Page images
PDF
EPUB

anywhere between maybe just somehow mentioning, you
know, innocuous things or going as far as maybe having

to deny any kind of relationship." Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, pp. 123–24, H. Doc. 105–311, pp. 843–44.

Furthermore, Monica Lewinsky has stated that she is “100% sure that the President suggested that she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying.8/19/98 OIC interview of Monica Lewinsky, pp. 4–5, H. Doc. 105–311, pp. 1558–9.

f. The President lied in his deposition about his knowledge of

the service of a subpoena to a subordinate federal employee to testify as a witness in the federal civil rights ac

tion brought against him. The record indicates that despite evidence revealing the contrary, President Clinton swore in his deposition that Mr. Jordan did not know if Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify in that case:

Q. Did she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in this case?

A. No. I don't know if she had been.

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. Deposition Testimony of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/18/98, p. 68.

"I said to the President, ‘Monica Lewinsky called me . . . She is coming to see me about this subpoena.'” Grand Jury Testimony of Vernon Jordan, 5/5/98, p. 145 (referencing a December 19, 1997, telephone conversation with the President), H. Doc. 105–316, p. 1815.

The record indicates that the President knew, before his deposition, that Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in the case of Jones v. Clinton. Monica Lewinsky was served with a subpoena on December 19, 1997, a subpoena that commanded her to appear for a deposition on January 23, 1998 and to produce certain documents and gifts. Monica Lewinsky talked to Vernon Jordan about it that day and Mr. Jordan spoke to the President shortly thereafter. The President and Ms. Lewinsky met on December 28th and discussed the subpoena.

g. The President lied in his deposition about his knowledge

of the final conversation he had with a subordinate employee who was a witness in the federal civil rights action

brought against him. When asked in the Jones Deposition about his last meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, the President remembered only that she stopped by "probably sometime before Christmas” and he “stuck his head out [of the office), said hello to her” Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/17/98, p. 68.

The President's answer was perjurious, false and misleading. The evidence reveals that the President and Ms. Lewinsky met for over

a that crucimosition testist for Admiw. Yo

45 minutes on December 28, 1997. During this meeting, they exchanged gifts and discussed the subpoena that Ms. Lewinsky had received in the Jones case. In the answers to the requests for admission, the President admitted that he met with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28, 1997: When I met with Ms. Lewinsky on December 28, 1997, I knew she was planning to move to New York, and we discussed her move.” Response to Request for Admission No. 22. He further contradicts his deposition testimony and admits that he gave her gifts on that crucial day. See Response to Request for Admission No. 24.

h. The President lied in his deposition about his knowledge

that the contents of an affidavit executed by a subordinate federal employee who was witness in the federal

civil rights action brought against him. The record indicates that the President, under oath, affirmed that the assertions made in Monica Lewinsky's affidavit were true, even though he knew they were false. During the January 17, 1998 deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, Robert Bennett, the President's attorney, read parts of the affidavit Monica Lewinsky had executed in the case of Jones v. Clinton. At one point Mr. Bennett read part of paragraph eight of Monica Lewinsky's affidavit, in which Monica Lewinsky asserts, “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 reflecting a sexual relationship.”

After reading from the affidavit out loud, Mr. Bennett asked the President: “Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?” The President answered, “That is absolutely true.” Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/17/98, p. 204. . During the January 17, 1998 deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, Robert Bennett, President Clinton's attorney, stated “Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Jane Doe #6 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 ..." Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/17/98, p. 54.

The Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, given under oath and following a grant of transnational 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. Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, p. 204, H. Doc. 105–3 11, p. 924.

C. ARTICLE III—OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 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 President Clinton 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 relevant 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 ..." In short, 81503 applies to activities which obstruct, or are intended to obstruct, the due administration of justice in both civil and criminal proceedings.

To prove in a court of law that obstruction of justice had occurred, three things have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
Second, that the defendant knew of the proceeding; and
Third, that the defendant acted corruptly with the intent to ob-
struct or interfere with the proceeding or due administration

of justice. 1. The Committee concluded that 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 perjuri

ous, false and misleading. 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.

President Clinton admitted that he spoke to Ms. Lewinsky "before Christmas” and that, while he was not "sure” if she would be called to testify in the Paula Jones civil suit, she might "qualify, or something like that.” Deposition Testimony of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/17/98, pp. 70–71. 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.”

