« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Bowles, Ms. Williams, and Harold Ickes that he did not have a "sexual relationship" with that woman. Seven days after the President's grand jury appearance, the White House issued a document entitled, “Talking Points January 24, 1998.” 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. The “Talking Points” state in relevant part 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. Based upon the foregoing, the President's own talking points refute the President's “literal truth” argument.
M. ANSWERS TO THE COMMITTEE'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION In an effort to avoid unnecessary work and to bring this inquiry to an expeditious end, this Committee submitted to the President eighty-one requests to admit or deny specific facts relevant to this investigation. Although, for the most part, the questions could have been answered with a simple "admit" or "deny", President Clinton chose to follow the pattern of selective memory, reference to other testimony, blatant untruths, artful distortions, outright lies and half truths he had already used. When he did answer, he engaged in legalistic hairsplitting in an attempt to skirt the truth and to deceive this Committee.
Thus, on at least twenty-three questions, President Clinton professed a lack of memory despite the testimony of several witnesses that he has a remarkable memory. In at least fifteen answers, he 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.
These half-truths, legalistic parsings, and evasive and misleading answers were calculated to obstruct the efforts of this Committee. They have had the effect of seriously hampering this Committee's ability to ascertain the truth. President Clinton has, therefore, added obstruction of an inquiry by the Legislative Branch to his obstructions of justice before the Judicial Branch.
III. EXPLANATION OF ARTICLES
A. ARTICLE I—PERJURY IN THE CIVIL CASE 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. 1. The Committee concluded that, on August 17, 1998, the President
provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning the nature and details of his rela
tionship with a subordinate government employee On August 17, 1998, the President gave perjurious, false, and misleading testimony regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky before a Federal grand jury. Such testimony includes the following:
Q. Mr. President, were you physically intimate with
A. Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save the you and
Q. Absolutely. Please, Mr. President.
A. 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 sex
ual banter. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, pp. 8–9, H. Doc. 105–311, pp. 460–61.
The President referred or reverted to this perjurious, false, and misleading statement many times throughout his grand jury testimony. For examples, see p. 37, lines 23–25, p. 38, lines 1-6; p. 101, lines 11-21; p. 109, lines 6–25, p. 110, lines 7–13; p. 138, lines 1623; p. 166, lines 23–25, p. 167, lines 1-12.
This statement is misleading. The fact that it was prepared beforehand reveals an intent to mislead. The purpose of the statement was to avoid answering specific questions related to the President's conduct with Ms. Lewinsky. This is evident from the
to ask And I think he what'sky was at the naturent which,
tions 7th, te contariate had oce
fact that the President reverted to his statement 19 times in lieu of answering direct questions required by a grand jury witness. He used a prepared statement in order to justify the perjurious answers he gave at his deposition, which were intended to affect the outcome of the Jones case. See Article II analysis. The above quoted testimony reveals some direct lies. For example, the sexual contact between the President and Ms. Lewinsky was not limited to 1996 and 1997. It began in 1995, when Monica Lewinsky was a 21 year old intern. The President and Ms. Lewinsky were not alone only on "certain occasions.” They were alone at least 20 times, and had 11 sexual encounters. The “occasional” telephone conversations that included “sexual banter” actually included 55 phone conversations, during 17 of which they engaged in phone sex.
These direct lies, however, taken alone, do not constitute the heart of the perjury committed by the President. Rather, the fact that he provided to the grand jury a half-true, incomplete and misleading statement as a true and complete characterization of his conduct (as required by the oath), and used that statement as a response to direct questions going to the heart of the investigation into whether he committed perjury and obstructed justice related to his deposition, constitutes a premeditated effort to thwart the investigation and to justify prior criminal wrongdoing.
The President also provided the following perjurious, false, and misleading testimony regarding the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate employee:
Q. Did you understand the words in the first portion of the exhibit, Mr. President, that is, “For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in ‘sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes”?
Did you understand, do you understand the words there in that phrase?
A. Yes. My—I can tell you what my understanding of the definition is, if you want me to
A. do it. My understanding of this definition is it covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas, if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify. That's my understanding of the definition.
