Mr. Hutchinson aptly summed up the views of many Committee members regarding the deletion of paragraph 1 of Article IV:

I would have had trouble supporting Article IV without this amendment that would delete paragraphs one, two, and three. But I say that not to diminish the significance or the substantially of the evidence in regard to these three areas. One of them is the President lied to the American public. I think that is extraordinarily serious any time that happened. Obviously there's no question that it did happen. It is wrong. But I do not believe that should be included in this article of impeachment on abuse of office.

Paragraph (2)

Article II, which passed the Committee by a vote of 21-16, includes paragraph seven which asserts that the President tried to obstruct justice and conceal evidence in an ongoing federal grand jury investigation by making false and misleading statements to his aides which the President knew may be repeated if and when the aides testified before the grand jury. Several Members believed the President also abused the power of the office of the Presidency by lying to aides and cabinet members whom he knew would repeat the lies in public statements. The lies to aides that, in the view of the Committee, constituted an attempt to prevent, impede or obstruct the administration of justice are detailed in the explanation section for Article III. Some of the lies that were perpetuated by press aides and cabinet officials are detailed below.

On January 23, 1998, after a meeting with his Cabinet, some Cabinet members answered questions to the press about the allegations.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright: "The president started out by saying that we-the allegations are untrue, that we should stay focused on our jobs, and that he will be fine. . . . I believe the allegations are completely untrue."

Commerce Secretary William Daley: "I'll second that. Definitely." Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala: "Third it." Michael McCurry, White House Spokesperson, on January 27, 1998, during a news briefing the Associated Press reported that Mr. McCurry said: "I think every American that heard him knows exactly what he meant."

Anne Lewis, White House Communications Director, on January 26, 1998, interview with Nightline: "I can say with absolute assurance the President of the United States did not have a sexual relationship because I have heard the President of the United States say so.'

On January 27, 1998, the Associated Press quoted Ms. Lewis: "Sex is sex, even in Washington. I've been assured."

President Clinton made a deliberate decision to fight criminal allegations surrounding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Grand Jury testimony reveals that President Clinton told Richard Morris that he would have to win rather than admit to committing perjury or obstruction of justice. The Committee concluded that President Clinton consciously misled several aides and cabinet members knowing that they would repeat his false statements to the American public. These officials are all federally paid civil serv

ants who have used their positions in the White House as a pulpit to repeat President Clinton's false statements to the American public. The Committee believe that use of these advisors in an attempt to mislead the American public and beat his criminal allegations was an abuse of the office of the President and his position as head of the executive branch of government.

The President's continued deceptions caused millions of tax dollars to be spent by not only the Office of Independent Counsel in its duly authorized investigation, but also by White House lawyers, communications employees and other government employees who were utilized to help perpetuate the President's lies and defend him from his criminal conduct.

After the grand jury began investigating the allegation of perjury and obstruction of justice, President Clinton had the chance to set the record straight before the grand jury itself, but he declined six invitations in January, February and March of 1998 from the OIC to appear before the grand jury and give his testimony. Although he had no obligation to appear voluntarily before the grand jury, he still continued to perpetuate his lies and abuse the public trust as well as utilizing the power of his office to attack the allegations of criminal conduct. When Mr. Clinton finally testified before the grand jury, he lied several times and then went on national television after his testimony and lied to the American people again. Many Committee members were also appalled by the President's efforts to spread his lies publicly through his aides and cabinet members. These individuals work for and represent the taxpayers and should not be made unwitting participants in a Presidential cover-up. The majority Committee members believed this was an abuse of the office of the President and the resources that are available to its occupant. Furthermore, Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that lying to aides is "extraordinarily relevant and significant in terms of proving intent and a pattern of conduct on behalf of the President supporting obstruction of justice and other false statements that are recited in other articles." However, the Committee concluded that lies to the aides standing alone did not constitute an impeachable offense in this case.

Paragraph (3)

The aspect of executive privilege that was at issue in paragraph three of Article IV dealt with the presidential communications privilege. This privilege derives from the separation of powers principle embodied in the Constitution. It protects the confidentiality of communications between a President and his senior advisers about official government matters. It also protects conversations between one or more senior advisers when the President is not present, if the conversation is about advice to be given to the President on official government matters. The privilege belongs to the President alone and the President must personally direct that it be asserted. Such conversations are presumptively privileged. However, the privilege can be overcome if a prosecutor conducting a criminal investigation can demonstrate with specificity why it is likely that the presumptively privileged materials contain important evidence and why this evidence is not practically available from other

sources.

Several members of the Committee asserted that President Clinton's Assertions of Privilege were an abuse of power because even under the broadest interpretation of the presidential communications privilege, it is intended only to protect communications about official_government matters. Moreover, it is a privilege for the use of the President alone. It is not intended to allow the President to cover up embarrassing personal matters. The Members charged that is exactly what President Clinton used it for here-indeed, the President repeatedly argued that he should not be impeached precisely because these matters are purely private in nature.

In addition, they argued that President tried to extend the privilege far beyond any previously known boundaries by claiming it for conversations that White House aides had with grand jury witnesses and their attorneys, the President's private attorneys, Vernon Jordan, and low-level White House employees who do not advise the President. The Members supporting impeachment for abuse of power relating to executive privilege argued that there is no legal basis for including any of these conversations within the privilege. According to this view, if these boundaries of the privilege were accepted, the President could easily cover up almost any wrongdoing. Furthermore, these frivolous assertions of privilege also cost huge amounts of the OIC's time and resources to litigate, many of which the President ultimately abandoned.