Monica 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.” . . . [T]he 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.” Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, pp. 123–24, H. Doc. 105–311, pp. 843–44. She further stated that she was “100% sure that the President suggested that she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid

testify, hon she asked phatic on the sto

4. Doc. that thent in the only inng the since the poli

testifying.” 8/19/98 Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) interview of Monica Lewinsky, pp. 4 H. Doc. 105-311, pp. 1558–9.

Ms. Lewinsky also notes that the President never explicitly instructed her to lie about the matter; rather, since the President never told her to file an affidavit detailing the true nature of their sexual relationship which would only invite humiliation and prove damaging to the President in the Paula Jones caseshe contextually understood that the President wanted her to lie. See the OIC Referral, H. Doc. 105–310, p. 174.

Furthermore, 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 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 certainly would have been called as a deposition witness and her subsequent truthful testimony would have been damaging to the President both politically and legally. 2. The Committee concluded that 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 tes

tify personally in that proceeding. 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.

Prior to December 17, 1997, the record demonstrates that the President and Monica Lewinsky had discussed the use of fabricated stories to conceal their relationship. The record also reveals that the President revisited this same topic in a telephone conversation with Monica Lewinsky on December 17, 1997; in fact, she was encouraged to repeat these fabrications if called to testify in the Paula Jones case.

In his grand jury testimony as well as his response to the Committee's Requests for Admission, the President claimed that he had “no specific memory of a conversation prior to December 17, 1997, in which he suggested that Ms. Lewinsky invoke cover stories to explain why she was alone with the President. He conceded, however, that he“... may have talked about what to do in a non-legal context at some point in the past, . . [but that) . . . any such conversation was not in connection with her status as a witness in the Jones v. Clinton case.” Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, H. Doc. 105–311, p. 569; Responses of President Clinton to Question Nos. 13–15 in the Committee's Requests for Admissions. President Clinton's testimony here is clearly designed to be convenient; he has "no specific memory of a conversation with Ms. Lewinsky regarding cover stories, by if the conversation did occur, he is certain it was in a “non-legal context.”

which the core Lewinsky en vents, during

Ms. Lewinsky's testimony conflicts with that of the President. In her grand jury testimony, she states that. . . this is a kind of relationship that you keep quiet, and we both wanted to be careful being in the White House. Whenever I would visit him ... unless it was some sort of chance meeting on the weekend and then we ended up back in the office, we would usually plan that I would either bring papers, or one time we accidentally bumped into each other in the hall and went from that way, so then we planned to do that again because that seemed to work well. But . . . there was always some sort of a cover. Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, H. Doc. 105–311, p. 977.

Ms. Lewinsky admits further that delivering documents to the President was a ruse that had no legitimate business purpose. Id.

In addition, the President and Ms. Lewinsky developed a second cover story by using Betty Currie as a source of clearance to the White House for Ms. Lewinsky; in other words, Ms. Lewinsky could claim she was visiting Ms. Currie, and not the President. Id. The President has stated that he had "no knowledge” of any "White House record” constructed for this purpose. Deposition of President Clinton, 1/17/98, p. 54.

Consistent with these events, during a telephone conversation with Monica Lewinsky on December 17, 1997, a conversation in which the President informed Monica Lewinsky that she was on the witness list in the case of Jones v. Clinton, the President encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to invoke either of these cover stories if called to testify in the Paula Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky stated in her grand jury testimony that: “[a]t 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 we had discussed before.” Grand Jury Testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, p. 123, H. Doc. 105–311, p. 843. 3. The Committee concluded that on or about December 28, 1997,

William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoe

naed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. 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.

On December 19, 1997, Monica Lewinsky was served with a subpoena in connection with the case of Jones v. Clinton. The subpoena required her to testify at a deposition on January 23, 1998. The subpoena also required her to produce each and every gift given to her by President Clinton. On the morning of December 28, Ms. Lewinsky met with the President for about 45 minutes in the Oval Office. By this time, President Clinton knew Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. At this meeting they discussed the fact that the gifts had been subpoenaed, including a hat pin, the first gift Clinton had given Lewinsky. Monica Lewinsky testified that at some point in this meeting she said to the President, "Well, you know, I-maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house

« PreviousContinue »