« PreviousContinue »
5. The Committee concluded that on January 17, 1998, at his depo
sition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication
to that judge On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney 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. Grand Jury Testimony of Frank Carter, 6/18/98, pp.112–13, H. Doc. 105–316, pp. 420–21. In this affidavit, Monica 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 questions 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 no 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. Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/17/98, p. 54. 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.” Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/17/98, p. 204. 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, H. Doc. 105– 311, p. 924.
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 (“there is no sex of any kind, in any manner shape or form”) to a United States District Court Judge, the President first said that he was not paying "a great deal of attention” to Mr. Bennett when he said this. The President also stated that “I didn't pay any attention to this colloquy that went on.” The videotaped deposition shows the President looking in Mr. Bennett's direction while Mr. Bennett was making the statement about no sex of any kind. The President then argued that when Mr. Bennett made the assertion that there “is no sex of any kind * * *,” Mr. Bennett was speaking only in the present tense. The President stated, “It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is,” and that “if it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.” Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, pp. 57–61, H. Doc. 105–311, pp. 509–513; see also id., pp. 24-25, H.
Doc. 105–311, pp. 476–77. President Clinton's suggestion that he might have engaged in such a parsing of the words at his deposition is at odds with his assertion that the whole argument just passed him by. 6. The Committee concluded that on or about January 18 and Jan
uary 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 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.
The record reflects that President Clinton attempted to influence the testimony of Betty Currie, his personal secretary, by coaching her to recite inaccurate answers to possible questions that might be asked of her if called to testify in the case of Jones v. Clinton. The President did this shortly after he had been deposed in the case. In his deposition, when asked about whether it would be extraordinary for Betty Currie to be in the White House between midnight and six a.m., the President answered in part, “those are questions you'd have to ask her.” Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, page 21 of the publically released document. Furthermore, he invokes Betty Currie's name numerous times throughout the deposition, oftentimes asserting that Monica was around to see Betty and that Betty talked about Vernon Jordan helping Ms. Lewinsky and Betty talked with Ms. Lewinsky about her move to New York. After mentioning Betty Currie so often in answers to questions during his deposition, it was very logical for the President to assume that the Jones Lawyers may call her as a witness. That is why the President called her about two hours after the completion of his deposition and asked her to come in to the office the next day, which was a Sunday. See Request for Admission number 47.
In his grand jury testimony and responses to the Committee's Requests for Admission, the President was occasionally evasive and vague on this point. He stated that on January 18, 1998, he met with Ms. Currie and “* * * asked her certain questions, in an effort to get as much information as quickly as I could and made certain statements, although I do not remember exactly what I said.” Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, H. Doc. 105– 311, p. 508; Response of President Clinton to Question No. 52 of the Committee's Requests for Admission. The President added that he urged Ms. Currie to “tell the truth” after learning that the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) might subpoena her to testify. Id. at p. 591.
The President also stated that he could not recall how many times he had talked to Ms. Currie or when, in response to OIC questioning on the subject of a similar meeting that took place on or about January 20 or 21, 1998. He claimed that by asking questions of Ms. Currie he was only attempting to “* * * ascertain what the facts were, trying to ascertain what Betty's perception was.” Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, H. Doc. 105_311, pp. 592–93; Response of President Clinton to Question No. 53 of the Committee's Requests for Admission.
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.
4. She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that. Question No. 53, Committee's Requests for Admission; OIC Referral, H. Doc. 105–310, p. 191.
In her testimony Ms. Currie indicated that the President's remarks were “more like statements than questions.” 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. OIC Referral, H. Doc. 105–310, pp. 191-92; Grand Jury Testimony of Betty Currie, 1/27/98, pp. 71-76, H. Dọc. 105–316, pp. 559–60.
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. Id.
As to their subsequent meeting on January 20 or 21, 1998, Ms. Currie stated that “* * * it was sort of a recapitulation of what we had talked about on Sunday (January 18, 1998] * * *” Grand Jury Testimony of Betty Currie, 1/27/98, p. 81, H. Doc. 105–316, p. 561.
The President's response that he was trying to ascertain what the facts were or trying to ascertain what Betty's perception was is simply not credible in light of the fact that 3 of the 4 statements he made to Ms. Currie were clearly false. This is further evidence that he was trying to influence the testimony of a potential witness. Why would the President be trying to get information from
her about false statements or refresh his recollection concerning falsehoods? 7. The Committee concluded that 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 mislead
ing information 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.
