« PreviousContinue »
high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admissions propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.
On November 5, 1998, the Committee presented President Clinton with 81 requests for admission. The requests were made in order to allow the President to candidly dispute or affirm key sworn evidence before the Committee by admitting or denying certain facts. The President responded to the requests on November 27, 1998. After a thorough review of the President's answers, the Committee concluded that several of the President's answers to the 81 questions asked of him by the Committee are clearly perjurious, false, and misleading. In responding in such a manner, the President exhibited contempt for the constitutional prerogative of Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry. The impeachment duty is a solemn one vested exclusively in the House of Representatives as a check and balance on the President and the Judiciary. The Committee reached the unfortunate conclusion that the President, by giving perjurious, false, and misleading answers under oath to the Committee's requests for admission, chose to take steps to thwart this serious constitutional process.
A further intention of the Committee in propounding these questions to the President was to expedite the impeachment inquiry and offer the President an opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence to the Committee. Unfortunately, the President chose to perpetuate the lying he began at his deposition last January and the lying and legal hairsplitting he engaged in during his grand jury testimony in August. His answers are a continuation of a pattern of deceit and obstruction of duly authorized investigations.
Article IV states the matter quite succinctly, "William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.”
Several instances of perjurious, false, and misleading statements that President Clinton provided in his answers to the 81 requests for admission propounded by this Committee are set forth below:
a. Request for Admission, Number 19
Q. Do you admit or deny that on or about December 17, 1997, you suggested to Monica Lewinsky that she could say to anyone inquiring about her relationship with you
that her visits to the Oval Office were for the purpose of
A. I was asked essentially these same questions by OIC
Clinton case. By December 17, 1997, the President knew Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list in the case of Jones v. Clinton. The President reiterated to this Committee his grand jury testimony that he “may have talked about what to do in a non-legal context at some point in the past, but I have no specific memory of that conversation.” Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, H. Doc. 105– 311, p. 569. The President goes on to tell the Committee that “that continues to be my recollection today—that is, any such conversation was not in connection with her status as a witness * *
Monica Lewinsky testified before the grand jury that the President did suggest, during a phone conversation resulting from a call from the President in the middle of the night on December 17, using these cover stories if she was called as a witness. Grand Jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky, 8/6/98, p. 123, H. Doc. 105–311, p. 843. This was a reiteration of stories they had concocted and ruses they had implemented long before December 17, 1997, as part of their plan to try to keep their relationship secret. Ms. Lewinsky's recollection has been clear and consistent regarding this phone conversation, as it has been on many other subjects. Furthermore, it is odd that the President has “no specific memory of a conversation with Ms. Lewinsky regarding cover stories, but if the conversation did occur, he is certain it was in a “non-legal context.”
b. Request for Admission, Number 20
Q. Do you admit or deny that you gave false and misleading testimony under oath when you stated during your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton on January 17, 1998, that you did not know if Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed to testify in that case?
A It's evident from my testimony on pages 69 to 70 of the deposition that I did know on January 17, 1998, that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in the Jones v. Clinton case. Ms. Jones' lawyer's question, "did you talk to Mr. Lindsey about what action, if any, should be taken as a result of her being served with a subpoena?", and my response, “No," id. at 70, reflected my understanding that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. That testimony was
not false and misleading. The President argued that it is evident from his testimony in that deposition that he did know that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed and his answers exhibit this knowledge. He makes this assertion despite the fact that during his deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton, he responded “No. I don't know if she had been.”
when asked the question, “Did she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in this case?” Deposition Testimony of President Clinton, 1/17/98 in the case of Jones v. Clinton. His subsequent attempts to deny this denial are unreasonable and are still inconsistent with the fact that he actually had discussed the subpoena with Monica Lewinsky on December 28, 1997.
c. Request for Admission, Number 24
Q. Do you admit or deny that on or about December 28,
A. As I told the grand jury, "Ms. Lewinsky said some-
cally called for a hat pin that I had given her. App. At 496. In his response to Request for Admission number 24, the President reiterated his grand jury testimony that when he talked to Ms. Lewinsky about subpoenaed gifts he told her “that if they asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had.” The President's statement that he told Ms. Lewinsky that if the attorneys for Paula Jones asked for the gifts she had to provide them is false and misleading. It simply strains logic to believe the President would encourage Monica Lewinsky to turn over the gifts. To do so would have raised questions about their relationship and would have been contrary to all of their other efforts to conceal the relationship, including a discussion about filing an affidavit denying a sexual relationship.
d. Request for Admission, Number 26
Q. Do you admit or deny that on or about December 28, 1997, you discussed with Betty Currie gifts previously given by you to Monica Lewinsky?