Most members of the majority associated themselves with the comments of Mr. McCollum that:

With regard to executive privilege, I don't think there's any question the President has abused executive privilege here because it can only be used to protect official functions. And in case after case, from Bruce Lindsey all the way through the witnesses who were called before the grand jury who were White House aides were not asserting executive privilege to protect the government official business they were asserting it in order to protect and keep private matters that concern the personal conduct of the President in the matters we've been discussing here. However, the prevailing conclusion of the Committee was summed up by Mr. Gekas:

I don't believe that the evidence that has been presented to us nor the contents of the referral give us the ability to second guess the rationale behind the President or what was in his mind in asserting that executive privilege. We may have a good idea. And those of us who have become suspicious about some of the actions of the President would have a right to enhance those suspicions. Nevertheless, we ought to give, in my judgment and in the judgment of many, the benefit of the doubt in the assertion of executive privilege.

Although most Members were not prepared to include abuse of executive privilege in an impeachment article against President Clinton, many many Members Members also agreed with Representative Goodlatte's statement that "this Committee should be outspoken in it's condemnation of the misuse of executive privilege because in

some instances that executive privilege power has been exercised wrongly with the Congress in other regards. And it is important that we do not allow a continued abuse of the executive privilege power.

The following is a list of assertions of Executive Privilege by President Clinton that many Members of the Committee found to be frivolous.

In the course of the Lewinsky investigation, President Clinton abused his power through repeated frivolous assertions of executive privilege by at least five of his aides.

1. Bruce Lindsey

Mr. Lindsey is Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel and one of President Clinton's closest confidantes. None of the conversations for which Mr. Lindsey claimed executive privilege involved official governmental matters and the privilege was overcome by the need for the information in the criminal investigation. In addition, Mr. Lindsey claimed executive privilege for a typed statement about privilege that he brought in and read to the grand jury even after he had read it. He claimed executive privilege for his conversations with the President's private lawyers and Vernon Jordan. He claimed executive privilege for conversations he had with attorneys for witnesses who appeared in the grand jury. He claimed executive privilege for a conversation with Stephen Goodin, who is the President's personal aide and who has no responsibility for advising the President.

It should be noted that at some points before the grand jury, Mr. Lindsey took the position that he was not actually asserting the privilege, but that he was merely noting that the answer might be privileged. He further asserted that he would have to get instructions from the President as to whether to assert the privilege. Whatever the technicalities, he refused to answer the questions. See, e.g., Lindsey 2/18/98 GJT at 77-79: Supplemental Materials (H. Doc. 105-316) at 2360.

The President contested the OIC's motion to compel the testimony of Mr. Lindsey. After losing in the District Court, the President abandoned the claim of executive privilege. In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 5 F.Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 1998). However, he continued to pursue a claim of governmental attorney-client privilege with Mr. Lindsey. In addition, despite the earlier abandonment of the claim, Mr. Lindsey again asserted privilege when he appeared in the grand jury on August 28.

See the list, infra, for exact questions to which Mr. Lindsey asserted executive privilege.

2. Lanny Breuer

Mr. Breuer is a special counsel to the President working in the White House Counsel's Office. None of the conversations for which Mr. Breuer claimed executive privilege involved official governmental matters and the privilege was overcome by the need for the information in the criminal investigation.

In addition, Mr. Breuer asserted executive privilege for his conversations with the President's private lawyers and his conversations with a low level White House employee about his efforts to

get her an attorney. Neither the private lawyers nor the low level employee fell within the privilege.

Interestingly, the President did not claim executive privilege for Mr. Blumenthal's conversations with the President's private lawyers. Blumenthal 2/26/98 GJT at 27-34; Supplemental Materials (H. Doc. 105-316) at 164–65. In addition, Mr. Breuer asserted executive privilege for conversations with Mr. Blumenthal when Mr. Blumenthal had already testified to the substance of those conversations. Compare Breuer 8/4/98 GJT at 19, 22-23, 28; Supplemental Materials (H. Doc. 105-316) at 269-71 with Blumenthal 6/ 25/98 GJT at 30-31, 50; Supplemental Materials (H. Doc. 105-316) at 196, 201.

According to the referral from the Office of the Independent Counsel, on August 11, 1998, the District Court denied Mr. Breuer's claim of executive privilege. On August 21, 1998, the White House appealed to the D.C. Circuit. The White House ultimately abandoned its appeal of this case. It is unknown whether Mr. Breuer has returned to the grand jury. See Referral (H. Doc. 105-310) at 208.

See the list, infra, for exact questions to which Mr. Breuer asserted executive privilege.

3. Cheryl Mills

Ms. Mills is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel. None of the conversations for which Ms. Mills claimed executive privilege involved official governmental matters and the privilege was overcome by the need for the information in the criminal investigation.

In addition, Ms. Mills claimed executive privilege for her conversations with the President's private lawyers. She claimed executive privilege for conversations she had with witnesses who appeared in the grand jury and their attorneys. She claimed executive privilege for a conversation with Betty Currie, who is the President's personal secretary and who has no responsibility for advising the President.

As far as is publicly known, the OIC never sought to litigate Ms. Mills's claims of executive privilege.

See the list, infra, for exact questions to which Ms. Mills asserted executive privilege.

4. Sidney Blumenthal

Mr. Blumenthal is an Assistant to the President who works on a variety of matters. None of the conversations for which Mr. Blumenthal claimed executive privilege involved official governmental matters and the privilege was overcome by the need for the information in the criminal investigation.

The President contested the OIC's motion to compel the testimony of Mr. Blumenthal. After losing in the District Court, the President abandoned the claim, and Mr. Blumenthal answered the questions in the grand jury. In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 5 F.Supp.2d 21 (D.D.C. 1998).

See the list, infra, for exact questions to which Mr. Blumenthal asserted executive privilege.