The record reflects that on the dates in question President Clinton met with a total of five aides who would later be called to testify before the grand jury. The meetings took place shortly after the President's deposition in the Paula Jones case and following a Washington Post story, published on January 21, 1998, which detailed the relationship between the President and Monica Lewinsky. During the meetings the President made false and misleading statements to his aides which he knew would be repeated once they were called to testify.
The President submitted the same response to each of seven questions (Nos. 62–68) relating to this topic as set forth in the Committee's Requests for Admission. The President answered by stating that "* * * I did not want my family friends, or colleagues to know the full nature of my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. In the days following the January 21, 1998, Washington Post article, I misled people about this relationship. I have repeatedly apologized for doing so.” Response of President Clinton to Question Nos. 62–68 of the Committee's Requests for Admission.
The President's public “apology” occurred on August 17, 1998, during a nationally-televised broadcast in which he confessed having made “misleading” statements about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It should be noted, however, that the “apology" was delivered after August 3, 1998, the date on which a White House physician drew a blood sample from the President for DNA testing by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The President therefore knew that, potentially, the sample might be matched with semen that may have been preserved on an article of clothing or some other item belonging to Ms. Lewinsky. This, in fact, occurred on August 17, 1998, when the FBI released its DNA report that linked the President (based on his blood sample) to a semen stain on one of Ms. Lewinsky's dresses. OIC Referral, H. Doc. 105–310, p. 136, n. 42 and p. 138, pp. 51 and 52.
According to the aides who met with the President on the days in question, he insisted unequivocally that he had not indulged in a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky or otherwise done anything inappropriate. On January 21, 1998, in a conversation with Sydney Blumenthal, one of his Assistants, the President said that he rebuffed Monica Lewinsky after she “* * * came at me and made a sexual demand on me.' The President also told Mr. Blumenthal, “I haven't done anything wrong. ?” Grand Jury Testimony of Sydney Blumenthal, 6/4/98, p. 49, H. Doc. 105–316, p. 185.
Also on January 21, 1998, the President met with Erskine Bowles, his Chief of Staff, and two of Mr. Bowles' Deputies, Sylvia Matthews and John Podesta. The President began the meeting by telling Mr. Bowles that the Washington Post story was not true. (Grand Jury Testimony of John Podesta, 6/16/98, p. 85, H. Doc. 105–316, p. 3310). He said that he had not had a sexual relationship with her, and had not asked anyone to lie. Id.; Grand Jury Testimony of Erskine Bowles, 4/2/98, pp. 83–4, H. Doc. 105–316, p. 239.
Two days later (January 23, 1998), as he was preparing for his State of the Union address, the President engaged Mr. Podesta in another conversation in which he “* * * was extremely explicit in saying he never had sex with her.” When the OIC attorney asked for greater specificity, Mr. Podesta stated that the President said he had not had oral sex with Ms. Lewinsky, and in fact was “* * denying any sex in any way, shape or form * * *” Grand Jury Testimony of John Podesta, 6/16/98, pp. 91–3, H. Doc. 105–316, p. 3311. The President also explained that Ms. Lewinsky's frequent visits to the White House were nothing more than efforts to visit Betty Currie. Ms. Currie was either with the President and Ms. Lewinsky during these "visits," or she was seated at her desk outside the Oval Office with the door open. Id., p. 3310.
Finally, on January 26, 1998, the President met with Harold Ickes, another Deputy Chief of Staff to Mr. Bowles. At the time, the President said that he had not had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, had not obstructed justice in the matter, and had not instructed anyone to lie or obstruct justice. Grand Jury Testimony of Harold Ickes, 6/10/98, pp. 21, 73, H. Doc. 105–316, pp. 1487, 1539.
By his own admission more than seven months later, the President said that he had told a number of his aides that he did not «* * * have an affair with (Ms. Lewinsky) or * have sex with her.” He also admitted that he knew that these aides might be called before the grand jury as witnesses. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, pp. 105–07, H. Doc. 105–311, p. 647.
D. ARTICLE IV-ABUSE OF POWER 1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to re
spond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to
him by the Committee Using the powers and influence of the office of 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 disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his