A. I do not recall any conversation with Ms. Currie on or about December 28, 1997, about gifts I had previously given to Ms. Lewinsky. I never told Ms. Currie to take possession of gifts I had given Ms. Lewinsky; I understand Ms. Currie has stated that Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie
to ask her to hold a box. See Supp. At 531. In his response to Request for Admission number 26, the President denies any conversation with Betty Currie regarding gifts. President Clinton testified before the grand jury, and reiterates to this Committee 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 gifts he had given Ms. Lewinsky. Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 8/17/98, p. 50, H. Doc. 105–311, pp. 565–66. This answer is false and misleading because the evidence reveals that Betty Currie did call Monica Lewinsky about the gifts and there was no reason for her to do so unless she was told to do so by the President. Because she did not personally know of the gifts, 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. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony on this subject has been consistent and unequivocal, she provided the same facts in February, July and August, 1998. Additionally, the cellular phone records of Betty Currie indicate that Betty Currie called Monica Lewinsky on the afternoon of December 28, 1997.
e. Request for Admission, Number 27
Q. Do you admit or deny that on or about December 28, 1998 (sic), you requested, instructed, suggested to or otherwise discussed with Betty Currie that she take possession of gifts previously given to Monica Lewinsky by you?
X. I do not recall any conversation with Ms. Currie on or about December 28, 1997, about gifts I had previously given to Ms. Lewinsky. I never told Ms. Currie to take possession of gifts I had given Ms. Lewinsky; I understand Ms. Currie has stated that Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie
to ask her to hold a box. See Supp. At 531. Based on the facts set forth in the Committee's explanation of Request for Admission number 26, the President's response to Request for Admission number 27 is also perjurious, false and misleading
f. Request for Admission, Number 34
Q. Do you admit or deny that you had knowledge that any facts or assertions contained in the affidavit executed by Monica Lewinsky on January 7, 1998, in the case of Jones v. Clinton were not true?
A. I was asked at my deposition in January about two paragraphs of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. With respect to Paragraph 6, I explained the extent to which I was able to attest to its accuracy. Dep. at 202–03.
With respect to Paragraph 8, I stated in my deposition that it was true. Dep. at 204. In my August 17th grand jury testimony, I sought to explain the basis for that deposition answer: “I believe at the time that she filled out this affidavit, if she believed that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then this is accurate.” App. At 473.
In the affidavit in question, Monica Lewinsky asserted that she had never had a sexual relationship with President Clinton. The President quotes from his grand jury testimony, “I believe at the time she filled out this affidavit, if she believed that the definition of sexual relationship was two people having intercourse, then it is accurate.” Grand Jury Testimony of President Clinton, 6/17/98, H. Doc. 105–311, p. 473. He made this statement despite the fact that at the President's deposition on January 17, 1988, his attorney asserted that the affidavit indicated “there is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form." Later in the deposition, Mr. Bennett read the President the portion of Ms. Lewinsky 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: “This is absolutely true.” Deposition of President Clinton in the case of Jones v. Clinton, 1/17/98, p. 204. The President could not reasonably have believed this affidavit was true in light of the fact that he had engaged in an extensive sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. His subsequent explanation defining the term "sexual relationship" as having to include sexual intercourse is contrived and it is not credible that that is what he believed at the time of his deposition. Monica Lewinsky testified before the grand jury under oath and following a grant of transactional immunity 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.
g. Request for Admission, Number 42
Q. Do you admit or deny that when asked on January 17, 1998, in your deposition in the case of Jones v. Clinton if you had ever given gifts to Monica Lewinsky, you stated that you did not recall, even though you actually had knowledge of giving her gifts in addition to gifts from the "Black Dog?"
A. In my grand jury testimony, I was asked about this same statement. I explained that my full response was, “I don't recall. Do you know what they were?” By that answer, I did not mean to suggest that I did not recall giving gifts; rather, I meant that I did not recall what the gifts were,
and I asked for reminders. See App. At 502–03. The President's response to Request for Admission number 42 is false and misleading because in his answer, the president tries to explain away his deposition answer in a manner that is simply not believable. The President responded “I don't recall. Do you know what they were?” to the question “Well have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?" He tells the Committee this was not false or misleading because he did not mean to suggest that he did not recall giving her gifts, rather, he meant that he did not recall what the gifts were and was asking for reminders. The President had a conversation on December 28, 1997, three weeks before his