that Paula Jones was entitled to this information for the purposes of discovery. Consequently, when the President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file an affidavit, he knew that it would have to be false for Ms. Lewinsky to avoid testifying. If she filed a truthful affidavit, one acknowledging a sexual relationship with the President, she would have been called as a deposition witness and her subsequent truthful testimony would have been damaging to the President both politically and legally.
b. On Or About December 17, 1997, The President 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 Per
sonally in That Proceeding. Ms. Lewinsky's statements that no one told her to lie are not dispositive as to whether the President is guilty of obstruction of jus
and lowould haepositionship with truth to be false
132 See, e.g., United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630, 632 (5th Cir. 1992). 133 H.Doc. 105-311, at 843–44. 134 Id. at 1558-59. 135 OIC Referral at 174.
52-759 98 - 10
tice. One need not directly command another to lie in order to be guilty of obstruction: “One who proposes to another that the other lie in a judicial proceeding is guilty of obstructing justice. The statute prohibits elliptical suggestions as much as it does direct commands.” 136 Indeed, the facts cannot be taken in a vacuum, they must be examined in their proper context. While Ms. Lewinsky and the President both have testified "I never asked her to lie" and "he never asked me to lie,” the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The statement was not necessary because they concocted the cover story and both understood the willful intent to conceal the relationship in order to impede justice in Jones v. Clinton.
c. On Or About December 28, 1997, The President Corruptly
Engaged In, Encouraged, Or Supported A Scheme To
eral Civil Rights Action Brought Against Him See the discussion regarding the evidence and findings under B(1)(d), supra.
d. Beginning On Or About December 7, 1997, And Continu
ing Through And Including January 14, 1998, the President 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. On December 5, 1997, Paula Jones' attorneys notified the President's attorneys of their witness list. 137 The President testified that he was notified the following day. 138
After having been transferred from the White House to the Pentagon Ms. Lewinsky made repeated demands of the President for a job that would return her to the White House. She sent a letter to the President on July 3, 1997, which "obliquely threatened to disclose their relationship. If she was not going to return to work at the White House, she wrote, then she would 'need to explain to my parents exactly why that wasn't happening.'” 139
After being rebuffed by the President on December 5, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky drafted a letter to the President expressing her remorse over what appeared to be the end of their affair. 140 The following day she went to the White House to deliver the letter to the President, however she was told she would have to wait approximately forty minutes because the President had a visitor, who she learned was Eleanor Mondale. 141 Upon hearing such news Ms. Lewinsky was "livid.” 142 When the President learned that she was aware who he was meeting with, the President became irate and indicated that someone's job was in jeopardy. 143 Such facts are impor
was Tivi on Mondale, the Presideould have the letter the sho
136 United States v. Tranakos, 911 F.2d 1422, 1432 (10th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). 137 OIC Referral at 88. 138 Id. 139 Id. at 66. 140 Id. at 89. 141 Id. 142 Id. at 90. 143 Id.
tant given that the President knew that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list for a case in which he was the defendant; he knew that she could be a potential bombshell to his defense strategy in Jones v. Clinton.
The President then invited her over to the White House that afternoon in order to rectify the situation. 144 During the meeting Ms. Lewinsky informed the President that Vernon Jordan had "done nothing to help her find a job.” 145 In response the President, now well motivated to ensure that Ms. Lewinsky would not become a hostile witness to the defense in Jones v. Clinton, said he would "talk to him. I'll get on it.” 146
On December 11, 1997, Judge Susan Weber Wright ordered that Paula Jones was entitled to information about any state or federal employee with whom he had sexual relations, or proposed or sought to have sexual relations. Keeping Ms. Lewinsky on the team was now of critical importance.
On that same day, December 11, 1997, Vernon Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky and provided her with the names of three individuals she was to contact for a job. 147 Later that day Vernon Jordan personally called three executives in order to find her a job. 148 Approximately one week later Ms. Lewinsky had two job interviews in New York City. 149
The evidence shows that on January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit. She showed the affidavit on that day to Vernon Jordan, who in turn reported to the President that it had been signed. The following day Vernon Jordan called MacAndrews and Forbes' CEO, Ron Perelman, to “make things happen, if they could happen,” because Ms. Lewinsky's interview went poorly. Mr. Jordan called Ms. Lewinsky and told her not to worry. That evening Ms. Lewinsky was called by MacAndrews and Forbes and told that she would be given a second interview the next morning. The next morning, Ms. Lewinsky received her reward for signing the false affidavit. After a series of interviews with MacAndrews and Forbes personnel, she was informally offered a job. When Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan to tell him, he passed the good news along to Betty Currie. Tell the President, “mission accomplished.” Later, Mr. Jordan called the President personally and told him the news.
Mr. Perelman testified that Mr. Jordan had never called him before about a job recommendation. Jordan, on the other hand, said that he called Mr. Perelman for hiring: the former mayor of New York City; a very talented attorney from the law firm Akin Gump; a Harvard Business School graduate; and Monica Lewinsky. How does Ms. Lewinsky fit into the caliber of persons who would merit Mr. Jordan's full attention and direct recommendation to a CEO of a Fortune 500 company?
The President and Ms. Lewinsky both testified that she was not promised a job in exchange for her silence. However, upon examining the compelling evidence in context, reasonable people would
146 Id. at 91. 147 Id. at 93. 1481d. 149 Id. at 95.
Civil Rights 17, 1998. usky's job in vment was armful to
conclude that the President provided such assistance to Ms. Lewinsky because she was a witness in the civil suit in which he was the defendant and her truthful testimony would be harmful to the President. The quid pro quo of this arrangement was the false affidavit in exchange for Ms. Lewinsky's job in New York.
On January 17, 1998, At This Deposition In a Federal
Civil Rights Action Brought Against Him, the President
torney In A Communication To That Judge On January 15, 1998, Robert Bennett, attorney for President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, obtained a copy of the affidavit Monica Lewinsky filed in an attempt to avoid having to testify in the case of Jones V. Clinton. 150 In her affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky asserted that she had never had a sexual relationship with President Clinton. At the President's deposition on January 17, 1998, an attorney for Paula Jones began to ask the President questions about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Bennett objected to the “innuendo” of the question and he pointed out that she had signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President. Mr. Bennett asserted that this indicated “there is not sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form," and after a warning from Judge Wright he stated that, “I am not coaching the witness. In preparation of the witness for this deposition the witness is fully aware of Ms. Jane Doe 6's affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know.” Mr. Bennett clearly used the affidavit in an attempt to stop the questioning of the President about Ms. Lewinsky. The President did not say anything to correct Mr. Bennett, even though he knew the affidavit was false. Judge Wright overruled Mr. Bennett's objection and allowed the questioning to proceed. Later in the deposition, Mr. Bennett read the President the portion of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit in which she denied having a "sexual relationship” with the President and asked the President if Ms. Lewinsky's statement was true and accurate. The President responded: “That is absolutely true.” 151 The grand jury testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, given under oath and following a grant of transactional immunity, confirmed that the contents of her affidavit were not true:
Q: “Paragraph 8 ... [of the affidavit) says, “I have never had a sexual relationship with the President.” Is that true?
A: No.” 152 When President Clinton was asked during his grand jury testimony how he could have lawfully sat silent at his deposition while his attorney made a false statement to a United States District Court Judge, the President first said that he was not paying “a
ing for in preparat Ms. Jame know. Mestioning anything to realises Jude
150 H. Doc. 105–316, at 420–21. 151 Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, January 17, 1998, p. 204. 152 H. Doc. 105–311, at 924.