Q. What did you believe the definition to include and exclude? What kinds of activities?
A. I thought the definition included any activity by the person being deposed, where the person was the actor and came into contact with those parts of the bodies with the purpose or intent or gratification, and excluded any other
activity. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, pp. 14–15, H. Doc. 105–311, pp. 466–67.
This statement is perjurious. At the deposition of the President, his attorney Mr. Bennett, in characterizing the affidavit of Monica Lewinsky in which she stated that she did not have "sexual relations” with the President, stated that “sexual relations” in that affidavit meant “there is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.” The President would have the grand jury, and now the House of Representatives believe that the purposely broad definition of sexual relations, meant to address the affidavit filed, and chosen by the court in the Jones case, meant something different than the same words in Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit and that it took into account contorted and strained interpretations of words and meanings. It is unrealistic to contemplate that the President, at his deposition, honestly and without a desire to mislead, gave the meaning to the definition of “sexual relations” that he testified to before the grand jury.
During his deposition in the Jones case, President Clinton, having knowledge of the false affidavit executed by Ms. Lewinsky denying any relationship, asserted the same falsehood contained in that affidavit which he encouraged her to file. He denied having a “sexual affair, a sexual relationship or sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Deposition Testimony of President in the Jones case, 1/17/98, pp. 78, 204. Thus, the question of whether there was a sexual relationship between the President and this subordinate employee became part of the OIC investigation into whether the : chief law enforcement officer of the country committed perjury and obstructed justice, undermining the rule of law in a civil rights sexual harassment case.
The OIC proceeded to gather a substantial body of evidence proving that the President did indeed subvert the judicial system by lying under oath in his deposition and obstructing justice. This evidence includes Ms. Lewinsky's consistent and detailed testimony given under oath regarding 11 specific sexual encounters with the President, confirmation of the President's semen stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress, and the testimony of Monica Lewinsky's friends, family members and counselors to whom she made near contemporaneous statements about the relationship. Ms. Lewinsky's memory and accounts were further corroborated by her recollection of times and phone calls which were shown to be correct with entrance logs and phone records. (For a summary of testimony and citations to the record, see the OIC Referral, pp. 134-40).
As indicated, contrary to this compelling corroborated evidence, President Clinton testified before the grand jury that he did not have "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. The Committee has concluded that the President lied under oath in making this statement. The obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth requires a complete answer and does not allow a deponent to hide behind twisted interpretations that a reasonable person would not draw. Such "technical accuracy,” as defined by the President, may pose an even greater affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings because it makes it impossible to achieve the truth-seeking purpose of such a proceeding. Legal hairsplitting used to bypass the requirement of telling the complete truth directly challenges the deterrence factor of the nation's perjury laws, denying a citizen her right to a constitutional orderly disposition of her claims in a court of law.
While the President attempted to justify his perjurious deposition testimony regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by continuing to supply misleading answers concerning the definition of “sexual relations” used in the deposition, he lied before the
grand jury about his contact with her even under his misleading interpretation of that definition:
Q. If the person being deposed kissed the breast of another person, would that be in the definition of sexual relations as you understood it in the Jones case.
A. Yes, that would constitute contact ...
Q. So, touching, in your view then and now—the person being deposed touching or kissing the breast of another person would fall within the definition?
A. That's correct sir.
Q. And you testified that you didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Jones deposition, under that definition, correct?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. If the person being deposed touched the genitalia of
A. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, it would. If you had direct contact with any of
Q. So, you didn't do any of those three things
A. You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did
Q. Including touching her breast, kissing her breast, or touching her genitalia?
A. That's correct. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton 8/17/98 p. 94–95, H. Doc. 105–311 p. 546–47.
Another example of such perjurious, false, and misleading grand jury testimony regarding the nature of this relationship can be found on p. 92, lines 13–17. The President thus testified that even under his strained and unrealistic interpretation of the definition of “sexual relationship’, intended to cover that term as used in Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit, the touching of her breasts and genitalia would fall under that definition and thus would constitute sexual relations. While it is curious that the President would assert that oral sex would not constitute sexual relations, but the touching of breasts would constitute such relations, even under his tortured reconstruction of the definition, the President committed perjury. He denied before the grand jury that he engaged in “sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposition.” As mentioned above, he invoked this statement 19 times. Ms. Lewinsky testified under oath on several occasions that